Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

a reply to: skyeagle409

Their brand of science supports silent detonation explosions that somehow are not depicted within the seismic data they were designed to detect demolition explosions.

You are wrong. You were debunked about your phony seismic data in many 911 threads by LabTop or are you going to call me a lair again?

a reply to: Informer1958

Read my previous post. In fact, this video alone, debunks your figures which you think can be applied to demolition explosives.



Now, use your figures and explain why demolition explosions in the video had failed to fling structural columns anywhere. Now, take a second look at your figures and understand it does not apply to demolition explosives during the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

a reply to: Informer1958

right. anyone working as a professional in science must be in cahoots with a government that can hide such a thing as sneaking enough explosives to bring down a building.

why is it so hard to believe the absolutely enormous weight of wtc wasn't enough to collapse it?

a reply to: Informer1958

I am right on the money. Yes indeed!! To sum that up, you have no case for explosives at ground zero.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409



You are wrong. You were debunked about your phony seismic data in many 911 threads by LabTop or are you going to call me a lair again?

loud sounds or seismic movement is not proof of explosives. your assumptions are what's wrong.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Sir, you called me a lair! I asked you to please prove it. If you cannot then You and I have nothing more to discuss.

To attack my character and my credibility I expect you to clear up this issue at once or apologies.

a reply to: Informer1958

It is right because it is not bought and paid for by a proven criminal government hiding everything.

It is brought by those who have been duped and mislead by those who have been caught passing disinformation, some of which was deliberately planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement and it worked.

a reply to: Informer1958

That won't fly, because it is evident that you have no clue as to the understanding of what you've posted.

You must remember that "The Structural Engineering Community Rejects the Controlled-Demolition Conspiracy Theory"

a reply to: skyeagle409

Sir, you called me a lair! I asked you to please prove it. If you cannot then You and I have nothing more to discuss.

To attack my character and my credibility I expect you to clear up this issue at once or apologies.

That won't fly, because it is evident that you have no clue as to the understanding of what you've posted.

So this is your evidence that I am a lair.

skyealge please do me a favor and never post to me again. Don't wast your time responding to my comments with other ATS posters either, you will be ignored permanently by me.

Sir you have a nice day.

a reply to: Informer1958

skyealge please do me a favor and never post to me again

Good luck with that...lol I tryed it don't work...

a reply to: Informer1958

Let's take a look at what have had posted earlier.

You are wrong. You were debunked about your phony seismic data in many 911 threads by LabTop or are you going to call me a lair again?

Now, let's hear from a group that was operating seismic monitors in the area.

Brent Blanchard Interview

Undicisettembre: Is there anything else I did not ask you that you want to add?

Brent Blanchard: One thing I would add is that there are vibration recordings from the site. The seismograph readings that were recorded on 9/11, as they are every day worldwide, recorded the impacts of the planes and the actual collapses of the structures. You can see in those waveforms and in that data that there was no sudden catalyst at 10:06 or any other time; there was no explosive event.

undicisettembre.blogspot.it...


9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words:

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...

To sum it up, even those who were operating seismic monitors in question during 9/11 have debunked your seismic data claim.

.

a reply to: wildb

You can't rewrite the laws of physics with disinformation and outright lies from conspiracy websites.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

You can't rewrite the laws of physics with disinformation and outright lies from conspiracy websites.

I could not agree more...

a reply to: pteridine

So last night we looked at how Newtons 3rd law is effectively use to demolish buildings without explosives.

(For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction)

Remove the middle floor and let the top block fall and destroy the next floor while equally destroying a floor on the top block.

A 41 story building will start with 20 floors, then 19 then 18 and so on. As the collapse progresses it slows down as the weight of the falling part of the building destroys itself and it's mass is reduced until there is nothing left and the process stops.

So now that we know how that works lets apply it to the north tower.

There was a lot going on at the initiation of collapse but for now lets ignore that.


The impact zone was between the 93rd and 99th floor.

That left 11 floors above. However there was a TV Antenna on the north tower so for now lets say there were 20 floors
to account for the extra weight.

If we are to believe the OS and this was a gravity driven collapse what would we see. We saw how Newtons 3rd worked.

So we would see the top block fall into the lower and take out a floor while loosing a floor. Then the remaining 19 floors
would take out another floor, then 18 and so on until the upper block had destroyed itself somewhere around the 65th floor.

At this time the upper block would be gone and the energy would have dissipated and the process would have stopped. In the end we would be left with a partial collapse.

That is what the 3rd law dictates, the laws of physics are never wrong.

However that is not what was observed, what was observed is the top block falling into the bottom block, first problem, when they meet there should have been a reduction in speed, if only for a moment, less than a second even just a fraction of.

Instead we see the lower block give way offering no resistance what so ever. In fact we observe the collapse accelerate and continue to accelerate almost all the way to ground level. And again past the 65th floor there would be no upper block to provide the energy for the collapse.

This observation defies all laws of physics and could not possible happen with out the presence of another source of energy.

In the case of the south tower this observation is even more significant as the top block began to fall over to the side of the building ( 1st Law) this would removed the energy even faster and the process would have stopped. Instead it continued also with acceleration without any or very little source of energy. However it did so where did that energy come from..

This is why the OS cannot be true, it is also the reason NIST did not investigate the collapse itself. It is the only valid hypothesis they could offer and it would not fit the preconceived narrative. And that’s why it was not done..

Now taking that into consideration the evidence becomes more obvious. As stated for the north tower the top block would no longer exist after the 65th floor, so where is the pile driver compressing the air to create the squibs seen on the 20th, 30th 40th and 50th floors.. there is none so the excuse of compressed air cannot be true either.. that’s one example

Now flame away folks...

a reply to: wildb

That is why the laws of physics have proven that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

a reply to: wildb

...This is why the OS cannot be true...

Explain that to these experts.

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

911-engineers.blogspot.com...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: wildb

That is why the laws of physics have proven that fire, in conjunction with impact damage, was responsible for the destruction at ground zero.

I just debunked that, sorry.. fire and impact damage is irrelevant to what was observed..

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: Phage

I didn't ask about A. I asked about the derivation of α, in particular where the value for Cd came from. α is described as representing the Rayleigh drag coefficient, an important factor in α being Cd. I'm not sure why the value for Cd which was selected, came from.

Apparently you do not understand the equations and your questions are really silly.

It's like you are asking: a+7=9. Your method of trying to discredit the equation is becoming Juvenal.

I asked about the derivation of α and you answered:

A is the video of the squib from figure 4.

This would indicate that you not only do not understand the formulas but have not even looked at them.

I asked about where the effects of entrained air are accounted for, an extremely important factor, and say it's a silly question.

No. It is you who really has no idea what the formulas represent. But you sure do like to post them over and over and over again.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Explain that to these experts.

I don't have to as I am sure they already know that, furthermore what you posted is also irrelevant to what was observed..

a reply to: wildb

A 41 story building will start with 20 floors, then 19 then 18 and so on. As the collapse progresses it slows down as the weight of the falling part of the building destroys itself and it's mass is reduced until there is nothing left and the process stops.

Oh good. You've done the calcs. Can you provide them for us now?
I'm curious about what becomes of the mass as it descends and is reduced. Surely your calculations account for what happens to it, where it goes. But give me a hint, did those tons of steel and concrete evaporate? Then was was all that stuff they hauled away from ground zero?