Study concludes explosives used on 911

a reply to: Salander

By the way. Lateral ejection is impossible?

Then only changing potential energy to kinetic energy, gravity, and pivot points, what makes the physics of a Newton's cradle possible? (that five-ball system which only the most end balls swing out? Something about action and reaction and elastic colliding bodies?)

Newton's cradle video.
m.youtube.com...

Newton's cradle trick shots
m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: face23785

The laws of physics? Surely you jest.

The laws of physics contradict the official story, they make it impossible.

Lateral ejection of material for hundreds of feet contradict the official explanation of office fires and a natural collapse. Gravity cannot launch things horizontally. That is Physics 101.

According to your "Physics 101" balls can't bounce. Gravity is constantly pulling them down, and apparently gravity is the only known force in your "physics", so once a ball lands on the ground how can it possibly bounce back up? I mean, gravity cannot launch things up. Gravity only pulls down. Or maybe there are other things involved in physics besides gravity?

I highly suggest you take that Physics 101 class. You need it.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Salander

PROVE THEY WERE LAUNCHED horizontally !

Have you not studied this event? Have you not seen pictures, at least hundreds, of the lateral displacement of debris there? Did you see none of the FEMA pictures?

If your answers to the above questions are all "no", then I pity your ignorance of the subject matter. This is old information, and I would like to continue the conversation, but I have no intention of informing you.

a reply to: neutronflux

Lateral ejection as was observed at WTC is impossible IF the event is claimed, as NIST has claimed, to have been a natural collapse, driven exclusively by gravity and burning office fires.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: face23785

The laws of physics? Surely you jest.

The laws of physics contradict the official story, they make it impossible.

Lateral ejection of material for hundreds of feet contradict the official explanation of office fires and a natural collapse. Gravity cannot launch things horizontally. That is Physics 101.

According to your "Physics 101" balls can't bounce. Gravity is constantly pulling them down, and apparently gravity is the only known force in your "physics", so once a ball lands on the ground how can it possibly bounce back up? I mean, gravity cannot launch things up. Gravity only pulls down. Or maybe there are other things involved in physics besides gravity?

I highly suggest you take that Physics 101 class. You need it.

If you're serious and believe that balls bouncing around cannot be explained by the laws of physics, that might be one of the most ignorant posts I've encountered in my life.

I suspect you're not really serious, but just attempting to escape the obvious conclusion--the lateral ejection of the debris at WTC is fatal to the nonsense offered by NIST as an explanation.

a reply to: Salander

If lateral ejection at the WTC was impossible, then how does turning potential energy into kinetic energy cause the balls of a Newton's cradle swing higher than their starting height?

High Speed Ejection from WTC1 toward WTC7

www.youtube.com...

Video evidence from the Official News video taken on the morning of 911 during the demise of the WTC.

a reply to: Informer1958

The question was how a Newton's cradle can turn potentially energy into kinetic energy to launch a static steel ball to a height greater than its initial height? You don't think the same principles apply to chuncks of steel colliding during a building collapse where potential energy is turned to kinetic energy.

a reply to: Informer1958

You never have struck a flat chuck of steel on a metal table to watch the flat chuck of steel jump up in the air.

You never struck straight down on a log balanced like a teeter totter to watch the log spin and arch into the air?

a reply to: neutronflux

High Speed Ejection from WTC1 toward WTC7

www.youtube.com...

I see, so you have nothing to debunk about this observation?

I am assuming, denying visual evidence is a way to support the NIST report?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

High Speed Ejection from WTC1 toward WTC7

www.youtube.com...

I see, so you have nothing to debunk about this observation?

I am assuming, denying visual evidence is a way to support the NIST report?

What is there to debunk? Given the multi-body problem and total kinetic energy in the collapse, the motion is not proof of explosives.

a reply to: pteridine

What is there to debunk? Given the multi-body problem and total kinetic energy in the collapse, the motion is not proof of explosives.

Then prove it?

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: face23785

The laws of physics? Surely you jest.

The laws of physics contradict the official story, they make it impossible.

Lateral ejection of material for hundreds of feet contradict the official explanation of office fires and a natural collapse. Gravity cannot launch things horizontally. That is Physics 101.

According to your "Physics 101" balls can't bounce. Gravity is constantly pulling them down, and apparently gravity is the only known force in your "physics", so once a ball lands on the ground how can it possibly bounce back up? I mean, gravity cannot launch things up. Gravity only pulls down. Or maybe there are other things involved in physics besides gravity?

I highly suggest you take that Physics 101 class. You need it.

If you're serious and believe that balls bouncing around cannot be explained by the laws of physics, that might be one of the most ignorant posts I've encountered in my life.

I suspect you're not really serious, but just attempting to escape the obvious conclusion--the lateral ejection of the debris at WTC is fatal to the nonsense offered by NIST as an explanation.

Your complete lack of understanding of what I said is so brainless that I believe you're being deliberately dismissive since it disproves your position. I absolutely won't believe that you're just too dumb to understand what I said.

You enjoy pushing your lies.

a reply to: face23785

You enjoy pushing your lies.

Just because you do not agree with someone, it doesnt prove the person is lying.

Since you are so convinced someone is lying, then prove their statement is a lie.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

What is there to debunk? Given the multi-body problem and total kinetic energy in the collapse, the motion is not proof of explosives.

Then prove it?

What was the mass and velocity of the ejected piece?

a reply to: Informer1958

You really don't understand colliding steel in motion results in the changing of vectors? Especially if a large piece of falling steel strikes a smaller piece of steel with something acting as a pivot point. You don't understand the three examples of static objects impacted by moving steel that results in the static objects placed in upward motion?

Please state exactly what you are saying is impossible to define the debate.

Are you saying it's impossible for falling objects striking static objects to impart upward motion to the once static objects? Newton's cradle proves you wrong!

a reply to: pteridine

What was the mass and velocity of the ejected piece?

What was the mass and velocity of the air pressure and weight that began in the start on of the collaps?

a reply to: neutronflux

You really don't understand colliding steel in motion results in the changing of vectors?

You really don't understand how steel that was tested to burn for many hour before weakening at temperatures of 2500 degrees, weakened in just one hour due to office fires?

Again you have skirted all my questions and have ignored my sources.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: pteridine

What was the mass and velocity of the ejected piece?

What was the mass and velocity of the air pressure and weight that began in the start on of the collaps?

This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you being purposely obtuse?

a reply to: pteridine

This doesn't make any sense at all. Are you being purposely obtuse?[

I was assuming you were?