Former George Bush Chief Economist Says 911 Was An Inside Job

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

This certainly fits the truthers on this site. Reasoning and scientific thinking are trumped by conspiracy beliefs. Further,

Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact it is the science we stand behind, it is the science that proves the OS false..

What science tells you how the towers fell?

a reply to: pteridine

Ah, yes. The "unconventional methods" theory that is so unconventional as to be indescribable. How do you think Newton's Third Law does anything to the NIST report and who told you it did?

Deflecting are we, in answer to your question, how do I think the 3rd law does anything to the nist report, well as much as I would like to answer that I can't because nist did not investigate the collapse itself. So I cannot disprove their findings because there are none.

However the 3rd law does in fact disprove a natural gravity driven collapse to ground level.

a reply to: pteridine

What science tells you how the towers fell?

Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

What science tells you how the towers fell?

Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help..

What help did the towers have? Once the initial failure occurred, gravity did the rest.

a reply to: pteridine

What help did the towers have? Once the initial failure occurred, gravity did the rest.

False, gravity did not and could not provide the energy needed to cause what was observed, this is where the 3rd law comes into play. However a great amount of energy was needed to explain what was observed, what that energy was and where it came from is up for debate.. conventional explosives would fit very well, however My gut feeling is it was more than that.

Now the video below is a good example of the 3rd law in action.. I hope this does not confuse you..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

What help did the towers have? Once the initial failure occurred, gravity did the rest.

False, gravity did not and could not provide the energy needed to cause what was observed, this is where the 3rd law comes into play. However a great amount of energy was needed to explain what was observed, what that energy was and where it came from is up for debate.. conventional explosives would fit very well, however My gut feeling is it was more than that.

Now the video below is a good example of the 3rd law in action.. I hope this does not confuse you..

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.."
This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity.

a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%. now are you being sincere or are you trying to set me up? sorry I have to ask..

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

No I cannot I do not have the data, however that is not necessary. It would be like calculating the foot pounds per square inch when two semi's crashed in a head on collision, what does it matter, both trucks were destroyed.. the 3rd law in action..

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

No I cannot I do not have the data, however that is not necessary. It would be like calculating the foot pounds per square inch when two semi's crashed in a head on collision, what does it matter, both trucks were destroyed.. the 3rd law in action..

You have made the claim that science told you that the towers had help and that the energies involved were such that "the towers had help." You also said that the energies involved were such that conventional explosives or more were required. Where did you get this information, as you do not have any data? Someone must have the data and has done the calculations.

a reply to: pteridine

What help did the towers have?

Godzilla

You didnt see the giant scaly monster pushing the building over....??

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

No I cannot I do not have the data, however that is not necessary. It would be like calculating the foot pounds per square inch when two semi's crashed in a head on collision, what does it matter, both trucks were destroyed.. the 3rd law in action..

You have made the claim that science told you that the towers had help and that the energies involved were such that "the towers had help." You also said that the energies involved were such that conventional explosives or more were required. Where did you get this information, as you do not have any data? Someone must have the data and has done the calculations.

Perhaps, but that someone is not me. Science is based on observation, it is very simple with the towers, it does not take anything more then applying high school physics.. it is not complicated at all.. and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

a reply to: wildb

it does not take anything more then applying high school physics

Which requires certain formulas. Math.

and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

Why?
And please show your work. Because in physics class, I always had to.

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

No I cannot I do not have the data, however that is not necessary. It would be like calculating the foot pounds per square inch when two semi's crashed in a head on collision, what does it matter, both trucks were destroyed.. the 3rd law in action..

You have made the claim that science told you that the towers had help and that the energies involved were such that "the towers had help." You also said that the energies involved were such that conventional explosives or more were required. Where did you get this information, as you do not have any data? Someone must have the data and has done the calculations.

Perhaps, but that someone is not me. Science is based on observation, it is very simple with the towers, it does not take anything more then applying high school physics.. it is not complicated at all.. and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

It is probably not as "very simple" as you think. Since you have no data, how do you know an external force was necessary?

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

No I cannot I do not have the data, however that is not necessary. It would be like calculating the foot pounds per square inch when two semi's crashed in a head on collision, what does it matter, both trucks were destroyed.. the 3rd law in action..

You have made the claim that science told you that the towers had help and that the energies involved were such that "the towers had help." You also said that the energies involved were such that conventional explosives or more were required. Where did you get this information, as you do not have any data? Someone must have the data and has done the calculations.

Perhaps, but that someone is not me. Science is based on observation, it is very simple with the towers, it does not take anything more then applying high school physics.. it is not complicated at all.. and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

It is probably not as "very simple" as you think. Since you have no data, how do you know an external force was necessary?

When you asked if I had data I assumed the data was building mass, weight ect.. I do not have that, however it is not needed. Now I have said the 3rd law is the smoking gun, and I posted a video of buildings demolitions without explosives, and I used that as an example of the 3rd law in action, I was expecting you to question me on that. And ask why I use that as evidence.

Go back and look at the video and tell me what you observed..

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wildb

it does not take anything more then applying high school physics

Which requires certain formulas. Math.

and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

Why?
And please show your work. Because in physics class, I always had to.

I am in the process of doing so.. please stand by..

a reply to: wildb

False, gravity did not and could not provide the energy needed to cause what was observed, this is where the 3rd law comes into play.

Oh, yes gravity did!! Just like this gravity-assisted collapse of a 21-story steel frame building.

21-Story Steel Frame Building Collapse

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: wildb
a reply to: pteridine

Since, as you stated "Science tells us how the towers did not fall, first. Second, science tells us the towers had help.." This means that you must have used science to determine the energy that was needed to cause what was observed and, if you know that, then you can determine how much of it wasn't due to gravity

Correct, pretty much 100%

Can you show the calculations?

No I cannot I do not have the data, however that is not necessary. It would be like calculating the foot pounds per square inch when two semi's crashed in a head on collision, what does it matter, both trucks were destroyed.. the 3rd law in action..

You have made the claim that science told you that the towers had help and that the energies involved were such that "the towers had help." You also said that the energies involved were such that conventional explosives or more were required. Where did you get this information, as you do not have any data? Someone must have the data and has done the calculations.

Perhaps, but that someone is not me. Science is based on observation, it is very simple with the towers, it does not take anything more then applying high school physics.. it is not complicated at all.. and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

It is probably not as "very simple" as you think. Since you have no data, how do you know an external force was necessary?

When you asked if I had data I assumed the data was building mass, weight ect.. I do not have that, however it is not needed. Now I have said the 3rd law is the smoking gun, and I posted a video of buildings demolitions without explosives, and I used that as an example of the 3rd law in action, I was expecting you to question me on that. And ask why I use that as evidence.

Go back and look at the video and tell me what you observed..

I have looked at the video as you suggested. I observed gravitational collapses in explosiveless demolitions that shows explosives are not necessary if support is removed somewhere below the top of the building so that the upper floors can collapse the rest of the building. Interestingly, it seems as though the same mechanism may have destroyed the towers. Further, the buildings went straight down, like the towers, and even though there were no explosives, compressed air and dust was expelled through the windows but couldn't have been squibs.
I look forward to your explanations and calculations of the energies that must be added to the towers to force their collapse.

originally posted by: wildb

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: wildb

it does not take anything more then applying high school physics

Which requires certain formulas. Math.

and yes an external force of energy was necessary.

Why?
And please show your work. Because in physics class, I always had to.

I am in the process of doing so.. please stand by..

You only just started? Hmm. It seemed that you had already figured it all out. You seemed so certain.

Since you have no data, how do you know an external force was necessary?

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage

squib ejections like Figure 4 with those terms included. Thus in the ejection the downward
acceleration is given by:

(1) a = dv/dt = g - α v2
.
where the Rayleigh drag coefficient for objects at high velocity v is:

(2) α = ρ ACd/2m

where ρ is the air density = 1.293 kg/m3

at 1 atmosphere pressure and 0o
C, A is the area at
the front of the moving material in the plume, m the material's mass, and Cd is a
dimensionless drag coefficient. Cd can be 0.25 for sleek automobiles, and will taken as 0.5 in
our calculations. Note that this can be rewritten in terms of the ratio of air density to the
density of the ejected material by designating l as the typical length of the ejected
projectile, as:

(3) α = (ρair/ρeject) Cd/2ml

A table below summarizes some typical values of α for various material parameters.
Table: Values of α for selected material parameters
material α l

0.001 5 in

cement, glass 0.003 1.5 in
0.01 0.5 in

0.001 1.7 in

steel 0.003 0.6 in
0.01 0.2 in

Solving (1) for v(t) by separation of variables yields the downward velocity vd and
downward distance y:

(4) vd(t)= (g/α )1/2 tanh [(g α )1/2t]
(5) y(t) = (1/α) ln cosh [(g α )1/2t]

So where does this squib material hit the ground? If we take y to be the height of the
ejection, we can solve the last equation for t, the time the material remains in the air.
Multiply that t by the horizontal velocity vh of the squib material, and we have the
horizontal distance x it travels. The equation of motion for the horizontal movement of the
material is:

(6) a = dv/dt = - α v2

which solves by separation of variables, yielding:

(7) vh(t)= vo/(1 + α vot)

(8) x(t) = (1/α) ln (1 + α vot)

where vo is the velocity of initial ejection from the tower. Taking t to be the time the
material remains in the air from (5) (solving for t after setting y=h) gives x(t) = xhit, the
distance the material travels away from the tower. Graphs of that distance xhit versus the α
for the material are shown in Figures 5 and 6 for ejections from about 1304 feet (400
meters) and 489 feet (150 m).

www.journalof911studies.com...

Here is just a fraction of the mathematics scientist used to reach their conclusions. Something you will never see from the OS supporters in my opinion.

I would like to see OS supporters debunk this, using mathematics?