Scientific Theory for Controlled Demo Thread.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

The one I'm really interested in is why the twin towers should have fallen over like trees.

Even though they aren't built anything like a tree.

Well, someone claiming that they should fall like a tree would need to provide data that supports the lateral energy required to overcome the vertical inertia.

[Denie]

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

I'd also like to talk a little bit about weight and transfer of momentum as well.

A structure designed to withstand a static load is suddenly subjected to a dynamic force that was much greater than the weight of the entire structure.

Center of gravity is something that comes into play when talking about how the towers should have fallen. It's like tipping over a bottle of wine. A wine bottle will not fall over unless you tilt it past it's center of gravity. It will just "right itself" Now I know a wine bottle is not a the WTC, but the center of gravity holds steady for ANY structure.

But alas...I have to go to work...I'll come back later with some more scienctific flapdoodle.

What I really what to know is who's bunns are those in your avatar? Since this thread seems to be going nowhere, what the hell!

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by Denie

Well, someone claiming that they should fall like a tree would need to provide data that supports the lateral energy required to overcome the vertical inertia.

Lateral energy?
Vertical intertia?

"We dont need to be distracted by those values"


Those are baby-mommas buns

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

You're funny!!
Let's all thank Brian here for intentionally providing a prime example of what scientific evidence is not

Thanks, Brian!!!

Surprise. Surprise. An agenda driven thread.
Thanks, BW for helping expose it.

[brian_wilbanks]

I've noticed that these technical debates go something like this

Truther: posts some pictures of the hole in the pentagon and says it had to be caused by a missile

Bushbot: posts something about forward momentum related to mass and how the truthers might not be looking at all the factors.

Truther: accuses me of believing the official story for citing the laws of physics.

[brian_wilbanks]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Surprise. Surprise. An agenda driven thread.
Thanks, BW for helping expose it.

I wasnt trying to be facetious.

I brought up the 'explosive' squibs as something to get the ball rolling.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by brian_wilbanks

I've noticed that these technical debates go something like this

Truther: posts some pictures of the hole in the pentagon and says it had to be caused by a missile

Bushbot: posts something about forward momentum related to mass and how the truthers might not be looking at all the factors.

Truther: accuses me of believing the official story for citing the laws of physics.

None of which has anything whatsoever to do with CD.
Who's spamming now?

[slowhand]

Hmmm..No takers so far..Where are all the armchair engineers, lawyers, fire marshals, demolition experts, and investigators?

[Denie]

Originally Posted by Duvidoo

Surprise. Surprise. An agenda driven thread.
Thanks, BW for helping expose it.

Thanks for exposing the fact your only intent in this thread is to spam in an attempt to derail or hijack the thread.

Not once have you even made an attempt to offer up anything of scientific value.

[Duvidoo]

Originally Posted by Denie

Thanks for exposing the fact your only intent in this thread is to spam in an attempt to derail or hijack the thread.

Not once have you even made an attempt to offer up anything of scientific value.

Am I cutting and pasting? No. Am I posting silly emoticons and animated GIFs? No. What is your definition of spam, mein Führer? If I really wanted to hijack or derail your thread I wouldn't put so much thought into it. Sorry you can't tell spam from lateral thinking. Quite sad actually.

PS I'm telling the official story in simple, easy-to-grasp installments on another thread in this forum. But you won't be finding much science therein.