Newton's Laws do not go away because the strength of materials and the energy lost due to damaging those materials affects the results. That is the point of building a physics demonstration. To show the simultaneous effects of multiple factors when there is not enough data to compute the results. Your demand for simplistic mathematics to explain every thing is ridiculous. The static weight on each loop was different. Expecting to compute the result of the dynamic load combined with the static load is ridiculous. But that does not mean that Newton's Laws disappear. Proceed with your next level of verbal BS. Notice that you don't comment on the failure of engineering schools to produce models that demonstrate anything even though it only took 4 months to make a 50 foot model in the 1940s. But they did not have television to broadcast the problem all over the world. psik
well with a well cited and footnoted retort like that.... So your testimony is that the government told the Commission one thing and the jury on the ZM case another? You're more fun than a stack of comic books.
I'm saying they were 2 different, separate events. I suspect the Commission considered the trial verdict and selected evidence in that case, however staged that was, but I don't know that. First came the Moussaoui trial, later came the Commission. And that's just from memory. But I do know the Moussaoui trial was the ONLY trial to have happened regarding 911. When they have a trial, in the discovery process they can be really embarrassed, so it's best to avoid trials and thereby avoid the discovery process. The Moussaoui trial was a kangaroo court.
The federal prosecutors did a masterful job collecting all of the evidence, painting a compelling picture for conviction, and brilliantly demonstrated how he was the 20th hijacker. Your answer for the traffic light poles was that they were staged in the interest of theatrics; I asked if you were sure you wanted your answer to be so outrageously stupid. You never answered. Yes or no?
Sure, federal prosecutors did a masterful job, just like Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman, just like Pat Tillman died from hostile fire. ROFLMAO
Okay...so because we have had some lies told by the President and their administrations, you trust nothing else that was presented...ever? Meanwhile your buddy Zach sits in jail. Are you going to visit him for Christmas and bring him a fruitcake?
Pretty much, I don't believe a word they or their media lapdogs say. They are known liars, and I am most skeptical of the claims of known liars. Their little Cozy Bear & Fancy Bear game is pretty obvious to me. Further, in the matter of the events at WTC and elsewhere that day, we have the luxury of 15 years of hindsight. The lies they've told are impossible.
One more time psikey. I'll keep repeating this until you understand it. You (did I say YOU are the one?) are taking your simplistic "paper loops and washers" and applying Newton's Laws to the results and then using that as the reason why the tower's collapse should have been arrested AND that those same results show that a complete collapse due to gravity is almost impossible. I am the one telling you that you can't do that BECAUSE it's a simplistic model and Newton's Laws aren't granular enough to apply to a complex structure and determine the outcome of a collision. If you know Newton's Laws don't take into account strength of materials, strength of connections, etc. if you know your model does not replicate the actual structure of the towers, and if you know you can't use simplistic mathematics to explain everything, then why in the hell are you using the results of your model in conjunction with Newton's Laws to explain why the towers couldn't collapse due to gravity? You're contradicting yourself.
I never said they go away. I'm saying you can't use Newton's Laws in conjunction with your model to explain why you think the towers complete collapse due to gravity was almost impossible. Newton's Laws do not have the capacity to account for all the granular factors inherent in a complex structure to yield a conclusion.
I do not need to APPLY Newton's Laws to the results. Are you trying to tell us that a Physical Model can "escape" from Newton's Laws? The Laws only need to be APPLIED to a Virtual Model because it is really nothing but a mathematical delusion. I have admitted many times that a bigger, heavier model would be better. But that is news, I have never heard a physicist claim the Newton's Laws were granular. psik
1. You have claimed that each of the dropped section's floors would destroy a floor of the stationary section until all the floors of the dropped section were destroyed thus halting the collapse. Yes or no? 2. You cited the reason for why you make the claim in number one above is because of Newton's Third Law (action reaction comments). Yes or no?
Your vast intellect is showing. You just see contradictions because you cannot figure out the obvious. We know the towers had to hold themselves up. They did it for 28 years. Therefore every level had to be strong enough to support all of the weight above. That meant the bottom levels had to be stronger than the upper ones in a building over 1000 feet tall. My model had to have triple loops at the bottom while single loops were adequate at the top. Did Mick's model vary in strength? Did he test for strength to make it as weak as possible? Was anything damaged in his model? You have stopped mentioning his model. So if my weak as possible could not collapse completely then how could a skyscraper which is not designed to be as weak as possible relative to its weight? psik
1. You have claimed that each of the dropped section's floors would destroy a floor of the stationary section until all the floors of the dropped section were destroyed thus halting the collapse. Yes or no? 2. You cited the reason for why you make the claim in number one above is because of Newton's Third Law (action reaction comments). Yes or no?
Provide a link to where I supposedly claimed that. I talk about LEVELS not "Floors". I have said that even if 15 levels of the north tower could destroy 3 times as many as levels of the lower stationary portion then 40+ levels of the north tower would still remain standing. psik
1. You have claimed that each of the dropped section's LEVELS would destroy a LEVEL of the stationary section until all the LEVELS of the dropped section were destroyed thus halting the collapse. Yes or no? You didn't answer the question did you? Here, I'll ask again. Maybe you were confused when I used the word "floors" above. 2. You cited the reason for why you make the claim in number one above is because of Newton's Third Law (action reaction comments). Yes or no?
And you would be a liar... http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-11-EXPOSED?pid=746510#pid746510, post #105 http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread753647/pg58 http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-fall-speeds-w-912-927-2293-a-115-print.html
Just to make this clear, below is your quoted post in question: http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-fall-speeds-w-912-927-2293-a-115-print.html The first question I asked was: 1. You have claimed that each of the dropped section's LEVELS would destroy a LEVEL of the stationary section until all the LEVELS of the dropped section were destroyed thus halting the collapse. Yes or no? The answer is YES you did make that claim as proven by the portion of your quote above noted with [SUP](1)[/SUP] and the text in blue. The second question I asked was: 2. You cited the reason for why you make the claim in number one above is because of Newton's Third Law (action reaction comments). Yes or no? You answered NO, but that is clearly a lie as proven by the portion of your quote noted with [SUP](2)[/SUP] and the text in red. So to sum up, you absolutely made the claim that each of the dropped section's LEVELS would destroy a LEVEL of the stationary section until all the LEVELS of the dropped section were destroyed thus halting the collapse. Then you attributed that claim to Newton's Third Law right above that. What kind of games are you playing psikey?
yes clear, even without the videos that show it, the fact that there was no sign of a hat truss laying on top the pile proves it was blown to hell with need to look further. So Gam how you doing on understading the finer points of controlled demolition 'freefall', did you ever manage to get a grip on how that works?
This guy did a good analysis of freefall. http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=3600
C'mon psikey. No answer? Why did you lie about what you said? Did you finally realize in this thread that your understanding and application of Newton's Laws to your model and how it supposedly shows why the towers couldn't collapse is totally ridiculous? Does your admission that Newton's Laws do not take into account strength of materials an admission that your application of Newton's 3rd Law to a collision between two complex objects is completely out of whack? If you knew that strength of materials was important in determine the outcome of a collision between two complex objects, why did you make the quoted statements above? Seems to me you didn't want to admit you were wrong, finally saw the light in this thread, then lied about it to save face. Now you're hiding.
Provide a link to where I supposedly claimed that. Is that your interpretation of Newton's 3rd Law? I am not interested in reading and responding to every one of your silly or deliberate misinterpretations of what I say to respond to you every day. I may quit responding to you completely. The LEVELS had to get stronger and therefore heavier down the building so I have no idea how often one-to-one destruction could occur, if at all. That is why I built the paper loop and washer model. The point is that the total structure could not destroy itself. psik
No problem. http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...e-fall-speeds-w-912-927-2293-a-115-print.html Your post made on 01-23-14 at 10:24 PM First you say Newton's 3rd law, then you explain right below that how you think it applies to the towers. I explained this to you post #518. You know, then one where right after you disappeared from this thread. Now you come back to play more games. Nope. It's yours as quoted above.
