1/10th of what the 9/11 Commission presented would be enough convict anyone of conspiracy. Hence Zac Moussaui is now in SuperMax. So, to absolutely nobody’s surprise, you’re wrong yet again. The government did prove their case and a terrorist is behind bars because of it.
Nonsense, not in any legitimate constitutional court. Since 25% of the footnotes from the 9/11 Commission Report comes from 3rd party "testimony" allegedly taken from "confessions" from those who were mercilessly tortured, the entire report would be tossed as worthless in any legitimate courtroom since torture is illegal and any "testimony" taken from anyone who has been tortured is not considered valid testimony.
A little news flash sir, Moussaoui was convicted before the commission was seated. Nothing from the commission was used in his trial. Just a fine point, the commission "presented" only a report, and that report included statements from many members of the commission that it was "set up to fail". Be careful what you wish for cowboy.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/c...bligatory-9-11-thread-part-ii-t6310-2900.html So the paper loops in your dropped mass were damaged JUST LIKE the paper loops in your stationary mass? The falling structure absorbed some of its own kinetic energy by CRUSHING ITSELF? Can you explain why the screenshot of the video above the opposite of what you are claiming above? The screenshot shows that your falling mass crushed 7 paper loops of the mass below yet only 2 of the 3 paper loops in the dropped mass were crushed. I thought you said equal and opposite reaction psikey? I thought you stated that the loops in your dropped mass were damaged like the loops in the stationary mass? I thought you said that some of the kinetic energy was used to CRUSH ITSELF? Equal and opposite reactions you say? Why were 7 loops crushed in the mass below, but only 2 of the 3 in the dropped mass? Why was the one loop NOT crushed?
Why do you keep bringing up people's claims of a model the represents the design of the WTC towers? We are discussing models in relation to physics only remember? Why can't we discuss Mick's model from a "purely physics" point of view? Who cares if it's designed like the towers or not? What matters is he created a model that has all the characteristics that can be represented by variables and terms in Newton's Laws. You keep going out of the realm of what can be represented by terms and variables in Newton's Laws by wanted to account for strength of materials and structure design. The only reason you bring those things up is to disqualify models so they can't be used to show you wrong. Case in point. Let's discuss Mick's model from a purely physics standpoint. Why can't we use it for demonstrating Newton's Laws like you did in your video? Why can't it's results be used against your paper loop and washers model results for debate? What terms or variables used in Newton's Laws make his model different than yours and thus disqualified?
What does the result of your paper loops and washers video demonstrate physics-wise psikey? Equal and opposite reactions of Newton's 3rd Law, F [SUB]AB[/SUB] = - F [SUB]BA[/SUB] ? If so, it failed miserably. You crushed 7 paper loops in the lower section and only 2 of 3 loops in the dropped section. 7 does not equal 2 does it? Are you trying to demonstrate Newton's 2nd Law, F= ma? Something else? You've failed to pinpoint what you are trying to demonstrate and cover it with the all encompassing term "physics"?
So you do a great job of demonstrating that physics is too complicated for you. Newton's Laws did not cover strength of materials. The top paper loop only had to decelerate the mass of a single washer. That force was not enough to exceed the strength of the loop so only the 2nd and 3rd loops were damaged. That is the point of a PHYSICS DEMONSTRATION to see what will really happen, not just believe in simplistic mathematics. psik
Just a news flashÂ…the evidence that the Commission used to draw their conclusions was the same evidence that put away your pal Moussaui. So yes, you remain 100% incorrect on all counts. The evidence was quite convincing.
Oh really? Then why did you lie in your quote below regarding the damage to the dropped part? You clearly state that the dropped mass WAS DAMAGED LIKE THE THE STATIONARY MASS. Then you support that with the ACTION AND REACTION part, which is from Newton's Third Law that states "For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action." If Newton's Laws don't apply to the damaging impact portion of your model, then why did you cite it?
Did you misspeak when you made this statement psikey? Did you mean to say that "...the falling structure absorbed some of its own kinetic energy by PARTIALLY crushing itself in the process of impacting the stationary structure below. Or were you once again incorrectly applying Newton's Third Law regarding "equal and opposite reactions"?
What about another quote psikey? You say your model demonstrates MUTUAL CRUSHING and again cite Newton's Third Law! http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread753647/pg58 Uh oh! So which is it psikey that your model demonstrates? Mutual crushing and Newton's Third Law like you state out of one side of your mouth or that your model does NOT show Newton's Third Law and that there was NO mutual crushing, only partial crushing out of the other side?
So you're denying that your videos are to show what SHOULD have happened with the collapses and that complete collapses were most likely IMPOSSIBLE? http://letsrollforums.com/video-wtc-gravitational-collapse-t18699.html
No, but that does not mean it qualifies as a PROOF. That is why I find it so interesting that engineering schools have not built models much better than mine by now. What engineering schools have tried to produce any? Yet it only took 4 months for a professor and his students at the University of Washington to make a 50 foot model of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge to analyse the oscillation of the real bridge to devise strategies to stop them. And they had to build it in wind tunnel. So the scientific and academic response to 9/11 has been pathetic for years. A model to PROVE something should be at least 13.6 ft tall and maybe 500 pounds with the same mass distribution of the tower. psik
Since you seemed to have missed it the first time around... Below, you are quoted as saying that the paper loops in the dropped mass of your model were damaged JUST LIKE the paper loops in the stationary mass. Then you partially cite Newton's third Law to support what you just said. The full citation of Newton's Third Law being "For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action." This means you wanted everyone to believe that all three loops of the dropped mass were damaged. This would supposedly support your belief that the upper mass of the towers would have been slowed and then arrested because the floors of the upper mass would have been destroyed in a one to one versus the lower floors of the stationary mass ratio until there were no more floor left of the upper mass. This is why you keep citing Newton's Third Law. Further proof you thought you demonstrated Newton's Third Law with your model. Note where you say "My model demonstrates mutual crushing". Do you not understand what "mutual" means? Then you turn around and contradict what you say above. Quote below. Now you admit that there wasn't "mutual crushing", but unequal crushing. You also say that Newton's Laws didn't cover strength of materials. Glad you finally realize that. So which is it psikey? Did your model demonstrate Newton's Third Law like you cited when you made the "mutual crushing" comparison or does Newton's Third Law not apply to your conclusion about what the results of your demonstration show?
So tell me where Newton's Laws cove strength of materials. You demanding that I apply Newton's simplistic equations to a dozen interacting masses and just throwing around semantic bullsh(*)t. But I specified the amount of energy to crush a single loop 6 years ago. I notice you haven't said squat about that. Reading and responding to your posts is just a waste of time. Find someone else to play semantic games with that you think are intelligent. psik
THEY DON'T!!!!!!! That's what I've been trying to tell you!!!! Jesus H. Christ!!!! No, YOU are doing this as has been proven! 1. You have been quoted as applying Newton's Third Law to your paper loops and washer model as the reason your upper mass slows down and is eventually arrested. I have provided quotes from you as proof. 2. Then you take your supposed model results, based on your application of Newton's Third Law to it, and apply them to the tower collapses proclaiming that the top mass should have slowed down and eventually stopped JUST LIKE YOUR MODEL DID, which demonstrated Newton's Third Law. I have posted quotes of yours proving this also. It's not me demanding OR applying Newton's Third Law to the tower collapses it's YOU. You're doing it by way of your model. Do I have to go back and re-quote everything for you? It's all there in black and white, flowing from I don't know how many forums over the course of years. Let's do this one more time. Here are quotes of you saying that your model DEMONSTRATES Newton's Third Law. The relevant text I bolded, enlarged, and made red so you couldn't miss or misunderstand it. Quote 1 In the quote above, you tie Newton's Third Law into your model. You proclaim that the loops in the dropped mass were damaged just like the ones in the staionary mass and then state it's becuase of "Action and reaction or Newton's Third Law. Quote 2 Once again, you imply Newton's Third Law is demonstrated by your model because your model had MUTUAL CRUSHING. Below is a quote of you tying your model results to the tower collpases and then making a claim about the tower collpases based on your model results. Quote 3 In the quote above, you tie the results of your model, based on Newton's Third Law, to the tower collapses and use your models results as supporting evidence to your claim as to why the descending mass of the towers should have slowed and why the complete collapse of the towers would have been almost impossible. So who is applying Newton's Third Law to interacting masses? YOU! I've been trying to explain this to you over how many posts and you have the gall to say it's ME that's trying to force you into applying Newton's Third Law onto complex object?! I've been preaching this for years. You're dead wrong.
EXACTLY!!!! You're model and video demonstration results are completely irrelevant when comparing it to the collapses of the towers and making a claim about them for one of the single reasons you just stated. Newton's Third Law (or any of those Laws) doesn't take into account any minutiae contained within a complex object. One of which is strength of materials. What's even funnier is the fact that you imply your model demonstrates Newton's Third Law (For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action) and then turn around and say it doesn't. Who is the one that doesn't understand physics OR Newton's Laws? I wonder...
The only "model" that exists that can be compared to the twin tower destruction is one that was CD'd in a similar manner (I posted a video in this forum but I can't find it again). NIST claims to have computer models but won't release them to the public so I (and anyone with any brains should) consider that utter BS. You for one. You don't (or pretend not to) know the difference between a natural collapse caused by planes/damage/fire and a deliberate destruction.
Is this just more semantic bullcrap being thrown around by me psikey regarding ME demanding that you apply Newton's Laws to "a dozen interacting masses"? Sounds to me like your once again applying Newton's Third Law to the tower collapses to explain why the dropped mass should have stopped. Equal and opposite reactions in the form of the 15th level (of the dropped mass) and the 16th level (of the stationary mass) would simultaneously crush each other followed by the 14th level (of the dropped mass) and the 17th level (of the stationary mass) would simultaneously crush each, etc. Until all 15th levels of the dropped mass were gone, leaving all the rest of the levels of the stationary mass. And you want folks to believe that I am incorrectly applying it to complex structures?
So why don't you provide the link to where that quote came from so anyone can read the whole thing? Are Joules to complicated for you? You can keep repeating "Newton" like that is impressive. What did Newton say about strength of materials? psik
Anyone can read this thread and see what you are implying. It's not difficult psikey. That's why you keep asking me if Newton's Laws take into account strength of materials. Yup. Because you keep applying Newton's Third Law to the tower collapses to make the claim that the upper section should have slowed down and that complete collapse was almost impossible. You tell me. You're the one tying that into the tower collapses. Keep playing your games instead of admitting you got it wrong psikey. I can do this all day...
Just more of the same. psikeyhackr referencing Newton's Third law in regards to the tower collapses, but wants to INSIST that he's not doing it. http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/Thread-9-11-EXPOSED?pid=746510#pid746510
Then why do you keep bringing them up. Are you saying strength of materials is irrelevant to analyzing a collapse where material must be destroyed? psik
Read post 491 over and over until you get it. You are the one tying Newton's Laws into the collapse of the towers and using Newton's Laws to make the claim that the collapses should have slowed down and that complete collapse was almost impossible. Round and round you go...
