Canadian 9/11 Petition for Parliament
- Thread starter darkbeaver
- Start date
Things don't bounce in your world either?
If I ram a power pole up your ass will you become temporarily lighter?
If I ram a power pole up your ass will you become temporarily lighter?
I never said there wasn't. Newtons second law proves me right.
I think not.
I leave playing with balls to you nutters.
Ya, all 20+ floors should have bounced right off the towers when they collapsed...
You just failed reality.
For every downward force there is upward force. How does 30 floors crush 80 with less and less force the further it goes without it'self being destroyed by the EQUAL force returned to it.
Geeze, I don't know petros. Why can't a house of cards with stand having a tonka truck dropped on it?
I mean if we are to disingenuously use Newtons third law, as you are trying to do. The house of cards should make the tonka truck bounce.
For your assertion to be true, we'd have to ignore the rest of Newton's laws. And there lies the biggest problem with C/T nutters, you have to ignore so much reality to make all your pieces fit together, to make your conspiracy work.
With the weight of the tonka behind them. Gathering momentum and mass as it went.
Hence why the "free fall" assertion failed. The debris thrown from the buildings, fell faster then the buildings, because the collapse actually had resistance.
There was no Tonka that fell from the sky and no hand of God pushing down. Just a lesser mass of cards in static position and still in contact with the other cards.
Second law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass.
Second law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass.
Last edited:
And the upper floors didn't just get placed gingerly upon the floors below the fire either.
Yep, and that's exactly why the building fell "down", not side ways.
You're helping reinforce my opinion...thanx.
Problem though. There was still resistance before slap of upper hitting lower so it wasn't a full on no resistance hit of "dropping a Tonka into cards". Unless those columns were pulled out they still carried load to the lower portion during collapse at reduced percentages during failure and then the 3rd law applies with equal opposite reactions with it requiring the loss of one upper floor for every lower floor it crush and there is deceleration not acceleration.
Conservation of Momentum and 3rd law can't be worked around.
Last edited:
Ya, I know, that's why the windows were blowing out and elevator doors blowing out as, that air was forced out of the way.
Still a fail. But you're closer. As each section gave way, acceleration and deceleration takes place. The unfortunate part is, it cascades.
For the law to apply as you see it. Dominoes wouldn't fall in succession. The first domino would knock over the second and, and then just bounce off the third.
Funny how that works eh. Horizontally even!!!
In your version there is no upward force of the lower building. There wasn't enough upper mass to crush the lower mass and then survive the entire ride down crushing upon impact without deceleration from upward resistance. Unless you are claiming the lower section was some how weakened like in a verinage style deliberate building collapse? For that chunk it make it through 70% of the mass of the building only to destruct upon impact mean that ****ing thing free fell.
BS.
For 100% of the building. Correct. But 100% of the building wasn't crushed.
Nope.
It didn't, hence why the collapse was being past by debris falling away from the building, meeting less resistance. Which of course shows that the building collapsing had some resistance, thus showing my assertion that there was linear acceleration and deceleration in a cascade effect.
Kind of like an avalanche, or dominoes.
But hey, that doesn't fit Newtons laws as you see fit to interpret them.
lmao!!! Another one that thinks dominoes don't knock each other down under the right circumstances.
Next you two will be saying bumble bees can't fly!
Last edited:
I know.
Depends on a whole lot of circumstances. But in some cases, the bulk of the material.
But I'm sure you'll try and argue that to make your mangled science look right.
Anyone dizzy yet?
Hey, if anyone wants to sign that petition, go right ahead. I think it'll be a waste of time to sign that petition, but again, no one's stopping anyone.
Hey, if anyone wants to sign that petition, go right ahead. I think it'll be a waste of time to sign that petition, but again, no one's stopping anyone.
Lets just to stick to 3rd law of opposite/equal reaction and the conservation of momentum kinda BS as you like to term it.
Was it elastic or inelastic forces at work?
I didn't call it BS. I called your accusation BS. But you can twist it anyway you want.
And of course we'd have to strictly stick to the third law, for your theory to even be remotely feasible. Sadly, in reality, it isn't that narrow, that only one law becomes the sole law at in play.
Irrelevant to Newton's laws as you've used them.
But keep trying to mangle that science to fit. It's fun to watch.
Care to explain how dominoes work, horizontally even?
Because as far as you're concerned, they shouldn't.
sniffing bear gets close to falsification honey trap, backs away mumbling rubbish, bear not know what mass is