JQisAwesome wrote:Using a simple axe, I was able to take down a tree 2000 times the mass of the axe! Whoa! How did I do that?
Can you do it with ONE SWING?
Is the tree made of steel and concrete?
psik
Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip
JQisAwesome wrote:Using a simple axe, I was able to take down a tree 2000 times the mass of the axe! Whoa! How did I do that?
uke2se wrote:
I'm pretty sure he could do it with one swing and then igniting the cut in the tree and letting it burn for an hour.
Xaihe wrote:
What if they found termites in the tree 5 years later? Must've been planted there, so it wasn't the axe that took down the tree.
econ41 wrote:2 The insults directed at "some people" when it is the physics of your claims which is wrong;
3 The truism that physics "does not give a damn" attached to the false inference that others - in this case I - have the physics wrong.
And who gives a damn about building "...a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight?"
The real world had two full scale models where a small top section "caused the collapse" of the lower section. Those real examples were WTC1 and WTC2 and the top bit did not "crush" the bottom bit as you are fully aware. So your analogy by inference is false.
psikeyhackr wrote:econ41 wrote:2 The insults directed at "some people" when it is the physics of your claims which is wrong;
3 The truism that physics "does not give a damn" attached to the false inference that others - in this case I - have the physics wrong.
And who gives a damn about building "...a self supporting model that can be crushed by the top 15% of its own weight?"
The real world had two full scale models where a small top section "caused the collapse" of the lower section. Those real examples were WTC1 and WTC2 and the top bit did not "crush" the bottom bit as you are fully aware. So your analogy by inference is false.
Only by assuming nothing besides the plane was involved.
If the plane did it you should be able to build the model. If you can't then...
psik
byofrcs wrote:Why waste 30 bucks when someone has already done this years ago...
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/0706 ... nnWTC.html
psikeyhackr wrote:....
I did a physical model impact simulation also but it costs more than $30 and is much more difficult to build.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q
The mass and its distribution had to affect the impact analysis also. The NIST admitted that in two places in their 10,000 page report but then they didn't do it.
There are at least THREE REASONS for wanting to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level to analyze what happened to the twin towers on 9/11.
psik
Patriots4Truth wrote:
what I said wasn't a lie. You failed to quote the whole sentence.
"pretty sad that the only feasible global collapse scenarios that support natural collapse are relatively new and are still under construction/scrutiny"
byofrcs wrote:Well did you get the NIST SAP 2000 data ? It googles easily.
Anyway maybe you didn't notice but the WTC 1/2 actually withstood the impact of the planes. It was only after an hour or so of an uncontrolled fire that they failed. I didn't notice you burning your model in your Youtube.
psikeyhackr wrote:
No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true
psikeyhackr wrote: No it looks like people who have decided to BELIEVE this nonsense don't want accurate data. They just prefer to believe their chosen conclusion and don't demand the info form the experts they TRUST. AUTHORITY said it so it must be true
My model doesn't need to be set on fire. The top of the north tower was not raised the height of the entire building the way I lifted the top portion of my model. Presumably it was the fire which made the collapse possible.
So what is stopping you from building a self supporting model that can collapse?
Nicko wrote:The sidetracking of people who could be constructive political dissidents by your pointless conspiracy theory has already been pointed out. You have greater faith in the US goverment's abilities than the people who think demolition or "false flag" is a load of old cobblers.
psikeyhackr wrote:Nicko wrote:The sidetracking of people who could be constructive political dissidents by your pointless conspiracy theory has already been pointed out. You have greater faith in the US goverment's abilities than the people who think demolition or "false flag" is a load of old cobblers.
What have I said about conspiracies or false flags? Link to my posts.
My collapse video has no verbal content. It shows mass being accelerated by gravity hitting more mass. The written description has sufficient information for anyone to duplicate it. The government is irrelevant to physics. The human race is irrelevant to physics.
Wasn't the destruction of the north tower supposedly mass being accelerated by gravity completely destroying more mass below?
But we don't have accurate data on the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. Now why is that and why aren't supposedly intelligent people asking. Of course maybe they aren't intelligent.
Curiously Steven Jones and Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan aren't making a big deal of that missing information either. I asked Richard Gage about it in 2008. He got this shocked look on his face and then game me a LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blue prints. But the distribution has to be determined by gravity which is the same all over the world and doesn't change. It explains why the CN Tower is shaped like this:
This business is the 9/11 Religion believers versus the 9/11 Conspiracy Crackpots but the laws of physics are incapable of giving a damn about either one. But the engineering schools should have been talking about the distributions of steel and concrete within six months of 9/11. So why isn't it resolved in NINE YEARS? Does simple Newtonian physics need to be made to look complicated? How do they justify $100,000+ for 4 years of education.
Purdue makes a SCIENTIFIC SIMULATION where the core columns don't move.![]()
psik
But the distribution has to be determined by gravity which is the same all over the world and doesn't change.
Xaihe wrote:Explain this (Grand Lisboa in Macao) building's shape or stop comparing CN tower to WTC1/2, please.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests