quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

I did not comment on the relevance of the link. I merely commented that it was very visual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
He has done many tower experiments and just to prove a point made a tower with paper columns that has large steel washers as the floors.  The paper columns were made just strong enough to support the steel washers.

Look what happens!  Real physics at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

Very visual.

and shows a pancake perfectly, but not so very much to do with the wtc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

floors were not steel washers, and the columns were not paper, and there was no fire, wind sway or airplanes in the video.

so, it shows as much as the difficulty of burning a phonebook, essentially nothing to do with the collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have edited my post when you were posting, to be fair to you.


And the scale is incorrect, and further, if each piece of paper can hold one and only washer, two washers BY DEFINITION would drop the next level and the next level and so on, so it is a patent lie, altogether.

See that is why I said you need to take a physics class.  Seriously.  I said the paper was just strong enough to support washers plural meaning the structure NOT ONE washer.

You are correct its not done to scale.  The wtc was built with 5 times redundancy  and this one was built so it could just support its own weight.

so, it shows as much as the difficulty of burning a phonebook, essentially nothing to do with the collapse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I am sorry ron but no one is going build 100 WTC towers so we can do every comparative gyration it would take to show you what you cannot conceive when the proper solution is simply for you to attend a tech school physics class to get a grip on the properties involved here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Claiming it pancaked then claiming a demonstration showing what bullshit that is only for you to claim a pancake demonstration has nothing to do with your pancake claim is well fucking short a bag of marbles.

You see Rule how do you deal with this level of tardation and not call it what it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have edited my post when you were posting, to be fair to you.


And the scale is incorrect, and further, if each piece of paper can hold one and only washer, two washers BY DEFINITION would drop the next level and the next level and so on, so it is a patent lie, altogether.

See that is why I said you need to take a physics class.  Seriously.  I said the paper was just strong enough to support the structure NOT one washer.

You are correct its not done to scale.  The wtc was built with 5 times redundancy  and this one was built so it could just support its own weight.

so, it shows as much as the difficulty of burning a phonebook, essentially nothing to do with the collapse.

Ron the point is that it does not change the principles invovled.

well the claim that you can burn a fucking body in a pit is completely laughable and failure to recognize it well sorta speaks for itself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I have edited my post when you were posting, to be fair to you.


And the scale is incorrect, and further, if each piece of paper can hold one and only washer, two washers BY DEFINITION would drop the next level and the next level and so on, so it is a patent lie, altogether.

See that is why I said you need to take a physics class.  Seriously.  I said the paper was just strong enough to support the structure NOT one washer.

You are correct its not done to scale.  The wtc was built with 5 times redundancy  and this one was built so it could just support its own weight.

so, it shows as much as the difficulty of burning a phonebook, essentially nothing to do with the collapse.

Ron the point is that it does not change the principles invovled.

well the claim that you can burn a fucking body in a pit is completely laughable and failure to recognize it well sorta speaks for itself.

so each paper can hold the entire structure by definitinon, and that is not the case with each girder,

It does not change the fact that the wtc was built with 5 times redundancy ron.

Its does not change the fact that in wtc 2 the alleged plane completely missed the core and all there was, was a hole on the south side of the building and if you think that can bring it down I cant wait to hear your story.

Again it proves the concept.

furthermore, in scale the paper is around what, 75 percent of the perimeter of the centre? not a central core at all.

Ok so the core was 60% and 5 times redundant.




completely moot point that again does not change the principles involved nor invalidate the experiment.

And what the fuck do burning bodies have to do with the physics of a collapse?

I dont know you are the one who brought it up.

And whether you scoff or not is of no concern, you are a fucking whack job, and the fact is that bodies can burn in a pit, regardless of telephone books,

really?  I cant wait to see you support that little wet dream with something beyond your opinion in error.

Did you know that pure sodium will burn in water, and in fact explode? Relate that to something doing with the collapse of the World Trade Towers, it has as much commerce as washers and paper not to scale and no equivalent conditions, so yeah, it proved that you can construct a structure of washers and paper in such a way that it cannot completely collapse, so fuckin what?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

what do those fuzzy pictures purport to show?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/12/da_robbery_moti.html
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/21631718/detail.html

here is a couple modern american cities, still in on the conspiracy, keeping it alive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hmmm... so in terms of physics did the building collapse or did the rest of the earth move to the top of the building's previously known location? Or better yet, you have convinced me, it was the buildings that flew into the airplanes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hmmm... so in terms of physics did the building collapse or did the rest of the earth move to the top of the building's previously known location? Or better yet, you have convinced me, it was the buildings that flew into the airplanes.

please dont confuse me with ron and his ilk.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

RealOne has physics books on his shelf so old and untouched that entire eco systems have formed between the pages. Living and breeding on the valleys of paper, eking out a life for themselves and occasionally partaking in the extreme sports of corner trekking. A sport where there is a great risk of slipping form the land of Page 28 into the land of Page 29, never to be seen again.

-an