AE911T posted a new (?) video of Chandler claiming that it's been "proved" that "the top section of the north tower of the WTC could not have crushed the lower section of the building." He repeats his "0.64g constant acceleration" nonsense and now adds the claim that Szamboti's "missing jolt" analysis proves that there weren't any impacts, so there weren't any dynamic forces, so his analysis which completely ignores dynamic forces is correct. (And of course he is still claiming that this "0.36W uniform resistance" can only be explained by destroying 90% of the columns, but of course still does not have any explanation whatsoever for how removing columns could possibly produce a uniform resistance and a constant acceleration, even if he used magical silent explosives.)
But so what if there actually were "jolts" and "constant acceleration" is ridiculous in any event; "to check why this analysis is correct" Chandler shows a video of a Verinage demolition where the top of a building falls squarely onto the bottom, which of course produces a very noticeable "jolt," so according to Chandler, QED WTC = CD.
Given Chandler's and Szamboti's aversion to admitting factual and logical errors, it's not surprising to see these claims recycled, and there's not much point in shoveling through them again. But Chandler just can't seem to resist digging the hole deeper, and he goes at it with a virtual excavator.
At 4:00 in the video, Chandler claims that the Verinage video shows another "important conclusion": that the top and bottom sections are destroyed "at the same time" which "is a clear consequence of Newton's third law, which says that when bodies interact, the forces act equally in both directions." Chandler claims this is why Verinage demolitions start in the middle of the building. You might expect a high school physics teacher to recognize that the accumulating debris layer was a third "body" in the interactions, but Chandler actually tells us why he ignores it: imaginary physics! He claims that if the north tower collapse had been driven by gravity, "at most, the top 12 floors might have destroyed an additional 12 floors, but the top section would have been consumed in the process, leaving nothing to crush the rest of the building."
Yes, this high school physics teacher believes that the mass and momentum of the debris from those 24 floors disappeared into an alternate universe when the top section was "consumed."
But so what if there actually were "jolts" and "constant acceleration" is ridiculous in any event; "to check why this analysis is correct" Chandler shows a video of a Verinage demolition where the top of a building falls squarely onto the bottom, which of course produces a very noticeable "jolt," so according to Chandler, QED WTC = CD.
Given Chandler's and Szamboti's aversion to admitting factual and logical errors, it's not surprising to see these claims recycled, and there's not much point in shoveling through them again. But Chandler just can't seem to resist digging the hole deeper, and he goes at it with a virtual excavator.
At 4:00 in the video, Chandler claims that the Verinage video shows another "important conclusion": that the top and bottom sections are destroyed "at the same time" which "is a clear consequence of Newton's third law, which says that when bodies interact, the forces act equally in both directions." Chandler claims this is why Verinage demolitions start in the middle of the building. You might expect a high school physics teacher to recognize that the accumulating debris layer was a third "body" in the interactions, but Chandler actually tells us why he ignores it: imaginary physics! He claims that if the north tower collapse had been driven by gravity, "at most, the top 12 floors might have destroyed an additional 12 floors, but the top section would have been consumed in the process, leaving nothing to crush the rest of the building."
Yes, this high school physics teacher believes that the mass and momentum of the debris from those 24 floors disappeared into an alternate universe when the top section was "consumed."
| YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. |
| I AGREE |
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1MuTHdo
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire