No you don't believe Rodriguez but you believe every talking head on TV telling the official lie. That makes you a typical American who avoids unpleasant truths.
ROFLMBAO Oh, so now you claim to be stupid on purpose. Did you get the heights of your 2 blocks, 1 cu ft vs 1000 cu ft, reversed on purpose also? Was the smaller block supposed to be higher so it would have more kinetic energy than the larger block? The scenario makes some degree of sense if it was supposed to be kinetic energy.
Yup. Stupid. Show me how stupid I am. What's the momentum of your structure when the collapse is complete?
When the collapse is complete there is no motion. 0 velocity therefore 0 momentum. I only answered that because it is so simple almost 0 mental effort was required. Why ask a question that dumb, or do you regard it as a trick question? Suddenly you don't want to talk about the cube problem that you created. Which cube had how much kinetic energy when it hit the ground? My video shows the physics. The falling mass arrested which was the point. The mathematics is useless idiotic busywork which is all you know how to do. You specified a 10 ft cube 10 ft up and a 1 ft cube 1 ft up. So tell us the kinetic energy or momentum or both, whatever you prefer. Show us that you are smart enough to do the calculations for the problems YOU Create. You don't have a video I presume. Raising a 10 foot cube of iron would certainly be interesting especially if you were under it.
That can't be. Momentum must be conserved. How can there be some momentum and then no momentum? Hopefully we can talk about it soon. I mean, I can't have a conversation about the stupid math with someone who doesn't know what math is. It's been what some 20 years and you're still trying to figure it out? You expect me to teach it to you in a day?
So momentum is all that matters according to YOU? What happened to Kenetic Energy? That energy got used up crushing some of the paper loops. The falling portion ran out of energy before most of them were damaged. The collapse STOPPED! That was the point of the physics demonstration. Where are your calculations on your cubes? When are you going to stop confusing your ego with your intellect or are you nothing but ego with delusions of intellectual adequacy?
Focus, friend. Momentum doesn't get used up. That's what conserved means. Momentum has a magnitude and a direction. The direction of the falling mass is down. Where did it go?
https://lambdageeks.com/is-momentum-conserved-in-an-inelastic-collision/ If you want to try to make a big deal of momentum being transferred to atoms in the floor knock yourself out.
I'd like to elaborate on the above fallacious claim. The only "conspiracy theory" anyone should be concerned with is the US government's unsupported (and/or falsely supported) official 9/11 narrative. Certainly there are other conspiracy theories about 9/11 out there, some quite outrageous, but they are irrelevant. To say it's ALL just conspiracy theories is absolute nonsense, especially given that there have been numerous scientific studies and many papers (some peer reviewed) written by many different experts challenging and refuting the official (NIST) hypotheses, as well as the 9/11 Commission Report. Furthermore, these are all supported by evidence, some by the very same evidence used by both NIST and the 9/11 Commission. There are numerous examples that have been posted in this section of the forum and this thread. But I will cite some examples regardless. In this thread I posted 32 facts that are all verifiable (see Post #498 ). You cherry picked one point (#25) about Rodriguez. Even if you believe Rodriguez lied to the Commission, the fact is that he did testify and his testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. This is not conspiracy theory, it's historical evidence based fact. In the thread called "The NIST 9/11 Scam Exposed in all its Glory", I posted many scientific articles and papers published by experts, none of these are conspiracy theory, they are all based on evidence and the NIST reports. For example: In Post #417, I linked Dr. Hulsey's peer reviewed report called "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7". The result of a 4-year study based on the NIST's final report of the "collapse" of WTC7 and the actual evidence. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. In Post #436, I posted a Request for Correction filed by AE911Truth and several 9/11 family members based on NIST's final report on the "collapse" of WTC7 and the actual evidence. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. In Post #456, I posted a link to the paper written by the German mathematician Ansgar Schneider that is based on and refutes Zdeněk Bažant's theory. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. The thread called "9/11 - The Legal Initiative" contains links to legal filings by AE911Truth and 9/11 family members based on the official 9/11 reports and the evidence and the many challenges to the official 9/11 reports. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. The thread called "9/11 Whistleblowers" contains a video in the first post all about several 9/11 whistleblowers. This has nothing to do with conspiracy theory. There are numerous other examples just in this section of the forum that are not 9/11 conspiracy theory and have nothing to do with conspiracy theories, much less based on "very weak and manufactured evidence", unless of course you're referring the NIST reports and the 9/11 Commission Report.
No. I'm not just talking about the atoms in the floor. What's the momentum of the base of your tower? What's the momentum of the top at the moment of impact? How is that momentum conserved?
I don't give a damn if you think that you have the authority to tell someone what hoops to jump through. You have not done the momentum and kinetic energy calculations on your idiotic blocks. So until you do that on the problem no one can see I am not even going to think about doing any calculations on a physics demonstration model that anyone can watch as much as they like. Where are your videos? Too difficult for your vast intellect?
Wait a minute. This is your model. The one that was.. How did you put it in your video? "Similar to the world trade center" I think were your exact words. The blocks were to illustrate to you your mistake about the scalability of gravity. It was too big of a step for us to take apparently. So now we have to take smaller steps. You said it was the inertia of the paper loops that resisted the collapse. That's not what stopped the mass from falling. We'll get there, but you have to figure out how momentum is conserved first.
Where are your calculations for momentum and kinetic energy since you are either lying or cannot figure out which is which?
I don't have to figure out squat. The paper loops were PAPER. A single washer had more mass and inertia than all of the paper loops. Find where I said that. Maybe you will get lost in the process.
You won't find the answer to your question then. Do you not want the answer to your question? Step one is figure out how the momentum of your real world model was conserved.
