9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: AllYou! on 30 Mar 2010 15:02 In news:hotevq$817$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: >> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote >>> Remy McSwain wrote: >>>> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote >>>>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>>>> But a force results when the momentum changes, which is >>>>>> exactly what he said. >>>>> Yes, that is exactly what Mr. Chandler said, > >>>> And yet, he says that there was no resulting force to be >>>> considered. ROFLOL! > >>> Nope, he never said that, either. > >> So you BOTH believe in forceless collisions? LOL! > > You're still acting like you're insane and failing to comprehend > what you read, nut job. Really? I read where he said there was a collision, and where you say there wasn't. So which is it?
From: Henry on 30 Mar 2010 15:24 AllYou! wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> AllYou! wrote: >>> Really? So why did he also say that the only force acting on >>> the support structure was the weight of the upper block? Why >>> didn't he say it was the change in the momentum of the mass of >>> the upper block? >> Because momentum still isn't a force, kooker > But a change in momentum is. Wrong. Read and learn, nut job. Page 12, nut job. Get help reading and understanding it from someone with a working mind. http://www.911speakout.org/Chandler_DownwardAccelerationOfWTC1-NoMath.pdf -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: AllYou! on 30 Mar 2010 15:41
In news:hotj6b$e74$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: > AllYou! wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> AllYou! wrote: > >>>> Really? So why did he also say that the only force acting on >>>> the support structure was the weight of the upper block? Why >>>> didn't he say it was the change in the momentum of the mass of >>>> the upper block? > >>> Because momentum still isn't a force, kooker > >> But a change in momentum is. > > Wrong. LOL! So a change in momentum isn't a force? Really? What do you think Newton's 2nd law is all about? Hint: "when the net force on the body is zero, the momentum of the body is constant" So what do you think it means when the momentum of the body isn't constant (i.e., changing)? Do you think there's a net force then? LOL! If you're gonna parrot your mentor, at least get it right! |