text: 99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job, page 59
  CONFIRM GRAVITY FOR ME PLB.
  It should be simple enough, I have asked you many times now.
  If science requires confirmation then it should be easy enough for you to do.
  Any experiment that shows a ~9.8m/s acceleration of a falling mass in a vacuum confirms it. And please don't come with "that is not proof". If you still do not understand that confirmation is not the same as proof, you are a moron.
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:16 AM
  How am I wrong about that? I have yet to see someone igniting a piece of sol-gel nanothermite or alike with a blowtorch and show pieces that are both partly reacted and partly unreacted. If you can show me that, I admit I am wrong about that.
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:19 AM
  A simplified version of what happened is that mass 1 fell on top of mass 2. The dynamic load made the connection that held mass 2 fail. Still, this force slowed down mass 1 a bit.
  What stopped the connections that held the floors in the top section from failing? If you were for once in your life actually include the equal opposite reaction laws, that you keep ignoring, you would have to address the fact that the falling mass is less then the impacted mass, and would fail before it could cause the impacted mass to completely fail.
  That it was a 'dynamic load' is irrelevant, it is a falling mass and has to abide by the laws of physics no matter what you call it. You think it makes you sound smart keep calling it a 'dynamic load' but fail to realise how irrelevant the term is in this context. It's also irrelevant that columns, or trusses failed, when it come to resistance, the floors and the steel pans they sat in would create resistance as they stacked up. If you have no stacking floors then you have no pancake collapse, where are the floors to do any pancaking?
  The collapse did not slow down at all btw. You can pretend it did, but in fact if you believe it was a pancake collapse you would have to conclude the collapse had to speed up in order to not be slowed from the loss of Ke to other energy such as friction/resistance, deformation, sound, heat etc.
  You do understand Ke HAD to be lost right? IF the collapse had started to slow it would have continued to slow. So how could the collapse NOT have slowed? Where did all the floors that you claim built up and continuously added weight go, they just disappeared afterwords? You can't have it both ways, floors can not both pancake, and be ejected out of the footprint.
  After the connections failed, mass 1 and mass 2 fall further together to the next floor. The additional mass actually has a positive effect on Ke and Momentum during the fall. And the resistance was hardly increasing, if at all.
  Again you ignore equal opposite reactions law, the fact that the lower floors will push back equally on the falling floors, and will resist the collapse. There will be no mass added because you would be losing as much mass from the top as the bottom, and the top would run out of mass before the bottom. 110 floors resisting the collapse of 15 floors, it's not rocket science.
  edit on 7/25/2011 by ANOK because: typo
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:22 AM
  My point is, even if you are right (although it is pretty much speculation you must agree),
  Seemingly, Jones has a different agenda.
  As that too is speculation also.......
  Maybe he didn't anticipate the fallout....
  Maybe he wants to live a quiet life from here....
  Maybe academia abandoned him after the fact....
  Maybe he has moved on to a new subject of study.
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:29 AM
  We don't need to speculate. Jones jumped onto another controversial fringe subject, over unity energy devices. The circuit he uses is a well know circuit to increase voltage. By making a couple of measurement errors he thinks he achieved over unity.
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:43 AM
  This will be my final attempt, just for the record.
  The lower floor also included the load of the floor itself plus the mass of the floor falling on it. The connections of the upper floor only had to endure the dynamic load. Draw a free body diagram.
  Asserting that dynamic load is irrelevant is not an argument. You seem to think that the first lower floor that is impacted remains in position. It does not. The connection fail and it falls, together with the top section.
  I am not pretending it slowed down, but the resistance made it accelerate less. Loss in Ke from resistance is gained again as the mass falls further down.
  No they did not disappear. They became part of the falling mass. Falling mass gains momentum and Ke. The greater the mass, the higher the momentum and Ke gain.
  The lower floors will only push back for a very short moment. When the connections fail, it stops pushing altogether and you have a moment of free fall.
  Anyway, it has been explained to you countless times. I don't really think this will help. I am not sure where your issue lies, as it seems to shift all the time.
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:45 AM
  Any experiment that shows a ~9.8m/s acceleration of a falling mass in a vacuum confirms it.
  It fails to falsify it. You have proof it was gravity and not evil demons that did it. You haven't even shown me a picture of what gravity looks like yet.
  posted on Jul, 25 2011 @ 04:47 AM
  An experiment capable of falsifying a theory but fails to falsify it is confirmation. Confirming is not proving. How many times have I explained that by now? Why do you ignore this? What is it you do not understand?