Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Creative Speculation

AZCat

(8,345 posts)

6. Deceleration isn't even required.

Reply to William Seger (Reply #5)

Fri Nov 14, 2014, 06:39 AM

Nov 2014

A decrease in acceleration is also an indication of a transfer of energy from the upper block to the rest of the building. Tony butchered this for years, until he decided to unilaterally redefine common physics terms so he wouldn't look quite so foolish.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Offical explanation for twin tower collapses can be disproven in one word [View all] gyroscope Nov 2014 OP

How does it violate the speed of light? GeorgeGist Nov 2014 #1

Post removed Post removed Nov 2014 #2

+1 n/t zappaman Nov 2014 #4

The towers fell at the speed of unsound Blue Owl Nov 2014 #3

Your conclusion can be invalidated with one graph William Seger Nov 2014 #5

Deceleration isn't even required. AZCat Nov 2014 #6