posted on Aug, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Darkwing01
So what you are saying is that a falling box is NOT what happened, but a falling box is what needed to happen to get your pancake to
I am not claiming anything at the moment. Don't try to divert the subject.
So in what sense did you mean that "experiment" then?
You dropping a cup.
Square vs. Box? Really PLB?
Read the links and learn the difference.
No you have not.
You have now made it perfectly clear that you experiment is not relevant, so the implication is mine was.
Really nice fallacy (you have one or more in about every post you make, logic is not really your thing is it?). It is called a false dichotomy. No,
your experiment is not relevant either, even less so as it is a lot less like how the collapse happened than the experiment I described.
It is not even about mass ending up in the footprint (if you recall I mentioned this before). It is about mass being at the collapse
It is not just where it it, but when and how it gets there
No it is not. You claim the collapse would arrest. That means that mass is resting on a floor. How it got there does not matter. The mass can not both
be within the perimeter of the building and not resting on something. You must understand that. What matters is how the majority of the mass did
ended up on the floor, or in other words, how it ended up outside the perimeter of the floor. Explain that.