If it was physically possible then it should be PROVABLE with CORRECT DATA.
I’d question 1) is this true?
2) What evidence is there that it isn’t provable with correct data?
It should also be possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon.
Again I’d question 1) is this true?
2) What evidence is there that it isn’t possible to build a physical model to duplicate the phenomenon?
Of course people who cannot understand the conservation of momentum would not care about the data one way or the other.
And this is your other piece of evidence that it is physically impossible, is that right?
So what evidence is there that this law makes the collapse due to the planes crashing into the buildings and the fire physically impossible?
So all you can come up with is sophistry BS? Applying debating techniques to Newtonian physics is so hilarious.
So why is Ryan Mackey talking all of this stuff about modeling?
It is just so curious that Mackey talks about modeling but then does not build one. A real model has to do real physics. It will not be affected by Mackey’s incorrect math. He uses the conservation of momentum equation but says nothing about how supports which must move or be destroyed will affect that equation. The mass cannot attain that velocity.