again with the drinking straw.
If you are asking a simple question, try not to misrepresent the source material the question is part of.
Mercedes said this about the seat back-
f. “From the photos and the videotape of the interior of the car, it is apparent that the inboard (left) upper corner of the front passenger seatback has been deformed in a forward direction and not the outboard (right) upper corner, where the shoulder portion of the three-point belt is anchored. (Id.; see also Hannigan Decl., Ex. K, photograph of Subject Vehicle interior.) Thus, if plaintiff’s contention that the integrated belt deformed his seat were correct, there would be deformation on the outboard shoulder, not the inboard. (Id.) Therefore, there is no merit to plaintiff’s claim that the shoulder belt anchor resulted in any seat deformation.”
you turned that into this-
JB - So you agree with Mercedes-Benz that when you apply a force at the top of a seat-back the resulting failure can only occur at the top, and not the bottom mounting point. In structural analysis the seatback is a cantilever with a force applied to its end. That force results in a moment-arm/vector against the mounting point. You can pinch the bottom of a drinking straw while pressing the top over and tell us if the straw fails/bends over at its top or its bottom. If you can understand these physics then do you agree the photograph of my seatback shows a failure/bending at its bottom? If so do you believe it's appropriate for an occupant to experience his upper body weight help keel his seat back forward? Do you believe an auto manufacturer should deny such physics? Do you believe I was not supposed to remove my seatbelt to exit the burning vehicle and should have waited until the Case Report photographs were taken before we unbuckled me? I'm glad you raised this point because these physics and the denial of them by Mercedes-Benz is even more straight forward than understanding Newton's 2nd Law of Motion regarding acceleration.
Mercedes has pretty clearly stated that the the fact your seat was bent the opposite of what would be a result of your "basic physics" premise, shows that the majority of the damage to the seat came from the rear passenger hitting it on his way forward, with predictable results to your body. They also point out that if you were correct about the forces, then it stands to reason that the force of your body pulling against the belt would cause the seat to deform in the OPPOSITE fashion of which it clearly did, even if it popped the locks on the floor. In other words, there is no argument or evidence that the seat was damaged by anything other than the rear passenger.
They have made NO statements to the fact concerning force applied to the top compared to the bottom, nor have they made any comments such as "only occur"
This is all fabrication on your end.
Their comments are very very simple, and entirely supported by the evidence of the crash.
concerning this comment-
If you can understand these physics then do you agree the photograph of my seatback shows a failure/bending at its bottom?
What the picture clearly shows, is a seat that took a massive hit from behind from a unbelted body. Once again, you refuse to consider the importance of seatbelts front and rear in this crash. You refuse to consider the consequences of this unbelted passenger flying around in the car, you refuse to consider the results of an unbelted driver hitting a steering wheel, and you refuse to consider what consequences to your body are a result of the damage to the seat from the rear passenger. Your comparison of the forces involved in the accident constantly to a drinking straw and now a pendulum as trump cards and irrefutable evidence are totally absurd and sad.
Seatbelts, which are the most important factor of this crash in their lack of use apart from you, are something you cannot consider or are blind to.
You accuse me of not answering you questions, and you have not provided a single scrap of additional evidence related to the passenger seat and how it fared in this new crash.
Repeatedly, I have asked you for pictured of the knee damage to the passenger dummy, and you have evaded every question. whats clear, is that IF you have this evidence at all, it does not support many of your earlier claims.