[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
The universe controls the light gates for you. Therefore gravity. Something like that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You seem to be floundering a bit, champ. No worries, your boss Deuces should be back soon enough, we couldn't expect you to hold down the fort forever.
Yep that's all you are getting and all you deserve.
You think you can talk science when you claim the universe controls the independent variable for you?
Not even funny at this point I'll give you that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yep that's all you are getting and all you deserve.
You think you can talk science when you claim the universe controls the independent variable for you?
Not even funny at this point I'll give you that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm beginning to suspect that you're not particularly intelligent.
Yes. You were completely wrong when you said
Ok i'll tell you one thing about the Sun. The thermonuclear model is falsified by coronal and photospheric temperatures.
If the circumference of this circle is "the ground", both of these vectors are perpendicular to it. They are not parallel to each other.
For everyone else's benefit, Billy's experiment, whatever it is, appears to have something to do with shining 2 lasers through the centre of the circle from 2 points on the circumference that are about 1/1000th of a degree apart (if we assume the scale to of a construction project to be about the size of a football pitch), then claiming that they are parallel.
You'd also probably fail the year 6 maths exam if you said the equation x^2=-4 has solutions. As with most things, first you learn the simplified version for kiddies, and then you learn the full version with all its complexity when you're older. Sounds like you haven't learnt much since you were 10-11 though, so it's not surprising that this concept eludes you.
Nope, the examiner would double check the answer given and award full credit. Any correct solution that goes beyond the standard solution is always awarded full marks.
Undergraduate and post-grad degree programs are VERY specific about what constitutes an experiment. Can you guess what the three constituent parts of an experiment are?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Nope, the examiner would double check the answer given and award full credit. Any correct solution that goes beyond the standard solution is always awarded full marks.
Undergraduate and post-grad degree programs are VERY specific about what constitutes an experiment. Can you guess what the three constituent parts of an experiment are?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Instead of playing these childish games, why don't you tell us and/or reiterate what you think those three things are?
Thank you!
I'm too lazy to scroll back a dozen or so pages, but I thought you were making an argument that the 'official' narrative about the collapse of the buildings was wrong.
If I have misremembered, my apologies.
I was intending to go into far more detail. The problem is it descended into farce and ad hom. They just want edu-tainment, weighted towards entertainment. There is no interest in science and facts here.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I was intending to go into far more detail. The problem is it descended into farce and ad hom. They just want edu-tainment, weighted towards entertainment. There is no interest in science and facts here.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
How about you please present us 'the science and facts' and let the chips fall where they may?
Thank you!
Instead of playing these childish games, why don't you tell us and/or reiterate what you think those three things are.
Thank you!
I gave it, as you well know.
But then, you don't need to control an independent variable. The universe controls it for you.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Fair enough.
Firstly it is acknowledged by NIST that the average time of descent of wtc 1 and 2 was 10 s (9 and 11 seconds each).
[Above it was claimed that "youtube videos" show it to be more like 20 s. I said fair enough let us say 20 s for the sake of argument to get some agreement to move on. 20 s is still impossible for the mechanism that NIST claim].
So we have a near free-fall descent (hence the discussion about what this means) of the towers. The Wtc each had 110 floors. NIST claim a "pancake collapse".
[Now there is also some disagreement here about this because NIST distanced themselves from the "pancake theory".]
The pancake theory is that each floor collided with the floor below it, collapsing it and so on. A domino effect that would have left a stack of pancaked floors at the bottom. Yet when it was pointed out that no such pancakes exist, they then said it was the wrong theory. Other issues include the collapse time being impossible for such a collapse and the absence of enough rubble at the bottom to warrant such a conclusion. Most of the material was dust, ie very small particles.
What we have at the present time, according to NIST, is a "progressive collapse" due to "inward buckling". The same problems remain. The time of descent is impossible and the absence of rubble.
Why is the time impossible under this mechanism? Progressive means a domino effect [you see why defining terms is critical here], a shunting mechanism, one into the other. Pancake, in all but name, and without the pancakes. Each floor descends from rest. Each therefore offers inertial resistance to acceleration. 110 floors, each beginning at rest, falling due to the weight above them, would take about 100 s [from memory, I may or may not be prepared to check my notes and show how this calculation is arrived at depending on the behaviour of the class].
Now let us be generous here. Let us say that most floors, by some mysterious process we have not yet figured out, vanished into thin air (fact is stranger than fiction, we may see later...) and we are left with just one in ten floors. 9 floors offer no resistance, but just 1 in every 10 begin descent from rest. Even then, around 27 s would be required for the fall [can show but won't waste time if people are silly].
What they (NIST) need is a miracle. They need each floor to begin its descent BEFORE any impact from the floors above. Only then may collapse times be anything like 10 s. In other words, free fall under gravity. A process of "inward buckling" gives greater resistance to acceleration and causes a backlog of material to pummel through. Remember, uniform acceleration, collapse like a bowling ball falling through the air, means increasing velocity all the way down.
"Collapse" means to fall downwards. The material was ejected upwards and outwards. It took a lot longer for material to fall, because once the material turned to dust, air resistance cannot be ignored. Ipso facto there was no collapse. Hence no progressive collapse, as proven already above.
End of part 1.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Fair enough.Firstly it is acknowledged by NIST that the average time of descent of wtc 1 and 2 was 10 s (9 and 11 seconds each).[Above it was claimed that "youtube videos" show it to be more like 20 s. I said fair enough let us say 20 s for the sake of argument to get some agreement to move on. 20 s is still impossible for the mechanism that NIST claim].So we have a near free-f
That was all very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to share all of that. Looking forward to reading what others have to say about your post.
I mean, it's a bit farcical on its face. Billy assumes that each floor accelerates from rest at 9.8ms^-2 (acceleration due to gravity). But obviously it accelerates much faster than that, it has the momentum of all the floors that fell on it acting on it as well. As someone else said earlier in the thread, when a car hits you at 60mph you don't take the same amount of time to accelerate to 60mph as the car did, you get there almost instantly. Each floor should offer progressively less resistance than the one before it.
Show your work for the 100s/"generous" 27s figure, Billy. Be sure to very explicitly list all your assumptions. That's your key point and you've shown no work whatsoever. Much like with all your other claims, all we've got to go on here is "trust me bro".
Also, the scientific community seems to be in violent disagreement with you that a theory can't be supported by observations. But you're probably right and they're wrong.
Who cares what the "scientific community" think.
If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.
Presupposing there is an experiment at all to begin with. Without an experiment it is not even testable, not right nor wrong, in some superposition of meaningless.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
