[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
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
Who do you think comes up with these rules about experiments that you love quoting? Santa Claus?
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 a
You can do a quick mental estimate right now and you will see that is the case.
You do not have momentum available. There was nothing left at the bottom besides dust. You are standing in the road being hit by wafts of icing sugar.
Each floor cannot offer progressively less resistance. In perfect circumstances it offers the same resistance. In reality (or unreality we may say) under NIST's fantastic inward buckling scenario, there accumulates more and more material to pummel through, greater progressive resistance.
I say again, floors have to collapse BEFORE collision. You need to get knocked over prior to the car hitting you. Fall rate cannot exceed g (regardless of Gorgo's suggestion it might somehow break the law of freefall).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Who do you think comes up with these rules about experiments that you love quoting? Santa Claus? And who said anything about disagreeing with experiment? You just made that **** up out of thin air. The discussion was about whether observations can be used as supporting evidence for theories. What experiment does the law of universal gravitation disagree with?
Galileo, Francis Bacon et al. Oh and santa.
The quote about disagreeing with experiment is from Richard Feynman.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You can do a quick mental estimate right now and you will see that is the case.Each floor cannot offer progressively less resistance. In perfect circumstances it offers the same resistance. In reality (or unreality we may say) under NIST's fantastic inward buckling scenario, there accumulates more and more material to pummel through, greater progressive resistance. I say again,
You think a floor that has 100 floors collapsing on top of it offers the same resistance as a floor that has 1 floor collapsing on top of it? Hmm, I think we might have started working towards finding a minor flaw in your assumptions here. Either that, or you have your own theory of terrestrial momentum and terrestrial kinetic energy you forgot to tell us about. Do you suffer the same effect from getting hit by a tennis ball travelling at 60mph as a car travelling at 60mph on your planet?
Anyway, I see lots of words and zero working. Show your work.
You do not have momentum available. There was nothing left at the bottom besides dust. You are standing in the road being hit by wafts of icing sugar
Only if one of your a priori assumptions is that the building was pulverised to dust by the space lasers. Otherwise, there is plenty of mass, you know, all that stuff collapsing. If we're to believe Deuces, there were rivers of molten steel at the very least.
Galileo, Francis Bacon et al. Oh and santa.
The quote about disagreeing with experiment is from Richard Feynman.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, let's assume for a second that they are not "the scientific community". You think something someone said centuries years ago should stand forever, never being revised for any reason whatsoever? The people you named are pre-Enlightenment for ****'s sake. Good lord you're a clown.
You think a floor that has 100 floors collapsing on top of it offers the same resistance as a floor that has 1 floor collapsing on top of it? Hmm, I think we might have started working towards finding a minor flaw in your assumptions here. Either that, or you have your own theory of terrestrial momentum and terrestrial kinetic energy you forgot to tell us about. Do you suffer t
Yes, the resistance is the same. The resultant force is not the same. But let's run with this. What do you think will be the rate of acceleration of the 109th floor? 108th? Etc? Bearing in mind you need the entire system to fall at a rate approaching free fall.
The same mass is falling but once it becomes dust it is no longer modelled as free falling under gravity. Remember, your story requires that the whole thing freely falls, with practically no resistance, at a rate of g.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, let's assume for a second that they are not "the scientific community". You think something someone said centuries years ago should stand forever, never being revised for any reason whatsoever? The people you named are pre-Enlightenment for ****'s sake. Good lord you're a clown.
Well Feynman was around in the 60s.
Yes they have been corrected. The scientific method is more narrow and well defined than when Bacon developed it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You think a floor that has 100 floors collapsing on top of it offers the same resistance as a floor that has 1 floor collapsing on top of it? Hmm, I think we might have started working towards finding a minor flaw in your assumptions here. Either that, or you have your own theory of terrestrial momentum and terrestrial kinetic energy you forgot to tell us about. Do you suffer t
I cannot speak of molten steel. As i recall this was not present. There was plenty of other strangeness however.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, the resistance is the same. The resultant force is not the same. But let's run with this. What do you think will be the rate of acceleration of the 109th floor? 108th? Etc? Bearing in mind you need the entire system to fall at a rate approaching free fall.The same mass is falling but once it becomes dust it is no longer modelled as free falling under gravity. Remember, you
If the floors offer no resistance, the entire system collapses in the time it takes the top floor to drop. Obviously the floors offer some resistance, I do not know how much. Show me your working so I can see your assumptions about how much resistance they offer.
What becomes dust? Are you saying that because there were some plumes of dust, that "the whole thing" necessarily became dust? Why can't we have some dust and the rest be steel and concrete falling?
I do not believe you that there was very little rubble. I've certainly seen photos and videos with plenty of rubble. What is your proof of the claim that there was "very little" rubble, and how much should there have been?
Well Feynman was around in the 60s.
Yes they have been corrected. The scientific method is more narrow and well defined than when Bacon developed it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Why are we talking about theory disagreeing with experiment when you have made no claim of any experiment that has disagreed with theory? Your claim, in case you forgot, is that observations do not count to support a theory, and it has to be verified by experiment. Is it now your claim that universal gravitation disagrees with experiment?
So the scientific method is now more narrow and well defined, by the scientific community, and they seem to agree that observations count, except you don't care what they think. Can you even make up your mind what the **** it is you're claiming?
Sounds like Billy Boy here saw some dust plumes, concluded "space lasers", saw some CNN footage with "not enough rubble", confirmed "space lasers" by thinking about it, then did some back of the napkin calculations for how long it would take each floor to fall from a standing start acting under gravity alone (because space lasers turned everything to dust ldo), added the times together, and concluded that the NIST version of events was impossible. That sound about right, William?
Only question is whether they were Jewish space lasers or alien space lasers. Unless you believe in Jewish aliens, possibly.
If the floors offer no resistance, the entire system collapses in the time it takes the top floor to drop. Obviously the floors offer some resistance, I do not know how much. Show me your working so I can see your assumptions about how much resistance they offer.What becomes dust? Are you saying that because there were some plumes of dust, that "the whole thing" necessarily bec
So it is "obvious" the time of descent (either exactly that predicted by freefall (9 s) or slightly longer (11 s) is impossible. If just one in every ten floors resists collapse then this would take 27 s (from memory) and that is giving complete freefall collapse to the rest of it, as if there was nothing there. Ironically this was close to the truth.
There was not enough concrete and steel remaining. Some yes, but mostly dust. You may need to look again at the evidence. If i have time/inclination i will post here. And give calcs.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So it is "obvious" the time of descent (either exactly that predicted by freefall (9 s) or slightly longer (11 s) is impossible. If just one in every ten floors resists collapse then this would take 27 s (from memory) and that is giving complete freefall collapse to the rest of it, as if there was nothing there. Ironically this was close to the truth.There was not enough concre
Gonna need to see that working and the other evidence bro, otherwise you're just pulling numbers and other claims out of your ass and claiming them as fact. What was it that took 2 months to clean up then, dust?
Maybe when you have the time and inclination you can explain your terrestrial gravity experiment too, that seems to have gone by the wayside.
Why are we talking about theory disagreeing with experiment when you have made no claim of any experiment that has disagreed with theory? Your claim, in case you forgot, is that observations do not count to support a theory, and it has to be verified by experiment. Is it now your claim that universal gravitation disagrees with experiment?So the scientific method is now more nar
There is no experiment to test inv sq law. That is derived from kepler's laws derived from Brahe's observations. Brahe the geocentrist whose model did not work, but has been corrected by Simon Shack's Tychos system. The same data "proving" Newton's law of gravitation also "proves" the geocentric Tychos system that has the sun, a much more massive body, orbiting the Earth.
"The scientific community" and its opinion means nothing in the end. Experiment is the final arbiter in physics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There is no experiment to test inv sq law. That is derived from kepler's laws derived from Brahe's observations. Brahe the geocentrist whose model did not work, but has been corrected by Simon Shack's Tychos system. The same data "proving" Newton's law of gravitation also "proves" the geocentric Tychos system that has the sun, a much more massive body, orbiting the Earth."The s
So, you're not claiming that universal gravitation disagrees with experiment, and so your Feynman quote was totally irrelevant. Glad we got that cleared up.
Sounds like Billy Boy here saw some dust plumes, concluded "space lasers", saw some CNN footage with "not enough rubble", confirmed "space lasers" by thinking about it, then did some back of the napkin calculations for how long it would take each floor to fall from a standing start acting under gravity alone (because space lasers turned everything to dust ldo), added the times
Impressing your friends again. Naughty corner.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The same data "proving" Newton's law of gravitation also "proves" the geocentric Tychos system that has the sun, a much more massive body, orbiting the Earth.
Handy we have other data then really, isn't it? It's almost like universal gravitation is not the only theory to exist in all of physics.
And yes, relative to the earth, the sun does in fact orbit the earth. It's just that this is not a particularly useful frame of reference, since there are also other objects in the night sky. If the whole universe consisted of just the sun and the earth, you could quite happily use either frame of reference though, it makes no difference which object is more massive in a binary system, the resulting trajectory of each object is the same, just in different reference frames.
Exhibit A.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
