Peanut gallery: The WTC 1,2,7 collapsed from impact damage and fires

[chipmunk stew]

This is the peanut gallery for TruthSeeker's overhyped debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1962576#post1962576).

Have fun!

[Metullus]

The tension is unbearable!

[bob_kark]

Need popcorn.

[Oliver]

Shhhhhht....take mine... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d36e0a.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gifhttp://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d3a4b7.gif

[Hellbound]

I believe what we have here is a classic example of silencius reversicum, more commonly known as the "Silent Running" cricket. It's called this because of it's unique behavior used to avoid predators. It challeneges the predator, feints to draw the predator in a particular direction, then swiftly and silently runs in the opposite direction, leaving the predator there alone while returning to its home. Upon its return, it often engages in various display behaviors intended to highlight its aggressiveness and dominance. This often draws it the attraction of females of the species...

[Oliver]

Reminds me to the Titanic-Movie - even if the thread sinks much faster...

[TK0001]

Hmmm....maybe he figures if he never posts, he never has to shell out the extra $900.

You did, of course, receive $100 just for starting that thread, right chip?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Shall we agree not to engage him in any other thread until he takes part in this one?

[Horatius]

Well, let us know if you ever get paid. There's a bet riding on this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64596).

[Skibum]

I have a prediction.....


Much thread bumping to keep the debate thread on the first page.

[chipmunk stew]

I have a prediction.....


Much thread bumping to keep the debate thread on the first page.
We can just bump this thread if necessary, with a link to the other, like so:

bump
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1962576#post1962576

[Oliver]

I have a prediction.....


Much thread bumping to keep the debate thread on the first page.

We will send James Cameron to search for it if it sinks to the ground... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gif

[Metullus]

Cheetos, anyone?

[LashL]

Ched-a-Corn anyone?

Particularly good for peanut gallery viewing. I'll bring extra napkins, though, as the extra cheesy goodness does tend to stick to one's fingers.


Edit to add link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1962576#post1962576

Come on, Troofseeker... it's your turn. What are you waiting for?

[CurtC]

I'm going to the kitchen - hope I don't miss anything. Anyone like a bag of Circus Peanuts (http://www.bad-candy.com/candies/circuspeanuts/)?

[Stellafane]

Gee, I'm not even supposed to be in this thread, am I? I'm supposed to be in the main event itself (assuming, of couse, there ever really is one). Ah well, such is the fickle nature of fame -- one day you're TS's Golden Girl, the next day you're not even female...

[stateofgrace]

Can we place bets?

[defaultdotxbe]

Can we place bets?
mackey should set up a casino thread, lol

im surprised he didnt take the debate, would have been a good balance to his "will TS pay up" bet

mackey takes the debate, TS pays him, mackey loses his own bet but pays it off with TS's money, lol

[LashL]

I'm going to the kitchen - hope I don't miss anything. Anyone like a bag of Circus Peanuts (http://www.bad-candy.com/candies/circuspeanuts/)?

Somehow those Circus Peanuts remind me of packing peanuts like these (minus the kitten):

http://k43.pbase.com/u18/lmcintyre62/upload/36080042.C4527.jpg

[Oliver]

We will never see him again ... I guess. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gif

[R.Mackey]

mackey should set up a casino thread, lol

im surprised he didnt take the debate, would have been a good balance to his "will TS pay up" bet

mackey takes the debate, TS pays him, mackey loses his own bet but pays it off with TS's money, lol

No offense, but with strategy like that, don't ever challenge me to a game of Monopoly. ;)

Nah, I just wanted to egg the guy on. I couldn't really do that while maintaining, as I do, that debating him would be like challenging a two-year-old to arm wrestle...

[bob_kark]

Well, at least the tumbleweed are getting a good workout.

[Oliver]

Iiiiiiiiiiiiiieeek *cough* - i mean ... There he comes!... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gif

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1962576#post1962576

[WildCat]

No doubt he's carefully composing a point-by-point rebuttal of the NIST reports even as I write this. His response is going to result in Bush and Cheney being led away in handcuffs. This is the turning point in the troof movement.

[jhunter1163]

How about a couple stanzas of the LIHOP/MIHOP song while we wait? Whether it's LIHOP.. or whether it's MIHOP...

[WildCat]

How about a couple stanzas of the LIHOP/MIHOP song while we wait? Whether it's LIHOP.. or whether it's MIHOP...
♫♪♫♫We've got to get together and make this war stop♪♪♫♪...

[Oliver]

Gone...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451da7e781cb2.gif

[Oliver]

shhhhhhhhhhhhht....he´s back http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gif

[R.Mackey]

♫♪♫♫We've got to get together and make this war stop♪♪♫♪...

Well it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for...
Don't ask me I don't give a damn...

[qarnos]

Gone...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451da7e781cb2.gif

Still here according to me.

Perhaps he's busy reading the NIST report?

[Dog Town]

How about a couple stanzas of the LIHOP/MIHOP song while we wait? Whether it's LIHOP.. or whether it's MIHOP...

You EVIL F'ing Basss Tard, or tardess. I hate that song.....
BTW WTGo Gravy, kick that yahoo's buttocks! Everyone else, as you were!
One more... Any one else think the TS moniker seems too creepy? Chix w/?!!

ETA: Nice Country Joe, there RM!

[defaultdotxbe]

Still here according to me.

Perhaps he's busy reading the NIST report?
i look forward to reading his point-by-point rebuttal

[Oliver]

C´MON! SAY SOMTHIN, TS!

Sorry, everytime i see him - he drives me nuts http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gif

[jhunter1163]

Sorry, Dog. And it's tard.

[Bell]

i look forward to reading his point-by-point rebuttal

Quite easy to do. NIST did not include atomic bombs and volcanos in it's report. Therefor their calculations use the wrong set of data.

[stateofgrace]

i look forward to reading his point-by-point rebuttal

Here it is already................

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Undoubtably, plenty of evidence for the inside job will be presented in my destruction of the official story.



:dl:

[Horatius]

Can we place bets?

Hey, you had your chance!





By the time this is over, $100 is going to be worth very little.....

[qarnos]

In the challenge thread:

Let's see. A guy links the NIST homepage.

I link the Scholars for 9/11 truth homepage.

What kind of debate is that? That would be very stupid. I want someone who can explain the NIST report to curious laypeople. That is your challenge. Put it in your own words, cite your sources, and spell it out for the audience. Most people don't even know what the official story is, except that Suicidal hijackers did it with jet crashes and fires.

;)

[LashL]

He'll never do it.

He's all talk and no knowledge, no facts, no evidence, no expertise, no education, no debate skills, no critical thinking skills.

Just another tinhatter who buys into conspiranoid theories because, because, because..um, because some other whacko tinhatters told him so.

[Oliver]

offline... http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451db56d36f14.gif

[Bell]

:words:

In the meantime, I'll have a beer.

[T.A.M.]

Bell, I thought you didn't drink (offered Gravy a bar did you not)...lol

TAM

[Gravy]

Well it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for...
Don't ask me I don't give a damn...
...Next stop is TS spam...

[Bell]

Bell, I thought you didn't drink (offered Gravy a bar did you not)...lol

TAM

lol

Yeah, but I'm sure Gravy then gives me free beer whenever I visit his bar. You would do that? Gravy? Buddy?

[Brainache]

...Next stop is TS spam...

And it's five six seven
open up this sham debate...

[Dog Town]

Next stop is TS spam...

Nothing more annoying than bad porn!

[LashL]

And it's five six seven
open up this sham debate...

We've had lots of time to realize why

This non-debate is gonna die







(before it's even born, because TS is a liar and a fraud) but that didn't fit into the song.

[defaultdotxbe]

one two three four
insert a word that rhymes with four


...i suck at this :(

[Dog Town]

This non-debate is gonna die

I still think" The WOOOO-pees are all gonna vie..., or die", works there!

[Abbyas]

one two three four
insert a word that rhymes with four


...i suck at this

And it's one, two, e, pi
it's time that we, um... OH WHETHER IT'S LIHOP!

[Dog Town]

OH WHETHER IT'S LIHOP!

Nooooo.....I just got rid of it!!! You....

[Gravy]

lol

Yeah, but I'm sure Gravy then gives me free beer whenever I visit his bar. You would do that? Gravy? Buddy?
You shall have a dedicated stool, tap and gold-plated, engraved urinal, sir!

What shall we call this establishment?

[defaultdotxbe]

What shall we call this establishment?
The Dojo (where all the ninjas hang out)

[T.A.M.]

"Dojo of Truth"

TAM

[Brainache]

"Gravy Train"

You could have a bistro where food goes around on a little train and people take their selection as it passes by like at Sushi Train.

"Unmarked Gravy"
They never laid a glove on him.

[Gravy]

This thread could go to a hundred pages while we wait for LieReeker to start the debate, so I'll try to make some use of it.

There's a chill in the air in New York, which means it's nearly time for the First Annual SmaccoTM Awards, sponsored by HeadOn. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_SwD7RveNE)

First, though we need award categories. Once those are established, I'll take nominations for each category, and then we'll all vote.

So, I propose the first category. Please submit yours, and be imaginative.

1) Least Scholarly Scholars for Truth Paper.

[Abbyas]

2) Most dishonorable statement about victims made in a movement based on victim honoring.

[CptColumbo]

3. Most creative use of an acronym.

[Loss Leader]

First, though we need award categories. Once those are established, I'll take nominations for each category, and then we'll all vote.

Best veiled anti-semitic remark in a conspirace theory.

Shortest time from the start of a thread on the 9/11 conspiracy before mention of the World Bank.

[Kevin_Lowe]

5) Most Ridiculous Conspiracy Theory Plot Element

[WildCat]

Chipmunk has offered nothing whatsoever in support of his proposition. In the above post appears no evidence, no logic, indeed no indication that Chip has any idea what is being debated.

He has provided a single link to the NIST homepage.

This does not merit any further response. Is this the best that JREF members can do?
How about you find one flaw in the NIST analysis and go from there? Surely a genius such as yourself can expose that pack of voodoo science...

[Triterope]

6) Most Shameless Self-Promotion in a Project Intended To Honor The Victims of 9/11

7) Mined Quote Altered Most From Its Original Meaning

[CptColumbo]

How about you find one flaw in the NIST analysis and go from there? Surely a genius such as yourself can expose that pack of voodoo science...
So using a report filled with research and facts is too much for poor TS? Once again someone accepted his challenge and once again, unable to formulate a response to facts, he not only moves the goal posts, he also takes his ball and runs home.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I call that ceding defeat, Wildcat.

BSer666 was given a scientific paper written by dozens of scientists and engineers and refused to respond.

The game's over, Chipmunk won.

[dirtywick]

Well that's pretty anti-climatic. Not surprising though.

[Gravy]

Chipmunk has offered nothing whatsoever in support of his proposition. In the above post appears no evidence, no logic, indeed no indication that Chip has any idea what is being debated.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1963377&postcount=2
My ironometer peggeth over!

:id: :bigclap

I took the mofo off "Ignore" for THAT?

[Z]

That... was pathetic.

He didn't even attempt to debate anything.

Poor, sad, sorry Seeker...

[Alareth]

That was more of a response than I expected from him...

[uruk]

I guess he was dissapointed that couldn't find a way to a buck off of that short debate.

[Blue Mountain]

I hesitantly suggest TS1234 has a point.

He complained all Chipmunk posted in defense of the resolution was a link to NIST's homepage. Of course, we all know the real reference is to the NIST report, but should not that link have been to the report itself, in either HTML or PDF format?

Were that the case, one could really make the argument TS1234 is unwilling to debate the facts. Right now he's stepping out on a technicality, one that unfortunately was provided for him.

[twinstead]

I hesitantly suggest TS1234 has a point.

He complained all Chipmunk posted in defense of the resolution was a link to NIST's homepage. Of course, we all know the real reference is to the NIST report, but should not that link have been to the report itself, in either HTML or PDF format?

Were that the case, one could really make the argument TS1234 is unwilling to debate the facts. Right now he's stepping out on a technicality, one that unfortunately was provided for him.

Perhaps, but TS is every bit as guilty as anybody else of it. Anybody truly interested in finding the truth would NOT have done that.

[defaultdotxbe]

http://xbehome.com/screwloosechange/pictures/nist.pdf

for ease of download i stripped out all but the relevent "findings" chapter

[Gravy]

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce, in this corner, wearing villainous black, TruthSeeker1234.

And in this corner, wearing a marmalade pantsuit, any JREF member!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2wyhgP0FVo
(have computer volume on)

[NobbyNobbs]

Let's see. A guy links the NIST homepage.

I link the Scholars for 9/11 truth homepage.

What kind of debate is that? That would be very stupid. I want someone who can explain the NIST report to curious laypeople. That is your challenge. Put it in your own words, cite your sources, and spell it out for the audience. Most people don't even know what the official story is, except that Suicidal hijackers did it with jet crashes and fires.

Oh, man, even I can do this. Ready? Here goes...


The planes hit the buildings. The buildings fell down.


How'd I do?

[DarkMagician]

Apparently, BS5678 now wants pictures...

...and once again, Reality nails Satire with a one-two punch.

[Pythra]

If you want to debate a CTer, you have to speak their language.

1. Find a suitably blurry, pixelated video capture of the towers collapsing.
2. Hapahazardously scribble circles and arrows all over it with MSPaint.
3. Post it on the internet. No need to explain exactly what it's supposed to prove. The best caption is probably "This picture speaks for itself!"

[Oliver]

Chipmunk has offered nothing whatsoever in support of his proposition. In the above post appears no evidence, no logic, indeed no indication that Chip has any idea what is being debated.

He has provided a single link to the NIST homepage, which he himself appears to distance himself from, as he does not purport to represent the "official theory", whatever that may mean to Chipmunk. We have therefore a short list of what is NOT present, yet no indication that Chipmunk has any explanation whatsoever for the "collpases" on 9/11.

Given the complete lack of evidence, the lack of reasoning, the lack of any cited facts of any kind, the lack of any picture data, the lack of eyewitness testimony, there is nothing. Chip has utterly failed to even show up for, much less advance his argument.

If you went on TV Chip, and stood there and said, "The government studied it, go read the report", how persuavive do you think that would be to the audience?

This does not merit any further response. Is this the best that JREF members can do?



Is he whining? http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107451d849d38964.gif

:D

[Bell]

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce, in this corner, wearing villainous black, TruthSeeker1234.

And in this corner, wearing a marmalade pantsuit, any JREF member!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2wyhgP0FVo
(have computer volume on)

Poor kitten. Poor poor kitten :(

[G-K-4]

As usual, I'm late to the party. But anyway, here are two contributions.

1.) My suggestion for an award category:
"Best Instrumental Background Music Unrelated to Documentary Content"

and 2.) Here's another little bit of a tune to help keep out those annoying CT Ohrvurms:

Coup-coup-ka-choo, Mr. Chipmunk Stew,
JREF loves you more than you will know.
Ed bless you, please, Mr. Chipmunk Stew.
Ninjas hold a place for those who slay,
Hey, hey, hey

Reading through the websites on a Sunday afternoon.
Waiting for a nine-one-one debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Every way you look at this you lose.

[Stellafane]

I just read TS's response in the debate thread. Now his excuse is that he doesn't like Chipmunk's opening salvo?

Does this person have no shame or self respect at all?

TS, you're a lying, gutless coward. Prove me wrong or stop posting your crap.

[Horatius]

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce, in this corner, wearing villainous black, TruthSeeker1234.

And in this corner, wearing a marmalade pantsuit, any JREF member!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2wyhgP0FVo
(have computer volume on)

Actaully, I think we're more like these two (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6X5DPYX80Y&NR). So long waiting for a good cat-vs-lizard fight, we get bored and start playing with each other (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWZ59jWzmUY&mode=related&search=).

[jhunter1163]

Here's my contribution in the CT-lyrics vein.

(tune of Elton John's "Empty Garden"

What happened here?
As the New York sunset disappears
I see an empty skyline
Where the twin towers were

Who did this?
They say it was Bin Laden, yeah, but I think not
Never mind their tears, think up a good plot
I'll blame the CIA
It's funny how those buildings... collapsed.. so damn straight

And what's it for
I'll make a DVD and get on Channel 4
I sell this crap out on the sidewalk
No one looks no more

Who did this?
They say it was Bin Laden, yeah, but I think not
Never mind their tears, think up a good plot
And they'll be so amazed
I'll dazzle them with science
And quotes from witnesses
That I'll just rephrase

(chorus)

And I've been asking
But no one answers
And I've been asking
Was there a plane?
And I've been calling
Oh, hey, hey Dylan
Can you come out to play?

And through their tears
The Jersey Girls say that they've been gagged for years
But Gravy says that that's all nonsense
If only he was here

Who did this?
They say it was Bin Laden but I think not
Never mind their tears, think up a good plot
And now I'm on my way
And with every stop I call
And plug... and plug Loose Change

(chorus)

And I've been asking
But no one answers
And I've been asking
Was there a plane?
And I've been calling
Oh, hey, hey Dylan
Can't you come out to play?

And I've been asking
But no one answers
And I've been asking
Was there a plane?
And I've been calling
Oh, hey, hey Dylan
Can't you come out?
Can't you come out to play?
Dylan?
Can't you come out to play from your little trailer?
Dylan?
Can't you come out to play from your little trailer?

(repeat and fade)

[Mr. Skinny]

Well it's one, two, three, what are we fighting for...
Don't ask me I don't give a damn...
How about this one ....

Amerika


Let us be Loosers we’ll marry our theories together

I’ve got some wild ideas here in my bag

So we bought a pack of Killtown’s bull and Alex Jone’s lies
And walked off to look for Amerika

Dylan, I said as we boarded a Greyhound in Pittsburgh
NIST report seems like a dream to me now
It took me four days to dream up alternatives
I’ve gone to look for Amerika

Laughing on the bus
Making fun of the victims
He said the man in the gabardine suit was a spy
I said be careful, his bowtie is really a camera

Toss me a doobie, man, I think there’s one in my raincoat
We smoked the last one an hour ago
So I looked at the scenery, he read his comic book
And we soon came up with conspiracy!

Dylan, I’m lost, I said though I knew he was sleeping
I’m empty and aching and I don’t know why
Counting the crap for the new Loose Change website

We’ve all gone to look for Amerika
All gone to look for Amerika
All gone to look for Amerika.



ETA: not sure why the format on the first few lines is messed up, and why this note is in italics???

[tsig]

6) Most Shameless Self-Promotion in a Project Intended To Honor The Victims of 9/11

7) Mined Quote Altered Most From Its Original Meaning

In category #6 I nominate BS549 and Dylan A. et al.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No one has accepted the challenge as yet. Anyone interested in accepting the challenge and presenting a coherent positive case for the proposition should email me and work out the details. Though a large project, I am eager to get started and the money is waiting. It will be money well spent on my part.

Triterope is thusfar the only one who appears serious, and he and I have begun an email dialog to answer each others questions and concerns. Thus far, no deal has been reached with him, and all are still invited to inquire.

You must be willing and able to, in your own words, write an essay that puts forth the positive case that impact damage and fires caused the 9/11 building disasters. It should be at least 10-20 pages, I would think.

questioning911@yahoo.com

[tsig]

No one has accepted the challenge as yet. Anyone interested in accepting the challenge and presenting a coherent positive case for the proposition should email me and work out the details. Though a large project, I am eager to get started and the money is waiting. It will be money well spent on my part.

Triterope is thusfar the only one who appears serious, and he and I have begun an email dialog to answer each others questions and concerns. Thus far, no deal has been reached with him, and all are still invited to inquire.

You must be willing and able to, in your own words, write an essay that puts forth the positive case that impact damage and fires caused the 9/11 building disasters. It should be at least 10-20 pages, I would think.

questioning911@yahoo.com

Still trying to make blood into ink are we?

Can you write anything in your own words or will you forever parrot your leaders?

[Stellafane]

No one has accepted the challenge as yet...

You are a bald-faced liar. I accepted your challenge, you changed it to some book writing exercise. Do you think we're all too stupid to remember this? Maybe that kind of revisionist crap flies among your socially arrested, mentally challenged twoofer crowd, but it sure doesn't work here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You are a lying coward.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Now now, no need for harsh words. I will clarify the offer. Give me a day and I will begin a new thread with the challenge detailed so that everyone can see the parameters.

I have not changed anything, in my mind the positive case would always need to be at least 10-20 pages. I did not illucidate that out however. I should have spent more time clarifying the offer to begin with. The offer is reasonable, I will clarify it, and all including Stellafane are free to accept the challenge.

The idea is to begin with the positive case spelled out. All your attempts to switch this to the opposite debate will not succeed. This is a debate about the official theory, not about alternative theories.

Your attempts to take my money without doing the work will also not succeed. Make no mistake, this will require effort. Any worthy challenge does. People who do not feel competent to discuss the matter in their own words are not qualified.

[Gravy]

Now now, no need for harsh words. I will clarify the offer. Give me a day and I will begin a new thread
Please don't do that. You've spread your rudeness and ignorance all over this forum. Try to limit your idiotic "challenge" to the existing threads. I know it's hard, but try.

[Gravy]

People who do not feel competent to discuss the matter in their own words are not qualified.
So who will be debating your side of the issue? I think it's only fair that the opponents know that.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

[Horatius]

Now now, no need for harsh words. I will clarify the offer. Give me a day and I will begin a new thread with the challenge detailed so that everyone can see the parameters.

Isn't that what you already did (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64540)? And since you already said Arkan's rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64465) were acceptable, what more details do you need? Just accept the offers of any (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1945625#post1945625) of the people (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1946052#post1946052) who've already (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1946281#post1946281) agreed to the debate and get on with it!



Not to mention a few other honest offers (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1946132#post1946132).....

[Gravy]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"
Please refer to my challenge to you, which was to answer a simple question, one I've asked you several times. I said I would need an answer to the question in order to determine if you were worth debating. Your silence spoke volumes.

[Pythra]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

Actually I suspect they are wondering, "Why has TS1234 has been posting and posturing on these forums for a full month without presenting a single shred of evidence to support his theory?"

Maybe it's because this is the most attention you have ever received in your life, and you can't stand the thought of it ending after a remotely conclusive 'debate'. You want to be on TV, you want to write a book, you want an honourable mention in the credits of Loose Change. You want Ctists everywhere to look upon you with admiration. "Look at TruthSeeker1234, wiping the floor with the JREFers. Look how they cower at his challenge!" This is what goes through your head as you construct your posts. Evidence? Who cares. This isn't about the truth or science. This is about being a hero.

Everyone, on your knees for Captain TruthSeeker! Hero of the internet! (http://img193.exs.cx/img193/9627/dontworry2cu.jpg)

[Z]

Isn't it obvious what he wants?

The clues are all there: he wants someone to put the NIST report into layman's terms (easy accessibility for the masses), and THEN he wants to be allowed the last say so he can try to twist everything and create strawmen and basically demonstrate his ignorance of all things architectual, chemical, and structural. He's offering payment for services rendered, and seeking retention rights to the produced material.

He's scheming to get someone to write half of a book, so he can earn some bucks.

Suggestion: he should simply be ignored by the membership, and possibly suspended by the moderators.

[Loss Leader]

As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

Your suspicions are, once again, unfounded. As a board member with no technical background whatsoever, I do not believe either that Gravy or Mackey are afraid to debate you nor do I wonder why.

In fact, BS1234, your entire internal suspicion-meter seems to be utterly broken. You suspect far too much of far too many people far too often. I suggest you turn to someone with technical understanding of these internal issues for some much needed repairs. Such technicians are popularly called psychiatrists and they have a variety of curative measures (http://ca.mcodrugs.com/cat_drug.asp?category=Drugs+for+the+Nervous+System&subcategory=Drugs+for+Psychosis&sortby=Brand) that you may well need in bulk.

[R.Mackey]

As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

:p Interesting hypothesis...

If there is a single JREF member, regardless of your personal technical proficiency, who is asking this question, please feel free to speak up or PM me. I'll be glad to clarify.

However, I give the readers here more credit, and suspect you're completely wrong (as usual) and there isn't a single one. But we shall see.

[milesalpha]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

I certainly am a technically challenged lurker (don't really think of myself as a JREFer, I frequent/lurk/post in a lot of diverse forums, I will admit to great admiration for Randi and being a longtime reader of Skeptic). I am supposing this makes me qualified to answer your question.

It never once occured to me that Gravy or Mackey might be afraid. Having read the threads involving your debate "style", I rather think they concluded it is a complete waste of time. I have never really seen you offer a substantial argument in any thread. You rely on extremely weak documentary evidence and ignore the significant weight (and quality) of opposing evidence. Moreover, you also rely heavily on googled photographic evidence which I consider to be generally worthless unless combined with corroborating documentary evidence. You do not confront opposing evidence head on, instead offering the usual array of excuses or simply avoiding the thread.


There's your answer, I don't often post in these threads, other than with a little bit of humour, I am science-challenged after all. On the other hand, I am not history-challenged, so I have been in and moderated a number of debates in the field (including getting the **** kicked out of me in 1974, after arguing the pro-evolution side in a junior high debate...oh those Christians), so I do have a touch of experience there.

[Skibum]

If there is a single JREF member, regardless of your personal technical proficiency, who is asking this question, please feel free to speak up or PM me. I'll be glad to clarify.

Actually I was wondering what TS was afraid of. The man can't even answer simple questions posed to him. Must have learned a lot from Alex Jones.

[Lisa Simpson]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

Uh no...that's not what I was thinking.

Lisa Simpson--technically challenged skepchick

[stateofgrace]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

:dl:

[LashL]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"

What a self-deluded and egomaniacal piece of tripe.

I am quite sure that it is obvious to everyone who has seen your tedious and uneducated posts all over this forum that nobody is "afraid" to debate you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What a self-deluded and egomaniacal piece of tripe.

I am quite sure that it is obvious to everyone who has seen your tedious and uneducated posts all over this forum that nobody is "afraid" to debate you.

HEY! Tripe is a perfectly tasty dish, if a bit chewy. Don't be knockin' it be comparing it to BSer0001

[rwguinn]

Actually I suspect they are wondering, "Why has TS1234 has been posting and posturing on these forums for a full month without presenting a single shred of evidence to support his theory?"

Maybe it's because this is the most attention you have ever received in your life, and you can't stand the thought of it ending after a remotely conclusive 'debate'. You want to be on TV, you want to write a book, you want an honourable mention in the credits of Loose Change. You want Ctists everywhere to look upon you with admiration. "Look at TruthSeeker1234, wiping the floor with the JREFers. Look how they cower at his challenge!" This is what goes through your head as you construct your posts. Evidence? Who cares. This isn't about the truth or science. This is about being a hero.

Everyone, on your knees for Captain TruthSeeker! Hero of the internet! (http://img193.exs.cx/img193/9627/dontworry2cu.jpg)

OHMYgod!
SFB1234 is the Terrel Owens of the LC world!

[chran]

[...] I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?" Not so much, no ...

[DarkMagician]

...As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate disillusioned by this guy?"Fixed!

[jhunter1163]

Hell, I'M not afraid to debate TS1234, so I don't see why Gravy or Mackey would be. I won't take up the challenge because I don't have the time or inclination to do so. I could make a thoroughly convincing debunk of the entire CT case just by surfing this forum and picking up the crumbs Gravy, R. Mackey, Arkan, Gumboot and some others have left. But I have a job and outside interests and a wife and child at home who like to have my attention from time to time also.

So, TS, sorry, but you'll not get your half-a-book from me.

[Foolmewunz]

Now now, no need for harsh words. I will clarify the offer. Give me a day and I will begin a new thread with the challenge detailed so that everyone can see the parameters.

Well, okay, we'll give you a week! :D :D :D

[defaultdotxbe]

Well, okay, we'll give you a week! :D :D :D
he did make his clarification thread, then gravy made a clarification of the clarification

[Foolmewunz]

he did make his clarification thread, then gravy made a clarification of the clarification

(putting on his best Foghorn Leghorn voice)

It was a joke, son! The boys been suspended. Suspended, I say, son!

[defaultdotxbe]

(putting on his best Foghorn Leghorn voice)

It was a joke, son! The boys been suspended. Suspended, I say, son!
i think the joke will be on you, does anyone actually think hes coming back?

wheres mackey, he needs to put down some odds on this and start taking bets

[Foolmewunz]

i think the joke will be on you, does anyone actually think hes coming back?

wheres mackey, he needs to put down some odds on this and start taking bets

Frankly, I hope the little tosser does stay away. The non-debate was the final straw. I've been trying to nail him down since he arrived, and he's just run from everyone (I'm decidedly not putting myself in the league with Mackey, Gravy, Gumboot, et al), then reappear with the same questions that had already been trashed.

I wish I could wave him a hearty ta-ta, but I think he will be back. He is Attentionseeker1234.

[DavidJames]

He is Attentionseeker1234.He's also MoneySeeker1234. He's mentioned multiple times he didn't have a "real job". Like many of the other loosers, he's trying to earn a living as a CTist and wants to use this forum in his quest.

[Foolmewunz]

He's also MoneySeeker1234. He's mentioned multiple times he didn't have a "real job". Like many of the other loosers, he's trying to earn a living as a CTist and wants to use this forum in his quest.

But he also stated somewhere that he lives in the Sepulveda Pass area of LAX (smearing Mackey's profile comment about living in the armpit of L.A.), and has done quite well for his family. (I paraphrase....)

[bob_kark]

No one has accepted the challenge as yet. Anyone interested in accepting the challenge and presenting a coherent positive case for the proposition should email me and work out the details. Though a large project, I am eager to get started and the money is waiting. It will be money well spent on my part.

Triterope is thusfar the only one who appears serious, and he and I have begun an email dialog to answer each others questions and concerns. Thus far, no deal has been reached with him, and all are still invited to inquire.

You must be willing and able to, in your own words, write an essay that puts forth the positive case that impact damage and fires caused the 9/11 building disasters. It should be at least 10-20 pages, I would think.

questioning911@yahoo.com
Why not write a 10-20 page essay explaining why we should write you a 10-20 page essay summarizing NIST report? Or are you afraid to?

[bob_kark]

Gravy, for as much time as you've spent loudmouthing me, you could've instead written up the positive case, taken my money, and have the peanut gallery cheering you on. As it is, I suspect a lot of the more technically challenged JREFers are currently scratching their heads wondering, "Why are Mackey and Gravy so afraid to debate this guy?"
I'm actually wondering why they would want to waste the time required to write a 10-20 page essay summarizing the NIST report when there's no guarantee you'd pay them anyway. I also wonder why you're too lazy to simply read it yourself.

[Alareth]

I'm actually wondering why they would want to waste the time required to write a 10-20 page essay summarizing the NIST report when there's no guarantee you'd pay them anyway. I also wonder why you're too lazy to simply read it yourself.

Unfortunately because of his suspension we'll have to wait a week for him to officially avoid answering your question.

I predict that he will view the week off as wiping history and will start again as if none of his previous posting ever happened. I mean after a week we will have obviously forgotten everything.

[Bell]

Unfortunately because of his suspension we'll have to wait a week for him to officially avoid answering your question.

I predict that he will view the week off as wiping history and will start again as if none of his previous posting ever happened. I mean after a week we will have obviously forgotten everything.

We have to keep bumping all his threads, then. For us offcourse, not for TS1234.

[chran]

We have to keep bumping all his threads, then. For us offcourse, not for TS1234.Oh no, please don't :p

It's so nice and quiet in here now ...

[qarnos]

Oh no, please don't :p

It's so nice and quiet in here now ...

Who's going to be out resident nutjob untill he gets back?

I don't think we can count Christophera on the grounds that he may actually need professional help.

Does anybodye else think Skeptic4Sure could be a TS1234 sock? He popped up about the same time TS was suspended...

[Alareth]

Does anybodye else think Skeptic4Sure could be a TS1234 sock? He popped up about the same time TS was suspended...

Well that's one way to get perma-banned if it were true.

[Bell]

Who's going to be out resident nutjob untill he gets back?

I don't think we can count Christophera on the grounds that he may actually need professional help.

Does anybodye else think Skeptic4Sure could be a TS1234 sock? He popped up about the same time TS was suspended...

I was thinking the exact same thing.

1234 is seeking as much for the truth, as 4Sure is being skeptic.

[Hellbound]

This is a debate about the official theory, not about alternative theories.

Bull Sh|t.

If this were true, then you should open it up yourself with what's wrong in the official story.

If this were true, then posting the NIST report, a document full of research and reasoning, should be perfectly acceptable as a statement of the case.

Instead, you want someone to write up a woefully short, non-scientific text which is likely to contain some unintentional errors or unclear statements, so you can jump on these to claim the official story is wrong.

You don't want a debate, you want a propaganda piece. You aren't interested in truth, you're interested in stroking your own ego until you bukakke yourself with your own stupidity.

You're no scholar, and you're no truth-seeker. You're a callous, ignorant attention whore, afraid and unable to actually challenge those whose expertise and research led to uncovering the events of 9/11. You're a poser, a wannabe, who can't actually argue against the official theory but requires someone to create a caricature of it to stand any cahnce at anything that could be twisted around to resemble success. You're a vulture, feeding on the deaths of 3000 Americans for nothing but your ego and your pocketbook.

You're a sociopath who's too much of coward to do his own killing.

[Hellbound]

Just realized he'd been suspended ove rthe weekend.

Oh well, it'll be there when he gets back.

[Loss Leader]

I was thinking the exact same thing.

1234 is seeking as much for the truth, as 4Sure is being skeptic.

I started a thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1966789#post1966789) in Conspiracy Theories on exactly that question.

[Bell]

*bump*

[Spektator]

Is there a deadline for beginning the debate? I think someone should forfeit if the issue is not joined by a given date.

[Bell]

Chipmunk Stew began the debat, TS1234 is flip flopping around it.

[Spektator]

So shouldn't TS1234 be given a reasonable time (maybe up to a week) to respond, and if TS1234 does not, then he forfeits the debate?

[Bell]

Agreed. What about it, TS1234? You had a week to come up with a rebutal of Chipmunk Stew's statement. Ready to tear him a new one? Or are you gonna forfeit?

[T.A.M.]

umm...maybe I should have followed more closely, but why is TS1234 suspended?

TAM

[Bell]

umm...maybe I should have followed more closely, but why is TS1234 suspended?

TAM

umm... that was last week :rolleyes: :)

It is explained in this notice (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65115).

[defaultdotxbe]

well TS1234 has violated the terms of his own debate by posting his rebuttal to CS without posting his own case first

he also completely missed CS's challenge to debunk the NIST report, claiming that CS simply posted "naked assertations" with nothign to back it up

[einsteen]

TS1234, that's also my conclusion, that they not really concentrate on the collapse process itself, if they do that they will burn their fingers and wake a sleeping bear. The block disintegrates into dust, the south tower's block (wtc2, secondly hit first falled) topples a little bit, there are movies from several angles. In two of them you clearly see that once the N stories fall about N stories lower there is nothing left of the initial block. I really have no idea how that could happen, if it is due to the fall on the building it's logically that it disintegrates but then the upper part of the building should also disintegrate in the same rate or less (by increasing strength to the bottom) which is not true. IMO it even looks that the whole floor where it should fall on is still intact after disintegration of the block. Since a lot of mass falls away from the building the vertical component of the total momentum is very low and it is not possible this process will continue to the bottom. But it happened, it's a kind of magic. The paper of Mrs. Wood is correct

This is in fact Greening's calculation

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelA.jpg

And this is more realistic

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelB.jpg

but that has never been done. Mrs. Wood is a friendly woman btw, was willing to answer some questions I had

[Gravy]

TS1234, that's also my conclusion, that they not really concentrate on the collapse process itself, if they do that they will burn their fingers and wake a sleeping bear. The block disintegrates into dust, the south tower's block (wtc2, secondly hit first falled) topples a little bit, there are movies from several angles. In two of them you clearly see that once the N stories fall about N stories lower there is nothing left of the initial block. I really have no idea how that could happen, if it is due to the fall on the building it's logically that it disintegrates but then the upper part of the building should also disintegrate in the same rate or less (by increasing strength to the bottom) which is not true. IMO it even looks that the whole floor where it should fall on is still intact after disintegration of the block. Since a lot of mass falls away from the building the vertical component of the total momentum is very low and it is not possible this process will continue to the bottom. But it happened, it's a kind of magic. The paper of Mrs. Wood is correct

This is in fact Greening's calculation

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelA.jpg

And this is more realistic

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelB.jpg

but that has never been done. Mrs. Wood is a friendly woman btw, was willing to answer some questions I hadEinsteen, I've never seen this "upper block turns to dust" effect you speak of. I do see the upper blocks become obscured by smoke and dust once they fall a number of stories. Can you direct me to the two videos you mentioned?

[CurtC]

Getting back to Judy Wood's joke of a paper, her points are:

1. If floor 109 falls down onto 108, and obliterates 108, making its mass vanish, then 109 will have stopped momentarily at the impact before it keeps going down towards 107.

2. Doing this 108 times will take way longer than 10 seconds.

The problems with her paper are numerous:

1. When 109 hits 108, 108's mass would not disappear. She's assuming it immediately turned completely to dust, and that the dust was ejected from the building so that it would no longer contribute to the avalanche.

2. If floor 109 falls onto 108, it would basically stop momentarily, but then their combined mass would fall onto 107, so (108+109) would not stop. As the collapse progresses downwards, it would build up speed.

3. The collapse didn't start at the top floor, it started at the plane's impact point.

In another post, I re-did her calculations the correct way, and making the (wrong) assumption that the collapse started at the very top floor only, I got 15 seconds for total collapse. I didn't bother to re-do the calculations with collapse initiation at the impact point, but that would significantly reduce the time it takes.

[einsteen]

Gravy, a premature conclusion is not what we want of course and I admit that it is hard to see what happens, I got not all movies here, but it really looks like a part of the top, i.e. the edge is destroyed and falls away from the building.

[einsteen]

The billiard balls example of course uses elastic collisions. momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Greening assumes inelastic collisions, i.e. momentum conserved (even increased due to impulse which is correct) and kinetic energy not conserved because it is needed to break the structure, floors etc. The real picture should be something between these two extremities. It will be though, very though if you consider mass scattering/whatever (think about wtc7 which was hit) and the dust hanging in the air. Mrs. Woods thinks that cannot contribute to the total momentum and that is correct I think because it's obvious this is no one-dimensional problem. There are even people who mention waves traveling in the tower because of the impact, that should also be taken into account. No one on earth can calculate this exactly, realistic assumptions should be made.

[Pardalis]

And this is more realistic

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/ModelB.jpg


What the hell is that third drawing from the left?

Are you saying the top section hovered in mid-air????????

[R.Mackey]

The billiard balls example of course uses elastic collisions. momentum and kinetic energy are conserved. Greening assumes inelastic collisions, i.e. momentum conserved (even increased due to impulse which is correct) and kinetic energy not conserved because it is needed to break the structure, floors etc. The real picture should be something between these two extremities.

einsteen, I've corrected you on this before, and now it seems I must again.

"Inelastic" and "Elastic" are not opposite "extremities."

All collisions conserve momentum. All of them.

Some collisions conserve mechanical energy. These are called "elastic." These are in the minority. If any energy at all is converted into heat, causes deformation, etc., it makes the collision inelastic.

There is no such thing as a "semi-elastic" collision. It's called inelastic.

Greening's assumption is correct.

[einsteen]

einsteen, I've corrected you on this before, and now it seems I must again.

"Inelastic" and "Elastic" are not opposite "extremities."

All collisions conserve momentum. All of them.

Some collisions conserve mechanical energy. These are called "elastic." These are in the minority. If any energy at all is converted into heat, causes deformation, etc., it makes the collision inelastic.

There is no such thing as a "semi-elastic" collision. It's called inelastic.

Greening's assumption is correct.

With extremities I wanted to say the amount of kinetic energy that is lost in the collision. Of course momentum is conserved as I said. And most practical collisions are inelastic, Greening's assumption is correct if you assume a real 100% perfect pancaking. Even this is not the more modern progressive collapse assumed.

[Hellbound]

einsteen:

You re confused, wrong, and showing yuour ignorance.

GReenings assumption, re: inelastic/elastic collision, is 100%, unequivocally, absolutely correct. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. DOesn't matter what scenario or situation. The collision is inelastic, period. In fact, NO real-world collision is elastic, ever. An elastic collision is a mathematical simplicity.

You are confusing this issue with something entirely different. I suspect your intention is to say that some of the energy and momentum was "bleed off" into the debris being thrown, rather than hitting the lower floors. This has NOTHING to do with whether the collision is elastic or inelastic, and continuing to chant the elastic/inelastic mantra simply shows how little you actually know about the relevent physics and how little research you've actually attempted to do before spouting nosense.

I refuse to spoon-feed anyone knowledge who could just as easily find it themselves with a minimal of work. But I will be here, consistently, to show that those most vocal against the "official theory" of 9/11 are often those most ignorant of the science and the facts involved, you yourself being a perfect example.

Now, if you expect your arguments to be nderstood or taken seriously at all, I'd suggest, at a minimum, understanding the terminology one is using instead of throwing around big words in an attempt to appear educated.

[einsteen]

einsteen:
You are confusing this issue with something entirely different. I suspect your intention is to say that some of the energy and momentum was "bleed off" into the debris being thrown, rather than hitting the lower floors. This has NOTHING to do with whether the collision is elastic or inelastic, and continuing to chant the elastic/inelastic mantra simply shows how little you actually know about the relevent physics and how little research you've actually attempted to do before spouting nosense.


The scattering and dust hanging in the air is something to add to it, there are so much factors involved, is say at least that it is not so trivial as in Greening's paper. And I was at least able to calculate Greening's speed value without excel sheets although he doesn't mention it explicitly, nothing special even you can do that, what is your education btw mr Big Mouth

[R.Mackey]

The scattering and dust hanging in the air is something to add to it, there are so much factors involved, is say at least that it is not so trivial as in Greening's paper. And I was at least able to calculate Greening's speed value without excel sheets although he doesn't mention it explicitly, nothing special even you can do that, what is your education btw mr Big Mouth
Stop with the insults, einsteen. It does not help your case.

I've already explained to you that the collapse speed is not a strong function of mass lost over the side. All that needs to happen is that each floor impact needs to be strong enough to break the floor below. After that, it doesn't matter if the impact is twice what the next floor can handle or ten times, it will still collapse, and the rate of collapse will still accelerate.

[Hellbound]

The scattering and dust hanging in the air is something to add to it, there are so much factors involved, is say at least that it is not so trivial as in Greening's paper. And I was at least able to calculate Greening's speed value without excel sheets although he doesn't mention it explicitly, nothing special even you can do that, what is your education btw mr Big Mouth

My education is high school degree with some college physics.

Enough to know that what you're talking about...things being ejected fromt eh collapse zone, has NOTHING to do with wether it's an elastic or inelastic collision. I also know enough to understand that "semi-elastic" is a meaningless term, and that you don't understand the terms well enough to be able to use them correctly.

[einsteen]

If no kinetic energy is lost it is elastic, if it is perfectly inelastic (as Greening assumes) the maximum amount of kinetic energy is lost, not 100% of course, but the maximum that can be lost.

Insults ? I was attacked, I have the right to defend like an American :-)

[Hellbound]

Stop with the insults, einsteen. It does not help your case.

TO be fair, I started that.

And as soon as any evidence can be presented to show my characterizations of ignorance, using terms he doesn't understand, and a poor grasp of the physics involed are incorrect, I will be the first to apologize.

I'm just rather tired of people who, apparently, slept through high-school physics (or didn't take it at all) latch onto some physics word they don't understand then toss it about everywhere as if it proved something.

It reminds me of my fourteen month old daughter getting a new toy that plays music, and walking around the house playing it constantly for several days ina ro as if it's the greatest thing. Although in my daughter's case I can understand the behavior.

[T.A.M.]

einsteen:

You re confused, wrong, and showing yuour ignorance.

GReenings assumption, re: inelastic/elastic collision, is 100%, unequivocally, absolutely correct. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. DOesn't matter what scenario or situation. The collision is inelastic, period. In fact, NO real-world collision is elastic, ever. An elastic collision is a mathematical simplicity.

You are confusing this issue with something entirely different. I suspect your intention is to say that some of the energy and momentum was "bleed off" into the debris being thrown, rather than hitting the lower floors. This has NOTHING to do with whether the collision is elastic or inelastic, and continuing to chant the elastic/inelastic mantra simply shows how little you actually know about the relevent physics and how little research you've actually attempted to do before spouting nosense.

I refuse to spoon-feed anyone knowledge who could just as easily find it themselves with a minimal of work. But I will be here, consistently, to show that those most vocal against the "official theory" of 9/11 are often those most ignorant of the science and the facts involved, you yourself being a perfect example.

Now, if you expect your arguments to be nderstood or taken seriously at all, I'd suggest, at a minimum, understanding the terminology one is using instead of throwing around big words in an attempt to appear educated.


umm...i dunno about spoon feed, I have a Diploma in Electrical Engineering Tech, I have honors in College Physics (Intro), but I did all that 12 years ago, and then went into medicine, so while I dont need spoon feeding, my brain hurts when I have to fire up the old physics engine again...so I dont mind a little quasi-spoonfeeding of it. I promise those who do, I will break down any medical condition for you if you ask...lol

TAM - EET, BSc (Med Sc) MD, CCFP

[einsteen]

Ok Huntsman, my skin is thick enough...:)

[Hellbound]

If no kinetic energy is lost it is elastic, if it is perfectly inelastic (as Greening assumes) the maximum amount of kinetic energy is lost, not 100% of course, but the maximum that can be lost.

Insults ? I was attacked, I have the right to defend like an American :-)

Yes, you do. So when are you going to start doing anything that actually rebuts my statements?

Again, with this post, you have confirmed that you do NOT understand the principles involved, you don't know what ineleastic or elastic actually mean in application, you are woefully ignorant of the physics, you are too lazy or too ignorant to do the minimal anmount of research it would take to understand your lack, yet you presume to point out the flaws of peopel who actually recieved an education in the subject?

Astounding arrogance.

I'm happily awaiting your defense of yourself.

[R.Mackey]

If no kinetic energy is lost it is elastic, if it is perfectly inelastic (as Greening assumes) the maximum amount of kinetic energy is lost, not 100% of course, but the maximum that can be lost.

Insults ? I was attacked, I have the right to defend like an American :-)
It isn't about having the right, it's about choosing whether to be constructive or disruptive.

There is no such thing as "perfectly inelastic," and your comment about "maximum kinetic energy being lost" is nonsensical. Energy and momentum are always conserved, always. However, energy has many different forms it can take. Momentum does not. This is why you are confused.

Greening's assumption about the inelastic floor collision, again, is absolutely correct.

[Hellbound]

TAM: point taken.

Okay, a bit of spoon feeding then.

Elastic and inelastic collisions do have to do with whether kinetic energy is conserved or not.

ALL real-world collisions will be inelastic. Even billard balls (although they are the closest to elastic we know of).

Where einsteen is confused is what this actually means.

An inleastic collision does NOT mean the energy just goes away. Energy is ALWAYS conserved. Period.

An elastic collsion means ALL of the kinetic energy remains kinetic energy...none if it is used to break anything, to deform anything, to create heat, or to bend anything. The collapse could only be elastic if the entire building fell as one piece with nothing breaking.

Treating it as ineleastic is absolutely correct. In an inelastic collision, Kinteic energy is not conserved. IN fact, by the end of the collapse, 100% of the kinetic energy should be gone (or else there's still something moving somewhere). However, the TOTAL energy is conserved. The kinetic energy is converted into mechanical energy (deforming and breaking the componenets), heat energy (from friction and impact), and other kinetic energy (imparted, for example, to the debris being flung outward).

Essentially, the total energy available for the entire process is equal to the gravitational potential energy of the building. As it falls, that GPE is converted to kinetic energy (KE). As parts of the building begin to impact, that KE is converted into other types of energy (mechanical deformation, heat, etc) or redirected into kinetic energy in a different direction.

And, as R. Mackey stated above, you only need enough energy to collapse a single floor. IF you agree that the top ten floors falling could collapse the floor underneath it, then 90% of the building mass could be ejected and there's still more than enough energy left to do the damage.

IF you actuall look at the fall time against free fall time, about 20% of the total energy involved in the collapse is unaccounted for. That percent of the total GPE of the building is more than enough to do the damage and throw the debris. And that 20% figure does not consider the fact that the building didn't fall all the way to ground level...you could add as much a 10% more to it when that is taken into account.

[T.A.M.]

oh is that all...Ok that didnt require me firing up the engines. I thought we were on to some of the technical details of the paper. That would require starting up the Physics part of my brain again.

TAM

[einsteen]

There is no such thing as "perfectly inelastic," and your comment about "maximum kinetic energy being lost" is nonsensical. Energy and momentum are always conserved, always. However, energy has many different forms it can take. Momentum does not. This is why you are confused.


No Mr.Mackey, I'm not confused,"perfectly inelastic collision" is a term often used. I know the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.

[rwguinn]

No Mr.Mackey, I'm not confused,"perfectly inelastic collision" is a term often used. I know the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.

Another pair of obviously incorrect statements...

[R.Mackey]

No Mr.Mackey, I'm not confused,"perfectly inelastic collision" is a term often used. I know the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.
Yes, you are confused. This quote of yours:

If no kinetic energy is lost it is elastic, if it is perfectly inelastic (as Greening assumes) the maximum amount of kinetic energy is lost, not 100% of course, but the maximum that can be lost.

...makes no sense at all. Kinetic energy is not "lost." If, as you claim, you understand the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy, you undertand this, but apparently you do not.

I have a Physics degree, and I have never heard the term "perfectly inelastic collision" before. It's just "inelastic." There are no qualifiers applied, ever.

[einsteen]

Kinetic energy can be transformed (as you said in your other post), in the case that the maximum amount of kinetic energy is lost it is lost due to deformations, heat or whatever. If a mass collides onto an other mass (say the 2nd is standing still), how would it collide to lose as much kinetic energy as possible ? In fact merging together with a new collective speed that is lower than the initial speed. I've also a physics degree, although it's awhile ago.

[R.Mackey]

Kinetic energy can be transformed (as you said in your other post), in the case that the maximum amount of kinetic energy is lost it is lost due to deformations, heat or whatever. If a mass collides onto an other mass (say the 2nd is standing still), how would it collide to lose as much kinetic energy as possible ? In fact merging together with a new collective speed that is lower than the initial speed.
Look, there is no "maximum." There are NOT differing degrees of inelasticity in a collision. The masses do not "decide" how to convert as much kinetic energy as possible.

I've also a physics degree, although it's awhile ago.
In that case, I am completely baffled as to your complaint.

Why don't you start from scratch? What do you find suspicious in Greening's paper? Please try to use precise language this time, the kind they used in your physics classes.

[einsteen]

It's about 10 years ago already (s*h*i*t I'm old), forgive me if I have to refresh my memory sometimes, as far as I remember it's no matter of a ball or block deciding what he or she wants to lose but pure the properties of the material.

Greening...First of all where we already had big discussions about, ok I just made this

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/greenings.gif
I don't think this is what we see.

[R.Mackey]

Greening...First of all where we already had big discussions about, ok I just made this

[image]

I don't think this is what we see.
I don't either. The falling block will also experience deformation.

That deformation, however, does not affect its momentum. Its mass remains the same, as does its net velocity.

So, what -- in detail -- do you think is wrong? What do you think we do see?

[einsteen]

I wanted to make a compilation but here are the originals, here it almost looks like the block indeed falls away from the building:

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem11/911.wtc.2.demoltion.northeast.2.avi

This looks like the block scatters and destroys on the intact building, it is deformed, disintegrated, parts
fall away from the building, look at the horizontal component, I was shocked

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc2dem1/911.wtc.2.demolition.south.04.avi

I have even a better one but I can't find it, beer now and then bed

[CurtC]

Guys, I realize you're trying to give einsteen as hard a time as possible, but what's the purpose of these claims about inelastic collisions? In my physics experience, it was pretty common to discuss "how inelastic" a collision would be, and a "perfectly inelastic" collision is one which minimizes the kinetic energy post-collision. This happens when the objects colliding stick together.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22perfectly%20inelastic%22%20collision

There are tons of ways to refute this stuff, so I say refute it above-board.

[R.Mackey]

(for Einsteen) Please be more specific. Describe what you saw, and describe what's inconsistent with Greening's hypothesis.

I can't help you if I can't understand you.

[R.Mackey]

Guys, I realize you're trying to give einsteen as hard a time as possible, but what's the purpose of these claims about inelastic collisions? In my physics experience, it was pretty common to discuss "how inelastic" a collision would be, and a "perfectly inelastic" collision is one which minimizes the kinetic energy post-collision. This happens when the objects colliding stick together.
Well, that's a first in terminology for me.

Nonetheless, he's complaining about Greening's work, but I don't understand the complaint. And I am not trying to give him a hard time.

It's pretty clear that the falling upper block of the WTC towers would not bounce back up into the air... so that makes the momentum / energy argument quite simple. Again, Greening's assumption is the correct one.

[einsteen]

maybe later, cheers. I'm tired

[Skiltch]

For what it's worth, in physics class we learned that a 'perfectly inelastic condition' was one in which the two objects colliding stuck together.
Not that I agree with anything Einstein says, and I could be wrong, but the term seems familiar.

[R.Mackey]

For what it's worth, in physics class we learned that a 'perfectly inelastic condition' was one in which the two objects colliding stuck together.
OK, I yield. :D I've never seen the term "perfectly inelastic" before, but perhaps my professors were simply more precise. From now on, whenever I see "perfectly inelastic" or "totally" or "fully" or whatever, I will assume we are referring to a collision in which the end state has the two bodies in contact or fused together.

Sorry, it wasn't my intention to make this a semantic discussion.

Anyway, using your terminology, Greening is using the "perfectly inelastic" hypothesis -- and he does so correctly.

Consider the alternative. If the falling block does not remain in contact with the lower structure after the initial contact, that means the upper block and the lower structure have bounced away from each other.

Structures do not bounce -- not at all -- once you exceed the elastic limits of the materials.

All you have to do is show that the initial impact exceeds the elastic limits, something that Greening does, and you know for a fact the collision will be "perfectly inelastic." No bouncing. Greening, thus, supports his own assumption with the preliminary calculation. He then goes on to show the energy of collision is enough to exceed the plastic limits as well, at which point the structure begins to collapse.

So... does that clear it up?

[Mince]

This is the peanut gallery for TruthSeeker's overhyped debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1962576#post1962576).

Have fun!

Isn't it funny*, when the deniers talk about WTC 1 and 2 collapse, they, almost universally, do not talk about, oh, say, 80 ton aircraft hitting the buildings at 450+ MPH? Don't believe me? Go ahead, scour the LC boards. According to those idiots, the rest of the world is purporting that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed because of fuel fires and magically melting steel. You will NEVER hear discussion of compromised structural integrety due to aircraft impact. EVER!

If you are a LCer and reading this:

You're fooking stupid! You're an Alex Jones sheep whose been brainwashed and can't think for yourself!



*By funny, I mean sad.

[Hellbound]

Guys, I realize you're trying to give einsteen as hard a time as possible, but what's the purpose of these claims about inelastic collisions? In my physics experience, it was pretty common to discuss "how inelastic" a collision would be, and a "perfectly inelastic" collision is one which minimizes the kinetic energy post-collision. This happens when the objects colliding stick together.

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22perfectly%20inelastic%22%20collision

There are tons of ways to refute this stuff, so I say refute it above-board.

Actually, Curt, my argument was with his earlier statements that seemed to equate "ineleastic" with "doesn't lose any energy to things being thrown away from the impact point". He seemed (and still seems) to have a distinct lack of understanding of conservation of momentum and how it fits in with conservation of energy and kinetic energy in impacts. And this is what he bases his arguments on.

I'm STILL waiting for a clear description of what his problem is. AS near as I can tell, his issue is that there was mass thrown away fromt eh building, and this wasn't accounted forin Greenings calculation. This argument is, frankly, ignorant and ridiculous. If you agree that 10 floors will collapse one floor, then this means that over 90% of the total mass of the towers could be tossed out and it would still be a total collapse. A fact that einsteen fails to understand. He complains that Greening treated the upper stories as a "single block", yet he makes the same error by viewing the lower stories as a "single block" and thinking "how could that small part squish all this?".

[einsteen]

Maybe I confuse bouncing and scattering. Fact however is that mass is lost, which effect is responsible for that? There must be a horizontal component responsible. From that first movie you clearly see that this happens. In 911eyewitness you also see that there is even an upper component. Can it be a similar effect as the squibs but then on large scale? i.e. mass is pulverized and pressed out ? I don’t believe that, it is more a matter of finding the way of least resistance, like throwing a composite rock from the top of a big composite rock. This is what I think after seeing that video. And how much mass is lost? It is better to ask how much mass is remained because at the end of the collapse process you can calculate it; it’s by definition the amount of mass above the footprint. When I came here at this forum I mentioned that w<1 factor for the floors below, at that time I didn’t realize that there is much more involved and that is a similar factor for the upper floors.

Hunstman says that if you agree that 10 floors will collapse the next floor, then this means that over 90% of the total mass of the towers could be tossed out and it would still be a total collapse.

Well Huntsman if you have two trains, one carrying the upper block (say N floors) and another train carrying the remainder of the wtc (say M-N) and they collide, what will happen ? the train carrying the rest of the wtc can be thought of as another block of N floors plus a block of M-2N floors. Do you think that when a collision takes place the N floors stay intact during the whole collision through the other massive block ? In fact it is a stepwise collision floor by floor. Whether you use Greening or not, it will not really affect the collapse time, that is also not important. What is important that there is symmetry in the situation; it is in fact two trains colliding with 4.3 m/s, the block of N floors will be destroyed in the same rate as the floors on which it collides (or falls). The speed after a stepwise collision of N floors will not really be different (it will be slowed down by conservation of momentum but increase by gravity, it is no closed system, I think that is a nice problem to solve in the future), but then what is left then ? If you look again at the movie and mass falls away during the process, mass is conserved, but it goes in all directories then the question is what the initial momentum is to break the next floor ? It is plausible that we can again use the mass of the initial block?

There is more to add, Greening assumes a uniform mass distribution, but the building will be stronger at the bottom than at the top. This will slow down the fall, this will disintegrate the block in a higher rate, this will increase the collapse time.
Also the fact that at one tower the block falls skew is not a trivial calculation. Isn’t video material important? Of course, that is all that is available about it.

There is even more to add, point masses are of course relevant for a first approximation, but in this case it affects the collapse time very much. Because if you assume point masses (in fact in a 2d area) then during the whole length of two floors there is free fall assumed which means that the momentum will increase during those 3.7meter. The next collision will decrease it (because of the bigger mass) but then it has again 3.7meter to increase its momentum and so on. All stuff between the floors including the steel core etc is assumed to break by loss of kinetic energy. If you do that allright, but since the real situation is not a point mass situation some time should be added. The problem I personally have is the initial fall; it’s hard for me to accept this. Further Greening’s model gets no terminal velocity and that is not a realistic physical model, it goes to infinity if there are enough floors.

It would be nice if Mr. Greening does a similar calculation for a less mathematical and more physical model, he would be the best one to do that, I’m convinced.

[Gravy]

I wanted to make a compilation but here are the originals, here it almost looks like the block indeed falls away from the building:
Did you have to look hard to find two videos of the south tower collapse that are obscured by buildings? You're killing me here, einsteen! Killing me!

[Hellbound]

Well Huntsman if you have two trains, one carrying the upper block (say N floors) and another train carrying the remainder of the wtc (say M-N) and they collide, what will happen ?

And this is exactly why I call you ignorant. ANd moreso, an arrogant idiot for insisting your ignorance is knowledge.

the train carrying the rest of the wtc can be thought of as another block of N floors plus a block of M-2N floors.

No, it can't.

Do you think that when a collision takes place the N floors stay intact during the whole collision through the other massive block ?

Strawman. You are the only one who has argued this, because you're an idiot.

In fact it is a stepwise collision floor by floor. Whether you use Greening or not, it will not really affect the collapse time, that is also not important. What is important that there is symmetry in the situation; it is in fact two trains colliding with 4.3 m/s, the block of N floors will be destroyed in the same rate as the floors on which it collides (or falls).

I'll take this, more or less, as accurate.

The speed after a stepwise collision of N floors will not really be different (it will be slowed down by conservation of momentum but increase by gravity, it is no closed system, I think that is a nice problem to solve in the future), but then what is left then ? If you look again at the movie and mass falls away during the process, mass is conserved, but it goes in all directories then the question is what the initial momentum is to break the next floor ? It is plausible that we can again use the mass of the initial block?

And again, I say you are ignorant, arrogant, and an idiot.

I agree that the floors of the upper block will be destroyed just like the floor they are falling on.

So what? What does this mean?

You seem to believe that this means their mass disappears. You seem to think that destroyed means disintigrated. You seem to think that a simple fall violates one of the foundation of the science of physics, namely conservation of mass-energy. You are an ignorant ********* who speaks from his fourth point of contact.

Whetehr the upper portion is one block, or a formless mass of rublle, it still has more than enough weight to crush any floor it lands on. Now, let's take it further, since I have to explain this to you as if you were an eight yerar old, which seems to be about your level of understanding.

Assume a building with 100 floors (for simplicity).
The top ten floors (upper block, UB) have a weight of 10x. The bottem 90 (bottem block, BB) have a mass of 90x.

The UB impacts and destoys the top floor of the BB. This also destroys the bottem floor of the UB. Let's say that a mass equal to an entire floor is thrown outward from this impact.

So what is the amount of mass left to fall?

10x is your initial. THe impact throws out an entire floor's worth of mass, leaving 9x. However, the top floor of BB is destroyed, and is now falling as well, so adds to the UB. So, the mass of the UB is 10x.

And entire floor's worth of mass can be thrown out at each step along the fall, and the mass of the falling matter is still 10x. Every time. Doesn't matter if it's an intact block or not (unless you are ignorant of physics and don't understand what you're talking about, yet somehow still beleive you're more qualified than experts. If you ever had a physics degree I'm a f*&king brain surgeon, liar). And this leaves ONLY 10 floor's weight of mass in the footprint.

There is more to add, Greening assumes a uniform mass distribution, but the building will be stronger at the bottom than at the top. This will slow down the fall, this will disintegrate the block in a higher rate, this will increase the collapse time.

Except that by the time it gets to the lower floors, it will be a heavier mass falling, so it won't really matter. Unless you really want to argue that only 10% of the mass was left in the footprint at the bottem?

Didn't think so, idiot.

Also the fact that at one tower the block falls skew is not a trivial calculation. Isn’t video material important? Of course, that is all that is available about it.

Not really. It falls with a MUCH higher doward velocity than side, and as you said the block was destoryed in the fall anyway, so those bits of matter continue downard. Idiot.

There is even more to add,
I do hope anythign else is actually sensible and shows some type of knowledge, rather than being pulled out of your anus to try and impress people with your idiocy.

point masses are of course relevant for a first approximation, but in this case it affects the collapse time very much. Because if you assume point masses (in fact in a 2d area) then during the whole length of two floors there is free fall assumed which means that the momentum will increase during those 3.7meter. The next collision will decrease it (because of the bigger mass) but then it has again 3.7meter to increase its momentum and so on. All stuff between the floors including the steel core etc is assumed to break by loss of kinetic energy. If you do that allright, but since the real situation is not a point mass situation some time should be added.

How much does a fly slow down your car when it hits the windshield?

Or even better, how much does a small car slow when it hits a large dog?

Idiot.

The problem I personally have is the initial fall; it’s hard for me to accept this.

So where's your math? Or are we accepting fallacious Arguments from Incredulity now? It's not true because you don't think so? Try again, idiot.
Further Greening’s model gets no terminal velocity and that is not a realistic physical model, it goes to infinity if there are enough floors.

It's an approximation. Doesn't matter. There were nowhere near enough floors to reach that speed. You might as well argue against figuring any acceleration due to gravity, because it doesn't include terminal velocity either.

Idiot.

It would be nice if Mr. Greening does a similar calculation for a less mathematical and more physical model, he would be the best one to do that, I’m convinced.

Well, it might help convince him if you had any actual criticisms based on realistic objections.

Idiot.

[rwguinn]

Huntsman:
You are absolutely, positively, wrong on all counts.



Einsteen is a Moron studying to become an idiot.
And failing the course.

[Hellbound]

LOL rwguinn

You had me worried for a second there ;)

[einsteen]

einsteen, refrain from personal attacks.

[rwguinn]

Edited for quoted comment.

Don't hold back, guy--
Vent! you can do it.
And what was that Thesis title again?

[Hellbound]

Removed quoted content

Your inability to refute my arguments is noted. Since you'd prefer to insult me to the exclusion of argument, I must assume you concede the point?

At least I can understand the written word.

I didn't "drop out after the first year".

My major wasn't physics, I took physics courses as electives. My major was Information Technology (the last time) and Computer Systems Technology (before that) and Computer Science (first time).

And much of my physics knowledge was self-taught at later dates. I'm an avid reader, and besides keeping up with the popularizations on various issues I also read much of what our college library had on its shelves.

And if I'm such a moron, prove me wrong. Show my arguments are incorrect. Prove your "physics degree" that apparently doesn't cover Newtonian mechanics.

Insults are easy, but all it would take to shut me up and put me in my place is a bit of proof. A little math and a scan of a diploma. A copy of your plasma physics thesis you claim exists but that I wouldn't understand.

At least I understand F=ma, and conservation laws.

Just to rub some salt in the wound, I have over 200 college credit hours from three different colleges/universities, and two degrees currently. I took courses ranging from Accounting to Zoology, and from Stage Combat to Physics to History to Philosophy to Psychology. I've worked professionally in emergency medicine, computer security, and physical security. The reason I don't (yet) have a physics degree is because of the breadth of my interests, although I plan on completing such a degree shortly, once I've paid off my loans from my last college attendence.

[tim]

Folks, calm down. I've edited einsteen's posts, but Huntsman, you need to refrain from abuse as well. I repeat, calm it down.

[Hellbound]

Gotcha, Tim.

My apologies to the board. I tend to get frustrated after hearing the same lackign argument, that's been debunked seventeen times before, for the eightenth time simply because someone, for whatever reason, can't acknowledge that they've already been refuted.

[T.A.M.]

Jeez, when did this all become about comparing resumes. I believe there is a thread somewhere where alot of us posted our credentials. Why not just post them there, and both parties get on with the debating/discussion.

We all have our strong points, our interests.

I'll shut up now, but just though I would also voice a call for calm.

TAM

Edit: Well said Huntsman.

Oh and I hear ya on the loans. I owe the bank $120,000 for student loans.

TAM

[Hellbound]

Jeez, when did this all become about comparing resumes.

It's typically not my style, either, unless someone rests their entire argument on their personal qualifications...at which point those qualifications become a part of the debate, because they are put forth as evidence.

And I get a bit upset when my own experience is blatantly mis-construed...true, I could have done more, and been at a different place now. However, I goofed off a bit at first, and later spread my studies to cover multiple interests. But I'm rather proud of that, actually :)

As I've stated before, I know a little about a lot, and a lot about a little :)

[T.A.M.]

Sounds like my job. I know a fair degree about all medical illnesses and conditions, but am a specialist in none.

As for wide interests, I went from being an Electronic Engineering Technologist to a Physician, so I can relate. Did I also mention I produce independent films in my spare time, when not performing duties as a husband and father of 2.

TAM

[Hellbound]

LOL

Does sound similar.

I joined the military first, was trained as a medic. Went to college for Comp Sci, took some physics on the side. Ended up loosing my scholarships because my grades weren't high enough (I overloaded myself, 22 hours my first semester including Calculus 1...never had Pre-Calculus). Went full-time Army for a few years. Got out, worked quality control at a hydraulics manufacturing plant. Went back and cot my AAS degree in Comp Sci Tech, took a lot of extra courses while doing that, including some theatre and stage combat. Got a job as a Systems Analyst. About this time the military cross-trained me as a Combat Engineer. I finish my BS in IT through correspondence, and get called up for an all-expenses paid trip to the never-ending desert (Iraq) for a year. Got back, did some work for the military stateside after re-calssing again into computers. Now I'm doing computer security and HIPPA-regulated file transfers for a major insurance company, and working on paying off my earlier loans and debts so I can work on that physics degree.

Also a husband and father of two, a 4 (almost 5) year old son and 15 month old daughter.

[T.A.M.]

Impressive resume, particularly in terms of time frame, and "busy"ness. Mine are 6 and 3, boy and girl respectively.

TAM

[Hellbound]

Impressive resume, particularly in terms of time frame, and "busy"ness. Mine are 6 and 3, boy and girl respectively.

TAM

Yeah, it's rarely been a dull moment for me :) Of course, that paragraph covers about 12 years of time...so not quite as busy as it may seem :)

Of course, I left out a few things, as well, so...

Heh.

Settled down since marriage, though, with the exception of my Iraqi vacation.

[tim]

Keep the posts like that, fellers, and I won't have to worry about editing posts!


























(Grandfather of 4, girls 3,5, and 7, boy 2) :D :D :D

[Hellbound]

(Grandfather of 4, girls 3,5, and 7, boy 2) :D :D :D

So you're part of the evil conspiracy to spoil the children of the world, eh?

:D

[einsteen]

Keep the posts like that, fellers, and I won't have to worry about editing posts!


Tim, apologies, it will not happen again. I never in my life made such a post but I got a boost of adrenaline in my body.

Further I certainly make errors/mistakes, I'm no robot but also no idiot

[rwguinn]

Tim, apologies, it will not happen again. I never in my life made such a post but I got a boost of adrenaline in my body.

Further I certainly make errors/mistakes, I'm no robot but also no idiot
So, Since you brought it up, what is the title of that Thesis, and which university?

[tim]

Thanks, everyone! Now play nice, or risk the (sharp intake of breath) wrath of the wombat! :D

[einsteen]

http://www.uva.nl/

I was just a normal student who finished and leaved, nothing special, send me an PM if you want a scan of the diploma, but who cares, I will hide my name and everyone can be anything on internet. Privacy is important for me. I'm nothing special, nothing

[rwguinn]

http://www.uva.nl/

I was just a normal student who finished and leaved, nothing special, send me an PM if you want a scan of the diploma, but who cares, I will hide my name and everyone can be anything on internet. Privacy is important for me. I'm nothing special, nothing

Nope-
You clamed an advanced degree thesis in Plasma Physics.
I want to have the title, and university.
We see much evidence that you are prevaricating. removing that soupcon of doubt is easy.