Common Sense

[Pardalis]

28th, stop embarrassing yourself. It's OK to admit you don't know what you're talking about, in fact, you'll have everybody's highest regards if you do.

[R.Mackey]

So what you're saying is that the energy released from the tilting of the upper mass is what generated the force required to push all of the lower floors into failure, yes?
No.

I'm saying the energy released from the upper block tilting is what generated the force required to fail the remainder of the impact floor. No more than that.

After the impact floor is completely gone, we have a new mechanism as the upper block essentially free-falls a few meters before hitting solid structure again. All the lower floors failed progressively, more-or-less individually, thanks to the energy release from the ever-growing mass above falling. The tilt doesn't meaningfully increase after the impact floor completely fails.

Really, everyone in the entire world knows this!


Failure is imminent... according to what? Your opinion? Your speculation? Where are your calculations for this fact? What lateral forces? Where are your calculations? Are we talking about the wind?
All of the above, and also see the NIST report. It's all there.

No, we are not talking about the wind. Look, if you try to support a 50,000 ton block of building, but only support it on one side; and you still have some remaining braces and horizontal floors that try to resist the twisting that follows, you get lateral forces. At rest, with the building intact, there are very few lateral forces.

Again, this takes no particular genius to understand. You further demonstrate the ineptitude of your "common sense."


The surviving columns are weakened all the way to the bottom of the structure from heat? How are the remaining lower floors bearing the FULL weight of the upper mass? Where is the proof for this statement?
I never said they were weakened all the way to the bottom. You're making things up now. Quite disingenuous of you.

Nor did they have to. Once that upper block gets moving, it doesn't matter whether the lower columns are weakened or not. They're nowhere near strong enough to absorb the shock.

If it's calculations you want, even though I'm sure you've been pointed to this hundreds of times, start with F. R. Greening (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf). It's a simplified model but quite sufficient for purposes of this discussion.


Who said the upper floors suspended in mid-air? Why do you imply that? Where did I say that? Why do the upper floors have to be suspended in mid-air in order for them to be separated (in part) from the lower floors? Why do you say things like this...
Because you asked this question:


If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?
You were the one who said the upper mass wasn't touching the lower floors. Either that or you were asking a totally irrelevant, impossible question just to be difficult. Honestly, you're so scattered, it's impossible to tell.

[28th Kingdom]

Do you have proof that the collapsing region was losing mass through expulsion (which you incorrectly call "exploding") faster than it was gaining mass from the the collapse of additional floors? Or are you just looking at pictures and using your "common sense" again?

And I know you've been told this before, but NIST ruled out pankaking as the reason for the initiation of the collapse. Nowhere do they say that pankaking could not be the reason that the collapse, once initiated, propagated down the towers.

Does NIST have proof that the upper mass was increasing in size... considering the fact that we can't even see the upper mass for the majority of the collapse. Why did they draw this conclusion without a lick of evidence?

And, they don't say pancaking couldn't have occurred during the collapse.... BECAUSE they don't even address the actual collapse with any detail or calculations! That's why none of you ever provide answers about the specifics of the actual collapse...and NOT the initiation of the collapse.

Enough with the sagging trusses... bowing columns... transferring of loads - that doesn't explain anything about how the core collapsed within the perimeter of the towers, at near free fall speeds.

[Pardalis]

Maybe you should look at a video instead of a still picture 28th, the top section didn't stay in that position for very long.

[Firestone]

:words:

Enough with the sagging trusses... bowing columns... transferring of loads - that doesn't explain anything about how the core collapsed within the perimeter of the towers, at near free fall speeds.Actually, R.Mackey explained it six minutes ago, but maybe he is on ignore too.

[Arus808]

this proves yet again, that 28th has not taken any amount of time to read the NIST report.

[beachnut]

How would arab terrorists get access to plant explosives in the buildings? That's why you fly planes into buildings.

What increasing mass? The floors were exploding... so how was the upper mass increasing in size? Were the floors pancaking? That couldn't be the case, cus NIST says a pancake collapse isn't possible on the WTC Towers... even though, they also claim the upper mass increased in size as it fell... so, how is it increasing in size? The floors are exploding outward... so what material is being added to the upper mass that increases its size as the collapse progresses?

What is your end story here? You have proved you are nuts you can stop now; I beleive you are nuts!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107458b5f52f083f.gif
Is it true you only passed typing tutor in school?

[Pardalis]

How would arab terrorists get access to plant explosives in the buildings?

How could secret government agents covertly plant explosives in two of the world's biggest working office buildings in the world's busiest commercial district?

That's why you fly planes into buildings.

Utter nonsense.

What increasing mass? The floors were exploding...

No.

[uk_dave]

this proves yet again, that 28th has not taken any amount of time to read the NIST report.

No point. 28K believes his 'common sense' makes up for his lack of technical expertise and imagination.

The woowoos have gotta get away from this appeal to "common sense" because, as we have seen throughout this thread, the world just doesn't obey the arbitrary rules they place on it through their lack of imagination and common sense dogma.

[aggle-rithm]

Dude... you can use common sense a thousand ways to prove NIST's theory to be impossible. I've done it several times... go read some of my posts.

One way... I proved their theory false, was by observing the upper mass on WTC 2, that fell over to the side... NIST claims this upper mass is the force that crushed the lower floors all the way to the ground... yet, we can clearly see, that seconds after the collapse began... the upper mass was already tilting over. Apply the law of inertia to this event... and you learn that this upper mass will never return to its original position i.e. completely covering the lower floors.

If the upper mass is tilted... than at best, there will only be one of the bottom corners (of the upper mass) touching the lower floors... so what is causing the walls on the other THREE sides of the lower floors (that has no contact with the falling upper mass) to explode into a million pieces?

http://img465.imageshack.us/img465/95/wtcsouthtowerlq9.jpg

That's how you use common sense.

I think our friend has completely missed the point of this thread.

[Arus808]

28th has demonstrated that he doesn't even understand what "common sense" means. so he can't rely on something that he does'nt fully understand.

[GlennB]

Yes, that thought did occur to me. 3m is longer than a lot of model railways.

I've wanted to build myself a model railway since I was about fifteen, I'm up to sixty years now, and still not got around to it.

Dave

Go for it.
I just got my first remote-controlled Dalek, at the age of 56.

[babazaroni]

What increasing mass?
As each floor collapses, it adds to the total collapsing mass.

Were the floors pancaking? That couldn't be the case, cus NIST says a pancake collapse isn't possible on the WTC Towers

NIST says pancake collapse was not the initiating cause.

[Pardalis]

28th, just out of curiosity, how would the buildings' structural integrity have reacted once the initial collapse started, according to your common sense?

[Mancman]

Enough with the sagging trusses... bowing columns... transferring of loads - that doesn't explain anything about how the core collapsed within the perimeter of the towers, at near free fall speeds.

Freefall?

Huge sections of core stood for 10-15 seconds after the main collapse had ended. 25-30 seconds after the collapse began. 900ft tall sections. You are wrong about everything. On an increasingly embarrasing scale. You spout enough guff to fill China, honestly.

[Pardalis]

28th, the towers start to collapse: what happens next?

[Skibum]

That's why none of you ever provide answers about the specifics of the actual collapse...and NOT the initiation of the collapse.

Why do we have to explain something that common sense (real common sense, not your twisted version of it) should be able to answer?

When you severely and suddenly overload a structural system it collapses violently. Thats the answer! Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense would know that.

[28th Kingdom]

After the impact floor is completely gone, we have a new mechanism as the upper block essentially free-falls a few meters before hitting solid structure again. All the lower floors failed progressively, more-or-less individually, thanks to the energy release from the ever-growing mass above falling. The tilt doesn't meaningfully increase after the impact floor completely fails. Really, everyone in the entire world knows this!

Everyone knows what? That the upper mass was increasing in size? How do they know this? We can't even see the upper mass for the majority of the collapse, so what tells us it's increasing in size? So if the lower floors collapsed as a result of the energy released from the falling mass - than wouldn't the upper mass have to be touching the lower floors in order to release this energy onto the lower floors? Wouldn't the upper mass have to continually touch the lower floors all the way to the ground... or could the upper mass fall off at some point... with the momentum causing the remaining floors to collapse?


All of the above, and also see the NIST report. It's all there.So you are saying that you reached your conclusion through pure speculation and opinion, right? Because that was all there in my statement.


Look, if you try to support a 50,000 ton block of building, but only support it on one side; and you still have some remaining braces and horizontal floors that try to resist the twisting that follows, you get lateral forces. At rest, with the building intact, there are very few lateral forces.So you just admitted, that the upper mass may of only been touching the lower floors on one side. What twisting... you say after the initial tilt of the upper mass it stopped tilting... so which is it? Did it continue to twist and tilt all the way to the bottom or did it stopped twisting and tilting right after the collapse began?


Nor did they have to. Once that upper block gets moving, it doesn't matter whether the lower columns are weakened or not. They're nowhere near strong enough to absorb the shock.Even if the upper mass is only touching on one side of the lower floors? Do you not equate that into the calculations?

[babazaroni]

Enough with the sagging trusses... bowing columns... transferring of loads - that doesn't explain anything about how the core collapsed within the perimeter of the towers, at near free fall speeds.

I think you may be on to something here 28K without realizing it. The lightweight floor trusses could only offer insignificant resistance to the huge mass that was crushing it. The space between the inner and outer columns was collapsing faster then the outer and inner columns. This would account for some/most of the debris ejections we saw.

[Pardalis]

28th, you do know that buildings are supposed to stand up right? If the top section began to tilt and collapse, what do you think is going to happen to the rest of the building?

[babazaroni]

28th, you do know that buildings are supposed to stand up right? If the top section began to tilt and collapse, what do you think is going to happen to the rest of the building?

Dude, don't you get it. The rest of the building was supposed to tip over to. Since it didn't, explosives must have been used.:)

[aggle-rithm]

What do I say to that? What part of please address exactly what I said and tell me how it doesn't make sense don't you understand?

If the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors... can it still apply pressure to the lower floors?

The upper mass tilted, because it was simply off balance...from the uneven failure of the impact floors... please don't interject some magical super force of energy...that counter reflected to the lower floors...

What is your trip? We are talking common sense here. I am asking utterly simple questions, and you are all scared to answer them. Now... if the upper mass isn't touching the lower floors can it still apply pressure to the lower floors? That is a common sense question... can you answer it?

I think 28Personality's problem is in having an overly simplistic mental model of the collapse.

In his mind, the upper section of the building was a monolithic entity that stayed in one piece until it hit the ground.

In his mind, each floor collapsed with perfect symmetry, so that if the monolithic upper section was tilted, only one corner could touching the lower floors at any given time.

In his mind, as each floor collapsed, it exploded and was expelled to the side, reducing its mass to zero.

Clearly, his thinking is strictly algebraic, so he has no appreciation for the dynamic changes taking place during the collapse.

You have now taken a tour of 28K's mind. Feel free to take a shower now.

[beachnut]

at near free fall speeds

What speed would that be 28th? State the speed of the core collapse!

Gee I saw core falling over 30 seconds after the fall began. What free fall speed do CT guys have that takes 30 seconds?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/11107458b5f52f083f.gif
What speed would that be 28th? State the speed of the core collapse!

Gee I saw core falling over 30 seconds after the fall began. What free fall speed do CT guys have that takes 30 seconds?

[Pardalis]

I think 28Personality's problem is in having an overly simplistic mental model of the collapse.

In his mind, the upper section of the building was a monolithic entity that stayed in one piece until it hit the ground.

You mean... like a tree? ;)

[28th Kingdom]

When you severely and suddenly overload a structural system it collapses violently. Thats the answer! Anyone with the slightest amount of common sense would know that.

Okay, so where is the proof that the WTC were overloaded? What because they collapsed? You are blinded because you automatically eliminate the possibility of explosives... which makes all of your theories warped.

There is absolutely no proof that the towers could have fell the way they did from the damage that was done. The speed at which the buildings fell defies the laws of physics... and that is a fact. It really is that simple.

Common sense tells us... given the knowledge of free falls speeds... that these towers could not have collapsed as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst like explosives.

Otherwise... you're saying that this marvel in structure engineering and design, provided virtually no resistance to the falling upper mass. You're basically saying this steel structured building provided no more resistance than if it were made of cardboard.

I was watching a History Channel special last night about the collapses... and they even claim the towers fell in 10 seconds... so how long do you all think it took for the towers to fall? And, if you give exact numbers... please tell me how you calculated them? I mean.. video footage has to be involved, right? If so... please link to it.

[Pardalis]

28th, the towers start to collapse: what should have happened according to your common sense?

ETA: forget about explosives, forget about the NIST, what should have happened according to you?

[aggle-rithm]

Common sense tells us... given the knowledge of free falls speeds... that these towers could not have collapsed as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst like explosives.


A PERFECT example of how common sense is not a valid tool to analyze uncommon occurances. Which, of course, is the point of this thread. Which, of course, is the very point that has eluded 28IQ from the beginning.

Sheesh!

[aggle-rithm]

You mean... like a tree? ;)

Yes, containing elves hard at work manufacturing comestibles.

[28th Kingdom]

28th, the towers start to collapse: what should have happened according to your common sense?

ETA: forget about explosives, forget about the NIST, what should have happened according to you?

Firstly...when the impact floors supposedly gave out...at this point, the lower floors hadn't collapsed... if there weren't any explosives, and this happened... the upper mass of floors would have (if the core columns all failed) toppled over and fallen off of the building.

Maybe you need to tell this building...that it was suppose to completely collapse, since half of it is missing.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4847/ntp10ini8.jpg

[Pardalis]

BTW Firestone, your avatar is so beautiful, from what artist is it?

[Architect]

Someone ask the idiot if he understands the middle third rule.




That should puzzle him.





For the rest of you, it's not hugely relevant but will show his ignorance. Essentially what is says is that the moment the centre of gravity moves outside the middle third of the structure's width, then it will be unable to take the loads and collapse.

Such collapses are invariably straight downwards. Why? Because the change in the centre of gravity and thus the joints/connections/whatever means they exceed design capacity and fail.

Generally.

[Pardalis]

Firstly...when the impact floors supposedly gave out...at this point, the lower floors hadn't collapsed... if there weren't any explosives, and this happened... the upper mass of floors would have (if the core columns all failed) toppled over and fallen off of the building.

So the building would have withstood the weight of the falling top section?

How?

[R.Mackey]

Everyone knows what? That the upper mass was increasing in size? How do they know this? We can't even see the upper mass for the majority of the collapse, so what tells us it's increasing in size?
Because more and more of the building is involved in the collapse over time.

The additional parts of building have mass, therefore, the mass increases over time.

Anticipating your pathetic objection, it is true that some would and did fall over the sides. However, remember that the Towers were over 200 feet across. What magical force would explain the bulk of material moving sideways up to 100 feet? None. Thus, the losses over the side are understood to be fairly minor.

And it doesn't really matter, anyway. From Greening (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf), page 17:

Because uncertainties also exist in our knowledge of the precise mass of the WTC, M, it is worth noting that the momentum transfer calculations of tc are also relatively insensitive to the value used for M. To show this, collapse time calculations were run using a fixed value of E1 of 1 x 109 J and a mass, M, varied in increments of 50,000,000 kg between 510,000,000 kg and 300,000,000 kg. The resulting collapse times varied by less than 0.8 seconds confirming that the collapse time is indeed quite insensitive to M over a wide range. Upon reflection, this is not so surprising since this result is precisely what Galileo showed in his famous experiment at Pisa.

Put another way, the collapse times -- indeed, the whole visible phenomenon -- doesn't change much if you vary the amount of mass present. Or simpler still, losses over the side don't change the nature of the collapse.


So if the lower floors collapsed as a result of the energy released from the falling mass - than wouldn't the upper mass have to be touching the lower floors in order to release this energy onto the lower floors? Wouldn't the upper mass have to continually touch the lower floors all the way to the ground... or could the upper mass fall off at some point... with the momentum causing the remaining floors to collapse?
Wow.

Your mind is an empty vessel, 28th Kingdom. The student is prepared. I will now attempt to teach.

YES, the upper mass has to touch the lower floors to "release" (actually transfer) its kinetic energy. It does so. It hits the lower floors. That's because gravity pulls the upper block straight down, and the lower floors are directly beneath them. Naturally, the collapse doesn't initiate in earnest until the upper block hits the lower floors.

NO, this does not mean the upper mass has to continually touch the lower floors. Momentary collision is plenty of time. But since it's all pretty much a vertical phenomenon, the process is self-regulating. The longer the lower floors resist, the longer the upper block stays in contact. The two masses only drift away from each other while both are in free-fall, i.e. when both are already irrevocably collapsing.


So you are saying that you reached your conclusion through pure speculation and opinion, right? Because that was all there in my statement.
Your inability to understand my comments does not make them wrong. I initially speculated, then made some calculations. I give my opinion. All three of these also just happen to be consistent with the NIST report. It is therefore incorrect to say that I reached my conclusion through "pure" speculation and opinion.


So you just admitted, that the upper mass may of only been touching the lower floors on one side. What twisting... you say after the initial tilt of the upper mass it stopped tilting... so which is it? Did it continue to twist and tilt all the way to the bottom or did it stopped twisting and tilting right after the collapse began?
It's not an admission, it's fact. After the aircraft impact but prior to collapse, several columns were severed. That's "upper mass touching lower floors on one side." No surprises here.

The twisting occurred while the upper block rotated. Rotation == twist. Capiche?

After the impact floor was completely destroyed, the force couple created by asymmetric loading no longer existed. The upper floors had already tilted to some degree, and retained some angular momentum. But the tilted corner would fall on the lower block first, and the upper block would gain some opposite angular momentum. After the collapse started for real, the upper block would probably neither gain nor lose angular momentum through the essentially random impacts floor after floor. Thus, it didn't stop tilting or twisting, but its rate of tilt became essentially negligible.


Even if the upper mass is only touching on one side of the lower floors? Do you not equate that into the calculations?
Not relevant for the full collapse. This situation only occured for the < 1 second between the upper block beginning to move, and the total failure of the impact floor. It's a minor footnote to the overall mechanics of collapse.

[babazaroni]

Okay, so where is the proof that the WTC were overloaded?

The inward bowing columns. Sorry, I know you don't want to talk about them.


What because they collapsed? You are blinded because you automatically eliminate the possibility of explosives...
No ejecting debris was seen at the moment of collapse.


Common sense tells us... given the knowledge of free falls speeds... that these towers could not have collapsed as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst like explosives.
Try dropping a brick on a balsa model. The model will collapse at very near free fall speeds.


Otherwise... you're saying that this marvel in structure engineering and design, provided virtually no resistance to the falling upper mass. You're basically saying this steel structured building provided no more resistance than if it were made of cardboard.
This tube-in-tube design with lightweight trusses as a key structural element will not be built again, for obvious reasons.

[Architect]

After the impact floor was completely destroyed, the force couple created by asymmetric loading no longer existed. The upper floors had already tilted to some degree, and retained some angular momentum. But the tilted corner would fall on the lower block first, and the upper block would gain some opposite angular momentum. After the collapse started for real, the upper block would probably neither gain nor lose angular momentum through the essentially random impacts floor after floor. Thus, it didn't stop tilting or twisting, but its rate of tilt became essentially negligible.


Correct, and well put.

The tilt itself will also have resulted in structural failure within the mobile tilted section, removing it's integrity, at which poin the seperate sub sections would be even more inclined to proceed in an orderly vertical direction.

[Firestone]

BTW Firestone, your avatar is so beautiful, from what artist is it?From Tamara de Lempicka.

It is the portrait of Marjorie Ferry (http://www.getoilpaintings.com/buy-tamara-de-lempicka-painting-001.html).

[Architect]

This tube-in-tube design with lightweight trusses as a key structural element will not be built agian, for obvious reasons.


I wouldn't bet on that, to be honest. It would be perfectly possible to build a more robust version of it.

But today we tend to do it differently anyway.

[aggle-rithm]

Otherwise... you're saying that this marvel in structure engineering and design, provided virtually no resistance to the falling upper mass. You're basically saying this steel structured building provided no more resistance than if it were made of cardboard.

I was watching a History Channel special last night about the collapses... and they even claim the towers fell in 10 seconds... so how long do you all think it took for the towers to fall? And, if you give exact numbers... please tell me how you calculated them? I mean.. video footage has to be involved, right? If so... please link to it.


Since he watches the History Channel, he knows that structures DO exist that can provide resistance to a large chunk of itself dropping downwards -- they're called the pyramids.

Given that only about 1% of these structures is open space, I don't think this would be a very pragmatic design for an office building.

[babazaroni]

I wouldn't bet on that, to be honest. It would be perfectly possible to build a more robust version of it.

But today we tend to do it differently anyway.

While you are at it Architect, do you have any comments on the new Freedom Tower?

I've heard it will have a concrete core and the exterior will have a cable mesh. Sounds intriguing.

[ConspiRaider]

There is absolutely no proof that the towers could have fell the way they did from the damage that was done. The speed at which the buildings fell defies the laws of physics... and that is a fact. It really is that simple.


The speed at which the buildings fell IS the speed at which they fell, Doctor 28IQ. Which law of physics is being defied?

Common sense tells us... given the knowledge of free falls speeds... that these towers could not have collapsed as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst like explosives.

Free fall speeds are NOT common sense, Doctor 28IQ. The vast vast vast majority of common folk - keepers of common sense - have no clue concerning freefall speeds of ANYTHING. Let alone giant skyscrapers.

The only way the buildings could have fallen "faster than freefall speed" is if a force other than gravity was acting upon them, from the top down. Little directional explosive rockets, for example, increasing DOWNWARD momentum. Everything has to be aimed DOWN.

Therefore, Doctor 28IQ, you are now required to explain how many of these directionally explosive rockets were used, per floor, how they were delivered to the WTC complex, how smuggled into the building, who installed them and how many, time to install, how much material required for triggering devices, how that was installed - and of course why security didn't tumble to any of this, nor did any of those tens of thousands of people swarming in and around the WTC complex in the middle of the downtown section of the most populous city in the 3rd most populous country on the planet Earth.

Thank you Doctor. Oh here, you dropped your IQ...

[28th Kingdom]

...
I'm gonna reply to everything you said in your last post... but I need to ask something first... and I'm being serious, so please don't brush it off or be sarcastic... but are you government employed? Honestly... do you work in law enforcement, the military or some other branch of the government... I just want to know before we continue.

[Pardalis]

From Tamara de Lempicka.

It is the portrait of Marjorie Ferry (http://www.getoilpaintings.com/buy-tamara-de-lempicka-painting-001.html).

I didn't know her, love it. Thanks!

[Skibum]

Maybe you need to tell this building...that it was suppose to completely collapse, since half of it is missing.

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/4847/ntp10ini8.jpg

Pssst, totally different building design, totally different situation.

[Pardalis]

I'm gonna reply to everything you said in your last post... but I need to ask something first... and I'm being serious, so please don't brush it off or be sarcastic... but are you government employed? Honestly... do you work in law enforcement, the military or some other branch of the government... I just want to know before we continue.

And you're a limo driver, what difference does it make?

[28th Kingdom]

Pssst, totally different building design, totally different situation.

Pssst, maybe you should address my reply to your post... you know the one that mentions the speed at which the towers fell... you know the simple scientific equation that easily debunks NIST's theory.

[R.Mackey]

I'm gonna reply to everything you said in your last post... but I need to ask something first... and I'm being serious, so please don't brush it off or be sarcastic... but are you government employed? Honestly... do you work in law enforcement, the military or some other branch of the government... I just want to know before we continue.

I am a civilian contractor working for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If that rankles your paranoia, too bad. Everything I've said is independently verifiable.

[Bell]

Pssst, maybe you should address my reply to your post... you know the one that mentions the speed at which the towers fell... you know the simple scientific equation that easily debunks NIST's theory.

Common Sense + ALL CAPS CONSPIRACY THEORY = NIST is wrong

[Pardalis]

28th... stop... how could the building... support... the falling... top section... ?... stop

[babazaroni]

Common Sense + ALL CAPS CONSPIRACY THEORY = NIST is wrong

You forgot to multiply by paranoia.

[aggle-rithm]

Someone ask the idiot if he understands the middle third rule.




That should puzzle him.





For the rest of you, it's not hugely relevant but will show his ignorance. Essentially what is says is that the moment the centre of gravity moves outside the middle third of the structure's width, then it will be unable to take the loads and collapse.

Such collapses are invariably straight downwards. Why? Because the change in the centre of gravity and thus the joints/connections/whatever means they exceed design capacity and fail.

Generally.

This is an argument I've tried with troofers a few times, always to howls of laughter from those who rely too much on common sense. (Thanks for the technical term for this rule, by the way.) However, even common sense tells you that if a skyscraper is tilted at, say, a 20-degree angle, it can't possibly stay intact unless it has additional supports added (at great expense, of course) to withstand the diagonal loads. Still, the only purpose of this would be to keep the structure intact until it hit the ground, or, most likely, crash into another building. What would be the point of that?

[Arus808]

Pssst, maybe you should address my reply to your post... you know the one that mentions the speed at which the towers fell... you know the simple scientific equation that easily debunks NIST's theory.

psst.. maybe yous should 'unignore' those that have answered your questions.

[Bell]

You forgot to multiply by paranoia.

I keep forgetting that. Where do I have to put that in the equation again?

[Lisa Simpson]

Posts concerning the scale of the WTC have been moved here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72005).

[28th Kingdom]

The speed at which the buildings fell IS the speed at which they fell, Doctor 28IQ. Which law of physics is being defied?

Is this just a game to you? What kind of statement is that? The buildings fell at the speed they fell... thus it's scientifically possible for them to fall that fast right? I mean... are you kidding though... I really don't know anymore. Yes, the buildings fell at the speed they fell... and since we have laws that determine how fast things can fall... we can use that to prove why the towers couldn't have fallen as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst.


Free fall speeds are NOT common sense, Doctor 28IQ. The vast vast vast majority of common folk - keepers of common sense - have no clue concerning freefall speeds of ANYTHING. Let alone giant skyscrapers.I didn't say they were common sense... I said that once armed with the knowledge of free falls speeds and what they are... then we can use common sense to apply this piece of knowledge to the tower collapses to deduce that they couldn't have fallen as fast as they did. Why? Because that would mean this steel structured building not only failed... but offered virtually no resistance. 10 floors failing per second... that's fast.


The only way the buildings could have fallen "faster than freefall speed" is if a force other than gravity was acting upon them, from the top down. Not true... the floors were simply exploding from the top in a downward sequential pattern... really just a simple illusion. Nothing was collapsing... the upper mass was falling, and the lower floors were being blown up in a linear fashion top to bottom.

[Skibum]

Pssst, maybe you should address my reply to your post... you know the one that mentions the speed at which the towers fell... you know the simple scientific equation that easily debunks NIST's theory.

Why, the answers were given by others before I had a chance, I will not reanswer a question that has already been answered to my satisfaction.
It's not my problem that you choose to ignore so many people that you miss those answers.

[Architect]

This is liking watching a car crash......it's horrible, but you cannae take yer eyes off it! Are there no circumstances in which 28th will actually provide a meaningful, reasoned argument?!

[28th Kingdom]

Posts concerning the scale of the WTC have been moved here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72005).

Wow... thank you for doing that... we need more of this type of moderation.

[Oliver]

Wow... thank you for doing that... we need more of this type of moderation.

...at the Loose Change Forum. *Fixed*

[Bell]

Wow... thank you for doing that... we need more of this type of moderation.

Nope, you dimwit, I requested the posts to be moved because I wanted to get them attention on their own. Not that you will read this, since I'm on your ignorant list. But FYI for the other members here.

[A W Smith]

Not true... the floors were simply exploding from the top down in a downward sequential pattern... really just a simple illusion. Nothing was collapsing... the upper mass was falling, and the lower floors were being blown up in a linear fashion top to bottom.


let me fix that quote for you

Not true >>> the floors were simply exploding from the top down in a downward sequential pattern... really just a simple illusion. Nothing was collapsing... the upper mass was falling, and the lower floors were being blown up in a linear fashion top to bottom

[Skibum]

Nope, I requested the posts to be moved because I wanted to get them attention on their own. Not that you will read this, since I'm on your ignorant list. But FYI for the other members here.

Now he can. ;)

[28th Kingdom]

28th kingdom- you moron. the structural engineers understand perfectly why the towers fell. you dont understand...because you dont want to. you need bush to be responcible for 9-11...because u hate bush. and no amount of evidence will ever convince u that it was not an inside job. why? because you dont really care about evidence. its all political for you.

Please, don't project your biases onto me. I'm non-partisan... and by that I mean... I think 99% of all politicians (democrats and republicans) are evil.

I will admit... I use to think Bill Clinton was a good guy... WRONG! This guy is a demon like the rest of them.

[defaultdotxbe]

Is this just a game to you? What kind of statement is that? The buildings fell at the speed they fell... thus it's scientifically possible for them to fall that fast right? I mean... are you kidding though... I really don't know anymore. Yes, the buildings fell at the speed they fell... and since we have laws that determine how fast things can fall... we can use that to prove why the towers couldn't have fallen as fast as they did without a synthetic catalyst.
how fast did they fall? give me an average speed, acceleration, and/or time elapsed (BTW those are all numbers, so "free fall" or "near free fall" doesnt cut it)

when you give me one of those i will calculate how much GPE was released and available to destroy the structure below the collapsing section

[Mancman]

the upper mass of floors would have (if the core columns all failed) toppled over and fallen off of the building.


Calculations please.

[Kage]

The speed at which the building fell was not freefall, or even terminal velocity. Pieces of the building fell at terminal velocity, given that they had been ejected from the building. The rest of the building didn't fall at freefall, or near freefall, as you can tell by watching the parts that are falling at freefall. Maintaining this near-freefall nonesense is dishonest. How can you say that you are applying common sense when you aren't even observing the event in question?

[Pardalis]

Please, don't project your biases onto me. I'm non-partisan... and by that I mean... I think 99% of all politicians (democrats and republicans) are evil.

:dl:

[ConspiRaider]

Not true... the floors were simply exploding from the top down in a downward sequential pattern... really just a simple illusion.

I see. "Simple". Simple explosions, simple illusion. Then you are required to now tell us EXACTLY what explosives were used to perpetrate the event. Remember - it's simple, Doctor 28IQ.

In just 8 words, you managed a fine contradiction. Efficient, I'll concede that:
Nothing was collapsing... the upper mass was falling

Then you finish off with:
...and the lower floors were being blown up in a linear fashion top to bottom.

How many of the lower floors? Every one, top to bottom? Or just those below the impact zones? We need a hard number per tower, Doctor, because after all, you said this was simple.

Per floor, indicate the amount of material, in pounds, required to explode each floor on command. Oh yes - WHAT was the material? Simple question, we demand answers.

Did humans initiate the sequential collapse of each floor by explosives, or a computer? Who operated the computer? From where? And I will strip you of the remaining 28 points in your IQ if you say Building 7...

[28th Kingdom]

Calculations please.

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right? It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right? It wouldn't be under any weird strains or loads, right? It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, outer columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

[CHF]

the upper mass of floors would have (if the core columns all failed) toppled over and fallen off of the building.

And what would have pushed the mass over so that it would have fallen off the building?

[babazaroni]

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

Without the hat truss, it would be vulnerable.

[Architect]

1. You forget that the hat trusses were responsible for distributing load. Magically remove them, as you suggest, then there will be problems.

2. You don't understand the difference between live, dead, and dynamic loads - do you?

[28th Kingdom]

The speed at which the building fell was not freefall, or even terminal velocity. Pieces of the building fell at terminal velocity, given that they had been ejected from the building. The rest of the building didn't fall at freefall, or near freefall, as you can tell by watching the parts that are falling at freefall. Maintaining this near-freefall nonesense is dishonest. How can you say that you are applying common sense when you aren't even observing the event in question?

If you know they didn't fall at near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so how long did it take? If you know the time wasn't near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so what are the times you have?

[Mancman]

I was watching a History Channel special last night about the collapses... and they even claim the towers fell in 10 seconds... so how long do you all think it took for the towers to fall? And, if you give exact numbers... please tell me how you calculated them? I mean.. video footage has to be involved, right? If so... please link to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCSXco-bPNo

Collapse begins at 2/3 seconds in. After 13 seconds, huge sections of debris have not yet hit the ground, and the building is still taller than 3 World Financial Center on the right hand side, which is some 750 feet high.

[CHF]

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right? It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right? It wouldn't be under any weird strains or loads, right? It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, out columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

You were asked for your calculations, not another load of questions.

The structure failed at the jet impact floors and tens of thousands of tons fell down which the structure could not support.

It ain't rocket science.

[Arus808]

If you know they didn't fall at near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so how long did it take? If you know the time wasn't near free fall speeds... than you must know how fast they fell... so what are the times you have?

just because its made by or shown on the "history channel" doesn't mean its factual. Its just another channel on TV.

The only respectable channel is PBS, but even then some of hteir programs are factually incorrect.

[Skibum]

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right?

Perhaps if there were an enormous crane available, that gently placed the upper section exactly in place so the the columns lined up.

It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?


Weight would be a factor in determining the energy.

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right? It wouldn't be under any weird strains or loads, right? It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, out columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

It would be lacking the hat trusses at the upper floors which I believe provided some lateral stabilization.




Just imagine... when they were building the towers.... and when they got up to the floors that were right below the impact points...they stopped building...leaving the top open and without a roof. Would this structure be vulnerable to any lateral loads?

It would according to your description be lacking the roof and hat trusses so IMO would be more vulnerable. How much more, I don't know.

ETA. damn I type way to slow.

[Pardalis]

If the upper mass and impact floors were removed... than the lower structure would be perfectly stable and intact, right?

But they weren't "removed", they were crushed by the weight of the top section falling onto them.

It would still have all the floors, trusses, core columns, out columns in great condition, and without any unnatural loads, right?

I would call the falling top section an unnatural load they weren't designed to withstand.

[CHF]

2. You don't understand the difference between live, dead, and dynamic loads - do you?

No, he apparently doesn't. Twoofers think that if a structure can hold up 140,000 tons when its stable then it should therefor hold that weight up when its falling.

This is why twoofers tend not to be structural engineers.

[Architect]

No, he apparently doesn't. Twoofers think that if a structure can hold up 140,000 tons when its stable then it should therefor hold that weight up when its falling.

This is why twoofers tend not to be structural engineers.


You've seen the "brick on the head" analogy, I take it?

NonBeliever didn't understand it.

[defaultdotxbe]

just because its made by or shown on the "history channel" doesn't mean its factual. Its just another channel on TV.

The only respectable channel is PBS, but even then some of hteir programs are factually incorrect.
hes just blindly injesting whats being fed to him, but since its not from the government its ok :D

[Architect]

just because its made by or shown on the "history channel" doesn't mean its factual. Its just another channel on TV.


Although the best account I ever saw of the Citicorp Building structural problems was on BBC's Horizon.

[CHF]

You've seen the "brick on the head" analogy, I take it?

NonBeliever didn't understand it.

It boggles the mind that ANYONE could not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.

The brick analogy works almost every time I present it. You gotta be pretty messed up to not get it.

We can balance a brick on our head and it doesn't hurt. Drop that brick on our head and we're bleeding all over the place. Why? It's the same brick!

What's 28th theory?

[Architect]

Was it you I pinched it from? Posted it about a week ago? It was an absolute corker, so it was.


NB's response was something about your body not compacting to 6% it's original size under the dynamic load......like, duh!

[28th Kingdom]

I see. "Simple". Simple explosions, simple illusion. Then you are required to now tell us EXACTLY what explosives were used to perpetrate the event. Remember - it's simple, Doctor 28IQ.

Did humans initiate the sequential collapse of each floor by explosives, or a computer? Who operated the computer? From where? And I will strip you of the remaining 28 points in your IQ if you say Building 7...

Why do you want to talk about speculative details? Why... I wonder... gee, I wonder I wonder I wonder and then I wonder...

I could speculate...one of the 100 different ways they might of executed the demolition... but, of course, I don't know the exact details... so then you could try to debunk what I say with more speculation... instead of addressing the big picture and the fact that we (both Truthers and Deniers) know that explosives could have accounted for lots of things, including the full collapse to the ground... outward projection of the walls... pulverized concrete... the speed at which the towers fell...among other things.

There are so many things that your miracle collapse can't and doesn't account for... you are relying on things that are unproven... as according to Deniers... this is the first time in the history of the world, that something like this happened. Um, sort of, but not really... tall high-rise buildings have fallen to the ground in seconds before... and we have video footage of said events. They are called Controlled Demolition. The WTC were NOT CD... I have explained that people compare these "collapses" to CD, because that's the only other visual (tall buildings falling down in seconds) we have to compare it to. These towers, were probably rigged in a completely different way than CD. As you might be aware... CD never have exploding walls, eh.

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability, common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

[defaultdotxbe]

It boggles the mind that ANYONE could not understand the difference between static and dynamic loads.

The brick analogy works almost every time I present it. You gotta be pretty messed up to not get it.

We can balance a brick on our head and it doesn't hurt. Drop that brick on our head and we're bleeding all over the place. Why? It's the same brick!

What's 28th theory?
youve seen his asteroid quote right?

[Architect]

youve seen his asteroid quote right?


LoL. I'd forgotten about that!

[CHF]

youve seen his asteroid quote right?

I wanna know but I fear I will lose even more faith in humanity...

[Architect]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...


Sorry, but being Scottish I feel the need to add:


Ye cannae change the laws o' physics, Cap,n!

[CHF]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11.

Oh so you've got a narrative then as to what you think happened?

Let's hear it.

[babazaroni]

Okay... first, let's clarify... if the impact floors were removed, the remaining lower floors could have supported the weight of the upper floors, right? It was the energy released from the fall of the upper mass hitting the lower floors that caused all of the lower floors to fail, right? It wasn't the weight of the upper floors, right?


Yes, in a very lego like way.

I find it very fascinating to observe the inner workings of your logic sequences.

[Skibum]

Why do you want to talk about speculative details? Why... I wonder... gee, I wonder I wonder I wonder and then I wonder...

I could speculate...one of the 100 different ways they might of executed the demolition... but, of course, I don't know the exact details... so then you could try to debunk what I say with more speculation... instead of addressing the big picture and the fact that we (both Truthers and Deniers) know that explosives could have accounted for lots of things, including the full collapse to the ground... outward projection of the walls... pulverized concrete... the speed at which the towers fell...among other things.

There are so many things that your miracle collapse can't and doesn't account for... you are relying on things that are unproven... as according to Deniers... this is the first time in the history of the world, that something like this happened. Um, sort of, but not really... tall high-rise buildings have fallen to the ground in seconds before... and we have video footage of said events. They are called Controlled Demolition. The WTC were NOT CD... I have explained that people compare these "collapses" to CD, because that's the only other visual (tall buildings falling down in seconds) we have to compare it to. These towers, were probably rigged in a completely different way than CD. As you probably know... CD never have exploding walls, eh.

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

I think you don't really understand what CD is all about. Especially when you start going on about explosives on every floor and material being ejected outwards and pulverization of concrete, just to name a few.

[babazaroni]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

Do you think R.Mackey's explainations fall in this category?

[defaultdotxbe]

I wanna know but I fear I will lose even more faith in humanity...
kiss any remaining faith you had goodbye
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2184810&#post2184810

[Architect]

Remember that 28th declared that it was impossible for steel to fail due to fire loadings and then ran away from the technical postings which proved the exact opposite.

Not that I'll let anyone forget, since I holler it at every opportunity. Sorry guys.

[CHF]

kiss any remaining faith you had goodbye
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2184810&#post2184810

Good Lord.

That guy should be strapped down to a bed and studied by men in white coats.

[Skibum]

kiss any remaining faith you had goodbye
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2184810&#post2184810

Now that is pure comedy gold.

[Architect]

Good Lord.

That guy should be strapped down to a bed and studied by men in white coats.


It's great, isn't it? You just couldnae make it up.



I do have a theory that some of these guys are actually doing some sort of Performance Art type thing.

[defaultdotxbe]

Good Lord.

That guy should be strapped down to a bed and studied by men in white coats.
"at the sake of sounding like a genius" is just the icing on the cake, lol

[Bell]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

What new laws? What. New. Laws?

[Kage]

I'm using the height of 415m for the WTC. At freefall, x = (1/2)gt^2.

415 = (1/2)(9.8)t^2

830 = 9.8t^2

84.7 = t^2

t = 9.2

Show me a video that has the full collapse happening in 9.2 seconds, and we can talk about freefall speeds. As for the near freefall argument (near freefall not being a scientific term), I am assuming a generous 15 seconds (when the collapse is still 750 feet high in real life):

415 = (1/2)g(15)^2

830 = 225g

g = 3.7 m/(s^2)

which is a little more than a third of the actual value. This is with the generous time estimate (in YOUR favor). With real times I'm sure you aren't even in the same order of magnitude. This is not near freefall. This is the value of g for mars.

[R.Mackey]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

If that's so, then why have you not yet answered my last post, like you promised (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2236123#post2236123) you would? Especially if you're so sure that you "adhere to scientific laws," while I apparently "throw my hands up in the air?" What's the delay?

Or did I scare you off with my credentials? Having answered your question, I expect you to provide me with yours in your reply. I would also be glad to go into more detail about my training, if you would like.

[Skibum]

"at the sake of sounding like a genius" is just the icing on the cake, lol


True, I'm pretty sure my six year old daughter has a better grasp of reality than 28th.

[Architect]

True, I'm pretty sure my six year old daughter has a better grasp of reality than 28th.

I'm damned sure my 5 year old has.

[Skibum]

I'm damned sure my 5 year old has.

I just asked her a few relevant questions, she answered correctly. So I am certain she does now.

I did get a few odd "why are you asking me these simple questions" looks from her though.

[Mancman]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability and common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11.

Damn, a week too late for the 'best denier quotes of 2006' thread.

[Architect]

Damn, a week too late for the 'best denier quotes of 2006' thread.


But getting in at the top if anyone fancies a 2007 thread!

[28th Kingdom]

Show me a video that has the full collapse happening in 9.2 seconds, and we can talk about freefall speeds. As for the near freefall argument (near freefall not being a scientific term), I am assuming a generous 15 seconds

which is a little more than a third of the actual value. This is with the generous time estimate (in YOUR favor). With real times I'm sure you aren't even in the same order of magnitude. This is not near freefall. This is the value of g for mars.

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

[JimBenArm]

Wow. Just when I think 28 can't get any stupider, he goes and outdoes himself. He's truly a treasure, someone who can actually suck the intelligence from a thread just by showing up!

[Bell]

Wow. Just when I think 28 can't get any stupider, he goes and outdoes himself. He's truly a treasure, someone who can actually suck the intelligence from a thread just by showing up!

I imagine 28IQ buying a CD that costs $15.00 and trying to pay with a $10 bill. Well, 10 dollar is near enough.

[babazaroni]

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?


You've use the term. What is your definition?

[Pardalis]

28th, your explosives theory seems to be based on your argument that the building could have withstood the falling top section.

Please explain how this can be.

[Kage]

Did you even read my post? The effective g (acceleration due to gravity) for a collapse taking 15 seconds is 3.7 m/s^2. The actual acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2.

I said that 15 seconds was when the building was at a height of 750 feet. The actual collapse took more like 30 seconds. Did you even read my post?

[Skibum]

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

A building whose collapse was initiated due to structural failure due to a plane crash and fires and continued because there was no way to stop it, just like the wtc towers?

[defaultdotxbe]

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?
well your the one who says they fell near free fall, what do you think near is? how fast did they fall? i asked you for a number on the last page

did i get added to the ignore list?

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

you stated that you can "piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11."

So give me your narrative.

I don't want endless stupid questions or "this doesn't look right."

I want you to tie all your evidence together into a logical narrative. You'd be the very first twoofer to do it.

[Architect]

Ask him what the shear loads on the lower structure were at the point of impact of the dynamic upper load, esp. with respect to design capacity.

On ye go....

[babazaroni]

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

He adds it because that is what the timing on the video shows.

Show us your video and how you calculate your time.

Do you understand the enormous difference between 9.2 seconds and 15 seconds?

[28th Kingdom]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

[babazaroni]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

Horizontal velocity has no impact on how gravity will pull on object down.

It just means the object will hit the ground farther away from the start.

[defaultdotxbe]

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right?
you realize that if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds it would violate the laws of physics, right? synthetic catalyst or no synthetic catalyst for the towers to fall in perfect free fall the entire tower would have to fall as a unit, but it didnt, therefore there are 2 possible explanations in they fell in 9.2 seconds

1: gravity was stronger than normal in manhattan that day
2: they didnt fall in 9.2 seconds

[Skibum]

Horizontal velocity has no impact on how gravity will pull on object down.

Exactly, 28th has easily been debunked.

[CHF]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

OH MY GOD! Explosives made the debris go down faster???

What - the debris pieces had rocket boosters on them?

How old are you? You can't be a day over 17.

[babazaroni]

OH MY GOD! Explosives made the debris go down faster???

What - the debris pieces had rocket boosters on them?

How old are you? You can't be a day over 17.

He's actually saying the explosives made the debris go outward, and claiming this horizontal movement slowed down the fall to earth. This would then show that the towers could have collapsed at free-fall speeds.

Edit: Sorry, you are right. He's claiming the outward velocity increased the speed to earth. Still wrong.

[defaultdotxbe]

He's actually saying the explosives made the debris go outward, and claiming this horizontal movement slowed down the fall to earth. This would then show that the towers could have collapsed at free-fall speeds.
no, i think hes saying the explosions made the debris go down faster, thats the only way he can account for the debris falling faster than the free-falling towers

[babazaroni]

no, i think hes saying the explosions made the debris go down faster, thats the only way he can account for the debris falling faster than the free-falling towers

Yes, that's right.

[Oliver]

*snip*You've officially been DEBUNKED!

Sorry, i couldn´t resist - it´s too funny. :boxedin:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745a194c1ebfeb.gif

[Kage]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

So you are going to ignore the fact that I showed that since it didn't take 9.2 seconds it wasn't going anywhere near freefall, and replace it with this idea that the dedris were pushed downward? Well, let's look at that claim:

You are saying that the debris were projected downward by explosives. Were this to be true, and were the building to be moving at freefall, the building and debris wouldn't accelerate relative to each other, but they do.

Amazing that when faced with damning evidence, you pick a previous claim that proves you wrong, and explain it away with bunk. Next you will be attaching rockets to the debris, wait--I don't want to give you any crazy ideas, or do I!

[Bell]

Let me show you how completely selective you are when it comes to scientific laws...and applying them only when you think it confirms you theory.

A lot of you try to debunk the free fall speeds... by saying the debris landed first... and so that means the towers didn't fall faster than free fall.

Absolutely. Correct. Spot on.

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

Um, you know the debris wasn't just falling... it was projected outward with energy released from explosives...so maybe that energy sort of like had something to due with increasing the speed at which the debris traveled to the ground.

Bolding mine.

And explosives? What explosives?
What. Explosives?

You've officially been DEBUNKED!

Ehm...

:dl:

[Kage]

Sorry, i couldn´t resist - it´s too funny. :boxedin:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745a194c1ebfeb.gif

Can I have one in Avatar size?

[Architect]

Whit? It does that automatically, ya eejit.

[R.Mackey]

Okay...let's break down what you said... firstly, near freefall isn't a scientific term... agreed. And, then you claim that 15 seconds compared to 9.2 seconds is NOT near freefall speeds. So, who endowed you with this judgment? So, scientifically speaking... what time would be near 9.2 seconds. 10 seconds? 11 seconds? 12 seconds? What definition of "near" are you working with?

You understand if the towers had fallen in 9.2 seconds... it means a synthetic catalyst had to of been used, right? So you add 4-6 seconds to this... factor in probability and common logic... and what do you get?

Since you still refuse to address my post, like you promised, I surmise I've made your vaunted "Ignore" list. But in case not, let me explain your fallacy here.

9.2 seconds is totally different from what you get if you "add 4-6 seconds." A simple calculation will confirm this.

Suppose we compute the time it takes the roof to hit the ground. Let the acceleration be a, in which case the time it takes to hit can be found using d = 1/2 a t2, where d is the distance the roof has to fall, equal to about 417 meters, and t is the time of the fall. We know d, measure t, and work backwards to get the effective acceleration a.

If the structure absorbs no energy at all, i.e. we get freefall, we should measure a = g. In this case, we should see t = 9.2 seconds.

If the structure absorbs some energy, then a will be less than g, or better expressed as a fraction of g.

Once we have this fraction, we can then estimate how much energy was needed to destroy the structure as it fell. Recall that gravitational energy GPE = m g h, where m is the mass of the structure. But this is the same g. Since the building doesn't collapse with acceleration g, the percentage of the GPE that at any time is seen as kinetic energy is not used to destroy the structure, and the remainder must have been needed to destroy the structure.

In other words, the fraction 1 - (a / g) is equal to the fraction of energy that went into destroying the structure.

From calculations elsewhere, the total GPE of the structure was equal to roughly 160 tons of TNT equivalent.

I've made a table for you that describes, for certain values of collapse time, how much energy went into destroying the structure as it fell:

Collapse time ............... Structural fraction ............. Structural energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------

9.2 seconds ................. 0 ................................... 0
10 seconds .................. 0.15 ............................... 24 tons TNT
11 seconds .................. 0.30 ............................... 48 tons TNT
12 seconds .................. 0.41 ............................... 65.6 tons TNT
13 seconds .................. 0.50 ............................... 80 tons TNT
14 seconds .................. 0.57 ............................... 91.2 tons TNT
15 seconds .................. 0.62 ............................... 99.1 tons TNT

What does this mean?

It means, that "adding 4-6 seconds," far from being materially identical to free-fall, means that as much as 62% of the energy was dedicated to breaking the building.

Even a single second of resistance by the structure means it absorbed more energy than an entire truckload of pure high explosive -- far, far more than could possibly have been planted, under any scenario.

Once again, your "common sense" as you call it, is wrong. And feel free to show where I'm "throwing my hands in the air" and disobeying the laws of physics.

[Oliver]

Can I have one in Avatar size?


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745a196546a6de.gif ...Here it is :)

[Horatius]

youve seen his asteroid quote right?

I wanna know but I fear I will lose even more faith in humanity...

Ask and ye shall be answered: Look at my sig :) There's even a link, just in case you think I made it up......

[Architect]

:)

Mackey....remind me. You're not a structural engineer, but what's your discipline/profession again?

[28th Kingdom]

So you are going to ignore the fact that I showed that since it didn't take 9.2 seconds it wasn't going anywhere near freefall, and replace it with this idea that the dedris were pushed downward? Well, let's look at that claim:

You are saying that the debris were projected downward by explosives. Were this to be true, and were the building to be moving at freefall, the building and debris wouldn't accelerate relative to each other, but they do.

Amazing that when faced with damning evidence, you pick a previous claim that proves you wrong, and explain it away with bunk. Next you will be attaching rockets to the debris, wait--I don't want to give you any crazy ideas, or do I!

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

[babazaroni]

Once again, your "common sense" as you call it, is wrong. And feel free to show where I'm "throwing my hands in the air" and disobeying the laws of physics.

Thanks R.Mackey.

I joined this forum when I was looking for debunking of Furlong and Ross's seismic paper and found your posts on this matter. Their mistake was astounding. Not realizing the record start time was not the event time.

[Architect]

28th

In the real word, we use metric.

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.
you just proved you have no clue what your talking about

[28th Kingdom]

Sorry, i couldn´t resist - it´s too funny. :boxedin:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1110745a194c1ebfeb.gif

Now, that's a fine looking badge... I might just have to debunk meself... so that I can wear one.

[Architect]

Aye, and put yerself on ignore while you're at it ya eejit

[Pardalis]

Now, that's a fine looking badge... I might just have to debunk meself... so that I can wear one.

You already did, multiple times.

[babazaroni]

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

Well for one thing it starts out at 0 and accelerates, so at what point do you want a velocity?

I'm all atwitter at the thought of a 28K Perry Mason moment. Hurry up 28K, I'm missing dinner for this.

[R.Mackey]

:)

Mackey....remind me. You're not a structural engineer, but what's your discipline/profession again?
Rocket scientist. ;) I work for NASA on artificial intelligence. Lots of physics modeling and time-series analysis of sensor data. I trained in Math, Physics, and Aeronautics at university. So, no, I'm not a structural engineer, though I have studied solid mechanics and FEA. Just with a different spin on things.

[Horatius]

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

And once again he shows his ignorance, as the number of feet it falls per second, changes over time! That's what acceleration means!

[pvt1863]

28th

In the real word, we use metric.

Careful there. You may use metric in your real world, but my colleagues and I don't use metric in mine.

[28th Kingdom]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave.

"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

[Horatius]

Rocket scientist. ;) I work for NASA on artificial intelligence. Lots of physics modeling and time-series analysis of sensor data. I trained in Math, Physics, and Aeronautics at university. So, no, I'm not a structural engineer, though I have studied solid mechanics and FEA. Just with a different spin on things.

Just so you don't feel like your efforts are a complete waste, thanks to you I figured out the codes to include properly formated equations:


d = 1/2 a t2

Not much, I know, but better than nothing!

[The Almond]

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

And this, among all other things, I will repost as proof of your ignorance. Read this statement as many times as it takes you to understand it:
Force is a vector
Weight is a scalar.

Weight is not a force. Despite inlining your quotes and referencing your sources, you have missed the entirety of the point.


You've officially been DEBUNKED!
Indeed you have.

[Skibum]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.



Perhaps they are "inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible" only for people of your obvious "genius" status.

[LashL]

kiss any remaining faith you had goodbye
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2184810&#post2184810

Un
Be
Rule 8 ing
Lievable

[R.Mackey]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.
Doesn't make them wrong.

"Cannot be applied to the physical world," huh. Hilarious. Why is that? Edict from you? Let's hear it.

Or shut up.

[defaultdotxbe]

And this, among all other things, I will repost as proof of your ignorance. Read this statement as many times as it takes you to understand it:
Force is a vector
Weight is a scalar.

Weight is not a force. Despite inlining your quotes and referencing your sources, you have missed the entirety of the point.


Indeed you have.
what if the weight were expressed newtons? isnt that a representation of force? or am i remembering HS physics wrong? lol

[Architect]

Careful there. You may use metric in your real world, but my colleagues and I don't use metric in mine.


It's growing, even in America........

[Pardalis]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

I can't take anymore of this.

28th, welcome to ignore, turd.

[28th Kingdom]

And this, among all other things, I will repost as proof of your ignorance. Read this statement as many times as it takes you to understand it:
Force is a vector
Weight is a scalar.

Weight is not a force. Despite inlining your quotes and referencing your sources, you have missed the entirety of the point.


Indeed you have.

I'm tired of letting you people get away with posts like this... it's like a hit and run... of nonsense.

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

[Horatius]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave.

"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

I don't suppose someone not on ignore could ask for a link to this article, that shows it on the NCE website: http://www.nceplus.co.uk/home/?ChannelID=3 ? They don't seem to have such an article, and the only places I can find it are (surprise surprise!) twoofer sites.

I smell fiction, ladies and gentlemen.

[28th Kingdom]

"floors...magically spouting out debris like a steel-boned whale doing a handstand" - 28thKingdom

God... that makes me laugh every time I read it. Hahahaha - I'm so entertaining.

[The Almond]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms...
Can you conceive of terms and information that you cannot understand? Can you conceive of information that is known only by people who have spent years studying it? Can you conceive of a term that you can't investigoogle and understand in under 5 minutes?

Is that what's so abstract for you?

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm tired of letting you people get away with posts like this... it's like a hit and run... of nonsense.

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.
you asked how many feet an object in free falls will move per second, if you understood gravity youd know you cant answer this question without more information (most importantly, how long the object has been falling)

[The Almond]

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

Gladly:
Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity). In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force): their own weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight).

This statement is scientifically inaccurate.

[The Almond]

I don't suppose someone not on ignore could ask for a link to this article, that shows it on the NCE website: http://www.nceplus.co.uk/home/?ChannelID=3 ? They don't seem to have such an article, and the only places I can find it are (surprise surprise!) twoofer sites.

I smell fiction, ladies and gentlemen.

I did a search on NCE, too, and I didn't find an article by Dave Parker, or one that stated anythink like what 28th Kingdom quoted. I don't know if it's from there, but it doesn't seem like it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can't take anymore of this.

28th, welcome to ignore, turd.
Ditto

[28th Kingdom]

"Cannot be applied to the physical world," huh. Hilarious. Why is that? Edict from you? Let's hear it.

Here is what you might not understand.... our 5 senses are how we perceive reality. (physical world) Our five senses are separate from our thoughts (metaphysical - beyond the physical world) In order to prove something is possible in the physical world... you must show proof that can be observed with the 5 senses i.e. visual simulations.

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... unless you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:popWin%28%27/cgi-bin/audio.pl?metaph10.wav=metaphysical%27%29)
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective

2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : SUPERNATURAL (http://m-w.com/dictionary/supernatural)
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICAL (http://m-w.com/dictionary/theoretical)

[R.Mackey]

Here is what you might not understand.... our 5 senses are how we perceive reality. (physical world) Our five senses are separate from our thoughts (metaphysical - beyond the physical world) In order to prove something is possible in the physical world... you must show proof that can be observed with the 5 senses i.e. visual simulations.

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... until you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?metaph10.wav=metaphysical'))
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective
[/URL]
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : [URL="http://m-w.com/dictionary/supernatural"]SUPERNATURAL (http://m-w.com/dictionary/metaphysics)
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : THEORETICAL (http://m-w.com/dictionary/theoretical)

:D

That's the best you can do? Really?

Again, you asked for my credentials. I answered truthfully. What, dare I ask, are yours? After this latest outburst, I'm sure we're all dying to know.

[28th Kingdom]

This statement is scientifically inaccurate.

Blame Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall

[LashL]

Rocket scientist. ;) I work for NASA on artificial intelligence. Lots of physics modeling and time-series analysis of sensor data. I trained in Math, Physics, and Aeronautics at university. So, no, I'm not a structural engineer, though I have studied solid mechanics and FEA. Just with a different spin on things.

off topic

I have a sneaking suspicion that you might know someone I know, another rocket scientist who lives in LA, has a couple of degrees in aerospace engineering and a degree in physics, and who also worked as a USAF test pilot instructor... :)

/off topic

[The Almond]

Blame Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freefall

You think everything wiki says is accurate? That explains a lot. Just for your own edification, it would help you to learn the difference between a vector and a scalar.

ETA:

And you quote wiki without referencing it? Plagarism much?

[Horatius]

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... unless you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.



So, once again, all we need to do to convince him is re-build the towers, and knock them down again. Simple!

Minded, that is.

[Skibum]

It's growing, even in America........

Yes it is, I've done a couple jobs where the plans were in metric. After a couple days of getting used to it, I actually liked using metric measurements.

[Mr.D]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability, common logic and reason...



Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to Gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one Force: their own weight.


Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

I'm tired of letting you people get away with posts like this... it's like a hit and run... of nonsense.

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

So where are these "Truthers" using scientific laws? In the quoted bits above, you've only shown the logical ability to misunderstand Wikipedia entries.

Your notions of 'freefall,' 'force,' 'acceleration,' 'velocity,' are all scientifically incorrect; and therefore any 'theories' you build using those false notions are bunk. (Proof: The definition you use of freefall does not include 'air resistance.' QED)

[28th Kingdom]

When you look at angles that show the unobscured collapse of WTC 2... you can see that the building is still falling faster than the debris, down to at least the last 400+ feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

Here is visual proof (sensory evidence) that explosives can be used to bring down large buildings:

(Why can't we see any charges going off in this CD?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg

(Notice the dust cloud that forms at the base of this building after it comes down...look familiar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGsNADQicgc

Now... please provide physical proof that transferring loads can bring down large buildings. Remember... when the impact floors "gave out" due to the outer columns failing... according to NIST, WTC 2 still had 37 non-severed core columns... of which, only a couple had moderate impact/fire damage... so, actually...these impact floors didn't really give out completely from the bowing outer columns....because we still have to account for these 37 non-severed (which means they still ran from the base of the building through the impact floors and up to the top) core columns that somehow managed to all fail simultaneously in the span of one second after the outer columns failed.

Please, provide physical proof this is possible.

[LashL]

SSDD

You're a fraud, 28th. It's long past time for you to put up or shut up.

Respond to R. Mackey's posts, and don't forget to show your work.

[babazaroni]

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

To do this, we will have to be able to model your thought processes in a computer simulation. We are about halfway there, but you will have to provide more data for the final model. Don't change anything, just keep posting.

[Mr.D]

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... unless you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.


What then exempts your "theories" and "calculations" from the same claim?
That is ...

According to 28th Kingdom's own post, Until 28th Kingdom demonstrates his/her theories "in a way that can be perceived with our five senses," 28th's "theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality."

Hence you have debunked yourself.

BTW, has anyone else noticed what happens if you Caesar cypher "CT" by negative 1 (or plus 25)?

[JimBenArm]

Now, that's a fine looking badge... I might just have to debunk meself... so that I can wear one.

He should go ahead and wear one. He's the best 28K debunker around. Just has to open his mouth and speak.

[JimBenArm]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave.

"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
28K, don't you understand how well these concepts describe the real world? How anyone who has a functional brain cell can see how they work? Do you think they were made up just to confuse morons like you?

Just how stupid are you, really? I mean, you've found an unattended terminal in the asylum, and you're posting from there, aren't you?

[babazaroni]

until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality. (http://m-w.com/dictionary/theoretical)

You are dissapointing me 28K. Your steel-boned whale doing a handstand was much higher quality.

[babazaroni]

(Why can't we see any charges going off in this CD?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg



Did you see any debris being ejected during those explosions?

Did you hear anything like this when the towers fell?

Do you understand why we say the tower collapses did not look like CD?

[Skibum]

When you look at angles that show the unobscured collapse of WTC 2... you can see that the building is still falling faster than the debris, down to at least the last 400+ feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I




Thank you for providing proof of at least a 16 second collapse time.
I guess we can put that "near freefall speed" garbage behind us.
Also at approx 10-11 seconds you clearly see that the falling debris is well ahead of the collapsing building.

[Skibum]

Also at 12-13 seconds a large piece of debris is just about to hit the ground, well ahead of the rest of the collapse.

[LashL]

tWOOfers just can't seem to grasp reality, even when it's staring them straight in the face and even when their own posts show that they have no idea what they are talking about.

[28th Kingdom]

SSDD

You're a fraud, 28th. It's long past time for you to put up or shut up.

Respond to R. Mackey's posts, and don't forget to show your work.

How can I disprove something that is beyond my senses? I can't... I can neither prove it nor disprove it... that's why the million dollar challenge (according to what I know of it) seems to be a paradoxical impossibility.

How can you scientifically prove something that is scientifically unprovable? That is... how can you make something that is beyond the senses (paranormal) appear before the senses? If that happened, than the experience wouldn't be paranormal anymore... hence the paradox.

Is Randi looking for verifiable proof/evidence that something exists outside of the 5 sensory world?

Well... let me present my application. Do you have thoughts? There is your proof. Thoughts are a psychic ability that creates a communication link between the immaterial and material worlds. This paranormal activity i.e. thoughts - is experienced beyond all of our senses... and the physical (scientifically measurable) world.

If my winnings are paid out in the form of a check... please make it out to cash.

Toodles.

[Skibum]

tWOOfers just can't seem to grasp reality, even when it's staring them straight in the face and even when their own posts show that they have no idea what they are talking about.

Bizzare. Its like he's trying on shoes looking for the perfect pair. First its explosives made the debris accelerate faster than it should, now the collapse is faster than the falling debris. Dude, make up yer mind.

[R.Mackey]

How can I disprove something that is beyond my senses? I can't... I can neither prove it nor disprove it... that's why the million dollar challenge (according to what I know of it) seems to be a paradoxical impossibility.

So, you admit that my derivation is "beyond your senses?"

My basic physics, which would be repeatable by the average high-school graduate?

I take it, then, you concede the debate. I only hope you've managed to learn something, even if it's only the simple fact that you have much to learn.

[Paul]

our 5 senses .... Our five senses .... the 5 senses .... our five sensesNow might be a good time to ask why you think we only have five senses, seing as you rely on science and all.


Is Randi looking for verifiable proof/evidence that something exists outside of the 5 sensory world?Are you trying to claim that we only have five senses?

[Skibum]

How can I disprove something that is beyond my senses? I can't... I can neither prove it nor disprove it... that's why the million dollar challenge (according to what I know of it) seems to be a paradoxical impossibility.

How can you scientifically prove something that is scientifically unprovable? That is... how you can you make something that is beyond the senses (paranormal) appear before the senses? If that happened, than the experience wouldn't be paranormal anymore... hence the paradox.

Is Randi looking for verifiable proof/evidence that something exists outside of the 5 sensory world?

Well... let me present my application. Do you have thoughts? There is your proof. Thoughts are a psychic ability that creates a communication link between the immaterial and material worlds. This paranormal activity i.e. thoughts - is experienced beyond all of our senses... and the physical (scientifically measurable) world.

If my winnings are paid out in the form of a check... please make it out to cash.

Toodles.

Now you show that you have no idea how the challenge works, you're just an all around screwup aren't you. Can't get anything right.

[Kage]

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

Object accelerate at freefall, so no feet per second value works. At terminal velocity objects have a specific velocity. This velocity depends on sectional density and an areodynamic form factor, which would depend on the size, shape, density, and orientation or the chunks of the WTC you are refering to. But of course this was the answer you were looking for.

For a person (the only value I know off teh top of my head from skydiving) in the boxman body position you travel at 120 mph, or 176 fps. In the head down body position you can travel up to 300 mph, or 440 fps.

[28th Kingdom]

Now might be a good time to ask why you think we only have five senses, seing as you rely on science and all.


Are you trying to claim that we only have five senses?

No, we have 6 six senses... 5 physical senses and 1 (metaphysical) intuitive sense. How many do you think we have?

[defaultdotxbe]

How can I disprove something that is beyond my senses? I can't... I can neither prove it nor disprove it... that's why the million dollar challenge (according to what I know of it) seems to be a paradoxical impossibility.

How can you scientifically prove something that is scientifically unprovable? That is... how can you make something that is beyond the senses (paranormal) appear before the senses? If that happened, than the experience wouldn't be paranormal anymore... hence the paradox.

Is Randi looking for verifiable proof/evidence that something exists outside of the 5 sensory world?

Well... let me present my application. Do you have thoughts? There is your proof. Thoughts are a psychic ability that creates a communication link between the immaterial and material worlds. This paranormal activity i.e. thoughts - is experienced beyond all of our senses... and the physical (scientifically measurable) world.

If my winnings are paid out in the form of a check... please make it out to cash.

Toodles.
the challenge is easy, walk into randis office, place spoon on his desk, take 3 steps backward, bend the spoon, go home a millionaire

id do it myself, but its a hassle to travel

[28th Kingdom]

So, you admit that my derivation is "beyond your senses?"

My basic physics, which would be repeatable by the average high-school graduate?

I take it, then, you concede the debate. I only hope you've managed to learn something, even if it's only the simple fact that you have much to learn.

The application of your physics and calculations onto the collapses of WTC 1 & 2... is the thing beyond my senses.

[Paul]

No, we have 6 six senses... 5 physical senses and 1 (metaphysical) intuitive sense. How many do you think we have?Wrong, try again.

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

I would love to see you argue your "logic" in court.

You would enrage Judy Judy to the point where she would kill you with her bare hands.

[28th Kingdom]

the challenge is easy, walk into randis office, place spoon on his desk, take 3 steps backward, bend the spoon, go home a millionaire

id do it myself, but its a hassle to travel

We already know that invisible forces (beyond the 5 senses) can move physical objects. Just go play with some magnets and you will espy that.

Did I double my winnings? Big bucks... big bucks... no wammies and STOP!

[babazaroni]

The application of your physics and calculations onto the collapses of WTC 1 & 2... is the thing beyond my senses.

Do we have to tie you down in a skyscraper and run a plane into it for your five senses finally get it?

[CHF]

Is Randi looking for verifiable proof/evidence that something exists outside of the 5 sensory world?

So 28th Kingdom's proof basically comes down to this: his own special vibes and feelings tell him 9/11 was an inside job.

How can logic, science and engineers compete with that?

[28th Kingdom]

Wrong, try again.

Cool... well tell me how many we have... I'm really interested in this type of thing. And, link me to some literature, cus I'd like to read about it.

Thanks.

[defaultdotxbe]

We already know that invisible forces (beyond the 5 senses) can move physical objects. Just go play with some magnets and you will espy that.

Did I double my winnings? Big bucks... big bucks... no wammies and STOP!
magnets arent paranormal though, now if you could control magnetic fields with your mind (ala magneto) that WOULD be paranormal

so can you win the challeneg yet?

[R.Mackey]

The application of your physics and calculations onto the collapses of WTC 1 & 2... is the thing beyond my senses.

As before, that's your problem. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it wrong. It only makes you an incompetent.

I daresay every other single person reading this thread understands how my derivation applies to WTC 1 and 2.

[babazaroni]

We already know that invisible forces (beyond the 5 senses) can move physical objects. Just go play with some magnets and you will espy that.


So there are things beyond the five senses that you understand.

Magnetism cannot be directly sensed by our senses, yet we can see their affects.

[The Almond]

No, we have 6 six senses... 5 physical senses and 1 (metaphysical) intuitive sense. How many do you think we have?

Close your eyes. Move your left arm into some position. With your eyes closed, point to your left arm using your right hand. How did you do that?

http://www.answers.com/topic/proprioception

[28th Kingdom]

Do we have to tie you down in a skyscraper and run a plane into it for your five senses finally get it?

Well, actually...a visual simulation of the WTC collapses would be a good first step. You know... it's only one of the most unique and mysterious structural failures in the history of the world... it would be nice if they (NIST) took the time to demonstrate their theories.

[babazaroni]

Well, actually...a visual simulation of the WTC collapses would be a good first step. You know... it's only one of the most unique and mysterious structural failures in the history of the world... it would be nice if they (NIST) took the time to demonstrate their theories.

I'd like to see that as well.

Wonder if some grad student somewhere can steal some supercomputer time to render a collapse.

[The Almond]

Cool... well tell me how many we have... I'm really interested in this type of thing. And, link me to some literature, cus I'd like to read about it.

Thanks.

Proprioception
Equilibrioception
Synestesia

Google, 30 seconds. Research is your friend.

[CHF]

Well, actually...a visual simulation of the WTC collapses would be a good first step. You know... it's only one of the most unique and mysterious structural failures in the history of the world... it would be nice if they (NIST) took the time to demonstrate their theories.

Apparently twoofers need Dora the Explorer to slowly explain engineering matters to them. And if da twoofers don't understand it...well then there MUST be something wrong with it.

[LashL]

How can I disprove something that is beyond my senses? I can't... I can neither prove it nor disprove it... that's why the million dollar challenge (according to what I know of it) seems to be a paradoxical impossibility.

How can you scientifically prove something that is scientifically unprovable? That is... how can you make something that is beyond the senses (paranormal) appear before the senses? If that happened, than the experience wouldn't be paranormal anymore... hence the paradox.

Is Randi looking for verifiable proof/evidence that something exists outside of the 5 sensory world?

Well... let me present my application. Do you have thoughts? There is your proof. Thoughts are a psychic ability that creates a communication link between the immaterial and material worlds. This paranormal activity i.e. thoughts - is experienced beyond all of our senses... and the physical (scientifically measurable) world.

If my winnings are paid out in the form of a check... please make it out to cash.

Toodles.

As I said, you're a fraud. You said you would respond to R. Mackey's posts and then you failed and refused to do so, as usual. You spout nothing but nonsense.

You are probably the only person here who cannot grasp the simplest of high school physics, and yet you pretend to have superior knowledge beyond that of actual experts (including those in this very forum) and you consistently and repeatedly refuse to substantiate your outrageous claims, which are obviously made on the basis of nothing but a poor education, over-exposure to conspiracy websites inhabited by nutcases, and, of course, your advanced degree in woo.

You're a fraud, 28th, plain and simple.

Everything you have written (or copied and pasted) in this thread, including your post just quoted, leads to that simple, unavoidable conclusion.

Again, either put up or shut up.

[28th Kingdom]

Close your eyes. Move your left arm into some position. With your eyes closed, point to your left arm using your right hand. How did you do that?

http://www.answers.com/topic/proprioception

That perception is part of the sixth sense. The sixth sense is an all inclusive perception that includes everything beyond the 5 senses.

[R.Mackey]

Well, actually...a visual simulation of the WTC collapses would be a good first step. You know... it's only one of the most unique and mysterious structural failures in the history of the world... it would be nice if they (NIST) took the time to demonstrate their theories.

By extrapolation, I suppose this means 28th Kingdom believes that science began in about 1976, when computer visualization began to become practical.

By further extrapolation, as few science concepts are taught with visualization, particularly in the primary school system, we presume he's never passed a science class in his life.

Archimedes is laughing at you, pal. As is da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Stokes, Green, Gauss, Kelvin, Hooke, Leibniz, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Fermi, Feynman, Oppenheimer, and all the rest... Take a bow!

[The Almond]

That perception is part of the sixth sense. The sixth sense is an all inclusive perception that includes everything beyond the 5 senses.

Care to quote a reliable psychological resource on that? My sources state that the concept of a 6th sense is entirely linked to the paranormal, and no scientist believes Proprioception, Equilibrioception or Synestesia to be extra sensory in any way. Nice try, though.

[Skibum]

Cool... well tell me how many we have... I'm really interested in this type of thing. And, link me to some literature, cus I'd like to read about it.

Thanks.

I see what your problem is. You need to be led by the hand and spoon fed the information, because even in the case of something that really interests you, you won't take the time to go and study about it on your own. Instead of a quick google search, you have to be led to the info.

Maybe thats why conspiracy theories seem so prevalent, because folks like LTW are willing to lead nitwits by the hand and spoonfeed them whatever info they want them to hear. They know the nitwits won't take the time to figure out on their own that they are being lied to.

[Spindrift]

Well, actually...a visual simulation of the WTC collapses would be a good first step. You know... it's only one of the most unique and mysterious structural failures in the history of the world... it would be nice if they (NIST) took the time to demonstrate their theories.

Unique? Yes.

Mysterious? Not really. You might not have noticed but a plane crashed into each of the towers. Big planes. Full of fuel. Planes go boom. Buildings burn. Steel weaken. Buildings fall down.

[Paul]

That perception is part of the sixth sense. The sixth sense is an all inclusive perception that includes everything beyond the 5 senses.So, we've found something else you are entirely ignorant about.

What makes proprioception paranormal? How about thermoception, nociception or equilibrioception?

[aggle-rithm]

I could speculate...one of the 100 different ways they might of executed the demolition... but, of course, I don't know the exact details...


Talk about a failure of imagination. He pulled the whacky CT theory out of his nether regions, but now he can't make up the details? Pathetic.

[Horatius]

Well, actually...a visual simulation of the WTC collapses would be a good first step. You know... it's only one of the most unique and mysterious structural failures in the history of the world... it would be nice if they (NIST) took the time to demonstrate their theories.

Even if we produced a "visual simulation" of the collapse, how would you know it was accurate? We could slap any old crap together, and you wouldn't be able to tell, because you lack any fundamental understanding of the underlying science. So really, what would this prove, other than the fact that you can be mesmerized by pretty pictures?

[28th Kingdom]

Proprioception, Equilibrioception, Synestesia

Google, 30 seconds. Research is your friend.

Synesthesia is a unique blend of the five senses... and the other two are not senses we use to directly experience the material world... actually... these senses are more sixth sense or an illusion altogether... caused by the interaction between our bodies and gravitational forces. In the vacuum of deep space... these senses wouldn't even exist.

[Skibum]

So, we've found something else you are entirely ignorant about.


Big surprise there, I'm certain we could find at least one topic per day that he is totally ignorant about, yet is willing to prattle on and on about.

[Skibum]

In the vacuum of deep space... these senses wouldn't even exist.


Nor would smell, does that mean smell is not one of our senses?

[Horatius]

Archimedes is laughing at you, pal. As is da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Stokes, Green, Gauss, Kelvin, Hooke, Leibniz, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Fermi, Feynman, Oppenheimer, and all the rest... Take a bow!

And if you can't recognize more that 6 or 7 of these guys without Google, you don't know jack about real physics.

[Mr.D]

How can I disprove something that is beyond my senses? I can't... I can neither prove it nor disprove it


Interesting. Let's apply your principle to something else you said.


We already know that invisible forces (beyond the 5 senses) can move physical objects. Just go play with some magnets and you will espy that.


What are these things "magnets" of which you speak? Since by your own admission you cannot sense their "invisible forces," you should not speak of them as if you know such things exist.

Your world must be a confusing place full of miracles.

Do you put food in a microwave and just hope it gets hotter?

Do you pay your cell phone company for providing a service that they cannot prove to your satisfaction actually works.

Better be careful about listening to the radio. How do you know the "transmissions" are really coming from where they claim?

Be careful of the so-called "Oxygen" scam - paramedics may one day try to administer some to you. Refuse them because it looks, smells, tastes, feels and sounds just like regular air

Hey, just how much time do you spend posting messages for people you have never seen, heard, smelled, touched or tasted (ewww)? Conversing with people you cannot prove exists seems pretty psychotic to me.

[aggle-rithm]

Hahahaha - I'm so entertaining.



That's the first thing he's said that I agree with.

[Horatius]

Synesthesia is a unique blend of the five senses... and the other two are not senses we use to directly experience the material world... actually... these senses are more sixth sense or an illusion altogether... caused by the interaction between our bodies and gravitational forces. In the vacuum of deep space... these senses wouldn't even exist.

Except for the fact that even a lack of gravity can be detected (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrioception):

Most astronauts find that their sense of balance is impaired when in orbit, because they are in a constant state of free-fall while their rockets are off. This causes a form of motion sickness called space sickness.

The fact that we perceive this lack in an unpleasant manner is irrelevant. We still know when we're falling.

-1 for 28th.

[CHF]

28th Kingdom,

the question you should be asking yourself right about now is: WHY ARE YOU PONTIFICATING ON TOPICS THAT YOU ADMIT ARE "BEYOND YOUR SENCES?"

Why do you present claims that you couldn't elaborate on if your life depended on it?

[R.Mackey]

Your world must be a confusing place full of miracles.

Do you put food in a microwave and just hope it gets hotter?

Do you pay your cell phone company for providing a service that they cannot prove to your satisfaction actually works.

Better be careful about listening to the radio. How do you know the "transmissions" are really coming from where they claim?
Exactly...

And then, there's this tricky thing called "mathematics". Obviously a total scam, fraud, farce, etc.

By the way, welcome!

[defaultdotxbe]

Archimedes is laughing at you, pal. As is da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, Stokes, Green, Gauss, Kelvin, Hooke, Leibniz, Maxwell, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Fermi, Feynman, Oppenheimer, and all the rest... Take a bow!

And if you can't recognize more that 6 or 7 of these guys without Google, you don't know jack about real physics.
schrodinger says stick a fork in this thread, its done

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/cats/20060921-Eleanor.jpg

and 28th, if you dont get the reference, give up now

[Skibum]

schrodinger says stick a fork in this thread, its done

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/cats/20060921-Eleanor.jpg

and 28th, if you dont get the reference, give up now

I can see the cat in the picture, but cannot smell, touch, hear or taste it- so it must not exist.

[28th Kingdom]

And, why the need to cast invectives at me and my intelligence? Do you feel threatened by my enlightened views? If not... than why the need to assault me with your acerbic language? If I haven't insulted your intelligence... than that means this verbal attack is an act of aggression and not retaliation... so what does that make you? Yup, a mental terrorist.

No one is allowed to quote that... HANDS off people... these are my pearls.

[defaultdotxbe]

I can see the cat in the picture, but cannot smell, touch, hear or taste it- so it must not exist.
it only exists when being observed

[R.Mackey]

And, why the need to cast invectives at me and my intelligence? Do you feel threatened by my enlightened views? If not... than why the need to assault me with your acerbic language? If I haven't insulted your intelligence... than that means this verbal attack is an act of aggression and not retaliation... so what does that make you? Yup, a mental terrorist.

You complain about insults, and then insult us?

Just go away, already. Our estimate of you couldn't possibly get lower at this point.

[The Almond]

Synesthesia is a unique blend of the five senses... and the other two are not senses we use to directly experience the material world

According to whom?
You honestly don't think that your sense of equillibrium allows you to directly experience and interact with the material world? Please, spin around 50 times in your chair in 1 minute and then type your response to this question.

... actually... these senses are more sixth sense or an illusion altogether...

According to whom? Would you care to quote a reliable researcher who states that Proprioception is an illusion?

caused by the interaction between our bodies and gravitational forces. In the vacuum of deep space... these senses wouldn't even exist.
This shows that you didn't read or research the concept of Proprioception. Yes, you of course would be able to determine where your arms and legs are in the vacuum of space. Or are you an astronaut that wishes to state otherwise?

[Mr.D]

Synesthesia is a unique blend of the five senses... and the other two are not senses we use to directly experience the material world... actually... these senses are more sixth sense or an illusion altogether...caused by the interaction between our bodies and gravitational forces. In the vacuum of deep space... these senses wouldn't even exist.


More science according to 28th Kingdom.

Gravity (which may or may not exist in his world) has something to do with the surrounding density of gaseous molecules. It's a good thing that the existence of Newton, Galileo and Einstein are merely speculative in 28th's world, 'cause otherwise they'd be turning in their (entirely speculative) graves.

[Skibum]

And, why the need to cast invectives at me and my intelligence? Do you feel threatened by my enlightened views? If not... than why the need to assault me with your acerbic language? If I haven't insulted your intelligence... than that means this verbal attack is an act of aggression and not retaliation... so what does that make you? Yup, a mental terrorist.

No one is allowed to quote that... HANDS off people... these are my pearls.

Sometimes a good slap to the face is what is needed to bring certain people to their senses. Just about eveything else has been tried with you to no avail.

[Paul]

Synesthesia is a unique blend of the five senses... and the other two are not senses we use to directly experience the material world... actually... these senses are more sixth sense or an illusion altogether... caused by the interaction between our bodies and gravitational forces. In the vacuum of deep space... these senses wouldn't even exist.Synesthesia only requires the connection of 2 senses.

Why do you need to grasp at paranormal straws to account for a sense of body awareness?

A sense of balance is entirely non-paranormal, try looking it up sometime.

[Horatius]

schrodinger says stick a fork in this thread, its done

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v190/defaultdotxbe/cats/20060921-Eleanor.jpg

and 28th, if you dont get the reference, give up now

OMFG! A Bonsai Cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonsai_Kitten)!

ETA: And shouldn't that have been posted on "My Cat in Stuff . com"?

[LashL]

Synesthesia only requires the connection of 2 senses.

Why do you need to grasp at paranormal straws to account for a sense of body awareness?

A sense of balance is entirely non-paranormal, try looking it up sometime.

He's just cutting and pasting something that he found in a quick google search, Paul, that's all. He has shown consistently that he has no actual comprehension of anything beyond a primary school level.

[beachnut]

We already know that invisible forces (beyond the 5 senses) can move physical objects. Just go play with some magnets and you will espy that.

Did I double my winnings? Big bucks... big bucks... no wammies and STOP!

What? Yogi, you in there? Is your daddy a baseball player?

When 28th is in space he no longer has the sense of touch, due to the fact his brain is missing or just not working in space. Does he even see what he is writing, and what would smell more than his ideas as he can no longer taste his sour comments. Will he hear in space? But since 28th has an extra composite of all his many senses can we call this new sense "BS'ing".

[Spindrift]

I can see the cat in the picture, but cannot smell, touch, hear or taste it- so it must not exist.

Ah, but if you turned the crockpot on, you'd probably hear it, then smell it. When it smells just right you could touch and taste it.

[28th Kingdom]

What are these things "magnets" of which you speak? Since by your own admission you cannot sense their "invisible forces," you should not speak of them as if you know such things exist.

I can't see wind either... but I can see the effects of wind... same with the magnets... Aw, man did I get you on that one or what?

Do you put food in a microwave and just hope it gets hotter?

Are you serious? Who uses a microwave to cook food... maybe this is part of your problem... besides we can sense the effects of the microwaves on the physical world i.e. heat


Do you pay your cell phone company for providing a service that they cannot prove to your satisfaction actually works.

Again... I'm not crazy... I don't cook food with radiation or put things to my head that will fry my brain... although, I think I'm starting to see why we all disagree on so many things...


Better be careful about listening to the radio. How do you know the "transmissions" are really coming from where they claim?

I don't even understand this one...the waves are perceived with hearing.


Hey, just how much time do you spend posting messages for people you have never seen, heard, smelled, touched or tasted (ewww)? Conversing with people you cannot prove exists seems pretty psychotic to me.

I never said any of you exist... but something that is writing things I can see does exist... because I can observe the effects of its actions.

[Horatius]

If I haven't insulted your intelligence... than that means this verbal attack is an act of aggression and not retaliation... so what does that make you? Yup, a mental terrorist.


But you have insulted our intelligence. With every post, you insult our intelligence. You don't have to use harsh words to insult, you poltroon.


No one is allowed to quote that... HANDS off people... these are my pearls.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I ignore your fasicst commands? I guess I did.

[Horatius]

I can't see wind either... but I can see the effects of wind... same with the magnets... Aw, man did I get you on that one or what?


I can't see the accumulation of mass during the collapse of WTC1&2 either... but I can see the effects of the accumulation of mass during the collapse of WTC1&2... same with the magnets... Aw, man did I get you on that one or what?


P.S. Mousepawed Again!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/949045971fa0b9755.jpg

[aggle-rithm]

The application of your physics and calculations onto the collapses of WTC 1 & 2... is the thing beyond my senses.

That confusion you feel is called "ignorance".

[Horatius]

I don't even understand this one...the waves are perceived with hearing.


Okay, I was so quick with that last one, I missed this completely!


He thinks we hear radio waves?

Quick, someone add that to the list of senses!

[defaultdotxbe]

I can't see wind either... but I can see the effects of wind... same with the magnets... Aw, man did I get you on that one or what?
so are you implying that if theres nothing around to be visibly affected wind and magnetic fields dont exist?


Are you serious? Who uses a microwave to cook food... maybe this is part of your problem... besides we can sense the effects of the microwaves on the physical world i.e. heat
again, not all microwaves produce heat in an object, do they not exist? (and wtf are you living "off the grid" or something? everyone owns a microwave)


Again... I'm not crazy... I don't cook food with radiation or put things to my head that will fry my brain... although, I think I'm starting to see why we all disagree on so many things...
yep, definately off the grid....whats with the internet though?


I don't even understand this one...the waves are perceived with hearing.
do you hear the radio waves, or the sound waves after they are converted by a speaker?


I never said any of you exist... but something that is writing things I can see does exist... because I can observe the effects of its actions.
maybe we are all just figments of your imagination, maybe your asleep and dreaming all of this

[Paul]

He's just cutting and pasting something that he found in a quick google search, Paul, that's all. He has shown consistently that he has no actual comprehension of anything beyond a primary school level.Oh, there's no doubt about that, my six-month-old niece probably knows more about quantum mechanics that 28IQ does about almost anything, and she's only just figured out which way the food goes. :D

[R.Mackey]

Are you serious? Who uses a microwave to cook food... maybe this is part of your problem... besides we can sense the effects of the microwaves on the physical world i.e. heat

[...]

Again... I'm not crazy... I don't cook food with radiation or put things to my head that will fry my brain [referring to cell phones]... although, I think I'm starting to see why we all disagree on so many things...
As are we.

Since you probably associate with, er, like-minded people, what fraction of Sept. 11th deniers would you say also have foresworn microwave ovens and cellphones? Just curious.

[DavidJames]

Who uses a microwave to cook food... maybe this is part of your problem... besides we can sense the effects of the microwaves on the physical world i.e. heat... I don't cook food with radiation or put things to my head that will fry my brain... ...Ladies and gentlemen, I think 28IQ has caught up and is about to overtake Christophera.Again... I'm not crazy...I'd seek a 2nd opinion. Here it is.


Yes you are.

[beachnut]

And, why the need to cast invectives at me and my intelligence? Do you feel threatened by my enlightened views? If not... than why the need to assault me with your acerbic language? If I haven't insulted your intelligence... than that means this verbal attack is an act of aggression and not retaliation... so what does that make you? Yup, a mental terrorist.

No one is allowed to quote that... HANDS off people... these are my pearls.

No one is attacking your intelligence, we can not find evidence of such.

Your views are so non progressive we are not threatened, we are surprised.

You are totally unarmed and incapable of attacking our facts and logic; therefore caustic language was mistaken for surprise at the lack of knowledge shown on your posts.

I am afraid you have nothing we could terrorize since you are the envy of all with the constant space simulation going on between your ears.

[aggle-rithm]

And, why the need to cast invectives at me and my intelligence? Do you feel threatened by my enlightened views? If not... than why the need to assault me with your acerbic language? If I haven't insulted your intelligence... than that means this verbal attack is an act of aggression and not retaliation... so what does that make you? Yup, a mental terrorist.

No one is allowed to quote that... HANDS off people... these are my pearls.

Wow...and I thought those talentless hacks on "American Idol" were deluded...

[Kage]

OK, I think we just all missed something. As much fun as it is to debate the number of senses we have with 28th, we just backed him into a corner.

28th, did the WTC fall at freefall or near freefall speels?

[beachnut]

Again... I'm not crazy...


Common Sense proves you wrong; right?

[28th Kingdom]

David James,

If you can prove to me that you don't cash a government paycheck... than I will seriously consider leaving the truth movement. (No sarcasm please... I want a serious reply... I'm not saying you are disinfo... just that you are an employee of the government in some shape or form)

Thank you.

[defaultdotxbe]

David James,

If you can prove to me that you don't cash a government paycheck... than I will seriously consider leaving the truth movement. (No sarcasm please... I want a serious reply... I'm not saying you are disinfo... just that you are an employee of the government in some shape or form)

Thank you.
how do you prove a negative?