JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags Michael Fullerton , wtc 7

Reply
Old 18th August 2010, 04:29 PM   #1
AJM8125
NWO Black Ops
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Adrift
Posts: 16,915
cmatrix's Own Challenge Thread

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
.Here's my challenge to JREFies. I'll debate the physics behind this contest with anyone anywhere. Just one exception. I want my own thread dealing only with this topic. I tried to start one but it was moved to the general pit of stupidity. I can't discuss it here or it will also be moved. I simply cannot tolerate wading through a gigantic cesspool of electric JREF vomit and e-diarrhea.

The floor is yours, cmatrix.

Last edited by AJM8125; 18th August 2010 at 04:30 PM.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 04:37 PM   #2
Bell
beautiful freak
 
Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 21,335
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
The floor is yours, cmatrix.
And don't spoil the floor with electric vomit and e-diarrhea.
__________________
Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.

INY
You gotta love cops.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 04:45 PM   #3
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,181
Which thread did this come from? I want to know what level of stupidity we are dealing with here.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 04:46 PM   #4
Bell
beautiful freak
 
Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 21,335
Originally Posted by Quad4_72 View Post
Which thread did this come from? I want to know what level of stupidity we are dealing with here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=181227
__________________
Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.

INY
You gotta love cops.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 04:54 PM   #5
TexasJack
Penultimate Amazing
 
TexasJack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,903
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
And don't spoil the floor with electric vomit and e-diarrhea.
Now, that's a true challenge.
TexasJack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 04:54 PM   #6
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6,181
Originally Posted by Bell View Post
Wow, that's worse then I thought. This could be one painful thread.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th August 2010, 05:06 PM   #7
AJM8125
NWO Black Ops
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Adrift
Posts: 16,915
Question for you Mr. Fullerton, that is if you ever decide to post in this thread:

When you get owned in this thread, will you be paying the winner the money they're eligible to, or is this your way of trying to weasel out of that?
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2010, 04:31 AM   #8
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
BUmp for cmatrix.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 06:30 AM   #9
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Queens
Posts: 34,948
"I simply cannot tolerate wading through a gigantic cesspool of electric JREF vomit and e-diarrhea."

and Truthers wonder why no one takes them seriously.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2010, 05:08 PM   #10
AJM8125
NWO Black Ops
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Adrift
Posts: 16,915
Bump for cmatrix, since the other thread got tossed.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2010, 01:51 PM   #11
AJM8125
NWO Black Ops
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Adrift
Posts: 16,915
Mr. Fullerton?? Heeeeeeelloooooooo??
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2010, 06:15 PM   #12
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: The South!
Posts: 13,973
Bueller.........Bueller........................... ......
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 06:40 AM   #13
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Posts: 285
Ok cmatrix, make your move!
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 07:38 AM   #14
Captain_Swoop
Philosopher
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 5,347
Has anyone told him?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 07:53 AM   #15
AJM8125
NWO Black Ops
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Adrift
Posts: 16,915
Last August.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 10:21 AM   #16
oody
Graduate Poster
 
oody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 1,226
I've been reading the previous go-around. No reason to think the next spin around the block would be any different. Fingers in ears, cm will continue to re-assert [essentially] blue sky underneath the entire building for 2.25 seconds. I've learned a lot from reading the thread, though. My compliments to Ryan, Dave and Tom (and others) for an entertaining romp.
oody is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 11:52 AM   #17
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Has anyone told him?
Yes,but he turned up in a thread and blustered away about how people were afraid to debate with him in a thread where he was invited to debate with them. The truther mentality,if one can call it a mentality.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th April 2011, 12:33 PM   #18
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,664
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Yes,but he turned up in a thread and blustered away about how people were afraid to debate with him in a thread where he was invited to debate with them. The truther mentality,if one can call it a mentality.
They always seem convinced that fear is peoples' only motivation.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:33 AM   #19
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 10,109
Folks, in this thread, and a couple of others, cmatrix teaches you a lesson of how to ignore your oponent when it would be inconvenient to reply. I think he teaches that lesson well.

Learn it!
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:39 AM   #20
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,505
If giving cmatrix what he wants (his own debate thread) is enough to make him quiet down and go away, is anyone else curious to see what announcing a "new investigation" will do to him?
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 12:10 PM   #21
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Where is cmatrix? Chickened out again.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 12:44 PM   #22
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by cmatrix article
A major piece of evidence in the WTC 7 collapse is the fact that WTC 7 underwent free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds.
Incorrect. NIST was wrong.

I've performed a more detailed determination of the acceleration profile for WTC7 which shows the assertion to be false.

Firstly, their assertion is based upon a single point and not applicable to the entire facade behaviour.

Secondly, their method suffers from a low quality method and is inaccurate.

Thirdly, if data is taken from the NW corner, freefall was achieved for probably 2 very small moments in time, with over a second being over-g. Beforehand acceleration quite rapidly ramped up, and afterwards ramped down rather more slowly...


Acceleration (ft/s^2) / Time (s)
Each frame shows the effect on profile for increase in the poly-fit order (steps of 2 per frame)

Quote:
if their theory is to believed, the 2.25 seconds of free fall must have resulted from near-simultaneous buckling and breaking of the 58 perimeter columns and most of the 25 core columns over eight stories.
Incorrect(ish). See above. There was no instantaneous entrance into freefall. Rather, there was a period of near-to-over-g behaviour of parts of the facade that can be observed during the global descent.

Quote:
Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results.
I've repeated the production of empirical data, and whilst I have, imo, proven NIST wrong (by low accuracy), that doesn't mean you are right.

Once you get past these simple points, and I ask you to confirm you accept the clarifications above, I will ask you again to consider the importance of 100 seconds worth of movement of the facade in advance of descent.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:29 PM   #23
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,087
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
.
I've repeated the production of empirical data, and whilst I have, imo, proven NIST wrong (by low accuracy), that doesn't mean you are right.
.
I think it would be more appropriate to say they were sloppy on an issue they didn't consider important in the first place.

__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:37 PM   #24
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think it would be more appropriate to say they were sloppy on an issue they didn't consider important in the first place.

But that's your propensity to *twoofer bait* or score points coming out. It would have been much more appropriate and productive for you to say nothing at all, and allow the post to sit until cmatrix responds (or not). You just can't help yourself though it seems. As you agree, NIST were very sloppy, and their data is inaccurate enough to be correctly labelled as wrong. Indeed SO wrong that they come to the same flawed conclusion as your friend Chandler. Poor show.

Last edited by femr2; 20th April 2011 at 02:45 PM.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:40 PM   #25
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,792
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
Incorrect. NIST was wrong.

...
They said fire destroyed WTC. They were right, your theory must be wrong if fire is not in it. You think the official story of 911 is false, and you are unable to prove your opinion. 19 terrorists did 911, which you claim is false, will you be able to help cmatrix drop his anti-intellectual approach with dancing gifs? Have you figure out flight explorer on 175, and would your method to understand flight explorer be applicable to helping cmatrix with physics, or comprehending NIST?

When will you publish your dancing gifs and expose NIST in a reality based journal? Heiwa tried and failed. The Ross paper is wrong and you still have it posted as a "technical" paper on 911. Ross was wrong, NIST is right in the big picture, and you need to publish your work in a real journal, save the part you said NIST said jet fuel caused the towers to collapse silly comment on your web page, a page you could fix to not sound so silly. Good luck proving the official story is false; have you tried to list your evidence to support your theory it is false. Can you help cmatrix with physics? Would your work on NIST support or refute cmatrix's claims?

Last edited by beachnut; 20th April 2011 at 01:49 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:47 PM   #26
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
They were right, you are wrong.
You make a fool of yourself every time you deliberately misrepresent context beachnut. I'm clearly talking about the NIST claimed period of freefall. Your response implies you think they are correct about that. They are not. You are wrong. If that is not your *belief* then you are intentionally misquoting, which I am sure you are aware is rather frowned upon. Sort it out mate I know you won't listen to me so go and have a word with tfk. He'll bore you to death Remember context. The NIST stated >2s period of freefall is wrong. Enjoy your other delusions.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 01:55 PM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,792
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
You make a fool of yourself every time you deliberately misrepresent context beachnut. I'm clearly talking about the NIST claimed period of freefall. Your response implies you think they are correct about that. They are not. You are wrong. If that is not your *belief* then you are intentionally misquoting, which I am sure you are aware is rather frowned upon. Sort it out mate I know you won't listen to me so go and have a word with tfk. He'll bore you to death Remember context. The NIST stated >2s period of free-fall is wrong. Enjoy your other delusions.
How does this support your "official story" is false opinion, and how does it impact cmatrix's claims? Why did you fail to figure out Rosa's paper is wrong, but you pick an insignificant issue on NIST? Do you think cmatrix could figure out Ross's work is wrong, the paper you have on your "technical" paper page?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 At least you dropped the more delusional papers you once held up as "technical", will cmatrix move to reality?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...ansferRoss.pdf cmatrix would like this paper. But it is a failed technical paper, proved wrong by events. Ross's conclusion is wrong, is NISTs overall conclusion wrong? Publishing date?

Why has cmatrix failed to use Ross's work to support his claims? Why do you list a "wrong" paper as "technical"? Do you still hold the official story, 19 terrorists did 911, as false? I assume cmatrix does, but he can't get past calling NIST's work names.

Last edited by beachnut; 20th April 2011 at 02:05 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 02:42 PM   #28
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
How does this support your "official story" is false opinion, and how does it impact cmatrix's claims? Why did you fail to figure out Rosa's paper is wrong, but you pick an insignificant issue on NIST? Do you think cmatrix could figure out Ross's work is wrong, the paper you have on your "technical" paper page?
http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 At least you dropped the more delusional papers you once held up as "technical", will cmatrix move to reality?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...ansferRoss.pdf cmatrix would like this paper. But it is a failed technical paper, proved wrong by events. Ross's conclusion is wrong, is NISTs overall conclusion wrong? Publishing date?

Why has cmatrix failed to use Ross's work to support his claims? Why do you list a "wrong" paper as "technical"? Do you still hold the official story, 19 terrorists did 911, as false? I assume cmatrix does, but he can't get past calling NIST's work names.
Why is cmatrix avoiding this like the plague?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 03:25 PM   #29
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,128
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Do you think cmatrix could figure out Ross's work is wrong, the paper....
http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...ansferRoss.pdf cmatrix would like this paper. But it is a failed technical paper, proved wrong by events. Ross's conclusion is wrong,...
I will even give cmatrix a hint as to why the paper is wrong:
Originally Posted by Gordon Ross
Conclusion:
The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands.....
...the bit about "the first impacted columns" - a classic mistake made regularly by those people who put theory and maths first - before they work out what happened. No point engaging the maths if you don't know what you are applying the maths to. And whatever Ross thought he was mathificating it sure wasn't the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 05:52 PM   #30
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
whatever Ross thought he was mathificating
The reason it's linked is that, as per the other references on that page, it looks at the event in numerical form...with each author having a different view. I have my own, which basically bundles a few 1D step-wise energetics model mechanics together, but as it's implemented in a functional excel form...you can change all the numbers. Useful to see how various parameter range changes affect the outcome.

beachnut can make as many assumptions as he pleases, but as I said, really does make a fool of himself with the nonsensical personal attacks.

Keep in mind, cmatrix is probably completely unaware of such documents, and the point of the recent dialogue is to highlight the reliance upon the NIST freefall figure...which is wrong...and therefore nullifies the rigid stance cmatrix about it.

When are these people going to stop stuffing their boots in their mouths, showing they a) don't get the point, b) aren't interested in making any thread productive in any way and c) only interested in so-called *twoofer baiting*. That ol' confirmation bias thing again. Funny stuff.

The only useful possibility within this thread is for cmatrix to actually respond to appropriate questions. Any other mindless banter is an utter waste of everyones time.
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 06:01 PM   #31
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,404
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I will even give cmatrix a hint as to why the paper is wrong:
...the bit about "the first impacted columns" - a classic mistake made regularly by those people who put theory and maths first - before they work out what happened. No point engaging the maths if you don't know what you are applying the maths to. And whatever Ross thought he was mathificating it sure wasn't the collapse of the WTC Twin Towers.
That's not why Ross is wrong. He adds momentum losses" with the strain energy of the structural members when in reality they're the same exact energy sink.

Columns impacting each other is a perfectly valid limiting case to use when studying the towers. Dr. Bazant uses that scenario in his initial paper. And given that Ross was addressing this initial paper by Bazant it is perfectly reasonable for him to use the exact same scenario.

Ross is a great example for how truthers get it wrong. But please, if you use Ross as an example, know why he did he set up the problem the way he did, and why his physics is wrong.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 07:09 PM   #32
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,128
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
That's not why Ross is wrong...
I was aware of several flaws in the Ross paper. Deliberately took the shortcut simple example and one example only to give cmatrix a chance.

The subtleties of the validity of the Bazant limiting case was more complex than I wanted to deal with in the challenge I posted.

In doing so I seem to have put the wrong slant on the issue for those who have deeper knowledge.

Last edited by ozeco41; 20th April 2011 at 07:24 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 07:22 PM   #33
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,128
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
...Keep in mind, cmatrix is probably completely unaware of such documents, and the point of the recent dialogue is to highlight the reliance upon the NIST freefall figure...which is wrong...and therefore nullifies the rigid stance cmatrix about it...
Understood. I couldn't help musing to myself that, if NIST had access to your measurements, they would be in a bind. They have copped enough flack from "not admitting free fall". What flack would they have got if they had claimed greater than free fall.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
... only interested in so-called *twoofer baiting*. That ol' confirmation bias thing again. Funny stuff...
...and increasingly the need to separate "truthers" from "trolls" - not a straight forward issue.

Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
..The only useful possibility within this thread is for cmatrix to actually respond to appropriate questions....
which seems unlikely given the past record.
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
.. Any other mindless banter is an utter waste of everyones time.
..agreed provided you limit it to "mindless" - nowt wrong with a bit of fun attached to a bit of a lesson.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 07:26 PM   #34
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,792
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
... beachnut can make as many assumptions as he pleases, but as I said, really does make a fool of himself with the nonsensical personal attacks. ...
I find it ironic cmatrix claims he read NIST and ignores the fact his claims are failed. I find it ironic you have failed papers, one is Ross's paper, in your "technical paper" section at your web site. You removed failed papers before. Would it be interesting if cmatrix finds the paper useful to support his nonsense, as he supports your overall claim the "official story" is fiction?

Quote:
This section lists a number of papers detailing calculated aspects of the collapse of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.

You are encouraged to read them:
Should be failed papers, or some warning the work is flawed and biased.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/index/0-4 Don't forget, cmatrix might need Prof. Kuttler failed paper also listed in your technical paper section to help keep his delusions strong. More nonsense.
Quote:
With work like this in your technical paper section, I understand why you claim what happen on 911 is fiction made up by the NWO. You list failed work as technical papers. I am only curious if cmatrix can use them to support his claims, it would be funny to see the results. I understand your mistakes are due to lack of knowledge, it is not a personal attack. At least the first time I pointed out one of your papers in your tech paper section was nonsense, you removed it; it is your web site, it only seems to me when people like cmatrix find a site like yours, they will be mislead since they are not like me, a fool, making a fool of himself.
Prof. Kuttler seems to be trying to back in CD.


Would cmatrix think Ross's paper supports his false claims? What about Prof. Kuttler paper? When will you do a study and expose Ross's and Prof. Kuttler's errors? No personal attack, just questions of things I find ironic, and wonder what cmatrix thinks about the tech papers.

I found Ross's paper extremely ironic since the WTC did collapsed, proving his paper wrong before he did his paper - will cmatrix see the irony?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2011, 08:56 PM   #35
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,263
To be blunt, if he hasn't responded since the thread was made in August it's unlikely he's participate at all, especially given his attitude towards the so called "OCT." If you don't already know, he made a video to tell that whole side of the "story"
__________________
AutoCAD/Photoshop Hobbyist
::Work Samples::
If you want a set (sigs/avatars) or helpful tips for photoshop and CAD. Always glad to help.
Grizzly Bear is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 04:19 AM   #36
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Understood. I couldn't help musing to myself that, if NIST had access to your measurements, they would be in a bind. They have copped enough flack from "not admitting free fall". What flack would they have got if they had claimed greater than free fall.
Worse than that. They've supported the claims of David Chandler by admitting to an extended period of freefall. The consequences of that have resulted in all the ensuing dialogue about the impossibility of such. There is now a bunch of *twoofers* claiming that *proves* simultaneous failures whilst, rather ironically, there's a similar bunch of *debunkers* claiming that such behaviour is completely normal. There was no 2.25s period of freefall. Both sets of folk are wrong. And yet I get attacked by both sides for pointing out the error
femr2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 11:41 AM   #37
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,404
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I was aware of several flaws in the Ross paper. Deliberately took the shortcut simple example and one example only to give cmatrix a chance.

The subtleties of the validity of the Bazant limiting case was more complex than I wanted to deal with in the challenge I posted.

In doing so I seem to have put the wrong slant on the issue for those who have deeper knowledge.
Except it's not a shortcut simple example. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Ross set out to do. And you cannot simultaneously accept Bazant's model while rejecting a different analysis that uses the exact same assumptions to further exam Bazant's analysis.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 10:31 PM   #38
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,128
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
Except it's not a shortcut simple example. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Ross set out to do. And you cannot simultaneously accept Bazant's model while rejecting a different analysis that uses the exact same assumptions to further exam Bazant's analysis.
I consider myself seriously reprimanded. I won't bother commenting on the crap logic. If you are that desperate for a win consider yourself one point ahead.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2011, 10:33 PM   #39
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,128
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
Except it's not a shortcut simple example. It's a complete misunderstanding of what Ross set out to do. And you cannot simultaneously accept Bazant's model while rejecting a different analysis that uses the exact same assumptions to further exam Bazant's analysis.
I consider myself seriously reprimanded.

Last edited by ozeco41; 21st April 2011 at 11:55 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2011, 09:08 AM   #40
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,404
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I consider myself seriously reprimanded. I won't bother commenting on the crap logic. If you are that desperate for a win consider yourself one point ahead.
That's rather passive aggressive. If you don't think your objection to Ross is valid just say so. But know this: the axial strike assumption that Ross uses is perfectly valid for a limiting case. All he's doing is further developing the Bazant model. Moreover, if he does the physics right, he would find that it continues to collapse.

You're being an "anti-truther", not a debunker. And I find that just as annoying as "truthers".
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.

Last edited by Newtons Bit; 22nd April 2011 at 09:09 AM.
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.