Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anyone care to speculate what they are?

I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.

So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up!

[defaultdotxbe]

masters degree at least

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If I were to make a serious guess, I'd say he tops out at a G.E.D.

Either that or he graduated from a vocational high school program.

[quixotecoyote]

Sometimes I wish I craved attention. Forums make it so easy to get.

[jamrat]

He's got twenty years of education... He went to the 10th grade twice!

[LashL]

Quote:

Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?

My guess:

Minimal/None/Google-searching 101

[gumboot]

I think he said he worked in audio or something? I don't recall what he said exactly... some sort of audio technician?

-Andrew

[Bell]

Originally Posted by gumboot

I think he said he worked in audio or something? I don't recall what he said exactly... some sort of audio technician?

-Andrew

Record shop?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

[Z]

If you had an education, you'd know.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

The same place they come from in an actual CD...
E=mgh

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Blah, blah, blah.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

Gravity.

[Josh Redstone]

Well, since it was kenetic energy (there were no bombs) that we saw as it fell (that's where it was probably pulverized the most, right?), it was there in the first place as potential energy, because of the building's mass and gravity (like Kilted Yaksman said). So I guess this brings me to the question, do you have any education is physics that might be relevant to a building falling down? I don't, so someone please correct me if I've confused my energies

[Bell]

Originally Posted by BS101

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

a.) a silent truckbomb
b.) a silent nuclear bomb
c.) a volcano
d.) none of the above

First to answer correctly, get's a cookie.

[CptColumbo]

Normally I would suggest that we not engage in a "poison the well" style argument, as this is a favorite tactic of the CT crowd. We should just discuss the facts and judge their merit. However, since TS1234 has presented his expertise falsely (lied) on other sites (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64164), IMO it's a valid question.

[chipmunk stew]

Originally Posted by Bell

a.) a silent truckbomb
b.) a silent nuclear bomb
c.) a volcano
d.) none of the above

First to answer correctly, get's a cookie.

d.
...it was an upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction.
...or possible an infrared beam weapon.

[Bell]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

d.
...it was an upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction.
...or possible an infrared beam weapon.

I'm not gonna put up with reading that BS... but... is he for f@#ing real?

[Sally]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

I am assuming from these words you NEVER visited the towers site.

Wow unbelievable.

[einsteen]

It is assumed that potential energy is responsible for that, because we have seen how the state is an hour after the plane crashed in. And if you look mechanically to the situation there is no other energy, not much that can explain what happened.

The pulverization and all other things started when the block of N floors crashed with it's initial speed sqrt(2gh_floor) onto the next floor, with about 8.6 m/s.

The utter-absurdity of this is the following:

If you place your origin somewhere between the highest intact floor below the falling block and the block itself and you call it (x',y',z') with speed 4.3 m/s and it starts at t=t'=0 in the direction of the centre of the earth, then by the assumption of a domino effect you see in fact the following (rotated):


[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ----------> <---------- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ------> <------ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ---> <--- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] -> <- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ?? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Our eminent friend F.R.Greening will surely know what will happen and some high-school students also, maybe even some people that did only primary school, but he doesn't write it on paper, what happened with him when he wrote down his paper ? He assumes uniform mass, i.e. you can place a virtual wall. Of course the real situation is extremely complex, but if they allow him to make these simple assumptions we can also do that as ordinary people as long as we make no mistakes and know what we do step by step. The centre of gravity will however still go down with inelastic collisions but it's defenitely no pancaking as they assume. The collapse time cannot be explained.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

Please, by all means, follow up on my suggestion of

Quote:

Howabout this, we do some real scientific analysis, some real scientific process; following the scientific methodology as it were. Pick one thing from Pickering's site, the thing you find most convincing. Start a thread to discuss that one thing and let's follow it all the way to its conclusion. In the new thread, stick to only talking about that one thing, and once resolution is achieved, drop that thread and start a new on on the next one thing to discuss.

from here

[Pardalis]

But yet you believe a controlled demolition is not an absurd theory, Einsteen?

[uruk]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

Gravity: An all attractive force which in this case pulls things down.

Potential energy: Energy an object or system has due to its postion or arrangement within the system. (ie. as in; the potential energy contained in tons of building material suspended hundreds of feet above a surface within a gravitational field.)

Kinetic energy: The energy of a body or a system with respect to the motion of the body or of the particles in the system. (i.e the kinetic energy within tons of building material that is moving toward the ground at ternimal velocity and colliding with each other)

Fluid Dynamics: The branch of applied science that is concerned with the movement of gases and liquids. (i.e. the fluid dynamics involved when tons of moving building materials disturb or impart energy into the air around it.)

[apathoid]

Originally Posted by TrooofSeeker1+2=4

blah...blah...blah... fine powder.... blah...blah...blah...pyroclastic flows ...blah...blah...blah...mushroom cloud ....blah...blah...blah...volacano...blah...blah...blah...molten metal.

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

For the love of Pete, I implore you to either: engage your brain and start reading responses - really reading them, or better yet, get a proper education.

[uruk]

Oh and while your reading these post, How about answering these two questions:

How can a silent explosive generate a siesmic event?
And where is the siesmic event of the airplane impact 14 seconds after the explosion event?

[einsteen]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

But yet you believe a controlled demolition is not an absurd theory, Einsteen?

I rejected that for 5 years and still can't believe it (I mention it sometimes of course because I got some of the "Ct virus") , maybe there are other explanations. And the word CD is by definition wrong, then it should be an UD

and centre of gravity is the wrong expression, I mean center of mass.

Why wouldn't the block damage in the same way as the 14 floors below, assuming the connecting parts have the same strength (and also weakenings), this end result of mess will of course have the same mass and go down.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

[drone] Where does the energy come from to do all this work? [/drone]

Excellent question. The energy was, for the most part, imparted by hundreds of construction workers from 1966 to 1973 (and thousands more who brought in furniture and office supplies over a thirty year span). Every calorie of energy that the cranes exerted hauling I-beams up 1,000 feet in the air was cleverly stored in the towers until 9/11. Every bit of energy the Poland Springs guy spent hauling jugs of water up to the 87th floor the week before was trapped inside those water molecules.

It may be counter-intuitive to think of it this way because big monolithic towers don't appear to have any energy, but all of the energy that went into their construction was right there the whole time. It took seven years to add all of that energy during construction and it was all released in a matter of seconds.

Yeah, Truthseeker, you're an idiot.

[rikzilla]

Originally Posted by chipmunk stew

d.
...it was an upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction.
...or possible an infrared beam weapon.

Does the background of that linked website say "Truth Sucker"??? I gotta clean my glasses.

Sheesh these guys wrap themselves in the word "truth" more often than a rightwingxtianfundy wraps himself in the flag! Each of these groups treats truth and flag like so much toiletpaper.

-z

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

It took seven years to add all of that energy during construction and it was all released in a matter of seconds.

very well put

its funny when CTs claim the laws of physics were violated, but they dont seem to understand that its just as possible their understanding of the laws of physics was violated

for expample:

a ball is released from 1m above the ground, it falls, hits the ground, and bounces 3m into the air. is this a possible scenario?









the obvious answer is no, a ball dropped from 1m would only have the energy to bounce 1m back up (assuming no energy is lost to entropy)

HOWEVER, i never stated the initial velocity of the ball, if it was greater than 0 this situation is entirely possible

so you see the laws of physics can seem to have been violated if you dont have all the information at your disposal

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg

wanna cite some numbers instead of just throwing names out? and why is it that the vast majority of physicists dont see any issues with the notion of GPE releasing the energy to do this?



BTW wheres the bomb crater? same place as the mushroom cloud i suppose

[uruk]

These are bomb craters:
http://images.google.com/images?sour...rs&sa=N&tab=wi
None of which resemble the ground zero site.

Also CD does not leave craters. CD does not "blow up" a building. In knocks out key support structures so that gravity can bring the building down. In CD it is not the explosives that bring down the building, it is gravity and potential energy that brings the building down.

If it was the intention of bringing down the WTC in thier own foot print why use explosives that would throw a steel beam 600 feet from the site?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
...

Truthseeker1234,

I am going to pose to you a yes/no question. Please answer it directly. Failure to answer will been taken as a "no" response.

Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?


If you answer "no" to the above question, please explain on what grounds you accept their work as accurate and valid.

[Z]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg

Silly boy. Have you ever seen a bomb crater? It doesn't look like that, at all.

Try again, Liar.

[Pythra]

Originally Posted by uruk

These are bomb craters:
images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-23,GGLG:en&q=bomb%20craters&sa=N&tab=wi
None of which resemble the ground zero site.

Also CD does not leave craters. CD does not "blow up" a building. In knocks out key support structures so that gravity can bring the building down. In CD it is not the explosives that bring down the building, it is gravity and potential energy that brings the building down.

Wait. The CTers don't even know how controlled demolitions work, or what one looks like? Even though 'looks like' constitutes the majority of their so-called evidence? WHAT?

[DavidJames]

Originally Posted by Pythra

Wait. The CTers don't even know how controlled demolitions work, or what one looks like? Even though 'looks like' constitutes the majority of their so-called evidence? WHAT?

Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.

happened to me too, lol

[uruk]

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.

I don't understand why they have to believe that WTC was the result of a unbelievably complex and convoluted conspiracy which included hundreds of people, agencies, organisations and companies sworn to secrecy; placing tons of explosives in a very busy office building; commandeering huge commercial aircraft with remote control from airports; all of this unoticed, and all of this was mastermind and executed by someone who can barley talk without making a fool of himself for the purpose of invading some small country in the middle east? It truely boggles.

I guess it is a psycological need to believe in a devil of somesort that is responsible for all the bad things that happens in this world. It's almost like a religeous belief.

[defaultdotxbe]

Originally Posted by uruk

I guess it is a psycological need to believe in a devil of somesort that is responsible for all the bad things that happens in this world. It's almost like a religeous belief.

argumentum ad ignorantiam, they dont understand how it could have happened, so they invent some scheme by which it could happen, without having to admit that they were never really as safe as they thought they were pre-911

[JayT]

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

Anyone care to speculate what they are?

I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.

So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up!

The complexity of the physical sequence of events is such that it would take a computer to study all the myriad variables involved. And even then we couldn't be sure, only more statistically certain of some scenarios over others.

I seriously doubt that any one person can reason it all out alone with any certainty. Too many factors are still unknown to be so confident with justification. This is evidenced by the fact that even knowledgeable experts cannot agree.

The laws of physics can only be applied to whatever extent that we know the variables involved. In this case, a lot is missing from the equation.

Knowledge is consistent, theories can fly in all directions.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade

Truthseeker1234,

I am going to pose to you a yes/no question. Please answer it directly. Failure to answer will been taken as a "no" response.

Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?


If you answer "no" to the above question, please explain on what grounds you accept their work as accurate and valid.

As for me, I don't have "sufficient understanding" of the NIST report, but that doesn't prevent me from accepting their work as accurate and valid.

Reason being these guys are the experts in this field and were commissioned to do the work.

Then again, I don't discuss the NIST report in detail, because I don't have a sufficient understanding of it.