|
|
|
Antigone
New Member
44 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2006 : 18:14:43 [Permalink]
|
I'm done with this pile of 
I typically do not respond well to being called a moron, though how much of an insult is it coming from a good example of the topic of this thread?!?
 |
Mortui non dolent |
 |
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 19:54:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Antigone
I'm done with this pile of
I typically do not respond well to being called a moron, though how much of an insult is it coming from a good example of the topic of this thread?!?
If you were really done, you wouldn't have posted your last comment.
As for calling you a moron, your notion that I thought the news networks were in on the operation (if indeed there was an operation) was moronic... |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 21:16:10 [Permalink]
|
Good science where do I start?
quote:
Turn now to the piece of debris I mentioned (you can see it here at time mark 20:41 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 ). All the debris outside the footprint of the building is free-falling due to gravity. So its all traveling at essentially the same speed.
To quote you, "No you moron", that would not be possible. That could only happen if all of the material falling had the same surface area, density and presented the same frontal area parallel to the direction of motion.
quote:
One exception to this is debris like the dust particles.
No, 2 pieces of glass would not even fall at the same speed unless they were aligned exactly the same.
quote:
But it didn't fall out of the bottom--it flew out the side.
Yeah, moron, it was almost like the debris from the upper floors were hitting something like, gee I don't know, maybe the floors below and rebounding away from the building.
quote:
If gravity was the only force acting on that piece of debris it would have been traveling at essentially the same speed as the rest of the non-dust debris, and it would not have had the occasion to act upon or be acted upon by any of the other free-falling debris, because it would be traveling at the same speed as all that other debris.
That is true, but of course that is not even remotely close to what happened. The videos clearly show the upper floors smashing into the lower floors NOT the whole building "traveling at essentially the same speed". You are a laugh a minute. Did I mention you are a moron?
quote:
For that piece of debris to be ejected out of the side of that dust cloud, there must have been a force acting upon it. Given everything at that point was in free-fall, gravity does not account for that force. Unless, of course, you think that piece of debris hit a piece of dust and bounced out of the cloud--but that contradicts the law of conservation of momentum...
Try this experiment. Have friend video tape you jumping off a cliff that has some outcroppings, when you hit the outcropping your body will be like a piece of debris hitting the lower immobile floor. My guess is that your body will move laterally away from the outcropping like the debris did at the WTC. Please have your friend send the tape to SF so we can verify this hypothesis.
Your hopeless. I feel sorry for you. I have no idea what would drive someone to have such a pathetic need to believe something so incredible and unevidenced. It is bizzare to watch you struggle to convince yourself that you have evidence of a conspiracy.
Well good luck, I too am tiring of you - it was fun for awhile but you are really starting to creep me out.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2006 : 21:51:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Good science where do I start?
quote:
Turn now to the piece of debris I mentioned (you can see it here at time mark 20:41 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003 ). All the debris outside the footprint of the building is free-falling due to gravity. So its all traveling at essentially the same speed.
To quote you, "No you moron", that would not be possible. That could only happen if all of the material falling had the same surface area, density and presented the same frontal area parallel to the direction of motion.
That would need to occur for everything to fall at exactly the same time. The differences in air-speed for the non-dust/non-paper debris would be negligable in all practical terms. (You moron.)
quote:
One exception to this is debris like the dust particles.
quote:
No, 2 pieces of glass would not even fall at the same speed unless they were aligned exactly the same.
But they would fall at essentially the same speed...
quote:
But it didn't fall out of the bottom--it flew out the side.
quote:
Yeah, moron, it was almost like the debris from the upper floors were hitting something like, gee I don't know, maybe the floors below and rebounding away from the building.
Nearly 200 feet away from the side of the collapsing tower?! Gravity would not provide that piece of debris enough energy to have the trajectory seen in the video.
quote:
If gravity was the only force acting on that piece of debris it would have been traveling at essentially the same speed as the rest of the non-dust debris, and it would not have had the occasion to act upon or be acted upon by any of the other free-falling debris, because it would be traveling at the same speed as all that other debris.
quote:
That is true, but of course that is not even remotely close to what happened. The videos clearly show the upper floors smashing into the lower floors NOT the whole building "traveling at essentially the same speed". You are a laugh a minute. Did I mention you are a moron?
Have you even watched the video clip? Because this debris is about 200 feet away from the collapsing building when it gets kicked out of the dust cloud...
quote:
For that piece of debris to be ejected out of the side of that dust cloud, there must have been a force acting upon it. Given everything at that point was in free-fall, gravity does not account for that force. Unless, of course, you think that piece of debris hit a piece of dust and bounced out of the cloud--but that contradicts the law of conservation of momentum...
quote:
Try this experiment. Have friend video tape you jumping off a cliff that has some outcroppings, when you hit the outcropping your body will be like a piece of debris hitting the lower immobile floor. My guess is that your body will move laterally away from the outcropping like the debris did at the WTC. Please have your friend send the tape to SF so we can verify this hypothesis.
So what "outcroppings" were sticking 200 feet out of the side of the collapsing tower? Try watching the video and then see how moronic your responces are...
|
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
| Edited by - ergo123 on 11/17/2006 05:14:50 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 00:38:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Nearly 200 feet away from the side of the collapsing tower?! Gravity would not provide that piece of debris enough energy to have the trajectory seen in the video.
LOL
You are so ignorant that it is funny.
So this pice of machinery need explosives then?
So you have absolutely no evidence of explosives apart from your own ignorance of physics? What a surprise!
Evidence of explosives would for instance be residue on some of the debris. Do you have any of that?
Seriously, I understand how you, a stupid person, could get a kick out of peddling this stupid fantasy among your stupid friends, but what do you get out of making a fool of your self here? Everybody here can see that you havenīt got a clue of anything.
You donīt have to answer, I donīt expect that you have a clue of this either and your uninformed opinions are as we have seen of no value to anyone.
"The thing about conspiracy literature is that it's perfect for stupid people who want to seem smart and ground their hatred in something completely mystical and confusing, ..."
-- Marc Maron, The Jerusalem Syndrome |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 05:11:41 [Permalink]
|
Oh... I hadn't realized the dust cloud had a trebuchet in it...
I guess that makes more sense than there being demolition devices involved. 
Ugh--why didn't I think of the trebuchet theory 700 posts ago!? Oh, I know why--because I'm not crazy! |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 05:32:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh... I hadn't realized the dust cloud had a trebuchet in it...
I guess that makes more sense than there being demolition devices involved.
Ugh--why didn't I think of the trebuchet theory 700 posts ago!? Oh, I know why--because I'm not crazy!
Way to miss the point.
You put a lot of energy into this "being stupid" thing.
Your claim was : "Gravity would not provide that piece of debris enough energy to have the trajectory seen in the video."
As gravity is what provides energy to launch a trebuchet projectile up to 300 meters, it is an example to show that your claim is false.
Your inability to understand the example and the reason for it is yet another example of your limited mental capacity.
Here ends the lesson, you may now go out and play. |
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 06:50:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Here ends the lesson, you may now go out and play.
Starman, you forgot the ending words, "in traffic" for that sentence.
I thought it important to add them. Please forgive my editorial license.
 |
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 07:13:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Oh... I hadn't realized the dust cloud had a trebuchet in it...
I guess that makes more sense than there being demolition devices involved.
Ugh--why didn't I think of the trebuchet theory 700 posts ago!? Oh, I know why--because I'm not crazy!
Way to miss the point.
You put a lot of energy into this "being stupid" thing.
Your claim was : "Gravity would not provide that piece of debris enough energy to have the trajectory seen in the video."
As gravity is what provides energy to launch a trebuchet projectile up to 300 meters, it is an example to show that your claim is false.
Your inability to understand the example and the reason for it is yet another example of your limited mental capacity.
Here ends the lesson, you may now go out and play.
If I had asked how a piece of debris could be sent 200 feet by gravity alone you would have been close (with a trebuchet, the force of gravity acts on a lever which, in turn, is what launches whatever is connected to the trebuchet sling; gravity alone would not do the trick).
But I was talking about a specific piece of debris--namely the piece ejected from the dust cloud seen in the video. Unless you are making the moronic claim that there was a trebuchet in the dust cloud, your trebuchet reference has zero relevance to this discussion.
And have you noticed davey has not chimed in here? I know he said he is handling some crisis--really davey, being proved wrong about how the veracity of the NIST report makes a difference to you isn't crisis material--but my guess is he knows I'm right about this and doesn't want to admit it. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 08:51:43 [Permalink]
|
What a waste of time... Ergo, you truly are pathetic.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 08:51:53 [Permalink]
|
| Don't feed the troll... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 10:38:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If gravity was the only force acting on that piece of debris...
For those playing along at home, this is the clause in which Stevie introduces his strawman to the world. After all, if gravity was the only force acting on that piece of debris, then it would have to have been falling within a hard vacuum, a premise that nobody is asserting to be true. No physicist in her right mind would ignore the friction, drag, tension, spring, bond, adhesion, torque and other forces when developing a hypothesis about the "ejection" of that debris, but Stevie hopes that by showing the absurdity of this new "gravity only" hypothesis, he can strengthen an alternative hypothesis that also absurdly ignores all those other forces. But as we all know, showing one hypothesis to be false does nothing to support another one. And by relying on these sorts of strawmen, Stevie has done nothing to show that the NIST report "is impossible" (his words in that other thread he mentioned). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 12:28:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
If gravity was the only force acting on that piece of debris...
For those playing along at home, this is the clause in which Stevie introduces his strawman to the world. After all, if gravity was the only force acting on that piece of debris, then it would have to have been falling within a hard vacuum, a premise that nobody is asserting to be true. No physicist in her right mind would ignore the friction, drag, tension, spring, bond, adhesion, torque and other forces when developing a hypothesis about the "ejection" of that debris, but Stevie hopes that by showing the absurdity of this new "gravity only" hypothesis, he can strengthen an alternative hypothesis that also absurdly ignores all those other forces. But as we all know, showing one hypothesis to be false does nothing to support another one. And by relying on these sorts of strawmen, Stevie has done nothing to show that the NIST report "is impossible" (his words in that other thread he mentioned).
Leave it to davie-boy to try to obscure the real point I was making--i.e., that a trebuchet utilizes a lever to transfer the downward force of gravity to lateral force... 
That's another one of davie's tactics--bring up a bunch of that doesn't really relate to the issue at hand. I guess some people are fooled by it.
But notice how davie didn't address the issue of how the debris under scrutiny here got ejected by a dust cloud. That was the issue here. |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
ergo123
BANNED
USA
810 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 12:39:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Don't feed the troll...
Kil, why do you seem to call anyone you do not agree with a Troll? The more I read other threads on this site, the more predictable you people are...
My observations to date regarding what certain people do here when they are proven wrong:
kil: Calls the person proving him wrong a Troll,
davie: brings up unrelated details, splits hairs, "deals with a crisis," asks for more evidence, to name but 4,
filth: latches on to some tangential topic and begins posting comments on that at the expense of dealing with the actual issue at hand,
furie: claims to be tired of the person/topic, but continues to post that either the person proving him wrong doesn't listen to the facts, or that he is tired of the topic/person,
moonie: ignores key points framing a debate; stays locked into his initial misconceptions of that the other is saying, even after repeated clarification |
No witty quotes. I think for myself. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2006 : 13:21:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Don't feed the troll...
Kil, why do you seem to call anyone you do not agree with a Troll? The more I read other threads on this site, the more predictable you people are...
He doesn't. He only calls you a troll. I have yet to see him call anyone else a troll, including people he doesn't agree with. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
