Bitcoin Forum
June 26, 2016, 01:06:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.12.1 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 246 »
41  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: June 01, 2016, 06:56:01 AM


 Smiley

What is this supposed to prove, that you are a snide person nitpicking (not even accurately) a joke?
42  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Tech Giants Vow to Tackle Online Hate Speech Within 24 Hours on: June 01, 2016, 06:53:34 AM
Quote
However, there is a clear distinction between freedom of expression and conduct that incites violence and hate.

Since when is inciting hate a crime? What if an individual or organization SHOULD be hated? There are plenty. They are simply using the pre-programmed reaction to the words "hate" speech and mixing it up in a word salad to make hate = violence, and therefore equivalent to a criminal act. Everyone should be telling everyone they know about this and spamming the fuck out of each of these platforms over it. When they are forced with either removing a large percentage of their user base (and revenue) or backing down, they WILL back down. If they don't they will end up like Twitter or Target with investors fleeing like rats from a sinking ship.
43  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: June 01, 2016, 06:28:32 AM

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.





A reminder, here are the four initial questions of which we are still discussing #3 and #4.  I'm not going into #1 and #2 until these two are concluded.  

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel multiple 4 ton steel beams hundreds of feet laterally at the readily observable velocities demonstrated.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings cannot coexist with a building collapse due to the resistant force created at the building impacts the lower levels of itself.


You asked what are "my claims."

For #3, I reply that the 100-150 TONS of TNT equivalent in the PE of the structure are SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.  

For #4, I reply that the PE of the structure is SUFFICIENT, and no other explanation is NEEDED.

It's pretty simple.  You seem to believe on both points, "INSUFFICIENT," and "another explanation IS NEEDED."

On the seismic record -
Well, all I've done is ask how the heck the seismic record supports anything you say about a 10 second fall?  I looked at it, and I'm just not seeing where to put the zero and the ten second mark.  Do I just get to pick anywhere?  Is there a place that supports your claim?

On the beams -
As for the beams being moved out, you introduced a chart that showed the extent of the debris field, and the beams are within it.  So I'm not seeing what's "unusual."  Is it that they were big and heavy?  How big should the debris field have been to be "natural?"



I noticed you are using an old numbered list to attempt to create even more confusion. Another pathetic attempt at obfuscating true examination of the points as usual. Try to stay with the current discussion ok chief?

1- Avoided explanation. I repeat. Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Avoided explanation. Why is the fact that the beams are within the debris field automatically normal? That is like saying a seismograph of a 9.0 earthquake is normal because it is on the chart. Zero logic there. It is evidence of explosives because gravity does not transfer to lateral movement, particularly so for a massive object which has more resistant inertia, hence more force is required to change its direction. You claim there is sufficient force, yet have no explanation of how that force is transferred laterally in violation of Newton's 1st law of motion.

3- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation.

4- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation.

5- Avoided completely.

6- Avoided completely.

7- Avoided completely.

8- Avoided completely.

9- Avoided explanation. It doesn't matter how much force was available, the laws of physics still apply. This is not an explanation, it is a generalized statement without explanation.

10- Avoided completely.


It is very telling how you equivocate over every word I use, yet you can not back up even your most basic assertions and simply have to resort to declaring it a fact without any substantiation whatsoever in order to prevent any actual debate of the point.
44  Economy / Goods / Re: Searching for a Men's leather wallet, with specific conditions on: May 31, 2016, 03:18:07 PM
um... you might want to cancel your credit card...
45  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 31, 2016, 05:14:13 AM

The hat is too low... Makes her look like she was hit with the zika virus...

Good effort though.




Nope. Plenty of room.
46  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 30, 2016, 08:58:46 PM


Happy now?
47  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 30, 2016, 03:00:59 PM
Help me out a bit here.  I said ...

"Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time.  "

Just do it, please.


As soon as you:

1- Explain how the seismic record supports YOUR argument. After all you were the first one to bring it up claiming it supported your argument. He who claims proves. Pointing this burden of proof back at me without explaining your own point is a logical fallacy.

2- Explain the precise mechanism that makes the force of gravity transfer laterally to throw 4 ton hunks of steel 600 feet sideways multiple times in every direction, as well as propel debris in an upward arc in violation of Newtons first law of motion by violating the forces of inertia and gravity.

3- Explain how two 110 story buildings fall at a rate of speed that demonstrates little to no resistance from thousands of supports designed with thousands of percent of redundancy thru the path of most resistance.

4- Explain how building 7, according to NIST itself fell at free fall speeds for over 2 seconds REQUIRING the synchronous removal of ALL support structures in those levels in order to be possible for any frame of time.

5- Explain who is offering this billion dollar payout for talking about the coordination of the attacks.

6- Explain how about 12 stories of a building was able to crush the other 98 stories completely to the ground without itself being destroyed, and how a similar effect could be repeated again in the other tower in violation of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

7- Explain how a hurricane is a "static load"

8- Explain how kerosene fires could weaken the steel structures enough to cause a complete collapse of both towers in spite of not being even capable of reaching sufficient temperatures to do this let alone long enough burn times to do so EVEN IF they did (which they didn't).

9- Explain how planes could impart sufficient kinetic energy to completely collapse the structures in spite of them being specifically designed to be able to withstand this exact scenario.

10- Explain how temperatures in the 800-1000 Kelvin range were created in the debris pile 5 days after the attack as measured by NASA satellites.


You demand accountability for my statements over and over again (which I have been providing) yet repeatedly gloss over and just ignore anything that does not confirm your own bias. Convenient you do not have to provide any evidence in response to these points. In your mind denial is evidence enough.
48  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 30, 2016, 01:57:54 PM
Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED
No, that's your distorted reading of the text.  You assume that the first exterior panels to strike the ground came from the very top of the tower.  Get real.  Please revise your math to include a variety of heights from which the first panels to hit the ground came from.




....
didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.

The force required is proportionally related to the distance, not exponentially related.  You were wrong, admit it and move on.

....As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument .....
Okay, let's use eyeballs.  I take a small bag of flour outside, throw it up in the air.  It comes down, and goes splat.  Flour goes everywhere.  Hey, guess what?  There's sort of a cloud of white over where it landed.  Some of it went up, and some went sideways.  But you claim gravity only works downward?  Hmm....




So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  
Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.


The First Building's fall:



Well?  Please show us on the seismic record, start and stop of "free fall greater than gravity," or whatever your claim is.  Show me where you PRECISELY DETERMINE fall time. 

By the way.  Yes, I am perfectly fine sticking with 8th grade physics, chemistry and math to refute your "Experts."  Bring them on.  Here's a challenge.  Show me one that requires 9th grade work to rebut their bat shit crazy Truthiness.

LOL...


Deny laws of physics, talk about 8th grade physics, make personal attacks. I am seeing a pattern here.
49  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Mobile phones and cancer. on: May 30, 2016, 01:50:53 PM
yeah i ever read an article that there are no solid proof of mobile phone radiation can cause cancer because the radiation is still in a limit that the body can resist, however some of the researcher said that the tumor or cancer can be arise after 20 years of mobile phone radiation

so i dont know which one should i believe, but its better to prevent than to cure, so i make a small step of prevention by turning off my mobiles while i am sleeping

You touched on a key point that is just starting to be addressed. Long term exposure.
50  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Edward Snowden Demonstrates How To "Go Black" on: May 30, 2016, 01:47:10 PM
A much simpler solution: a piece of electrical tape over the lens.
51  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 30, 2016, 01:40:41 PM





 Smiley




Rare pepe trump.

+1 bonus camel toe
52  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 29, 2016, 03:23:49 PM
Actually, you asked if I considered a hurricane a static load.  Your words-

As far as your point about 2000% over engineering being a static load, please tell me, what do you call wind shear? Is the fact that the building was designed to stay standing in a hurricane a static load?

Then you've got a couple little problems with your claim about "let's use the official report."  Here are your words -

I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.

No, it's your problem to show what your margin of error is in the quoted "10 seconds."  

What I see is a huge dust cloud covering up precise measurements and a seismic record that goes on and on and on.  So you want 0.8 seconds, fine.  Then you've got "Something close to free fall," don't you?  Because "Something between 10 and 10.8 seconds" is not "exactly free fall."  

Anyway, do you even have a clue as to what the time for "free fall" of this structure would have been?   Because I sure don't.  Let's look at another "official report."

The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports.  The NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.

    The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.


So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground?  




That is interesting, because these are your exact words, stated before the above quote I might add.

Is a hurricane a static load?  Have you ever been in a hurricane?  Even been separated by one pane of glass from a full blown hurricane?  I have.  I was stuck for four miserable days in a hotel with no power in Kowloon.  Yes, I would call it a static load in the horizontal direction, unless some dynamic oscillations set up in the building structure.  The load presented was remarkably constant over the duration.
Want to argue that one?  Go ahead.

Funny, you can't even seem to keep your own lies straight.


I already repeatedly stated I am using the number of 10 seconds from The 9/11 Commission Report. Is the official report too "conspiratorial" for you now? The number of 9.2 seconds is from independent video analysis. The .8 seconds is not "a margin of error", because it is the difference between the independent analysis and the official 9/11 report.....

Not that you bothered to read it, but I already sourced the final NIST report which admitted free fall speeds in building 7. As far as towers 1 and 2, NIST HAS NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION of how the towers fell, only a collection of assumptions. Assumptions based on "dry labed" models that have widely been disputed for lack of accuracy completely dismissing things like the core support structure in their models. Additionally your quote from the NIST F.A.Q. says nothing about free fall speeds, it says what their interpretation of the seismic record is. Nice attempt at misdirection.

You are the one supporting the official narrative, not me. I only used numbers out of The 9/11 Commission Report so that it would not simply be used by you as another source of distraction from the violation of the laws of physics that had to have happened even based on these numbers for the official narrative to be true.


Since you are so insistent that the seismic records corroborate the official narrative, lets take a look at them shall we?

The First Building's fall:




The following are excerpts from a report by Dr. André Rousseau. He is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology......
So I guess you concede that the 2000% is a static load.  Then you have to concede that the simple test case I showed with 120x weight is more than 20x....

Now let's talk about your seismic charts.  Can you kindly show me where the famous ten seconds begins and ends?   Thanks.

Dr. Rousseau is obviously bat shit crazy.  We've already established the TNT equivalent of one building's fall to be equal to more than 100 TONS OF TNT.  What more is needed?  Nothing more.  

I'm just not seeing how you get a precise number from the seismic charts.  They show exactly what I would expect to see, waveforms from a big pile of rubble forming.  Please show us how you read this chart to get your precise "free fall" speeds.  I'm not buying this garbage one bit.

So far you've showed you -

don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load

were not aware that the dynamic load dwarfs the building's strength and made it inescapable they would fall

didn't have a clue that force to propel and object sideways was just the initial push, not "exponentially larger as you go further"

have no clue as to how to even measure "free fall velocity"

didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

Believe that the lid can be kept on a conspiracy with thousands of people involved


I don't think you are qualified or competent to discuss the mechanisms of failure of the Twin Towers.  Basically there is not one assertion you have made that checks out.  Not one.

"don't know or comprehend static vs dynamic load"

Sorry but no, you don't get to speak for me. Can you explain to me exactly how a 2000% STATIC load would suddenly appear in a building? Are they loading heavy machinery via a teleporter or a black hole? What purpose would designing a structure only to withstand your so called static loads serve when any load applied to it would be dynamic considering the building is constantly in motion from the wind? Lets address where this number of 2000% engineering redundancy came from.

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." -John Skilling, Chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center from "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings", ENR, 4/2/1964

LIVE LOADS. LIVE = DYNAMIC. Not static. Additionally this is ONLY the perimeter columns, not the entire building. Maybe you can tell me about how hurricanes are static loads some more to keep avoiding the fact that you have no argument.


were not aware that the dynamic load dwarfs the building's strength and made it inescapable they would fall

What? What the fuck is this? I provide physical evidence, demonstrate the claimed violation of the laws of physics, provide testimony from experts in the towers construction and others, You talk about bowling balls and now it is inescapable? Hey, since you think you have all the proof you need, why not claim the 1 million Euros offered here?


didn't have a clue that force to propel and object sideways was just the initial push, not "exponentially larger as you go further"

I think you are feigning some serious reading comprehension issues in order to try to weasel in the facade of an argument here. "THE INITIAL PUSH" is what is required to be larger the further the distance the object is to travel. This is not debatable, just like if you have a bullet of a set mass you need to add more powder to it to get it to travel further. If you are arguing against this fact then you are beyond retarded and I am not wasting another second on your retardation on this point, feigned or not.





have no clue as to how to even measure "free fall velocity"

Gravity causes freely falling objects to increase their speed by about 9.81 m/s² at sea level. The height of the roof line of WTC 1 is 1,368 ft or 417.0 m.

t = √ 2d/g  

d = distance (417m), t = time (solving for time), g = rate of acceleration of gravity (9.81 m/s²)  so:

t = 9.22 seconds, which is in precise correlation with the video analysis provided earlier.

Note, this does not even account for air resistance let alone the resistance of any of the structure below it which would increase the fall time significantly more than the .8 seconds differential between this free fall in vacuum and the official report time of 10 seconds.


Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.



Since you are a fan of the NIST F.A.Q., lets take a closer look at it.

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2." -NIST F.A.Q. RE: WTC 1 & 2

Note the official story from NIST is that WTC 2 fell in 9 seconds, 0.2 seconds FASTER THAN FREE FALL SPEED





Yes, an expert Dr. in the field of geophysics and acoustics is crazy, and you know more than him, just like you know more than the chief structural engineer of the towers  Roll Eyes  

Were you not just saying something about ad hominem attacks being the last refuge of losers?

Conveniently your little excuse allows you to just dismiss all of the physical evidence he presents, and hey why not throw out the actual seismic data too simply because he referenced it while you are at it. As far as the charts, you have a pair of eyeballs, try using them instead of using your constant tactic of dithering so you never have to admit your failed argument and can eventually just drop the point when I produce even more physical evidence. You are the one that argued that the seismic data corroborated your argument, why don't you show me? He who claims proves, and I have been proving the fuck out of everything I have stated while you just proclaim you are correct without an iota of supporting evidence or references, only proclamations of righteousness.


didn't have a clue that the potential energy of any object at 1000 feet was 500 times what would be required to move that object 600 feet sideways

The only problem with your "explanation is all of that momentum is a result of gravity according to your argument. Gravity pulls downwards, not up or laterally.

Newton's second law: “Change of motion is proportional to the force applied, and take place along the straight line the force acts.”

IE, a collapsing building doesn't shoot 4 ton sections of steel framework 600 feet laterally without other forces acting upon it.







Believe that the lid can be kept on a conspiracy with thousands of people involved

There are plenty of people speaking out, and a lot of them ended up dead. If anyone is trying to keep a lid on something here it is you.
Tell me, how do companies create multi-billion dollar research projects if the secrecy of the project is not possible? How was the Manhattan project completed in secrecy? As I explained through a combination of compartmentalization, self interest, threats of repercussions, and flat out murder this is quite possible. BTW, you still haven't explained who is offering that billion dollar payout for people to come forward about it.


I am not an expert on this subject (neither are you), but the people I have sourced ARE. So far you haven't sourced jack shit, all you have are your empty claims.










53  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 26, 2016, 06:05:31 PM
I just saw the most epic Trump Protestor video I have ever seen and I just had to share it with you people here.




https://youtu.be/T9dsYEszGmo?t=2597




Transcript:

The only reason that they started shooting tear gas at us was because an old man was pushed by a police officer. I asked, let him pass! Let him walk that way...he had a cane! No, he hit him in the face for no apparent reason! When Donald Trump showed up look at how heavy and hate he brought here! I stand for people! Uhh ...our... armed services! Our men and women in uniform we're apposed to stand united, but he brings division! He brings hatred. We are apposed to stand united aren't we? Aren't we all American's? Are...arv... our liberty is apposed to be uphold! Our Constitution is apposed to be held and the strongest upset... my bad....huhu.       The reason ah, yeah, start fires...fires were started. Earlier, but when that man was attacked by a police officer that incited vylence. Obviously they brought it when they attacked that innocent man.  Now, WTF is that appost ta be about?! Mah bad... scuse my language. But you know aaa....ehhh... look it...we are apposed to protect foreign and domestic, but they'r domestic here! They're bringing domestic terrorism to us! We're all Americans, we have the...free stand where we please! We're not cheap! We're not slaves! Oh...my bad... and you know we apposed to stand! Look at what theyr tryna do, they'r tryna force us on our KNEES! American was founded on revolution! We're founded on immigrants. George Washington, we should take example. Abraham Lincoln, Patton, they fought for this country didn't they? Didn't they do any good? We must stand! We stand united!


A for effort, F- for execution.
54  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Up Like Trump on: May 26, 2016, 08:26:10 AM
The shoes are off too. Resist tyranny in safety and comfort.
55  Economy / Goods / Re: Custom Printing, 3D Printing, Laser Engraving & Cutting, Physical Wallets & More on: May 26, 2016, 04:49:34 AM
UPDATE
56  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What's your opinion of gun control? on: May 26, 2016, 03:22:08 AM
Additionally, the codified legal process is punitive, not restorative. So if there are any fines to be levied, they go to the government, not the victim. Any profits earned from the labor of the prisoner go to private corporations, not the victims. What does the victim gain from the incarceration of the perpetrator other than the small piece of mind that they are not roaming the streets for an indefinite and short period of time?
57  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Forget trans bathrooms! Now you can choose to be a dog on: May 26, 2016, 03:18:23 AM
LOL, the face on that woman is priceless. You can practically hear her thinking "I hope no one I know sees this!".
58  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 26, 2016, 03:13:40 AM
Actually, you asked if I considered a hurricane a static load.  Your words-

As far as your point about 2000% over engineering being a static load, please tell me, what do you call wind shear? Is the fact that the building was designed to stay standing in a hurricane a static load?

Then you've got a couple little problems with your claim about "let's use the official report."  Here are your words -

I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.

No, it's your problem to show what your margin of error is in the quoted "10 seconds."  

What I see is a huge dust cloud covering up precise measurements and a seismic record that goes on and on and on.  So you want 0.8 seconds, fine.  Then you've got "Something close to free fall," don't you?  Because "Something between 10 and 10.8 seconds" is not "exactly free fall." 

Anyway, do you even have a clue as to what the time for "free fall" of this structure would have been?   Because I sure don't.  Let's look at another "official report."

The technical information on the building collapse is in the NIST reports.  The NIST FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) site has the pertinent information.

    The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds.


So what the heck is your "10 seconds" claiming?  That's when the entire mass of the WTC hit the ground?  When the first piece of junk hit the ground?  When the last piece hit the ground? 




That is interesting, because these are your exact words, stated before the above quote I might add.

Is a hurricane a static load?  Have you ever been in a hurricane?  Even been separated by one pane of glass from a full blown hurricane?  I have.  I was stuck for four miserable days in a hotel with no power in Kowloon.  Yes, I would call it a static load in the horizontal direction, unless some dynamic oscillations set up in the building structure.  The load presented was remarkably constant over the duration.
Want to argue that one?  Go ahead.

Funny, you can't even seem to keep your own lies straight.


I already repeatedly stated I am using the number of 10 seconds from The 9/11 Commission Report. Is the official report too "conspiratorial" for you now? The number of 9.2 seconds is from independent video analysis. The .8 seconds is not "a margin of error", because it is the difference between the independent analysis and the official 9/11 report. I am already using the highest number of the two, so no, 10.8 seconds is not the upper end of the claimed "margin of error", 10 seconds is. Are you trying to say that the official report was not accurate? I am not talking about some random guy on youtube analyzing it, this is the official government analysis. Do you think they were not accurate in their proclamation of a 10 second fall time? We have already been over this several times but you really want to milk it for every second of distraction you can get from it even though I am not even attempting to debate the 9.2 second time vs the 10 second time. On top of that you feel like seeing if you can word salad your way into adding another .8 seconds. Sorry, that is not how it works.

Not that you bothered to read it, but I already sourced the final NIST report which admitted free fall speeds in building 7. As far as towers 1 and 2, NIST HAS NO OFFICIAL EXPLANATION of how the towers fell, only a collection of assumptions. Assumptions based on "dry labed" models that have widely been disputed for lack of accuracy completely dismissing things like the core support structure in their models. Additionally your quote from the NIST F.A.Q. says nothing about free fall speeds, it says what their interpretation of the seismic record is. Nice attempt at misdirection.

You are the one supporting the official narrative, not me. I only used numbers out of The 9/11 Commission Report so that it would not simply be used by you as another source of distraction from the violation of the laws of physics that had to have happened even based on these numbers for the official narrative to be true.


Since you are so insistent that the seismic records corroborate the official narrative, lets take a look at them shall we?

The First Building's fall:





The Second Building's fall:



Source

That sure looks an awful lot like a 10 second duration to me.



Furthermore the seismic records also show lots of other discrepancies from the official reports, including more undeniable physical evidence of explosives:

The following are excerpts from a report by Dr. André Rousseau. He is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology. Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

This report can be found here.


"EXPLOSIONS THE SOURCE OF 9/11 SEISMIC WAVEFORMS
A subterranean explosion might not be heard, but the ground would shake and initiate a series of waves (body and surface waves). If we distinctly hear an explosion, it is either aerial, which does not give a seismic signal, or it is subaerial, in which case surface waves could be generated. The seismic wave data provided by Palisades prove the occurrence of surface waves radiating outward from the World Trade Center. In addition, witnesses reported hearing explosions very close to the times at which planes struck the Towers and when they collapsed (see particularly MacQueen, 2006).

Given these two types of evidence we can affirm that subaerial explosions occurred close to the base of the Towers almost or quite simultaneously with the crashes into the Towers by the planes. The sound coming from these explosions would have been mixed with the sounds generated by the impacts of the planes. The explosion at the base of WTC1 was heard and reported by William Rodriquez (Spingola, 2005).

The employees of the Secret Service, whose offices were in WTC7 wholly separated
from WTC1, noticed this event:

“On September 11, like any other morning, most of the Secret Service employees were either settling into their offices or still making their way to work. Others were about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. At 8:48 a.m. their offices in Building 7 shook and the lights flickered. Most of them stopped for a quick moment but quickly returned to their work” (Congressional Record, 107th Congress (2001-2002). As a simple impact against a tower cannot be transmitted to a separated building, an explosion was the likely source of the shock in the offices." pg. 7-8


"The local magnitudes (ML) that the LDEO seismologists calculated from the surface waves gave results that consolidate our analysis. They were higher than 2 on the Richter scale for the waves emitted at the moments of the collapses. It is impossible to get such a magnitude from the falling of the building debris alone, especially falling over a duration of ten seconds. Even if an entire Tower had been compacted into a tight ball, it would have necessitated a higher speed than could be caused by the Earth's gravity to even approach such a magnitude. Moreover, we must note that the magnitude attributed to the subterranean explosion at the WTC1 is ML=2.3 -- comparable to the earthquake that hit New York on January 17, 2001 (ML =2.4) -- while the magnitude coming from the WTC2 explosion is ML=2.1, thus weaker. This disparity is consistent with the explosions described in this study and is particularly appreciable given the logarithmic scale used to designate event magnitudes. Given that the Twin Towers were of similar height and mass, the falling debris from the collapsing Towers should have generated similar magnitudes, if they were indeed the sources of the waves." pg. 9

"CONCLUSION
Near the times of the planes' impacts into the Twin Towers and during their collapses, as well as during the collapse of WTC7, seismic waves were generated. To the degree that (1) seismic waves are created only by brief impulses and (2) low frequencies are associated with energy of a magnitude that is comparable to a seismic event, the waves recorded at Palisades and analyzed by LDEO undeniably have an explosive origin. Even if the planes' impacts and the fall of the debris from the Towers onto the ground could have generated seismic waves, their magnitude would have been insufficient to be recorded 34 km away and should have been very similar in the two cases to one another. As we have shown, they were not.

The types and magnitudes of the seismic signals show significant differences. The greatest differences occur in their propagation speeds, even though their paths were essentially identical under identical conditions. This difference is physically unexplained in the interpretation of the events offered by the LDEO researchers, the 9/11 Commission and NIST. Therefore, we must question their calculations of wave propagation speeds based on their assumption that the wave origins are shown on the video images of impacts and collapses. We can only conclude that the wave sources were independently detonated explosives at other times, thus accounting for the variable discrepancies for
each wave origin in relation to the videos." pg. 10

"There is a factor of ten between the power of the explosions at the time of the plane impacts on the Twin Towers (as well as at the time of the collapse of WTC7) and the strength of those more powerful explosions at the times of their collapses, the subterranean explosion under WTC1 being the one that transmitted the most energy to the ground. " pg 11





As usual I am the one providing all of the sources, science, and math. You are providing assumption, denial, speculation, allegories about bowling balls, ninjas, lizard people, and space rays.
59  Other / Politics & Society / Re: What do you think about 9/11 mystery? on: May 25, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
....
I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance which should have been there had it been a collapse without explosives, as well as the explosive forces required to propel multiple multi-ton sections of the building hundreds of yards from their original positions in all directions. You however ignore these facts to maintain your pretext of having an argument.


Sure, no problem. Since you have problems with definitions of basic English words here is the definition of STATIC:
....

No, we are discussion static and dynamic LOADS.  You really need to learn some science and engineering to discuss these things without being corrected all the time.  From Wikipedia-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_dynamics

The distinction is made between the dynamic and the static analysis on the basis of whether the applied action has enough acceleration in comparison to the structure's natural frequency. If a load is applied sufficiently slowly, the inertia forces (Newton's first law of motion) can be ignored and the analysis can be simplified as static analysis. Structural dynamics, therefore, is a type of structural analysis which covers the behavior of structures subjected to dynamic (actions having high acceleration) loading. Dynamic loads include people, wind, waves, traffic, earthquakes, and blasts. Any structure can be subjected to dynamic loading. Dynamic analysis can be used to find dynamic displacements, time history, and modal analysis.

A dynamic analysis is also related to the inertia forces developed by a structure when it is excited by means of dynamic loads applied suddenly (e.g., wind blasts, explosion, earthquake).

A static load is one which varies very slowly. A dynamic load is one which changes with time fairly quickly in comparison to the structure's natural frequency.


Oh, and NO, you did not and have not "I already showed you calculations, not only from the speeds that the building was falling at demonstrating it fell at free fall conductive with the rate of gravity showing ZERO resistance."

You see, suppose that the bowling ball fell from 1000 feet, and every 10 feet there was a large piece of paper that it smashed through.  You'd have to have a very precise measuring device to notice any difference at all in the rate of fall.  Now assume that instead of paper, it smashed through .25" plywood every ten feet.  Might be able to measure that resistance.  With very precise instruments.  

In the case at hand, you'd like to claim that 0.8 seconds is the margin of error.  But a margin of error does not mean "zero resistance," does it?  Zero resistance is total, absolute nonsense.  Well, which is it?  Zero resistance or some resistance that accumulated to somewhere between 0 and 0.8 seconds resistance to the fall?

Make up your mind, dude.



Potential Energy released in WTC event  :  about 100 tons of TNT

Nobody needs your explanations of secret Ninjas placing explosives to bring those towers down.

No, you are discussing something else every time I demolish your argument. When you have lost an argument you simply move the goal posts and claim you meant something else. I brought up the fact that the WTC towers were designed to withstand hurricanes. You called a hurricane static. I displayed the definition of static which has no relevance describing a hurricane, now suddenly you claim you were talking about "static loads" all along. Please, your attempts at misdirection are pathetic.

Suppose the laws of physics apply and the towers fell at free fall speed, faster than possible with any resistance from crushing the floors below, even if this wasn't in violation of Newton's 3rd law as well.

I never even debated the .8 seconds. You can have it, not that it helps your argument other than providing another distraction. Lets use the official report which states 10 seconds which IS STILL FREE FALL SPEED. Your talk about the "margin of error" again is just more word salad to attempt to sound like you have an argument.

It doesn't matter if the energy of the buildings falling was 20 megatons, they still will not fall at free fall speeds unless explosives are used to clear the supports and remove the resistance of the columns. As usual there is zero substance in your statements.
60  Economy / Scam Accusations / Re: Master-P SCAMMER. I lost complete faith in this forum now. on: May 25, 2016, 10:42:43 AM
are we still talking about master-p or has this thread gone completely off topic?  not complaining, just been on vacation and trying to catch up

Steam is full of people trying to phish free gear, sending iffy links to staemcomunity . com or whatever :p   I would guess its harder to scam since valve put in the trade delays and revocation but no doubt theres people still sitting there all day trying their luck

someone filed some bad rep against him, not sure if its anyone here but he mentions bitcointalk, last oct
http://forums.steamrep.com/threads/report-76561197994994008-csgo-counter-strike-global-offensive-items.114476/

http://steamrep.com/profiles/76561197994994008

Its listed as unconfirmed, Im not sure if anyone wants to further that so he is clearly marked as unreliable

Yep, I can confirm that is his Steam account.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 246 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!