ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics 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 Dave Thomas , richard gage , wtc collapse

Reply
Old 19th August 2010, 02:31 PM   #281
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I am extremely flattered to have my argument compared with that of Tony Szamboti's, and very pleased with myself that I could come to the same (albeit stupidly obvious) conclusions as he, considering his knowledge of physics is vastly superior to mine. Thank you. I know I'm on the right track.
Zero times a million is still zero, so Szamboti is about on par with you. You shouldn't sell yourself short like that.
uke2se 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, 02:33 PM   #282
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post

It isn't, so why did you bring it up?
uke2se,you brought it up.

Quote:
If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same.
Seriously, guys, if you're not going to fight fair, no one's going to come here to argue with you. No one will take you seriously.
ergo 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, 02:35 PM   #283
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
uke2se,you brought it up.



Seriously, guys, if you're not going to fight fair, no one's going to come here to argue with you. No one will take you seriously.
If you look at the post you linked, it contains a quote from you, where you brought it up the first time. This is what we call self-debunking.
uke2se 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, 02:35 PM   #284
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
The collapse is obscured by dust, you can't say for sure the the upper block is completely crushed. Also, you seem to discount the effect of mass, without even realizing how big of a factor mass and velocity play in the event. I likened it to a shotgun shell and a cannon, do you understand why I chose such an analogy?
hrm
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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, 02:39 PM   #285
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
You're being disingenuous. This is what I mean by not fighting fair.

Originally Posted by uke2se
If you could arrange it so that all the pieces of the ball struck me, the impact force on my head would be the same.
The rubble in the WTC was not "arranged" so that all the pieces struck the lower floors together. Just like you can't arrange that for the broken fragments of the bowling ball, unless you put them in a net or something.

The analogy was to point out to you that particles do not have the same impact force as their solid counterparts. A fact which you have confirmed by making the statement above.
ergo 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, 02:42 PM   #286
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,753
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You're just repeating your same false assertion. The total force is not the same when you have particles instead of a single solid mass.
You're saying here that it's easier to carry 4 plastic bags each containing a 1 litre bottle of water than 1 plastic bag carrying a 4 litre bottle of water. You might want to stop and think about that ....
GlennB 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, 02:43 PM   #287
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You're being disingenuous. This is what I mean by not fighting fair.



The rubble in the WTC was not "arranged" so that all the pieces struck the lower floors together. Just like you can't arrange that for the broken fragments of the bowling ball, unless you put them in a net or something.

The analogy was to point out to you that particles do not have the same impact force as their solid counterparts. A fact which you have confirmed by making the statement above.
I'm still waiting for your mathematical proof that takes account of air resistance and shows the total impact force from the falling rubble. Given that we don't know how split up the top of the tower was when it fell, you're going to have to do a couple of calculations, showing a range from complete "dustification" to a solid slab. Go ahead. I'll wait.

After all, this is the fair thing to do, given you are the one making a claim.

Last edited by uke2se; 19th August 2010 at 02:44 PM.
uke2se 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, 02:45 PM   #288
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Dropping a bag of sand onto a structure has the potential to focus more destructive force
than dumping the contents of the same bag onto the structure.

You have to talk to OCTers at a kindergarten level ergo or theydon't get it.

MM
Your problem is the same as ergo's. You can't show how it matters. The kicker is now you've been trying this so long, no one cares that your wrong.

You need to kiss our asses, we're all you got!

Too Funny
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 02:45 PM   #289
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
You're saying here that it's easier to carry 4 plastic bags each containing a 1 litre bottle of water than 1 plastic bag carrying a 4 litre bottle of water. You might want to stop and think about that ....
Actually, I think it would be. Yes. Two in each hand.
ergo 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, 02:47 PM   #290
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Actually, I think it would be. Yes. Two in each hand.
Still waiting for that mathematical proof.
uke2se 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, 02:48 PM   #291
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by TheRedWorm View Post
The collapse is obscured by dust, you can't say for sure the the upper block is completely crushed. Also, you seem to discount the effect of mass, without even realizing how big of a factor mass and velocity play in the event. I likened it to a shotgun shell and a cannon, do you understand why I chose such an analogy?
Derp
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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, 02:50 PM   #292
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
You want me to mathematically calculate the differential impact forces of rubble on building components? In order to "prove" that it won't have the same force as an intact block of storeys? You haven't shown how it would.
ergo 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, 02:51 PM   #293
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
(Red Worm is talking to himself. Is this normal?)
ergo 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, 02:53 PM   #294
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You want me to mathematically calculate the differential impact forces of rubble on building components? In order to "prove" that it won't have the same force as an intact block of storeys? You haven't shown how it would.
Ah, yes we have. Remember Zdenek Bazant?


You really do suck at this!
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 19th August 2010 at 02:56 PM.
DGM 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, 02:54 PM   #295
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You want me to mathematically calculate the differential impact forces of rubble on building components? In order to "prove" that it won't have the same force as an intact block of storeys? You haven't shown how it would.
No no no. You make the assertion that the impact force from the falling rubble wouldn't be sufficient to cause the rest of the building to collapse. I and others have tried to show you how the total mass falling is the same whether or not it is a single block or a collection of debris. You objected to this, but didn't show any math.

I presume that your objection is regarding air resistance, given that it is the only factor that would lessen the impact of the total mass of falling debris, so I am asking you to show your calculations that would lead you to believe that air pressure is sufficient to lessen the total impact force in order for the rest of the building to absorb the impact and remain standing.

Don't try to dodge this question, and don't try to push the burden of evidence onto someone else. This is your assertion. You now have to provide the evidence. Failure to do so shows how disinterested you are in the truth.
uke2se 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, 02:55 PM   #296
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
(Red Worm is talking to himself. Is this normal?)
No, sunshine, I'm talking to you, care to address the post?
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm 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, 02:55 PM   #297
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
(Red Worm is talking to himself. Is this normal?)
He is talking to you in a vain attempt to get you to actually provide anything but hot air to this topic. I would tell him it's a fool's errand, but then again, here I am, doing the same thing.
uke2se 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, 03:01 PM   #298
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
No no no. You make the assertion that the impact force from the falling rubble wouldn't be sufficient to cause the rest of the building to collapse. I and others have tried to show you how the total mass falling is the same whether or not it is a single block or a collection of debris. You objected to this, but didn't show any math.
Yes the total mass falling is the same. Some of it falls out the sides of the building, however. Impact force is not the same.

Quote:
I presume that your objection is regarding air resistance, given that it is the only factor that would lessen the impact of the total mass of falling debris, so I am asking you to show your calculations that would lead you to believe that air pressure is sufficient to lessen the total impact force in order for the rest of the building to absorb the impact and remain standing.
It wouldn't just be air resistance, although this is obviously a major factor for all the dust from pulverization. It's many other things including friction from the other rubble pieces, friction from the building material the rubble is hitting, how the pieces land and move, how the rubble interacts with itself, and probably some other things I'm not thinking of.
ergo 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, 03:02 PM   #299
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Ah, yes we have. Remember Zdenek Bazant?
Can you cite the relevant text?
ergo 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, 03:04 PM   #300
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes the total mass falling is the same. Some of it falls out the sides of the building, however. Impact force is not the same.
Show it with math.


Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It wouldn't just be air resistance, although this is obviously a major factor for all the dust from pulverization. It's many other things including friction from the other rubble pieces, friction from the building material the rubble is hitting, how the pieces land and move, how the rubble interacts with itself, and probably some other things I'm not thinking of.
Show it with math.

You asserting stuff isn't convincing.
uke2se 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, 03:06 PM   #301
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Provide the calculations showing that it would.
ergo 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, 03:08 PM   #302
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Provide the calculations showing that it would.
Look in the NIST reports.

Now show your math that it couldn't.
uke2se 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, 03:10 PM   #303
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Can you cite the relevant text?
Yes I could?


Will you acknowledge it?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 03:10 PM   #304
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Look in the NIST reports.
The NIST reports don't have anything about collapse progression, or about how the rubble crushes the 80 and 90 storeys. So they're not going to have those calculations.
ergo 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, 03:11 PM   #305
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Yes I could?

Will you acknowledge it?
Yes, I will.
ergo 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, 03:12 PM   #306
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,301
Am I understanding this correctly? Is it ergo's position that, since the towers were breaking apart during collapse, not one single piece of debris could impart enough energy to induce failure in other parts of the structure?
Cl1mh4224rd 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, 03:13 PM   #307
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
The NIST reports don't have anything about collapse progression, or about how the rubble crushes the 80 and 90 storeys. So they're not going to have those calculations.
So, you haven't actually looked at the NIST reports then. That's the only explanation I can think of for you having missed this part, the title of which is NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers.

That or that you're lying.

Now, how about that math of yours?
uke2se 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, 03:16 PM   #308
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Am I understanding this correctly? Is it ergo's position that, since the towers were breaking apart during collapse, not one single piece of debris could impart enough energy to induce failure in other parts of the structure?
I'm sure some pieces of debris did cause damage, possibly failure. That would produce a partial failure, possibly partial collapse. This happens in natural collapses, obviously.
ergo 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, 03:17 PM   #309
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,301
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm sure some pieces of debris did cause damage, possibly failure. That would produce a partial failure, possibly partial collapse. This happens in natural collapses, obviously.

Surely even this would potentially result in additional debris that may be capable of causing additional failure, would it not?
Cl1mh4224rd 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, 03:17 PM   #310
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, I will.
This should get you started. (note he references his other papers that are also "must reads")

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf

No rush!
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 03:18 PM   #311
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Provide the calculations showing that it would.
I think Mackey's presentation answers this nicely.

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf
Start at about acrobat page 27.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl 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, 03:20 PM   #312
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Ok, you have been given multiple sources for mathematical proof of the "official version" of events, ergo. Now, how about you show us your mathematical proof that it couldn't happen?
uke2se 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, 03:20 PM   #313
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
So, you haven't actually looked at the NIST reports then. That's the only explanation I can think of for you having missed this part, the title of which is NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers.
Yes, I have seen this. Please cite where they discuss the impact of rubble in the collapse progression.
ergo 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, 03:22 PM   #314
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
This should get you started. (note he references his other papers that are also "must reads")

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/466.pdf
Thanks. Please cite the relevant text.
ergo 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, 03:22 PM   #315
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Show it with math.




Show it with math.

You asserting stuff isn't convincing.
The upper assembly of 12 spaced single floors are falling at constant downward acceleration meaning that the structure below is being dstroyed BEFORE the upper assembly strikes it. So the only math you need to know is the force that the upper assembly exerts on the lower.

The math:

F=0
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 19th August 2010 at 03:24 PM.
bill smith 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, 03:22 PM   #316
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
I think Mackey's presentation answers this nicely.

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf
Start at about acrobat page 27.
Don't tell him that! This guy needs to start at the beginning!
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 03:24 PM   #317
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 10,810
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yes, I have seen this. Please cite where they discuss the impact of rubble in the collapse progression.
That would be Chapter 9, Probable Collapse Sequence.

Now, how about that math of yours? When are you going to present it?
uke2se 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, 03:25 PM   #318
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,211
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thanks. Please cite the relevant text.
All of it! Are you lazy? Are you one of those guys that rents a chainsaw and only listens to the part on how to start it? What's your hurry? Are you afraid you might learn something?

Have you actually read any of the reports you claim are wrong?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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, 03:26 PM   #319
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
I think Mackey's presentation answers this nicely.

http://911myths.com/images/f/f0/911physics_big.pdf
Start at about acrobat page 27.
I see formulas. I don't see calculations. I don't see a calculation of rubble impact.
ergo 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, 03:28 PM   #320
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post

Have you actually read any of the reports you claim are wrong?
I'm not claiming they're wrong necessarily. I'm claiming you're wrong and that you haven't supported with facts your bizarre notions of the effect of gravity on a collection of particles.
ergo 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

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and 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 07:45 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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