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.
Reply
Old 30th May 2016, 04:03 PM   #2801
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Do you mean the moderator thread?

I could care less. I have already said that we are adults. Insult me all you want. Moderators on a forum such as this are unnecessary.
Fair enough.

You had better let criteria know that you can handle yourself.
Spanx 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 30th May 2016, 04:07 PM   #2802
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,214
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Do you mean the moderator thread?

I could care less. I have already said that we are adults. Insult me all you want. Moderators on a forum such as this are unnecessary.

So, you do care some............
__________________
"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 30th May 2016, 04:14 PM   #2803
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Please, please explain the Cirque du Soleil-ish mental acrobatics necessary to support that claim.
If something is being acted upon by forces in opposition to each other and is falling, it is not freely falling, even though it may be falling at g, the acceleration we label freefall.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 30th May 2016, 04:27 PM   #2804
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If something is being acted upon by forces in opposition to each other and is falling, it is not freely falling, even though it may be falling at g, the acceleration we label freefall.
I feel that I should have been charged admission to witness that convolution of reality.
FalseFlag 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 30th May 2016, 04:28 PM   #2805
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Fair enough.

You had better let criteria know that you can handle yourself.
He can do whatever he wants. I don't need to tell him anything.
FalseFlag 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 30th May 2016, 05:17 PM   #2806
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by Criteria View Post
In effect, what you are really saying is that in your opinion FalseFlag has an IQ level well below that of your dog. ...
Criteria presents the dumbest experiments in the history of 9/11 truth.


But it is true, FF failed to figure out the simple part of the question. Is the lack of practical knowledge in physics why you and FF believe in the fantasy of CD?

FF offers no evidence like you do. He claims to have evidence for CD, never produces it; like you. Believing in the fantasy of CD, or thinking Balsamo is an aviation authority is par for 9/11 truth followers who believe in lies and false claims; and have no evidence to much about their failed positions.

Is it frustrating to fall for lies and have no clue the lies you believe in are lies?

Where is the evidence?
Not really. For someone who believes the Fantasy of CD and thinks Balsamo is an avaiation authority...

Have you helped FF with 7.8*1012 fathoms/fortnight2 ; instead of quibbling about BS -
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 30th May 2016 at 05:20 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2016, 05:22 PM   #2807
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I feel that I should have been charged admission to witness that convolution of reality.
Fair enough, I was charged admission, only they called it tuition, and at the end I got bachelor's in Physics and Astrophysics, and a Masters in Mechanical Engineering.

Do you always call what you don't understand a "convolution of reality ", because that explains a lot about you then.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 30th May 2016, 06:43 PM   #2808
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Do you always call what you don't understand a "convolution of reality ", because that explains a lot about you then.
No, I call skeptic BS a convolution of reality.
FalseFlag 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 30th May 2016, 07:07 PM   #2809
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
No, I call skeptic BS a convolution of reality.
So tell me, can an object only a he I've an acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 toward the center of the Earth by falling freely, or could it also achieve the same acceleration by a combination of forces?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB 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 30th May 2016, 07:44 PM   #2810
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
So tell me, can an object only a he I've an acceleration of 9.81 m/s2 toward the center of the Earth by falling freely, or could it also achieve the same acceleration by a combination of forces?
Are you typing on your phone?

A combination of forces could create a downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s. I think for purposes of discussion we refer to freefall as downward acceleration of 9.8 m/s/s caused solely by gravity (neglecting air resitance for simplicity in discussion).

I could hold a pen in my left hand and a pen in my right hand. I could drop the pen in my left hand and (with much skill) lower the pen in my right hand at the same rate as the pen in freefall. Is this what you are referring to? If so, I would never say the pen in my right hand is in freefall. I would say I was manually accelerating it downwards at 9.8 m/s/s.

If this is wrong, then please explain in detail what you are referring to.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 30th May 2016 at 07:48 PM.
FalseFlag 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 30th May 2016, 07:46 PM   #2811
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If something is being acted upon by forces in opposition to each other and is falling, it is not freely falling, even though it may be falling at g, the acceleration we label freefall.
OK. I owe you an apology. I understand what you are saying.

Normally I don't give any credit to what a skeptic says because it's just BS by default. I think your statement, taken just by itself, is correct.

Not that it matters, but you do have my attention. Please continue your argument if you want to. I will listen.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 12:07 AM   #2812
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Pretty damn close.
I did a quick-and-dirty on it, looks pretty good, but quite frankly, I have a P-51D, a Spitfire Mk-II, and a Dirty Birdy that need my time and attention, and which will appreciate it a lot more than the obstinately ignorant do.
You mother - f*****...!!

Are you kidding me??!!!
A P-51D??
A Spitfire??

Ohhhhhh, now I hate your miserable azz..!!



("hate" being a synonym for "jealous as hell", of course...)
tfk 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 31st May 2016, 01:35 AM   #2813
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,704
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You claim I'm dodging your question. This is wrong. I am intentionally refusing to answer because no one needs to answer your questions to be able to understand Newton's laws of motion.
Did anyone else notice this?
"I'm not dodging the question, I'm just refusing to answer it".
Which are two completely different things.
OK......
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 31st May 2016, 05:00 AM   #2814
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,434
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
What is the value of acceleration at the ??s?

If you are incompetent at physics, you won't supply an answer.
You know what's really funny about this?

From the context, the units in use, and the details of the graph, it's possible to guess the answer; in fact, it's almost impossible to guess it wrong.

If you know anything about physics, that is.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 31st May 2016, 06:32 AM   #2815
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,641
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You know what's really funny about this?

From the context, the units in use, and the details of the graph, it's possible to guess the answer; in fact, it's almost impossible to guess it wrong.

If you know anything about physics, that is.

Dave
Seing three horizontal lines, I was immediately (within 3 seconds) confused, thinking "does the NIST really use "feet", aren't they generally on the SI train already?". Because three horizontal lines only make good sense if the scale is xx ft/m2. Took me about 15 seconds more till I scrolled up and saw a graph confirming they indeed use ft.

Hence my immediate guess was correct: ?? = XX xx/s2.
No need to waste time with Excel or Open Office or whatever.
If you know anything about physics, that is.

Edit: OOPS sorry I thought the answer had already been derived and given three different ways by others
Ok, result is of course 3.585 * 1021 mil/a2

Edit 2: Took me three attempts to get the result right in the other dimension
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 31st May 2016 at 07:37 AM. Reason: Masked result
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 07:01 AM   #2816
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,228
I was already familiar with that graph. femr2 was the first one to post it, AFAIK.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/483546505.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/590673176.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/819970289.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/513801604.png
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 31st May 2016, 08:44 AM   #2817
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,434
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Seing three horizontal lines, I was immediately (within 3 seconds) confused, thinking "does the NIST really use "feet", aren't they generally on the SI train already?".
To be fair, I did make an initial guess that was out by a factor fairly close to 3.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 31st May 2016, 10:29 AM   #2818
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...
Hence my immediate guess was correct: ?? = XX xx/s2.
No need to waste time with Excel or Open Office or whatever.
If you know anything about physics, that is.
Oystein, you got it right! (I saw your value this morning before you redacted it.)

Thanks for the numerous confirmations, all!

Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
It wouldn't be a waste of time at all. You can PROVE you understand physics simply by using popular programs like Microsoft Excel (or Office Libre Calc, available for free) to compute the 1st and 2nd derivatives of the NIST equation posted by TFK.

I was able to do so - a little tricksy, but extremely doable. Here is my result for acceleration, sans the vertical values.



All you have to do to prove some physics competency is to reproduce this acceleration graph from NIST's equation. I'm giving you a big boost by showing you the shape of the acceleration curve (you can check your work against this).

What is the value of acceleration at the ??s?

If you are incompetent at physics, you won't supply an answer.
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
No. At best, it means you can google online calculators.

Why don't you post a link to the website you used, and paste the exact equation you used. Post screenshots to show each step. Then, copy and paste a picture of the graph of the equation.
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Why won't you post your data?

Why won't you post your steps?

If you were so certain that you were correct, you would want to make sure as many people as possible could review your work and get the same results.

Well, at least that is how it should work, but you're a skeptic, and obfuscation is what you thrive on.
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Here's a hint, FalseFlag:

To answer the questions posed by tfk and me, you would have had to understand that velocity is the time rate of change of position, and that acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity.

It's now obvious to everyone that you do NOT understand “middle school physics”.

Game over, dude.
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
His answer is correct.
I did this same calculation, in a completely different manner, many years ago.

His graph is the same as mine.
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Waiting for glue to cure, paint to dry
Used Mathcad, got this:
IMAGE http://www.internationalskeptics.com...c65e930517.jpg

Ain't it amazing--people use 4 different methods, all get the same answer.
Science and Mathematics: They actually work. every time.
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
You know what's really funny about this?

From the context, the units in use, and the details of the graph, it's possible to guess the answer; in fact, it's almost impossible to guess it wrong.

If you know anything about physics, that is.

Dave
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Seing three horizontal lines, I was immediately (within 3 seconds) confused, thinking "does the NIST really use "feet", aren't they generally on the SI train already?". Because three horizontal lines only make good sense if the scale is xx ft/m2. Took me about 15 seconds more till I scrolled up and saw a graph confirming they indeed use ft.

Hence my immediate guess was correct: ?? = XX xx/s2.
No need to waste time with Excel or Open Office or whatever.
If you know anything about physics, that is.
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, here's how I got it done. I could have used analytical derivatives, but that NIST equation was a little hairy, so I used numerical derivatives.

You can see that velocity is the time rate of change of position (cell E6), and that acceleration is the time rate of change of velocity (cell F8)


I can say with confidence that FalseFlag's incompetence at physics is a proven, well-documented fact.

#FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics
DaveThomasNMSR 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 31st May 2016, 11:53 AM   #2819
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,825
Quote:
I can say with confidence that FalseFlag's incompetence at physics is a proven, well-documented fact.

#FalseFlagCluelessAtPhysics
Even I, as someone clueless about physics, can tell he's clueless about physics.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 12:00 PM   #2820
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
FF Maybe clueless about physics, but he makes a bloody good troll.

I can see why he has so many Lolz
Spanx 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 31st May 2016, 12:41 PM   #2821
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
First, math is the language of both physics and engineering.
If you can’t do math - well - then you can’t do physics or engineering.

If you can’t do it, you don’t understand it.
It’s just that simple.

The amusing part is that you didn’t have to do one iota of calculus to answer 2 of the 3 questions that I asked you.

I asked:
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
OK, here's a simple opportunity for you to prove it.

NIST provides … an empirical equation for the drop of the roofline of WTC7 vs. time.

[Eqn. 1] z(t) = 379.62 (1 - e(-0.18562 t)3.5126)
where z = the drop of the roofline from its original position.



You can see from the data that this curve fits the data far better than the velocity vs. time graph, shown in figure 12-77.



Use Eqn 1, above to generate: [Note: I’ve reversed the order of the 2nd & 3rd questions. -tk]
the velocity vs. time equation
calculate the terminal velocity.
the acceleration vs. time equation

Generate the velocity vs time equation.

  1. 1. If you had opened your eyes, or knew what you were looking at, you would have realized that the answer to this question was staring you in the face. Do you see the equation in the top left corner of the velocity vs time graph? You could have copied & pasted it.
No math required.
But you don’t know how to read these graphs well enough to understand these simple principles.


    v(t) = 247.5 (0.1856 t)2.5126 e(-(0.1856 t)3.5126)

  2. 2. Or, you could have simply said, “you need to take the derivative of z(t) with respect to t”. 
Or simply, v(t) = d (z(t))/dt. 
“… but the equation is too complicated for me to solve.”
That would have shown you actually understood what is going on.

  3. 3. Finding the derivative of the z(t) equation is actually pretty simple … if you remember remedial calculus. (i.e., derivatives of exponentials , and the Chain Rule: 
 d(eg(t)) / dt = (d(g(t))/dt) eg(t))
 and the simple version of this when g(t) = k => d(ek t) / dt = kek t 

In this case g(t) = (-0.18562 t)3.5126 
then d g(t)/dt = (-0.18562) (3.5126) (-.18562 t)2.5126 = 0.6520 (.18562 t)2.5126

and v(t) = 247.5 (0.1856 t)2.5126 e-(0.1856 t)3.5126[/sup]

Whaddaya know. It matches 1 above.

  4. 4. Or, you can use the tools available today.
    I prefer Mathematica.

    Define: z[t_] = 379.62 (1 - E^(-(0.18562 t)^3.5126));

    Let MMA find the 1st derivative: v[t_] = z'[t]
 which returns:
    v[t] = 3.59707 E(-0.00269756 t3.5126) t2.5126


Calculate the terminal velocity
  1. First, you should realize that the terminal velocity happens when the acceleration goes to zero. In other words, the maximum of the velocity vs. time graph. If you had merely said this, you would have shown some understanding. 

Now you should be able to read it straight off of the velocity vs. time graph, and show it is ~ 92 ft/sec.

  2. Alternatively, you could have stated that the terminal velocity is the slope of the displacement vs. time graph, once the slope has reached it steepest value. You could have stuck a ruler up against the side of the first graph’s curve, between the 4.2 & 5.3 second interval, read off two z displacements & two time values and computed the terminal velocity from 

Vterminal = Δz / Δt

If you had done this, then you would have gotten, surprise, about 92 ft/sec.

  3. Or, you might have noticed that the velocity maxed out right around 5 seconds.
You could have plugged 5 in for t in the velocity vs. time equation & calculated the terminal velocity.

If you had done this, you would have gotten, surprise): Vterminal ≈ 95 ft/sec.

  4. Finally, you could have done it the traditional way. 
a. Calculate the derivative of the velocity vs. time graph. (which is the answer the 3rd question.) 
b. Set the acceleration equal to zero, and solve for t (time).
c. Plug that time value back into the velocity vs. time equation & calculate the terminal velocity.

  5. Or you could let Mathematica find the local Maximum of the velocity function: 
 FindMaximum[v[t], t]
    which returns: {95.2501, {t -> 4.89724}}
    or a terminal velocity of 95.2 ft/sec.

Find the acceleration versus time equation
  1. You could have said “take the first derivative of v(t) with respect to t” or “take the 2nd derivative of z(t) with respect to t”. That would have shown you knew what you were talking about. 

    You made no effort to do so, because you’re lazy.

  2. Go back to school & learn how to do it the old fashioned way: by memorizing a boatload of explicit patterns. You’ll have no hope of doing this, either.
In addition to being lazy, you’re intellectually sloppy.

  3. Or do it the easy way: with Mathematica, MathCAD, Maple or other math programs

    With Mathematica, define: a[t_] = v’[t] or equivalently a[t_] = z’’[t]
 which returns:
    a[t] = 9.038 E(-0.00269756 t3.5126) t1.5126 - 0.0340839 E(-0.00269756 t3.5126) t5.0252

__

The point here is that you really didn’t have to do ANY calculus to demonstrate you knew a bit about these topics.

But you don’t know squat about them.

All you can do is strut around like a buffoon, claiming that you do …
… and then fall flat on your face when asked to prove it.
__

And THIS comment proves that you do NOT have even the simplest, most remedial level of understanding of high school physics.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Originally Posted by tfk
Would that be "embarrassing", as in someone who insisted that "the foundations of the WTC were accelerating at G for 31 years"??
Are you claiming that they were not?

Are you sure about this?

What is at least one of the action-reaction pairs if the foundation is the first part?
Look in the mirror. Look into your own eyes.
Say in a firm voice, "You, False Flag, know NOTHING about physics.”

Rinse. Repeat as often as necessary.
At least once before each time you’re inclined to post here on the subject.
tfk 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 31st May 2016, 12:55 PM   #2822
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
False Flag,
Your local error is thinking that you know how to use your one tool: "F = ma".
You don't.
As your comment (at the end of my last post, above) proves.

You bigger problem is thinking that "F = ma" is the beginning & end of physics.
It's not.

Your biggest problem is that you're a lazy, sloppy thinker.
At this point in your life, non-Junior, there's probably no cure for that.
tfk 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 31st May 2016, 01:22 PM   #2823
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Nonsense. femr is/was just as clueless about physics & calculus as False Flag is.

I did the same thing, years ago, that I just did here: used Mathematica to solve NIST's empirical equation (drop as a function of time) for the algebraic expression for acceleration as a function of time.

And posted it here (old JREF forum, actually).
That's where femr got it.

femr does some sort of computer video work.
He knows about manipulating video files.

He bought a software program (Syntheyes) that does "feature tracking" in videos.
He learned how to use that program & produced a bunch of good displacement vs. time graphs.

But he also had absolutely no clue about calibration, precision or taking derivatives of sampled data.

But he was VERY GOOD at several things.

He was VERY GOOD at posting lots of obfuscating ********.
For his own amusement.
It would go on for months, with him refusing to answer simple questions. And then changing his definition of terms from post to post.
The old "frame vs. field" fiasco was a prime example.

He was VERY GOOD at refusing to admit, ever, that like all the other clowns at the911forum, he was a true-believing truther.

He was VERY GOOD, when it finally became obvious to him that the Truther cause was championed by a bunch of clueless morons, at trying to slip out of that camp, into no-man's-land, and claim "I was never on THAT side."
tfk 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 31st May 2016, 01:36 PM   #2824
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Bump for FalseFlag.

Smile, FF.
No calculus required here.
Just a simple, honest reply.

(That doesn’t seem to be your forte, either.

Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
It's also interesting to see the explosion about two floors below the fire line in WTC7 a few minutes before it collapses. I guess you don't see that.
Well, since WTC7 doesn’t collapse in this video, “it” must refer to either WTC1 or 2. In this video, WTC2 collapses at 57:05, and WTC1 collapses at 1:26:30.

“a few minutes before” these events would be around 53 / 54 minutes, or 1:23 / 1:24. And no, I don’t see anything, or hear anything, that would constitute an “explosion”.

Since we can clearly hear both collapses, we would certainly be able to hear demolition explosions in the nearer WTC7. Yet these “explosions” are missing from the audio.

Why don’t you post the exact time of your “explosions” & provide us with a description of its exact location, or a screen grab showing it.

I can’t wait.
A simple, “I made the whole thing up” will do nicely.
tfk 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 31st May 2016, 05:52 PM   #2825
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,399
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 05:57 PM   #2826
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
If you can’t do it, you don’t understand it.
It’s just that simple.
You are trying so hard to discredit me, and you are failing hard.

I choose not to do your math. It's a choice I make because your points are not relevant. You do NOT need to do any of your busy work in order to have a basic understanding of physics. That's a fact, and it obviously p***es you off.

You are spending so much time and effort trying to regain the credibility that you, yourself, have destroyed. Math won't help you regain the credibility. Admitting the truth is the only thing you can do. Since you won't do that, all you have left is to put lots of symbols and equations in your posts so that the weak-minded skeptics will think you have credibility.

It's not working. Your scam is failing. It's as simple as that.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:00 PM   #2827
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,214
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You are trying so hard to discredit me, and you are failing hard.
You have credibility? Show this to be true. (you won't, you never do)
__________________
"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 31st May 2016, 06:00 PM   #2828
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
You bigger problem is thinking that "F = ma" is the beginning & end of physics.
It's not.
Where have I said that? Please copy and paste the exact text. Otherwise, you are misquoting me. Of course, I expect nothing less from a skeptic.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:01 PM   #2829
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You have credibility? Show this to be true. (you won't, you never do)
I have never said I am an expert. I have said that you should listen to experts, and not the frauds on this site.

I don't need credibility. Remember, what I think does not matter.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:03 PM   #2830
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
A simple, “I made the whole thing up” will do nicely.
I see what is there. You ignore it. I make up nothing.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:05 PM   #2831
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,214
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I have never said I am an expert. I have said that you should listen to experts, and not the frauds on this site.

I don't need credibility. Remember, what I think does not matter.
You claim we are trying to "discredit" you, That means you think you have credibility. Support this statement. Who do you have credibility with and what is your proof?
__________________
"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 31st May 2016, 06:13 PM   #2832
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,375
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You claim we are trying to "discredit" you, That means you think you have credibility.
"credible" at what??

I rank FF s the most credible and most successful troll currently posting:

1) In terms of raw numbers of responses he gets;
2) In responses which treat his claims as being serious when it is obvious that his overall agenda is not;

BUT
3) Not very high in "trolling efficiency" - he is posting close to 1:1 - one post per one response.

More efficient trolls score 5, 6 or 7 to one. On one occasion that I measured ergo scored 27 responses for one post.

THAT was quality trolling IMO.


ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 06:17 PM   #2833
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,214
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
"credible" at what??

I rank FF s the most credible and most successful troll currently posting:

1) In terms of raw numbers of responses he gets;
2) In responses which treat his claims as being serious when it is obvious that his overall agenda is not;

BUT
3) Not very high in "trolling efficiency" - he is posting close to 1:1 - one post per one response.

More efficient trolls score 5, 6 or 7 to one. On one occasion that I measured ergo scored 27 responses for one post.

THAT was quality trolling IMO.


Somehow I don't think that's what he meant........

I do find it fun to call him when he doesn't pick his words well..........
__________________
"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 31st May 2016, 06:22 PM   #2834
AJM8125
Potsing Whiled Runk
Tagger
 
AJM8125's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 19,399
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You are trying so hard to discredit me, and you are failing hard.

I choose not to do your math. It's a choice I make because your points are not relevant. You do NOT need to do any of your busy work in order to have a basic understanding of physics. That's a fact, and it obviously p***es you off.

You are spending so much time and effort trying to regain the credibility that you, yourself, have destroyed. Math won't help you regain the credibility. Admitting the truth is the only thing you can do. Since you won't do that, all you have left is to put lots of symbols and equations in your posts so that the weak-minded skeptics will think you have credibility.

It's not working. Your scam is failing. It's as simple as that.
"I don't want to" is hardly a face-saving move here. In fact, there is no face left for you to save. You were given ample opportunity to prove yourself and you failed to do so.

Suck it up and move on. Nobody's buying your dodge.
__________________

Last edited by AJM8125; 31st May 2016 at 06:26 PM.
AJM8125 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2016, 06:36 PM   #2835
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You claim we are trying to "discredit" you
Please post a link to the exact text that supports your claim. Thanks.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 31st May 2016 at 06:37 PM.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:37 PM   #2836
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by AJM8125 View Post
Nobody's buying your dodge.
I guess I need to try posting on Backpage, too, and then lower the price.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:39 PM   #2837
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
So many words, yet there has still not been one experiment that proves Cole is wrong.

Why is that? There are so many "experts" here. It should be easy, right?
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:44 PM   #2838
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
I rank FF s the most credible and most successful troll currently posting
I have temporarily changed my avatar. No, not because I'm trolling, but because you made me think of it.
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 06:55 PM   #2839
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
Your biggest problem is that you're a lazy, sloppy thinker.
Wait for it...
FalseFlag 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 31st May 2016, 07:38 PM   #2840
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,728
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
So many words, yet there has still not been one experiment that proves Cole is wrong.

Why is that? There are so many "experts" here. It should be easy, right?
That's because Cole's own experiments prove Cole wrong, no one else need even try, and I am too busy to care, designing a shark tooth stump splitter and puller.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 06:44 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.