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 7th April 2016, 08:39 AM   #361
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,716
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What forces are not an action-reaction pair?
Have you not read the posts directed at you, at the very least? The distinction was made not long ago. Don't you think that, at some point, ignoring posts in order to then pretend that they don't exist, stops being an effective and justified debate tactic?

Quote:
What legitimate work have I ignored?
The underlined really looks like a weasel word, from here.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th April 2016, 08:42 AM   #362
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,154
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Do I need to point out the problems with your post, or will you just accept that you are wrong?

You need to point them out.

Quote:
Will you accept post #317 as proof you are wrong, or do I need to dissect each of your claims and prove why they are wrong?

You need to do that. It is of the utmost importance.

Quote:
If you ask to me to prove that you are wrong, once I do so by providing reasons and links to credible sources that support my claims, what will I get in return? If you are just going to say that I'm wrong, like the other skeptics do, then I'm not going to waste my time pointing out the mistakes.

There are no guarantees in life.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 7th April 2016, 08:42 AM   #363
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Doesn't even have the intellectual courage to answer yes or no, or give an opinion on what he thinks happened.
NoahFence 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 7th April 2016, 08:45 AM   #364
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
"Might" is not the correct word. The acceleration will be reduced. Newton's third law of motion says it has to be reduced.
I think that you'll find that he's talking noticeable change. For instance, if the Earth hit an a small Asteroid head on, do you think that those of us that survived its effects would have to change the length of a year?

Quote:
At the instant of collision, the velocity will change. It has to. If an object is moving in one direction, and it encounters a force in the opposite direction of its motion - even for an instant, it's velocity will change. In fact, its velocity will be less than it was before the impact, if the force is in the opposite direction. Newton's third law of motion says this has to be true.
If the object is in a state of constant velocity this is true, but what happens in the case of an object that is accelerating and thus had its velocity changing over time already?

Quote:
The definition of acceleration is change in velocity with respect to time. If the velocity changes, even for an instant, then the acceleration must also change, even if it's just for an instant.
This is true, but by how much must it change?

Quote:
The collision does alter the acceleration. The collision provides a force in the opposite direction of travel. A force in the opposite direction of travel will reduce the velocity of the falling object, even if it's just for an instant. If the velocity of an object is reduced with respect to time, then the object is said to decelerate.
Here is where you go wrong. Remember that a falling object is accelerating at 9.8 m/s2. Lets go back to our Skydiver. On jumping out of the plane the Skydiver will immediately begin experiencing Air Resistance, thus a force in the opposite direction of travel.

Will the Skydiver accelerate, or decelerate?

If you say Accelerate, then explain how this is true if the hilited part above is correct, and if you say decelerate, then explain how come when they jump out of the plane they don't just float in the air and their downward velocity decreases due to deceleration.

Quote:
This is wrong.
Incorrect

Quote:
Let me break this down concept by concept.

1. If an object is in motion it has a velocity. Velocity is the speed of the motion and direction of motion.
2. Acceleration is a change in velocity with respect to time.
3. If the velocity is increasing with respect to time it is said to accelerate.
4. If the velocity is decreasing with respect to time it is said to decelerate.

Let me summarize this.

If velocity increases with respect to time there is acceleration.
If the velocity stays constant with respect to time there is no acceleration.
If the velocity decreases with respect to time there is deceleration.

Are any of the above statements incorrect? No.
So far so good, the mistake is coming up

Quote:
This is wrong because in your example an object is accelerating downwards. To be perfectly clear, this means that the velocity is increasing in the downwards direction with respect to time. In your example the accelerating object then collides with another object.
And here is your mistake, you make an incorrect assumption that all collisions will cause an accelerating object to decelerate. You are missing two scenarios that I showed you with Air Resistance. The collision may simply lessen the Acceleration id the force is less than that of gravity, or it might reduce it to zero if it is equal to gravity. It will only cause a deceleration if the force experienced is greater then the force applied by gravity.

Quote:
This is wrong. Newton's third law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If your example object is accelerating downwards, at the instant of impact with the other object the velocity will change. It has to, because it is encountering a force in the opposite direction of travel. The opposite force causes the velocity to decrease. What term do we use when the velocity of an object decreases with respect to time? The term is deceleration.
You are still forgetting that your falling object is already accelerating. You keep treating it as if it's travelling at a constant velocity, not like it accelerating.

If you are in a 1,544 kg Ferrari 488 Spider and are accelerating at along a runway at 25m/s2 and hit a stationary 2 gram bee, will that cause the car to decelerate?

Quote:
If there is deceleration, and Newton has have proven there is, your statement is wrong.
Again, remember that you're dealing with an already accelerating object, not one at constant Velocity, it really makes a difference.

Quote:
If you want to be taken seriously, admit you were wrong and move on.
Good advice, I suggest you take it on this one too.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 7th April 2016, 08:50 AM   #365
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think our next step is to try to teach him adding and subtracting. Is that going too fast?

Dave
yes, first he has to realise that he's missing some numbers in the equation
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 7th April 2016, 08:51 AM   #366
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,716
Is FalseFlag conflating acceleration with velocity?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th April 2016, 08:55 AM   #367
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Is FalseFlag conflating acceleration with velocity?
Hard to tell. He seems to confuse reduction in acceleration with deceleration, and doesn't seem to realize that multiple forces produce a resultant force that can be determined by vector addition, which makes it seem like he believes gravity stops acting for the instant that a falling object hits something else because objects can only be acted on by one force at a time, so the forces all have to queue up and take turns. But "seem" may be the only relevant word here.

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 7th April 2016, 09:01 AM   #368
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,716
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Hard to tell. He seems to confuse reduction in acceleration with deceleration, and doesn't seem to realize that multiple forces produce a resultant force that can be determined by vector addition, which makes it seem like he believes gravity stops acting for the instant that a falling object hits something else because objects can only be acted on by one force at a time, so the forces all have to queue up and take turns. But "seem" may be the only relevant word here.

Dave
He also seems to think that all forces in the universe are equal, since, you know, all of them are connected and his understanding of action-reaction is simplistic to the point of parody.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th April 2016, 09:04 AM   #369
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Your post makes no sense. Cole's experiments are relevant to 9/11. They belong in this forum, even though you don't agree with them.
This forum is for 9/11 Conspiracy theories. If Coles video is just to replicate the motion of the towers and nothing else as you claim, then it has nothing to do with conspiracy and should be in the Maths and Science forum.

The only reason to have it in this forum is to try and make a claim of conspiracy based on the video, but since Cole doesn't do anything other then replicate the motion, according to you, all while using a non-representative model, nothing from that model can be actually be applied to the Tower collapses.

We're getting back to the Windmill Sail and the Car Wheel. The rotation of the Sail might replicate the rotation of the car wheel, but you can't apply the mechanics of the Sail to claim car wheels spin by the air blowing them.

Neither can you apply the mechanics of Cole's experiment Models to the Towers Collapses because the structure of the Models and Towers are completely different.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 7th April 2016, 09:06 AM   #370
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Sites that give a general explanation of physical concepts are unacceptable;

Dave
I will gladly do this once you prove that the sites I have linked to are wrong. Also, please explain why a site that gives a "general explanation of physical concepts is unacceptable".
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 7th April 2016, 09:07 AM   #371
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Is FalseFlag conflating acceleration with velocity?
You have to be kidding. I have clearly stated the correct definitions. The fact that you asked this is proof you are simply ignoring my posts.
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 7th April 2016, 09:08 AM   #372
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Nonsense. Your post is word salad with only one purpose. The purpose is to make simple concepts seem complicated.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein (well, probably not, but it's still true.)

No, my purpose was to clarify a point that you don't understand. Your purpose seems to be simplifying things to the point that you can understand them, without realizing that you've simplified them to the point that they can't be understood.
WilliamSeger 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 7th April 2016, 09:10 AM   #373
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I will gladly do this once you prove that the sites I have linked to are wrong. Also, please explain why a site that gives a "general explanation of physical concepts is unacceptable".
I've asked you to provide a link to a site that supports the specific claims you made. Please do so, or stop making claims without evidence.

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 7th April 2016, 09:12 AM   #374
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by sts60 View Post
No, there cannot be. From the statement of the problem, the tissue is unable to exert a force equal in magnitude to the weight of the brick, which is the force exerted by gravity on the brick.
Newton's third law has nothing to do with what happens to each object after the impact. Your refusal to admit this proves you just won't admit I'm right, or you really don't understand basic concepts.

Quote:
If the brick is already falling, it is accelerating at g (neglecting air resistance) before it hits the tissue. At the "instant" of impact, it is stil accelerating, at (g - the small upward force exerted by the tissue). After the impact, it is accelerating at g again. At no point is the brick ever decelerating (slowing down); it's downward speed never stops increasing.
I have already addressed your argument in post 317. Your refusal to accept it is not proof you are right. You keep posting the same wrong concepts repeatedly. I have shown why they are wrong. Your denial is nothing more than that - denial.
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 7th April 2016, 09:13 AM   #375
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 75,716
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You have to be kidding. I have clearly stated the correct definitions. The fact that you asked this is proof you are simply ignoring my posts.
I asked you to stop breaking the irony meters.

You've pretty much ignored every attempt to educate you, and you make statements that betray a deep ignorance of physics. Your pretense that it is your opponents who are ignoring your posts or are ignorant is laughably transparent.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 7th April 2016, 09:14 AM   #376
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I've asked you to provide a link to a site that supports the specific claims you made. Please do so, or stop making claims without evidence.

Dave
You are moving the goal posts. I have provided links to credible sources. You can accept them, or you can refuse. Your refusal to accept a credible source contradicts your claim that you actually have a PhD in physics.
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 7th April 2016, 09:15 AM   #377
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I asked you to stop breaking the irony meters.

You've pretty much ignored every attempt to educate you, and you make statements that betray a deep ignorance of physics. Your pretense that it is your opponents who are ignoring your posts or are ignorant is laughably transparent.
That's funny, because I have so completely shut you down, and everyone else, that you are not even bothering to try to refute my claims. You can't because they are right.

Your refusal to accept my claims and the supporting proof is clear evidence that all of you are in denial.

Last edited by FalseFlag; 7th April 2016 at 09:17 AM.
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 7th April 2016, 09:17 AM   #378
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein (well, probably not, but it's still true.)

No, my purpose was to clarify a point that you don't understand. Your purpose seems to be simplifying things to the point that you can understand them, without realizing that you've simplified them to the point that they can't be understood.
This is word salad, but I do have to give you credit for making it good word salad. At least you put effort into your post.
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 7th April 2016, 09:17 AM   #379
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You are moving the goal posts. I have provided links to credible sources. You can accept them, or you can refuse.
Please provide links to credible sources that confirm the specific claims you have made in post #317, or stop making claims without proof.

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 7th April 2016, 09:19 AM   #380
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Please provide links to credible sources that confirm the specific claims you have made in post #317, or stop making claims without proof.

Dave
What statement needs proof?
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 7th April 2016, 09:21 AM   #381
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Doesn't even have the intellectual courage to answer yes or no, or give an opinion on what he thinks happened.
Sylvia Browne, eat your heart out.

I can see the future more betterer.
NoahFence 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 7th April 2016, 09:21 AM   #382
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
We're getting back to the Windmill Sail and the Car Wheel. The rotation of the Sail might replicate the rotation of the car wheel, but you can't apply the mechanics of the Sail to claim car wheels spin by the air blowing them.
Cole's experiments replicate motions. Once again, your own statement proves his experiments are valid, and they don't depend on scale.
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 7th April 2016, 09:22 AM   #383
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,964
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger
Congratulations. Let's extend the thought experiments: I predict that if I gently place a brick on a piece of tissue paper and it can't hold the brick's weight, then if I drop the brick on the tissue paper, it will not cause the brick to decelerate; it will only cause a brief decrease in the acceleration due to gravity.
Your prediction is not right. There will be an instantaneous deceleration at the instant of impact. There has to be.

I just explained this in post #317.
I specifically asked that you explain your answer using Newtonian physics. Post #317 demonstrates that you don't understand the definition of deceleration (specifically, what "slows down" means ), you don't understand how to combine forces with vector math to get the net force, and you don't even understand the cause-and-effect relationship between acceleration and velocity.
WilliamSeger 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 7th April 2016, 09:24 AM   #384
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I will gladly do this once you prove that the sites I have linked to are wrong. Also, please explain why a site that gives a "general explanation of physical concepts is unacceptable".
Once again, it's not the sites that are at issue, it's your ability to understand them.

Long story short.

Your currently problem is that you are having trouble with understanding the difference between reduced and negative acceleration.

Remember our skydiver....

Air resistance during free fall (FAR<Fg).... Reduced Acceleration
Air Resistance on chute open (FAR>Fg)..... Negative Acceleration
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 7th April 2016 at 09:27 AM.
PhantomWolf 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 7th April 2016, 09:25 AM   #385
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 14,154
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Cole's experiments replicate motions.

What motions do they replicate? Please provide a link to a credible source that states Cole's experiments replicate motions.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 7th April 2016, 09:25 AM   #386
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What statement needs proof?
Stop trying to evade the question. You have made claims in post #317. Please prove them or retract them.

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 7th April 2016, 09:26 AM   #387
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Phantomwolf, FF seems to have missed your post this time around. So I am bumping this query you posed to him.
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Quote:
A force in the opposite direction of travel will reduce the velocity of the falling object
Here is where you go wrong. Remember that a falling object is accelerating at 9.8 m/s2. Lets go back to our Skydiver. On jumping out of the plane the Skydiver will immediately begin experiencing Air Resistance, thus a force in the opposite direction of travel.

Will the Skydiver accelerate, or decelerate?

If you say Accelerate, then explain how this is true if the hilited part above is correct, and if you say decelerate, then explain how come when they jump out of the plane they don't just float in the air and their downward velocity decreases due to deceleration.
.

False Flag?
Does the sky diver accelerate, or decellerate? Does his vertical, downward velocity become less or more as he jumps out of the aircraft?
jaydeehess 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 7th April 2016, 09:26 AM   #388
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Cole's experiments replicate motions. Once again, your own statement proves his experiments are valid, and they don't depend on scale.
They are only valid in replicating the motion. Nothing else. Since there is nothing else that they are valid for, and the mechanism of that motion can't be applied beyond the model that it occurred in, why are they in a 9/11 CT Thread?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 7th April 2016, 09:27 AM   #389
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Hard to tell. He seems to confuse reduction in acceleration with deceleration, and doesn't seem to realize that multiple forces produce a resultant force that can be determined by vector addition, which makes it seem like he believes gravity stops acting for the instant that a falling object hits something else because objects can only be acted on by one force at a time, so the forces all have to queue up and take turns. But "seem" may be the only relevant word here.

Dave
I see what you're doing here, and it's in your best interest to stop while you think you are ahead.

I'm going to destroy the claim that you have a PhD in physics, or, at the very least, I'm going to prove that you are intentionally misleading people.

You underestimate me. I have only said that I am not an expert. I have never discussed my background, and that is because I don't want to make it an issue. I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so. Sure, you make statements that claim I'm wrong, but you never take the extra step to cite a credible source confirming your statements.

Your game is easy to see. I know why you try so hard to obfuscate the deceleration discussion. Don't think I don't know the reason.

You should stop while you're ahead, or at least you think you're ahead.
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 7th April 2016, 09:30 AM   #390
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I see what you're doing here, and it's in your best interest to stop while you think you are ahead.

I'm going to destroy the claim that you have a PhD in physics, or, at the very least, I'm going to prove that you are intentionally misleading people.

You underestimate me. I have only said that I am not an expert. I have never discussed my background, and that is because I don't want to make it an issue. I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so. Sure, you make statements that claim I'm wrong, but you never take the extra step to cite a credible source confirming your statements.

Your game is easy to see. I know why you try so hard to obfuscate the deceleration discussion. Don't think I don't know the reason.

You should stop while you're ahead, or at least you think you're ahead.
This is just more evasion. Please post credible links that confirm the specific claims you have made in post #317, or retract them.

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 7th April 2016, 09:30 AM   #391
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Is FalseFlag conflating acceleration with velocity?
No, he's conflating Δv with Δa and thus failing to recognise the difference between reduced Acceleration and negative acceleration.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 7th April 2016, 09:31 AM   #392
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I see what you're doing here, and it's in your best interest to stop while you think you are ahead.

I'm going to destroy the claim that you have a PhD in physics, or, at the very least, I'm going to prove that you are intentionally misleading people.

You underestimate me. I have only said that I am not an expert. I have never discussed my background, and that is because I don't want to make it an issue. I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so. Sure, you make statements that claim I'm wrong, but you never take the extra step to cite a credible source confirming your statements.

Your game is easy to see. I know why you try so hard to obfuscate the deceleration discussion. Don't think I don't know the reason.

You should stop while you're ahead, or at least you think you're ahead.
NoahFence 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 7th April 2016, 09:31 AM   #393
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,097
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Hard to tell. He seems to confuse reduction in acceleration with deceleration, and doesn't seem to realize that multiple forces produce a resultant force that can be determined by vector addition, which makes it seem like he believes gravity stops acting for the instant that a falling object hits something else because objects can only be acted on by one force at a time, so the forces all have to queue up and take turns. But "seem" may be the only relevant word here.

Dave
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
F=m (dv/dt)
Where he has a major problem is understanding that the force is LIMITED in value by the geometry and material of that which is impacted.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn 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 7th April 2016, 09:32 AM   #394
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
They are only valid in replicating the motion. Nothing else. Since there is nothing else that they are valid for, and the mechanism of that motion can't be applied beyond the model that it occurred in, why are they in a 9/11 CT Thread?
LOL.

This is yet another post that needs to be a sticky.

Quote:
They are only valid in replicating the motion.
You are right. They are only valid in replicating the motion observed during the collapse.

Quote:
Nothing else.
We agree 100 percent.

Quote:
Since there is nothing else that they are valid for, and the mechanism of that motion can't be applied beyond the model that it occurred in, why are they in a 9/11 CT Thread?
What do you mean "the mechanism" of the motion? You are just trying to use unnecessary words to make it look like Cole is still wrong. He is not, and you admitted it.

Now, let's answer the last part of your question. Why is Cole's experiment in a 9/11 CT thread? What did Cole call his experiment that most closely replicated the observed motions during the collapse? Do you remember? What did he call it?

You claim that Cole's experiment was only valid in replicating motion. You are right. The experiment that most closely matched the observed motion was called the "Controlled Demolition Theory". Now, if the "Controlled Demolition Theory" was the name of the experiment that most closely matched the observed motions, don't you think his experiments belong in this forum?

I do.
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 7th April 2016, 09:34 AM   #395
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
F=m (dv/dt)
Where he has a major problem is understanding that the force is LIMITED in value by the geometry and material of that which is impacted.
Bwahahahaha. You skeptics can't even agree with each other.
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 7th April 2016, 09:35 AM   #396
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
He also seems to think that all forces in the universe are equal, since, you know, all of them are connected and his understanding of action-reaction is simplistic to the point of parody.
Where have I said that all forces in the universe are equal?
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 7th April 2016, 09:36 AM   #397
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
No, he's not, for a falling object. If the force is less than mg then there will be no net deceleration, because the resultant force is still downwards.

Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
F=m (dv/dt)
Let the forces be F1 due to gravity and F2 due to the collision. F1=mg (defining positive as downwards). If F2 is negative and |F2|<mg, then the resultant force F1+F2 is positive and less than mg, so the resultant force is still downwards. There will be a reduction in acceleration, but not in velocity.

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 7th April 2016, 09:37 AM   #398
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
This is just more evasion. Please post credible links that confirm the specific claims you have made in post #317, or retract them.

Dave
I have repeatedly asked you to pick out one statement you want me to verify. You have had numerous attempts to do so, yet you refuse. Since you refuse to identify even one statement, then all of them must be true. If all of my statements are true, I will not retract any of them.
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 7th April 2016, 09:38 AM   #399
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: 27,898
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I have repeatedly asked you to pick out one statement you want me to verify. You have had numerous attempts to do so, yet you refuse. Since you refuse to identify even one statement, then all of them must be true. If all of my statements are true, I will not retract any of them.
And yet more evasion. I have made it perfectly clear that I am demanding that you post links to a credible site that confirms the specific claims you have made in post #317. There is only one interpretation to be drawn from your continued refusal to do so.

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 7th April 2016, 09:44 AM   #400
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,616
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
He is correct in one respect: at impact, there will be a reduction in velocity. Without it there is no force acting against g.
F=m (dv/dt)
Where he has a major problem is understanding that the force is LIMITED in value by the geometry and material of that which is impacted.
No, this is wrong. Impact will create a reduction in Acceleration not velocity, unless the Impact force if greater than mg. If the Acceleration the object is undergoing via gravity is greater then that the Impact Force created in the opposite direction, the over all acceleration is still down and thus the object continues to increase in velocity despite the impact, just as a lower rate than it would have had the impact not occurred.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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
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 11:25 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.