• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gage and Szamboti to speak at New Jersey Institute of Technology

WilliamSeger said:
Um, actually it explains why "free fall velocity" is a meaningless term without specifying what point in time you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I find great meaning in the term. For me, it means that anyone who uses the term (or variants) is automatically sorted into the "doesn't know what he/she is talking about" bin.
 
AZCat said:
I don't know, I find great meaning in the term. For me, it means that anyone who uses the term (or variants) is automatically sorted into the "doesn't know what he/she is talking about" bin.
Click to expand...
Sure but, you've got to admit it sounds better than "free fall speed". :D
 
Fonebone said:
FYI
Dave's "meaningless term" defined
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/kinematics/ff_velocity_acc.htm

TWO different charts explaining the difference between
"free fall acceleration" and "free fall velocity" on Earth.
Click to expand...

Thus demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about either. Free fall velocity after a drop of x metres, or after x seconds in free fall, from a stationary start, is a term with meaning, as defined on the helpful charts you reference; "free fall velocity," without any such qualifiers, is meaningless.

Dave
 
Fonebone said:
FYI
Dave's "meaningless term" defined
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phynet/mechanics/kinematics/ff_velocity_acc.htm

TWO different charts explaining the difference between
"free fall acceleration" and "free fall velocity" on Earth.
Click to expand...

Thank you for showing this to Dave and the others here like him, who claim to be skeptics and critics. The interesting thing is that they generally aren't skeptical of things they should be and their criticisms are usually nothing more than nonsensical opinions.

There is not a single one of these alleged critics who could put together a coherent mathematical critique, that is also based on observation, of the Missing Jolt issue we have brought into the light.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
The connotation is the velocity one would get from free fall acceleration.
Click to expand...
Would that be one that no one believes was ever achieved? You really need to stop using Bazant to support your belief because everyone else understands what his model was all about.

It's funny how you need Bazant more than anyone else. Without his ideal model your missing jolt meaningless.
 
Dave Rogers said:
True, what we criticise from you has nothing to do with reality.

Dave
Click to expand...

Keep trying Dave. All you have is bluster. It won't fool anyone who knows anything. The missing deceleration (jolt) is a real problem for a natural collapse scenario of the North Tower.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Keep trying Dave. All you have is bluster. It won't fool anyone who knows anything. The missing deceleration (jolt) is a real problem for a natural collapse scenario of the North Tower.
Click to expand...
So we should believe that Bazants idealistic model represents reality? That is what you are claiming.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Keep trying Dave. All you have is bluster. It won't fool anyone who knows anything. The missing deceleration (jolt) is a real problem for a natural collapse scenario of the North Tower.
Click to expand...

And the real problem for CD, thermite and silent explosives? Reality.

Who did your fantasy CD? Did UBL order the thermite CD?

Tony, you stand at zero evidence for CD; the realcddeal never was.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Keep trying Dave. All you have is bluster. It won't fool anyone who knows anything. The missing deceleration (jolt) is a real problem for a natural collapse scenario of the North Tower.
Click to expand...

Unless we hypothesise that the load carrying ability of the lower structure was reduced to the point where it could no longer support the load above it, in which case, according to the leading authority on the subject, it would have collapsed without a jolt.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Unless we hypothesise that the load carrying ability of the lower structure was reduced to the point where it could no longer support the load above it, in which case, according to the leading authority on the subject, it would have collapsed without a jolt.

Dave
Click to expand...

C'mon Dave, what could have caused such a reduction? Surely there wasn't anything else going on that day.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Unless we hypothesise that the load carrying ability of the lower structure was reduced to the point where it could no longer support the load above it, in which case, according to the leading authority on the subject, it would have collapsed without a jolt.

Dave
Click to expand...

You aren't even making sense and apparently don't know it.

How would the lower structure be compromised to the point where it could no longer support the load above it?
 
AZCat said:
C'mon Dave, what could have caused such a reduction? Surely there wasn't anything else going on that day.
Click to expand...

Well, it may have got a bit warm, but according to Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey steel is an excellent fire resistant material, so that can't be anything to do with it.

Dave

ETA: Tony just said exactly the same thing. I think you just proved Poe's Law.
 
Last edited:
AZCat said:
C'mon Dave, what could have caused such a reduction? Surely there wasn't anything else going on that day.
Click to expand...

Why don't you answer for him? Dave doesn't seem to want to touch the question of how the lower structure could have been weakened to the point where it couldn't support the load above it.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Why don't you answer for him? Dave doesn't seem to want to touch how the lower structure could have been weakened to the point where it couldn't handle the load above it.
Click to expand...

NM. Had enough of this idiocy; Tony knows exactly what he's pretending never happened, and is beyond parody at this point.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
Because it's part of your religion to deny the obvious answer.

Dave
Click to expand...

There is nothing natural that I know of that could have weakened the lower structure to the point where it couldn't handle the load above it, short of a significant jolt, which is why you obviously can't go there without compromising your alleged belief in a natural collapse.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom