If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

NoahFence said:
How long did NIST day it took for WTC 7 to collapse?
I vividly remember you running away from that, as well as this.
So stop lying.
Click to expand...
I could care less what NIST says about the total collapse time. I'm not running away from anything.
 
FalseFlag said:
What do you claim I am trying to do? Please post proof to support your claim.
Click to expand...

I'll answer that question. Make a reasonable claim the government did it, if not them,someones, anyones, other than those 19 hijackers whom actually did it.
 
FalseFlag said:
What do you claim I am trying to do? Please post proof to support your claim.
Click to expand...

Your trying to claim a knowledge that can disavow the professional opinion of an expert while not being an expert while posting stupid videos, from the missing jolt heads, who have not proven there was no jolt, because they use to low a sample rate to determine the jolt, given the energy values involved.

The Jolt would have traveled to the foundation and back in 0.2 Seconds, they use a sample rate of roughly 5 seconds.

How do you detect an 0.2 movement with a 5 second sample rate?

Do you realize How clueless the missing Jolt clowns are the speed of compression energy in steel is 5900 meters per second, the Jolt occurs and is over before it can be seen, by the low sample rate used By Chandelier, Tony S. or Cole's samplings.

They some how forgot to calculate the speed the energy would travel though the Material
the energy travels though, in looking for the missing Jolt, and totally screwed up the sample rate and math. The Jolt occurs, just they are too clueless to be expected to detect it.
By the time they look at it, It's over.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
from the missing jolt heads, who have not proven there was no jolt,
Click to expand...
There was a jolt. See? Here it is.

Joltcola1.png
 
It is extremely important that one realize that applied science, such as engineering, is not, unlike art, subject to opinion.
While "I know good art when I see it, and that isn't it" is as good a philosophy as any, "I'm not an expert, but I know competency when I like it" entertains no reality.
Mother nature has never bowed to wishful thinking.
 
rwguinn said:
It is extremely important that one realize that applied science, such as engineering, is not, unlike art, subject to opinion.
While "I know good art when I see it, and that isn't it" is as good a philosophy as any, "I'm not an expert, but I know competency when I like it" entertains no reality.
Mother nature has never bowed to wishful thinking.
Click to expand...
FF uses English prose retorts and banter to contradict science and engineering. It’s like using a banana for a bat in baseball.
 
BasqueArch said:
FF uses English prose retorts and banter to contradict science and engineering. It’s like using a banana for a bat in baseball.
Click to expand...

I thought it was like using a blond wig for a helmet in American foot ball, and that would explain other aspects of his behavior?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom