Randi - You've Been Had! TS1234 Email to Randi

[delphi_ote]

The idea of writing to Randi was brought up by other members, Gravy in particular, if I remember right. They challenged me to do it, and posted his email address several times.

Do let us know how he responds. I'm sure he'll have something interesting to say.

And thanks for running some spell check and writing so clearly. At least I can understand what I disagree with in all that. While I don't appreciate your message, I do appreciate the effort.

 

[uk_dave]

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

Right back atcha!

 

[DavidJames]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic. The fact that the opposition does not quote you often shows that your reasoning cannot be defeated.

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

Christophera & Christophera1234 - such a cute couple

 

[delphi_ote]

Personally I think they are convinced.

Ah, I see. If you can't win an argument, pretend you have. Interesting strategy. Do you mind if we do the same? That should lead to some interesting conversations.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

What about "B gets destroyed while partially destroying A, then the rubble from B and the partial A fall upon the remainder of A, destroying it as well"?

You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way. There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

For instance, hundred ton chunks of steel were thrown sideways 600 feet. It's plausible that this could have come from GPE, but would require a bounce. That is, an elastic collision. Again, this requires great resistance from something. What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic.

TruthinessSeeker, I would be very, very concerned by this endorsement if I were you.

 

[CFLarsen]

The idea of writing to Randi was brought up by other members, Gravy in particular, if I remember right. They challenged me to do it, and posted his email address several times.

Why post it here?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why post it here?

I was challenged to. And challenged to post Randi's response.

 

[delphi_ote]

TruthinessSeeker, I would be very, very concerned by this endorsement if I were you.

Let's not judge TS1234 by Christophera's psychosis. Christopheria agrees with anyone supporting his delusions.

TS1234 wrote a polite letter that he clearly put some thought and effort into. While I completely disagree with him, he is being civil here and trying to apply logic.

 

[chipmunk stew]

[edit]

Let's not judge TS1234 by Christophera's psychosis. Christopheria agrees with anyone supporting his delusions.

TS1234 wrote a polite letter that he clearly put some thought and effort into. While I completely disagree with him, he is being civil here and trying to apply logic.

You're right. I'll try to resist the temptation in the future.
[/edit]
--------------------------

You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way.

Nonsense. Energy never dissipates.

There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

It doesn't have to "turn around".

If a moving object is demolished, it still has momentum (unless the resistance it encountered slowed it to a stop). And in the case of an accelerating object, like a falling object, its momentum continues to increase, even if it's been demolished.

By your logic, a meteorite that breaks up during entry can cause no damage.

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

For instance, hundred ton chunks of steel were thrown sideways 600 feet.

And at the same time fell vertically. If it were expelled horizontally at the same velocity but at a much greater height, it might have landed a mile from the site. The 600 foot figure is meaningless if we don't know its starting height.

It's plausible that this could have come from GPE, but would require a bounce. That is, an elastic collision. Again, this requires great resistance from something. What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?

 

[delphi_ote]

You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way. There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

For instance, hundred ton chunks of steel were thrown sideways 600 feet. It's plausible that this could have come from GPE, but would require a bounce. That is, an elastic collision. Again, this requires great resistance from something. What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?

Clearly we are talking about inelastic collisions. Elastic collisions imply both objects bounce off each other. Nobody imagines that happened.

In an inelastic collision, the kenetic energy is not conserved. Momentum is. Some of the energy translated into the matter of the colliding objects.

Take two balls of clay. Throw one into the other. They will both be deformed by the imact. That is an inelastic collision. That is the type of collision you want to talk about.

 

[maccy]

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

So if I balance a book on a beercan and then roll a tennis ball onto it so that it destabilises it and the book falls on the beercan and the ball, is the only damage to the beercan and the ball from the collision between the beercan and the ball?

Alternatively, if prop a book up on five beer cans (one on each corner and one in the middle), then soak it in petrol and set light to it and roll it though one of the corner beercans (so that the book doesn't fall) and against the centre can wich then buckles from the heat of the burnng ball, causing the book to fall.

Does the damage to all five beercans result entirely from the collision between the ball and 2 of the beercans?

NB Beercans are empty for this thought experiment.

 

[beachnut]

To James "Amazing Randi" Randi

Dear Mr. Randi,

It is with great disappointment that I see

I was a teenager

I ... violate the laws of physics

The energy for this problem comes from Gravitational Potential Energy, GPE. This one source of energy must account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

TruthSeeker1234

I am just a poor boy though my parents wanted me to go to school, unlike TS. I had to take physics

I found that the PE in one WTC tower was equal to what was it - 1,000,000,000,000 joules?

The real question is how can anyone break a law of physics since we live in a physical world? Answer is you would have to live in the dolt world of CT land where you can break the laws of physics and ignore 1,000,000,000,000 joules of PE in a tower of the WTC.

TS, that is equal to 248 tons of TNT = 1,000,000,000,000 joules

the question is: is that enough energy when converted to KE, to destroy the WTC as seen on 9/11?

funny the proof, or result, was presented to us visually on 9/11!

was the energy, the PE in the WTC, enough, was the energy of 1000 500 pound bombs like from a B-52 raining down on the towers enough to destroy it?

TS both towers had the energy while the fell after failing of 2000 500 pound bombs!

Can anyone tell me is that enough energy to do what we saw on 9/11 after the aircraft impact and the fires made the WTC towers fail?

Is the combined energy stored in each tower of 1,000,000,000,000 joules enough to do it?

Yes or No will do

TS next time go to school instead of watching TV

TS are you incapable of calculating the GPE?

Anybody? Ferris?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

4 x 10^11 joules per tower, per NIST estimate.

 

[chipmunk stew]

4 x 10^11 joules per tower, per NIST estimate.

What's a mere 600 billion joules between friends?

 

[beachnut]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic. The fact that the opposition does not quote you often shows that your reasoning cannot be defeated.

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

you forgot to calculate his GPE, are you trying to be a dolt, how can you agree if you have a concrete core brain? You should calculate the GPE he talks about before you jump on his sunk ship of BS ideas.

Calculate the energy first and then see if you have something more than talk. Can you calculate energy? Did you flunk physics? Did you take physics?

Is this the same guy who said the posters at Randi are too smart to fall for the false statements of the CT with no real evidence?

I read your post on that other site, how you are just here so you can write cute stuff about this forum. Is this correct?

Are you just posting to get your next post on how no one falls for your false statements?

 

[CFLarsen]

I was challenged to. And challenged to post Randi's response.

Why are you arguing your points with people here?

Just sit back and wait for Randi's response.

Sheeesh....don't be such an attention seeker...

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why are you arguing your points with people here?

Just sit back and wait for Randi's response.

Sheeesh....don't be such an attention seeker...

I'm guessing his response will be something like, "Who are you, and what are you babbling about?"

 

[beachnut]

4 x 10^11 joules per tower, per NIST estimate.

96 tons of TNT vs 248 tons of TNT

B-52 drops 96 tons of TNT, about like, 400 500 pound bombs
or
B-52 drops 248 tons of TNT, about like, 1000 500 pound bombs

not sure if I could tell a difference unless i was counting

I calculated it floor by floor and by 1/2 total estimate of mass, etc

I still get 1x10^12, could NIST be wrong? Could I be wrong?

yes, yes

but like you guys can see, after the first 100 bombs who cares

I am sure if you gave me 96 tons of TNT I can do a lot of damage

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What's a mere 600 billion joules between friends?

iirc, their estimates were based off of the construction. No idea how much energy was added over the years through office equipment, upgrades, est.