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

[Garb]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

Good and blunt.

 

[beachnut]

the real conspiracy is the simple one, have surprise!

learn to fly jets, (these guys are idiots, most Americans could fly the jets without training better and have the sense not to hit the ground moving fast, translation any kid off the street in American can out fly a terrorist!) foreign students always come to America to learn, and as always we hope they do their flying as far away as possible! (beware Norwegian pilots are damn good, (dead insect to you too))

learn to cut throats, no pilot will let you have his jets pilots do not share, the easiest way to get a pilot out of the seat is to kill him, I know this is a fact ask a pilot why. (however, no one has ever used this idea for real until 9/11, we usually just beat them to the jet)

Calculate the impact energy of an aircraft speeding = close to a ton of TNT

Calculate the reaction of killing all the passengers into a symbol of the US and the World

Calculate the reaction of hitting the pentagon (personally it killed all the jokes you could make up on the subject, but now is bad humor)

Calculate the reaction of hitting the White House!

11, surprise, 175 surprise, we are now armed yet not ready 77 not yet ready, 93 ready and volunteers took action,,, we won after we had the rule book in the fourth quarter!!!!!

Not a lot of steps to do this, a lot more simple than any CT plot on the truth side!

You guys were not around when we had a lot of hijackings in the 60s?

Never did the hijackers fly the plane and kill the pilot, new ideas are called surprises.

Is anyone behind you right now wanting you computer, could you friend be the next terrorist to get you and steal your computer?

 

[stateofgrace]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Yet you are more than willing to believe your fellow countrymen would actively plan, participate in and cover up mass murder of their fellow countrymen.

Maybe you need to grow up.

 

[firecoins]

Mr Randi wastes no time with B.S.

 

[rwguinn]

I'm not sure that TS1234 really counts as a troll. He's a bit too fixated on his pet theories and estimates, but it doesn't seem like he's posting just to get a rise out of us. I still have hopes that we can bring him around.

Typical Costal Wimpy liberal answer!
Failed policys don't deter you guys! Ha!
This guy is worse than my kid at refusing to let go of a subject that dead, dead, dead!

Edit: Ok--you're Canadian. Why did yopu guys have to go and model yourselves after our left/lefter coast liberals? Dadgum!

 

[Augustine]

That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down.

The rest of the post is just plain wrong, but right here: gravity accelerates the falling mass. The only way for gravity not to accelerate the falling mass is if the kinetic energy of the falling mass is less than the structure's ability to plastically deform. In the WTC, kinetic energy was 8 times greater than the energy required to fail the columns at the start of the collapse. The collapse was going to accelerate, period.

 

[Horatius]

Typical Costal Wimpy liberal answer!
Failed policys don't deter you guys! Ha!
This guy is worse than my kid at refusing to let go of a subject that dead, dead, dead!

Edit: Ok--you're Canadian. Why did yopu guys have to go and model yourselves after our left/lefter coast liberals? Dadgum!

Well, it's Canada. We could have had the Govenment of England, the industry of the US and the culture of France. Instead we ended up with the industry of England, the government of France and the culture of the US.

 

[Horatius]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Well, you may get that police state anyways, as part of the overreaction to the threat of terrorism, combined with your usual progress in the war on drugs and all that.

If you want to avoid this, stop wasting your time on this garbage, and work for real change. There's an election coming up - get people out to vote for someone who'll stand up against this stuff in Congress. They're out there, but they don't have enough support.

Really, the only way to show that Bush&Company aren't the Ultimate Masters of Everything is to vote for the Throw the Bastids Out Party. I vote that way pretty much every election.

 

[Zep]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

Answer me this: Did you do physics at school? Honestly, now...no fibbing, OK?

 

[fuelair]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

Please get help.

 

[CurtC]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

Wow. Randi was feeling verbose today - you got about ten more words out of him than I figured you would.

 

[CurtC]

A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

I'm with you so far. The thing you don't realize is that even slowing down by 15 or 20 percent (which is what we see with the towers) means that a huge amount of energy was available for being dissipated on the way down, by breaking stuff.

 

[Bell]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

lol, who would have thought?

Good of you to post it, btw.

 

[Gravy]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

I strongly encourage you not to bring this philosophy to avalanche country.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm with you so far. The thing you don't realize is that even slowing down by 15 or 20 percent (which is what we see with the towers) means that a huge amount of energy was available for being dissipated on the way down, by breaking stuff.

yeah, ive noticed this with alot of CTers "how can the little bit on top crush the entire bottom" arguments

they fail to reailze that when 50,000+ tons is falling, even a tiny amount of KE being bled off is a HUGE amount of force, more than enough to push the next floor to its failure point

and if the mass of the top 20 stories is enough to push the floor below it to the failure point after accelerating the distance of 1 floor, then the falling mass will gain enough KE in falling the next 12-15 feet to destroy the next floor, and so on and so force until it hits the ground

 

[R.Mackey]

I'm with you so far. The thing you don't realize is that even slowing down by 15 or 20 percent (which is what we see with the towers) means that a huge amount of energy was available for being dissipated on the way down, by breaking stuff.

Yup.

Here's some simple math for you, TruthSeeker1234. Each tower had on the order of 10¹² Joules of energy. Suppose we model it as all kinetic energy, e.g. m v².

In the "Free Fall" case, we know it takes about 10 seconds to totally collapse.

In what actually happened, it took about 15 seconds. So the velocity here is 10 seconds / 15 seconds = roughly 66% of what it would have been in freefall. Mass stays the same, and we have a lower velocity.

Using these new numbers, the undissipated kinetic energy of the real case is m (66% v)² or 0.44 x m v². That leaves 0.56 x m v² available for deformation, or 56%.

That is to say, by slowing it down just five seconds, we have expended OVER HALF of the energy on the way down. That's 5 x 10¹¹ Joules. Or, in layman's terms, a metric crapload of energy.

Now do you get it? The "near freefall" thing is just a canard. Delaying only a slight amount means dissipation of tremendous amounts of energy, giving rise to precisely what we all saw.

Disclaimer: This analysis is overly simplistic, but you get the point. In actual fact the 10 second freefall is too high, since the tower was not a point mass suspended at the top. Thus the fraction of energy available for destruction is, in reality, even higher than 56%.

 

[roger]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

I'm intrigued. The math, please.

 

[delphi_ote]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

If you believe this, find the evidence. Show proof. Not image stills and a thousand logical fallacies. Own up to your mistakes. Admit when you are mistaken. If you're right, you'll have our full support if you show us the proof. Evidence - not vapid propaganda - changes minds.

Earlier in this thread, you claimed that inelastic collisions could not damage both objects. That is false. Why won't you admit that you made a mistake? Are you so afraid of admitting that you're wrong about something so trivial? If you're that afraid of something so minor, how are you going to act in the face of evidence proving something more important to you wrong?

 

[LashL]

Yup.

Here's some simple math for you, TruthSeeker1234. Each tower had on the order of 10¹² Joules of energy. Suppose we model it as all kinetic energy, e.g. m v².

In the "Free Fall" case, we know it takes about 10 seconds to totally collapse.

In what actually happened, it took about 15 seconds. So the velocity here is 10 seconds / 15 seconds = roughly 66% of what it would have been in freefall. Mass stays the same, and we have a lower velocity.

Using these new numbers, the undissipated kinetic energy of the real case is m (66% v)² or 0.44 x m v². That leaves 0.56 x m v² available for deformation, or 56%.

That is to say, by slowing it down just five seconds, we have expended OVER HALF of the energy on the way down. That's 5 x 10¹¹ Joules. Or, in layman's terms, a metric crapload of energy.

Now do you get it? The "near freefall" thing is just a canard. Delaying only a slight amount means dissipation of tremendous amounts of energy, giving rise to precisely what we all saw.

Disclaimer: This analysis is overly simplistic, but you get the point. In actual fact the 10 second freefall is too high, since the tower was not a point mass suspended at the top. Thus the fraction of energy available for destruction is, in reality, even higher than 56%.

TS1234 doesn't do math.

Or science.

Or logic.

Or critical thinking.

Or sanity.

Etc.

 

[LashL]

I'm intrigued. The math, please.

See above.

TS1234 doesn't do math..... etc.