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

R.Mackey said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Before reading any further (I promise - but obviously can't prove it) I said to myself, "Self, I have been reading Truthfaker for months now and I predict he will not believe this, and will either not respond or will argue using CT site with no evidence of actual knowledge. I also predict he does not have the skills necessary to dicks his own potatoes.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
fuelair said:
Before reading any further (I promise - but obviously can't prove it) I said to myself, "Self, I have been reading Truthfaker for months now and I predict he will not believe this,
Click to expand...

Truthseeker already logically dispensed with your phoney calculations pages back. You have posted typical denier spam.
 
I'm starting to have nightmares where I get attacked by rampaging blue underlined words....

...always either 'box columns' or 'concrete core'
 
beachnut said:
This web site is psychotic, thermite does not cut horizontally, it flows with gravity!

Thermite is not capable of cutting in the horizontal you need to put it on top of something. Like your car, it will go thru the engine block, it does not explode, it burns and will flow with gravity, down, not sideways, in the WTC it would flow down to the floor and burn the concrete some, and burn out! Sorry to break the news but even Dr Jones now uses RDX in his new CT papers!
Click to expand...

You are simply echoing what I say. The reason the 1993 bombing was conducted was to create an excuse for the remodel wherein thermite was applied to at least 15 vertical feet of any columns that were available. That was done because the thermite if applied in a narro strip would simply floe downwards without remaining on the vertical face of the columns long enough to sever them.

RDX was used in cutting charges in the upper floors and installed as a part of construction.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

However trying to do that when you can only get to one face in the basement levels will not work. Hence the reason for thermite.

beachnut said:
You are mr concrete core man, no concrete core in the WTC on 9/11 or ever, and if concrete was in the core then thermite is useless.
Click to expand...

You apprently have to overgeneralize to think. The tower was concrete and steel. The concrete was dealt with by encapsulated RDX and the steel was dealt with by thermite (except for custom high performance cutting charges in the floors in upper floors)

beachnut said:
Having a concrete core would negate the use of thermite even more than gravity alone!

So do you want thermite?

Or do you want concrete core?

There was not molten steel found, no proof.
Click to expand...

There was molten steel. That is why the fires continued for a month.

beachnut said:
There are no concrete sheer walls! Error!

If this is not a concrete shear wall what is it holding up the interior box column forming the spire.

Radio wave detonators? What kept them from going off accidentally over the year?
Click to expand...


Where did you get that nonsense?

I have stated that vibration detectors could be used to initiate the basement blasts.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

Or proximal radio transmissions/receptions which would explain why Rodriguez states that the man he rescude emerged from a basement stiarway saying "explosions" just before impact. It is also shown that there were blasts on the opposite side of WTC 2 seconds before impact.

beachnut said:
Who makes up this junk? It would take years to secretly set up a CD in the WTC, the inspectors would find it, and the individual firms had independent security who would see the idiots working on the secret explosives over the year! You have holes in this web site you could fly a WTC tower thru!!
Click to expand...
beachnut said:
It took years to buid the Twin towers and the security was intense just to keep people from learning about wht was being built. And now the WTC documents have been taken by the ex NYC mayor.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

This web site is debunked on all points, and the concrete core junk proves you to be a liar on concrete core.
Click to expand...

It appears as though you have just been debunked by evidence linked from your own words.
 
Last edited:
Dear Christophera,

Keep this paranoid nonsense in your own thread.

Much appreciated,
Bell
 
Christophera said:
You are simply echoing what I say. The reason the 1993 bombing was conducted was to create an excuse for the remodel wherein thermite was applied to at least 15 vertical feet of any columns that were available. That was done because the thermite if applied in a narro strip would simply floe downwards without remaining on the vertical face of the columns long enough to sever them.

RDX was used in cutting charges in the upper floors and installed as a part of construction.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

However trying to do that when you can only get to one face in the basement levels will not work. Hence the reason for thermite.



You apprently have to overgeneralize to think. The tower was concrete and steel. The concrete was dealt with by encapsulated RDX and the steel was dealt with by thermite (except for custom high performance cutting charges in the floors in upper floors)



There was molten steel. That is why the fires continued for a month.



Where did you get that nonsense?

I have stated that vibration detectors could be used to initiate the basement blasts.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

Or proximal radio transmissions/receptions which would explain why Rodriguez states that the man he rescude emerged from a basement stiarway saying "explosions" just before impact. It is also shown that there were blasts on the opposite side of WTC 2 seconds before impact.



It appears as though you have just been debunked by evidence linked from your own words.
Click to expand...

From all of your posts, I gather you are an illiterate moron.

M.
 
My point in saying this is that, if you wish to convince me, and others like me, you will have to become far more literate. And that's only the beginning.

Next, you'll need to present cogent arguments for your views, and real evidence to support those views.

I don't like your chances.

M.
 
If the first floor that falls on the next floor takes 1.3 seconds to fall then with high-school physics you can prove that a global collapse is impossible even with the most favourable model.
 
einsteen said:
If the first floor that falls on the next floor takes 1.3 seconds to fall then with high-school physics you can prove that a global collapse is impossible even with the most favourable model.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, einsteen. Not unless those floors are 16 meters apart. We've been over this.
 
einsteen said:
If the first floor that falls on the next floor takes 1.3 seconds to fall then with high-school physics you can prove that a global collapse is impossible even with the most favourable model.
Click to expand...

defaultdotxbe said:
then prove it
Click to expand...

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collapse the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.

It is basically illogical to consider that this event is a collapse of any kind.
 
Last edited:
Christophera said:
einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collpase the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.
Click to expand...

Baloney. The collapsed upper floor has plenty of energy available: gravity still acts on the mass of debris/dust/powder/whatever. After it collapses you think it can be removed from the equation. That's not conservation of energy.

I still don't understand the purpose behind the drive here. What's the point? If it was a conspiracy and you think the U.S. government is that evil, move.
 
Christophera said:
einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collpase the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well I see. CHRIS said it doesn't need proof, that it's 'common knowledge and common sense'.

Well I guess that settles it, huh? :boggled:
 
twinstead said:
Oh. Well I see. CHRIS said it doesn't need proof, that it's 'common knowledge and common sense'.

Well I guess that settles it, huh? :boggled:
Click to expand...

What? Now you don't even need to post common sense? Is was one thing that you've been posting quasi logic with no evidence, but now you expect to post total. vacuous nonsense with no evidence?
 
Christophera said:
What? Now you don't even need to post common sense? Is was one thing that you've been posting quasi logic with no evidence, but now you expect to post total. vacuous nonsense with no evidence?
Click to expand...
no evidence? you just said einsteens statement doesnt need proof, so it sounds liek your the ones without evidence
 
Christophera said:
What? Now you don't even need to post common sense? Is was one thing that you've been posting quasi logic with no evidence, but now you expect to post total. vacuous nonsense with no evidence?
Click to expand...

What I was saying, Chris, is that just because YOU think no evidence is needed, or that something is just common sense, doesn't make it true.

You can't just make up whatever rules of debate you want. You have a history of ignoring or handwaiving away pretty compelling evidence contrary to your position.

Frankly, when YOU suggest something is obvious, or is a matter of common sense, most here are even more dubious than before.
 
Christophera said:
einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collapse the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.

It is basically illogical to consider that this event is a collapse of any kind.
Click to expand...
Christophera, do progressive collapses of buildings occur? Yes or no?

ETA: You've been posting here for a long time. Do you know what NIST says are the probable causes of collapse of the towers?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom