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

[Christophera]

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?

No, they do not with these type buildings under these conditions.

 

[rwguinn]

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.

Show us your d@#n equations, variables, and answers, then, or shut up and go home.
IF anyone can do it, SHOW US!
Personally, I think you are the south end of a northbound horse, and picked up your "diploma" at a pawn shop.

 

[Christophera]

Show us your d@#n equations, variables, and answers, then, or shut up and go home.
IF anyone can do it, SHOW US!
Personally, I think you are the south end of a northbound horse, and picked up your "diploma" at a pawn shop.

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

How about you answer a question for a change?

 

[Gravy]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

How about you answer a question for a change?

Christophera, I hate to bring this up yet again, but you don't even know which tower was which at Ground Zero. Shouldn't you do some studying before you start demanding that others answer your questions.

 

[fuelair]

Truthseeker already logically dispensed with your phoney calculations pages back. You have posted typical denier spam.

No offense but they aren't my calculations - you missed (like so many CTers) that I was quoting another and then pointing what Notruthhere would do. Pay attention, play nice.

 

[fuelair]

Are TS and Chrissie playing tag team wrestling? Do I care? (nevermind........)

 

[Christophera]

Christophera, I hate to bring this up yet again, but you don't even know which tower was which at Ground Zero. Shouldn't you do some studying before you start demanding that others answer your questions.

There is only one image I'm unsure of those I use. It is the core wall at its base and it does not matter which tower it was. We have a concrete wall there with an interior box column outside of it.

The fact that you've never come up with a reason for not steel core columns penetrating the stairwell or why none are seen to the right of it and inthe foreground glares more brightly than my inability to tell you which tower it is.

 

[delphi_ote]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Equations are the devil's sentences. The worst one is that quadratic equation; an infernal salad of letters, numbers, and symbols.

Stephen Colbert feels your pain, Cristophera.

 

[Gravy]

There is only one image I'm unsure of those I use. It is the core wall at its base and it does not matter which tower it was. We have a concrete wall there with an interior box column outside of it.

False. I posted many images in your wacky thread, and every time you stated which tower was which – whether they were standing or in ruins – you got it wrong.

The fact that you've never come up with a reason for not steel core columns penetrating the stairwell or why none are seen to the right of it and inthe foreground glares more brightly than my inability to tell you which tower it is.

Shame that this is too long to use as my sig.

You avoided my questions, Chris. What does NIST say about the cause of the tower collapses?

 

[gumboot]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

That's one of the most awesome things I have ever read.

-Gumboot

 

[Skibum]

That's one of the most awesome things I have ever read.

-Gumboot

What else do you expect from someone with Awesome as a middle name.

 

[einsteen]

Show us your d@#n equations, variables, and answers, then, or shut up and go home.
IF anyone can do it, SHOW US!
Personally, I think you are the south end of a northbound horse, and picked up your "diploma" at a pawn shop.

If that is the case then it is true, but I have to convince myself first it is 1.3 seconds. The math is trivial, but I will write it down for you in general mass distribution, soon I have some family matters to solve first.

 

[rwguinn]

If that is the case then it is true, but I have to convince myself first it is 1.3 seconds. The math is trivial, but I will write it down for you in general mass distribution, soon I have some family matters to solve first.

Why do I have trouble believing any of this?

 

[delphi_ote]

The math is trivial, but I will write it down for you in general mass distribution, soon I have some family matters to solve first.

Hmm... I disagree.

trivial - simple, transparent, or immediately evident

 

[Curnir]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

How about you answer a question for a change?

Intuition eh?

Well to quote Monty Python:

Given the premise that
1. Mackrell are fish.
and
2. Fish live underwater.
My wife will conclude, not that mackrell live underwater, but that if she buys kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees or even that I do not love her anymore.
This she calls "using her intuition"... I call it crap.

 

[Belz...]

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense.

You've been shown before that common sense is not a good tool for evaluating proof. Do you have memory problems as well ?

After the first collapse the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.

Again, the math has been shown before. You are ignoring any and all evidence that contradict your claim. Your credibility is in question.

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive

"The Earth is a spheroid" is a counter-intuitive statement.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

You've forgetting a very important source of additional momentum during the collapse, chris.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

Yes. So ? Can you think of a reason ?

There is only one image I'm unsure of those I use. It is the core wall at its base and it does not matter which tower it was.

It matters for two reasons:

1) If you cannot tell which tower it was, every other claim you make about specific knowledge of this and that can be called into question.

2) You state, specifically, that both towers had a different core design. This means that that structure will not be the same for both towers.

 

[RandFan]

Intuition eh?

Well to quote Monty Python:

Given the premise that
1. Mackrell are fish.
and
2. Fish live underwater.
My wife will conclude, not that mackrell live underwater, but that if she buys kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees or even that I do not love her anymore.
This she calls "using her intuition"... I call it crap.

Argument via Monty Python. Non better.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

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%.

Huh? Walk me through this Mackey.

First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that, in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass. As the building disintegrated, different parts would assume different surface-to-mass ratios, and would fall at different rates. Thus, saying that "the tower" came down in "15 seconds" is meaningless. There was no "tower" to come down. All of it fell to the earth eventually, of course. Some parts were steel members which likely reached the ground in around 12 seconds. Other parts were dust which were suspended in the air for days. Great amounts of dust came down very rapidly, only slightly behind steel members. This is testimony to how dense the dust was, another clue to determine how much of the building was, in fact, turned into dust.

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.

You have this backwards. If free-fall is 66% of actual fall time, then 33% is left for deformation, not 66%. If you adjust your free fall time to be 12 seconds (more reasonable considering air), then you have 3/15 or 1/5 or 20% of PE available.

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.

This is imagining that the entire PE of the building is going to be directed toward the work. Thus you are imagining an entire tower on top of the actual tower, the "trash compactor" model of LARED, debunked by Wood.

http://www.democraticunderground.co...w_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50155

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire, via J. Randi

I wholeheartedly agree with this Voltaire/Randi quote.

Witness the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00025.htm

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Huh? Walk me through this Mackey.

First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that,

Are you daft? It SUBTRACTS.

in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass. As the building disintegrated, different parts would assume different surface-to-mass ratios, and would fall at different rates.

Falling rocks aren't slowed terribly by drag. By your logic, avalanches aren't dangerous.