Common Sense

[28th Kingdom]

the receiver converts it to an electric impulse, but you cant hear that either, the speaker makes it into audio
POINT OVERTURNED! 5 YARD PENALTY!!!!

Main Entry: re·ceiv·er
Pronunciation: ri-'sE-v&r
Function: noun

d : a device for converting signals (as electromagnetic waves) into audio or visual form: as (1) : a device in a telephone for converting electric impulses or varying current into sound

The receiver converts the waves into audio dear boy... the speaker merely magnifies the sounds to a level perceivable to our ears.

DOH!

 

[T.A.M.]

techinically Def is right.

Def said it turns the signal into an electrical impulse, which it does. It is actually the speaker and its physical properties that turns in into "audio". The reciever, without a mechanical "audio wave" producing device, can't really provide us with anything the human ear can hear, which is what audio is.

I suppose it is nitpicking, but an "amplifier" is techinically what "amplifies" the signal, that is then converted into an "audio" waveform via the speaker, which the human ear can pick up.

TAM

 

[Mr.D]

I can't see wind either... but I can see the effects of wind... same with the magnets... Aw, man did I get you on that one or what?

Oh, so the fact that you can see "the effects of wind" (but not the wind itself) is sufficient to "prove" the existence of wind to you?

Are you serious? Who uses a microwave to cook food... maybe this is part of your problem... besides we can sense the effects of the microwaves on the physical world i.e. heat

Ok, so you agree that observation of the effect of something that cannot be detected directly by your five senses is sufficient to establish the existence of the thing that cannot be detected?

Then why is it that you cannot accept that centuries of recursive observation, hypothesis, experiment and refinement have established definitively that the relevant laws of nature applicable to the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 are well understood by science and well modeled by known applied mathematics? Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of very bright and well trained individuals have independantly observed and studied the effects of the airplanes that hit the WTC.

Their conclusion is that the "scientific laws" you laughably misinterpret, misapply and wilfully ignore when it's inconvenient to you are all perfectly consistent with the so called "Official Theory," without having to invent anything crazy (Controlled Explosives) , imaginary ("Star Wars" weapons / holograms) or paranormal (UFOs).

This is EXACTLY analagous to your implicit conclusion that it is not necessary to invent telepathy, illuminati or giant invisible green space lizards to explain magnets, microwave ovens or cell phones.


By the way ...

I don't even understand this one...the waves are perceived with hearing.

Are you claiming to HEAR RADIO WAVES?

 

[T.A.M.]

That explains his frustration and near paranoia...all the noise, noise, noise (picture the grinch). Can you imagine if you had to live life hearing all the radio waves in the air....damn.

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

techinically Def is right.

Def said it turns the signal into an electrical impulse, which it does. It is actually the speaker and its physical properties that turns in into "audio". The reciever, without a mechanical "audio wave" producing device, can't really provide us with anything the human ear can hear, which is what audio is.

I suppose it is nitpicking, but an "amplifier" is techinically what "amplifies" the signal, that is then converted into an "audio" waveform via the speaker, which the human ear can pick up.

TAM

all depends on how you look at it, maybe 28th can hear electricity, maybe thats his 6th sense

(i can hear the tv in the next room, even if the cable box is off and its not getting any signal)

 

[defaultdotxbe]

That explains his frustration and near paranoia...all the noise, noise, noise (picture the grinch). Can you imagine if you had to live life hearing all the radio waves in the air....damn.

TAM

wonder if he can hear the big bang, this could be worth some scientific inquiry....can we disect him?

 

[T.A.M.]

The ear actually works the opposite way, converting a sound wave, a mechanical wave, into an electrical signal that is then sent to the brain, for processing and analysis.

Without the Tympanic membrane, to move in and out as the wave bounces off of it, we would hear nothing.

TAM

 

[defaultdotxbe]

The ear actually works the opposite way, converting a sound wave, a mechanical wave, into an electrical signal that is then sent to the brain, for processing and analysis.

Without the Tympanic membrane, to move in and out as the wave bounces off of it, we would hear nothing.

TAM

you and your physician speak, just call it an eardrum!

 

[T.A.M.]

otay...eardwum...huhuhuh..

TAM

 

[LashL]

I don't claim everyone is a gov employee... because... I have a strong intuitive sense... which allows me to tell you all apart. DJ works for the government... I would bet my house on it.

Please prove that you own a house.

From everything you've posted here, the smart money says you're bunking in your parents' basement.














Edit to add: and then get back to answering R. Mackey's posts that you promised to do several pages ago, just before you ran away from them yet again.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Oh, so the fact that you can see "the effects of wind" (but not the wind itself) is sufficient to "prove" the existence of wind to you?

Yes it is.

Ok, so you agree that observation of the effect of something that cannot be detected directly by your five senses is sufficient to establish the existence of the thing that cannot be detected?

Yes it does.

Then why is it that you cannot accept that centuries of recursive observation, hypothesis, experiment and refinement have established definitively that the relevant laws of nature applicable to the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11 are well understood by science and well modeled by known applied mathematics? Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of very bright and well trained individuals have independantly observed and studied the effects of the airplanes that hit the WTC.

It's not that I can't accept any certain laws...it's that I can't accept/sense/perceive how these laws are applied to the WTC collapses... and apparently, neither can NIST, since they refuse to do produce something as standard as a visual simulation for their work.

Their conclusion is that the "scientific laws" you laughably misinterpret, misapply and wilfully ignore when it's inconvenient to you are all perfectly consistent with the so called "Official Theory," without having to invent anything crazy (Controlled Explosives) , imaginary ("Star Wars" weapons / holograms) or paranormal (UFOs).

NIST's theories about the WTC collapses are laughable. And, just because I disagree with them doesn't make them laughable... if they had some solid ideas going on, than yea - I would say... I don't believe that's what happened, but hey... it's a nice theory. However, seeing as how they spent years investigating collapses... and seeing has how their report isn't even about the collapses but about the initiation of the collapses... well, then - I think you can see where I'm going with this. NIST doesn't even have a theory of how the actual collapses occurred.

They have some vague statements...but they don't detail the events of the collapses... and they certainly don't address how all of the 37 non-severed (running from the base through the impact floors and up through the upper floors) core columns in WTC 2, all managed to fail in the span of a second...after the outer columns failed... or how they managed to continually fail all the way to the ground. P.S. Controlled explosives are crazy? Yea, I know... there is no proof that controlled explosives can take down large buildings... no sensory proof at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGsNADQicgc

This is EXACTLY analagous to your implicit conclusion that it is not necessary to invent telepathy, illuminati or giant invisible green space lizards to explain magnets, microwave ovens or cell phones.

You're losing it, man... and please - take a step back and think before you address me... I don't cater to B.S.

 

[TjW]

I'm even more fortunate than 28thK. I not only have the intuitive sense, I have the even more useful counterintuitive sense. You know, the one that whispers in your ear, saying: "Do the math on this. A wrong guess could kill you."

 

[Kage]

While you can prove things that can be measured to exist, disproving a negative is a much harder problem.

Consider this, I submit that sun is not the sun. It is in fact a giant dragon that breathes fire towards the earth, thus obscuring its true dragon nature. This dragon emits neutrinos and magnetic waves as part of its fire breathing process. Can you disprove my theory?

 

[Mr.D]

Nothing exists until observed. If you can scientifically measure something i.e. magnetic fields... than you can prove it exists to the senses.

(Aside: Did atoms not exist before they were observed?)

Then why can you not accept that the science and mathematics applicable to the collapse of the Twin Towers on 9/11, have been repeatedly, reliably and independantly observed to reflect measurements of real world experiments and events?

In other words

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

You are WRONG. The calculations are NOT abstract. They CAN AND ARE applicable to the physical world. The people who have taken the time and resources to do so - NIST - say the initiation of the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are reasonably well understood and do not contradict the so called "Official Theory" in any significant detail.

(Logical flaw: Just because they didn't produce a "visual simulation" - I assume by that you mean an animated sequence - doesn't mean they can't)

Now ... back to the topic. Just what is your "Perry Mason" moment with respect to "freefall speeds?"

(Note that you have yet to demonstrate that you understand the difference between the acceleration of an object and its velocity, nor how either relates to freefall, or terminal velocity and how all of that relate to the time it takes a real world object to fall a given distance.)

 

[ConspiRaider]

I could speculate...one of the 100 different ways they might of executed the demolition... but, of course, I don't know the exact details...

<other stuff in the same post - snipped>

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability, common logic and reason... to piece everything together in a very clear and detailed image of what actually happened on 9/11. We certainly don't throw our hands up in the air and go... 8474 happens man. Planes hit buildings... and now we have three magical collapses... and new laws of physics to document...

Doctor 28IQ, at the very least you could have spread these contradictory statements over 2 posts, and then begged ignorance.

You think it was Beam Weapons, don't you. C'mon, it's just us, the other JREFers are covering their eyes to this thread by now. Admit it, I won't tell a soul, or my name isn't Fetzy Wood. NASA was fooling around with Beam Weapons From The Outer Spaces, trying to burn the paint off half a car and they got careless. Right?

 

[LashL]

I don't cater to B.S.

You do nothing but spout B.S., 28th.

Now, when are you going to respond to R.Mackey's posts as you promised to do several pages ago?

 

[28th Kingdom]

Doctor 28IQ, at the very least you could have spread these contradictory statements over 2 posts, and then begged ignorance.

You think it was Beam Weapons, don't you. C'mon, it's just us, the other JREFers are covering their eyes to this thread by now. Admit it, I won't tell a soul, or my name isn't Fetzy Wood. NASA was fooling around with Beam Weapons From The Outer Spaces, trying to burn the paint off half a car and they got careless. Right?

You're close to my ignore button... because I hate the obligation of defending myself when someone chooses to distort/misinterpret my words.

The events of 9/11 include more than the collapses... it's the motive, the opportunity, the admitted evidence we have from the Bush administration about facts surrounding 9/11... the documented history of Israel framing Arab Muslims as terrorists... that is the big picture of 9/11. The fact that explosives were used is the big picture... the exact details of how they were used is not.

Of course, your left-brain hates the big picture... you prefer the myopic metaphysical world of speculative details... where you hold complete dominion over all the facts.

 

[Mr.D]

It's not that I can't accept any certain laws...it's that I can't accept/sense/perceive how these laws are applied to the WTC collapses

Again... I'm not crazy... I don't cook food with radiation or put things to my head that will fry my brain...

But you can accept/sense/perceive how the laws of electromagetism apply to microwave ovens, cell phones and your brain? I am genuinely curious about this - I can't think of a single person I know who finds electromagnetism as it relates biophysics MORE intuitive than basic mechanics.

... and apparently, neither can NIST, since they refuse to do produce something as standard as a visual simulation for their work.

Are we to interpret this as saying that if NIST (or some other body with the relevant experience, time and resources) were to produce a "visual simulation" that backed the so called "Official Theory," that you'd accept it? And again: just because they haven't (or refuse to according to you), doesn't mean they CAN'T. Do you have any evidence for the assertation that they simply cannot (as opposed to say ... don't have the funding or mandate to do so)

Now ... back to the topic. Just what is your "Perry Mason" moment with respect to "freefall speeds?"

(Note that you have yet to demonstrate that you understand the difference between the acceleration of an object and its velocity, nor how either relates to freefall, or terminal velocity and how all of that relate to the time it takes a real world object to fall a given distance.)

 

[babazaroni]

You do nothing but spout B.S., 28th.

Now, when are you going to respond to R.Mackey's posts as you promised to do several pages ago?

He won't respond because Mackey works for NASA.

He has an amazing distrust for anyone accepting a government paycheck.

The back of these checks has a statement saying that if you cash the check you give up all rights to independant thought and need to contact the disinfo office for any communication with the public.

 

[R.Mackey]

He won't respond because Mackey works for NASA.

He has an amazing distrust for anyone accepting a government paycheck.

To be quite pedantic, my paycheck isn't issued by the Government. I only get paid by Uncle Sam when one of my works is published in a Government magazine, as part of the standard royalty agreement. Only a small fraction of the work I do is done directly for NASA, some others for DoD or DoE, some for industry...

Besides, it's quite plain that he couldn't respond if he wanted to.

Nonetheless, I hope others found my explanation useful. I've heard that "nearly free-fall" crap more times than I can count, and it's completely looney, as even the simplest calculation reveals.