• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fyziks 101

R.Mackey said:
Nope.

For the third time, it isn't compression. At least not at this stage. It is dynamic pressure. Dynamic pressure means there is no pressurization, per se, but instead it is all based on the fluid's inertia. Air, like everything else, has inertia.
Click to expand...

You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are
spinning to explian the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...
Click to expand...

No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.

You're not likely to learn anything if you keep accusing your betters of "spin." I suggest you open your mind, and just listen for a while.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you learn how to apply these terms to the actual case, and
stop inviting possibilities that did not occur based on the video and photo
evidence.

YOu still have not explained where the 47 core columns ended up?
I guess you believe the floors pancaked like everyone else? :rolleyes:
 
Turbofan said:
You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are
spinning to explian the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!



No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.



I suggest that you learn how to apply these terms to the actual case, and
stop inviting possibilities that did not occur based on the video and photo
evidence.

YOu still have not explained where the 47 core columns ended up?
I guess you believe the floors pancaked like everyone else? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Low-IQ ignoramuses arguing with NASA engineers--it just doesn't get any better.
 
Turbofan said:
Hey Pomeroo, are you the one with the talk show?

Care to have me interviewed along with Mr. Mackey? Anti? Beachnut?
Click to expand...


No, you are an ineducable know-nothing. Mindless tinfoil-hatters are as plentiful as cockroaches.
 
Last edited:
Bump for Turbofan:

Turbofan said:
-You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.
-The Space Shuttle produces squibs?
-You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?
-Compression and squibs are two different things.
-I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.
Click to expand...


Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.
 
pomeroo said:
No, you are an ineducable know-nothing. Mindless tinfoil-hatters are as plentiful as cockroaches.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought. Another guy scared to face us.

A radio talk show host that thinks he's a physics guru... :cool:

Nicepants, take a hint.
 
Turbofan said:
That's what I thought. Another guy scared to face us.

A radio talk show host that thinks he's a physics guru... :cool:

Nicepants, take a hint.
Click to expand...


You started what has grown into a nine-page thread to showcase your staggering ignorance of the mechanics of the collapses. I predicted that you would recycle every ancient, thoroughly debunked canard in the twoofer handbook and you didn't disappoint. You bring absolutely nothing new to the table. Why would any rationalist fear the farrago of junk science and outright falsehoods you're peddling? We've heard it all a thousand times and it's just as stupid now as it was four years ago.
You haven't so much as glanced at the NIST Report. In your embarrassing performance, you haven't made one original blunder.

If your evil movement has been reduced to this level of incompetence, the cause of reason is won.
 
nicepants said:
Bump for Turbofan:

Originally Posted by Turbofan

-You got it dude. Just like the squibs show in the videos.
-The Space Shuttle produces squibs?
-You get compression? Wow. Do you get squibs too?
-Compression and squibs are two different things.
-I suggest you watch the videos and NOTICE the SQUIB(S) appearing within
the FIRST SECOND.


Please post your definition of the word "squib" as used in the examples above, and cite your source.
Click to expand...

Squib = tiny explosives. The jets of debris you see shooting out the buildings
are produced by squibs.

I don't have a source, you'll have to take this explanation and live with it.

Try AE911truth.org for a complete breakdown of squibs and how they're used.
 
Squibs = laughter from rationalists watching AE911truth.org founder Richard Gage playing with cardboard boxes.
 
Turbofan said:
You don't have to tell me it isn't compression, that's what your guys are
spinning to explian the jet of debris shooting out the side of the building!



No, it's not! You just contradicted yourself. The pressure inside the building
will change once the upper level begins to move.

The pressure inside the building would become higher. Gas/Fluids move from
high pressure to low pressure.

Without a differential, fluid/gas flow cannot exist.



I suggest that you learn how to apply these terms to the actual case, and
stop inviting possibilities that did not occur based on the video and photo
evidence.

YOu still have not explained where the 47 core columns ended up?
I guess you believe the floors pancaked like everyone else? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You clearly haven't the slightest grasp of fluid dynamics. This post proves that you don't even understand the terms, or else you would not have accused Mackey of contradicting himself when he did no such thing. You're winging it. Just who the hell do you think you're fooling with this behavior?
 
Slayhamlet said:
You clearly haven't the slightest grasp of fluid dynamics. This post proves that you don't even understand the terms, or else you would not have accused Mackey of contradicting himself when he did no such thing. You're winging it. Just who the hell do you think you're fooling with this behavior?
Click to expand...

Is that right?

R. Mackey stated:

Again, no. Dynamic pressure. Not static pressure. And there is no "overcoming outside ambient pressure," since the static pressure is the same inside and out...
Click to expand...

Do you believe the static pressure is the same inside and outside of the building
once gas flow begins? :confused:

I wasn't born yesterday my friend.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Squibs = Not a term used by the demolitions industry. They call explosive packages "charges".

This issue was dealt with a long time ago at http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm.
Click to expand...

Who cares whether it;s used in the industry? It's a friggin' description/name/
reference!

You are starting to become like Nicepants where I must use politically correct
terminology for everything I say.

Call it what you want, I don't care. This thread has gone this long because
of the whiners wanting their specific , user friendly terms used.

From now on, let's get back to the original post questions. Let's start
seeing some answers and proof to back it up please.
 
It demonstrates that you are not speaking from a position of knowledge of the demolitions industry. That's what the issue of terminology reveals.

Also: You ignore the refutation of the notion of squibs that I linked. As I said, this myth has long been disproven. That is the major substance of my post.
 
Slayhamlet said:
You clearly haven't the slightest grasp of fluid dynamics. This post proves that you don't even understand the terms, or else you would not have accused Mackey of contradicting himself when he did no such thing. You're winging it. Just who the hell do you think you're fooling with this behavior?
Click to expand...

Sound is a fizicul impossiblity!
Can't have no compression or pressure without what you gots a clozed silender!
They've found us out, guys! Time to surrender!
 
Squibs aren't just small explosives, they're tiny. They're used as detonators for larger explosives, and to simulate gunshot wounds in movie special effects, among other things. They are too small to have any effect on a building. Saying the dust blowing out the windows of the WTC was caused by squibs is like saying it was caused by firecrackers, it's rediculous.
 
phunk said:
Squibs aren't just small explosives, they're tiny. They're used as detonators for larger explosives, and to simulate gunshot wounds in movie special effects, among other things. They are too small to have any effect on a building. Saying the dust blowing out the windows of the WTC was caused by squibs is like saying it was caused by firecrackers, it's rediculous.
Click to expand...

I find it funny that they use the 'squibs' to tell us that there are explosives detonating inside the towers yet massive portions of the core were still standing briefly after the main collapse in some of the same areas... After all... the interior support structure is the core...

I'm losing hope in turbofan learning anything here... this is becoming a soap opera...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom