evidence against flight 93 shoot down

R.Mackey said:
The concept isn't strictly applicable here. In mathematics, you can often separate one source of variation from another, i.e. bounding the process (viz. coefficients) versus bounding the input variables -- in such a situation, a "lowest upper bound" would refer to the maximum random expectation using the minimum value of coefficients. But what we have here is too complicated to present an obvious model. Unless you give us the process, or more specifically the analytic form you think the process will take, you cannot claim a distinction between the two.
Click to expand...

No, you're making it too hard.

I have to focus on a job coming up (well, I hope so; verification pending). Whether I feel like filling in details after it finishes remains to be seen.

In the mean time, you can think about the applicability of exercize 4c, in Advanced Calculus, by Watson Fulks, wherein two increasing, continuous functions, f and g, defined in an interval I such that f(x)>= g(x) in I are considered. Of course, their inverses exist. Call them phi(y) and psi(y), respectively.

This exercize is to prove that phi(y) <= psi(y).

You don't need to have an explicit form of f and g to for this to be true. It is always true, regardless. The (verbal) definition of the f's and g's, as well as the inequalities, would follow from physics arguments that we all would agree on. If absolutely necessary, I'm sure one could prove the inequalities for general cases, before proceeding, but I doubt I'd bother. I'd leave such tasks for somebody who believes, e.g., that all else being equal, a body with a higher drag coefficient will fall faster than one with a lower drag coefficient. I feel quite confident that I can state the converse as a fact, without providing a proof. Don't you?
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
No, you're making it too hard.

I have to focus on a job coming up (well, I hope so; verification pending). Whether I feel like filling in details after it finishes remains to be seen.

In the mean time, you can think about the applicability of exercize 4c, in Advanced Calculus, by Watson Fulks, wherein two increasing, continuous functions, f and g, defined in an interval I such that f(x)>= g(x) in I are considered. Of course, their inverses exist. Call them phi(y) and psi(y), respectively.

This exercize is to prove that phi(y) <= psi(y).

You don't need to have an explicit form of f and g to for this to be true. It is always true, regardless. The (verbal) definition of the f's and g's, as well as the inequalities, would follow from physics arguments that we all would agree on. If absolutely necessary, I'm sure one could prove the inequalities for general cases, before proceeding, but I doubt I'd bother. I'd leave such tasks for somebody who believes, e.g., that all else being equal, a body with a higher drag coefficient will fall faster than one with a lower drag coefficient. I feel quite confident that I can state the converse as a fact, without providing a proof. Don't you?
Click to expand...
If you are a physics major, go get a refund! Hang in there, you show infinitesimal moments of remembering physics.
Off topic and wrong again. I doubt you physics major helped you learn physics; the fastest thing falling here is the massive mass of bs. I thought a physics major could see Flight 93 impact was normal, but it only takes a lay person with knowledge, or an engineer, or someone with practical experience. You are having a hard time applying physics to the real world, it happens. Most physics majors 99.999%) would find it easy to debunk the shoot down lies and all of the lies about 9/11.

Please post your evidence against flight 93 shoot down. Stop the bs. Discuss the evidence against flight 93 shoot down.

What can you say about the FDR showing all engines working right to impact. Even all the hydraulics are working.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
If you are a physics major, go get a refund! Hang in there, you show infinitesimal moments of remembering physics.
Off topic and wrong again. I doubt you physics major helped you learn physics; the fastest thing falling here is the massive mass of bs. I thought a physics major could see Flight 93 impact was normal, but it only takes a lay person with knowledge, or an engineer, or someone with practical experience. You are having a hard time applying physics to the real world, it happens. Most physics majors 99.999%) would find it easy to debunk the shoot down lies and all of the lies about 9/11.

Please post your evidence against flight 93 shoot down. Stop the bs. Discuss the evidence against flight 93 shoot down.

What can you say about the FDR showing all engines working right to impact. Even all the hydraulics are working.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah.

It must have been a terrible accident, eh, beachnut? Terrible!

Next time, try the parachute.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
Still would love to see one of the crackpots explain flight 1771. They always seem to avoid it.
Click to expand...
I learned a new physics term, "blah, blah, blah", a physics term for, "I got no evidence, I will say you are damaged".

You expect truth movement members to read and comprehend something; they do no research. They post opinions based on false information, and do not use the education they sat through.
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
No, I think it would be more along the lines of blah³.
Click to expand...

Depending on the value of blah, it would be either 1 blah, 8 blahs, 9 blahs and so forth.

As where 3(blah) would be "blah blah blah," wouldn't it? (taking into account I spent a couple of summer schools repeating math classes. I hate stuff which requires use of the left side of the brain :mad: ).
 
Drudgewire said:
Depending on the value of blah, it would be either 1 blah, 8 blahs, 9 blahs and so forth.

As where 3(blah) would be "blah blah blah," wouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Yeah, perhaps so. I was assuming that blah was representing the same value in each use.
 
Is he the one saying that he's a well known public figure and that people would notice if he disappeared? LOL!!!
 
Ok get your freeze dried dehydrated food because the illegal immigrants control all levels of government!
 
Little white plane. A window.
How small? The 757 is only 12 feet wide! The white plane is smaller.

BEAM WEAPON lady Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
FAA did
Dom, you are a liar!

A modified 757 with explosives. Fantasy!!! The FDR found in the crater proves poor TC wrong.

TC is a no planer! He just said it! He doesn't know he said it cause he doesn't know Miller debunks him.

Nothing in the hole; Just dead people.



What a dumb show! TC dumb ideas are very special.
 
Last edited:
WOW!
According to Dom he "knows for a fact" that the white plane was at the crash site because a witness told him this.
 
SWEEEEET!
The host is asking Dom about energy beams bringing down Flight 93!
This is getting good!!
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom