Moderated Continuation - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Anders,

Are you going to accept my wager or not?

You know these stones are "in atari", don't you?

Tom
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
Anders,

Are you going to accept my wager or not?

You know these stones are "in atari", don't you?

Tom
Click to expand...

Pls describe the wager again in simple terms. What is it you are going to prove that I do not agree with? And why is a wager required? Just prove that I am wrong.
 
Heiwa said:
Pls describe the wager again in simple terms. What is it you are going to prove that I do not agree with? And why is a wager required? Just prove that I am wrong.
Click to expand...

I would be very sure of the terms of any wager with T nefore you accept Heiwa. Force him to lay it out in 6 lines or less. Utter clarity is needed.
 
Heiwa said:
Pls describe the wager again in simple terms. What is it you are going to prove that I do not agree with? And why is a wager required? Just prove that I am wrong.
Click to expand...

You do "annoying" very well. Is that a "French thing"?

My original statement is here. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4932428#post4932428
You have already stated that you disagree with me here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4932811#post4932811

The wager is clearly laid out in the 2nd & 4th paragraphs of this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4933595
A grand total of 4 sentences.

The judges and the pot are at the bottom of that post.

As you know full well.

Well, whatcha gonna do? Stay to "defend" your position. Run?

Tom
 
I as trying to email somebody today but all I got was the following message,

Mailbox unavailable or access denied
Final-Recipient: rfc651;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.5.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 Mailbox unavailable or access denied -

Never got this before.
 
Sophmoric, Anders.


The Wager:
I claim that, dropped from the same height, a complex, 3 dimensional structure, like multiple stories of a building, (i.e., something that is not a solid block) will generate a HIGHER peak force in the components of whatever structure on which they fall AFTER the dropped parts have been broken up & compacted than they would generate in their original, "pre-broken" state. As compacted rubble, it will also deliver a higher pressure, resulting in a higher stress and more damage in the impacted part.


A couple of clarifications:
1. The argument that "the pressure & stress will be the same when the impacted part breaks" is not an out. This relates to the peak force & pressure that the falling components are capable of delivering.

2. Note also that I am specifically excluding the vertical columns (<10% of the debris by weight, according to Ulrich) from the second part (i.e., "higher pressure") of this assertion. Due to their initially vertical position, they are quite effective as spears, delivering high pressures. But, in the case of the towers collapse, the assertion above stands for the 90+% of the rubble, which is NOT the vertical columns.
___

The Procedure:
We'll proceed like any published paper. I'll make my case. You get to make a rebuttal. I'll answer your rebuttal. The judges will decide the winner.

The Judges:
The judges of the wager will be any of the mechanical engineers, structural engineers or physicists posting here. Excluding you & me.

The Pot:
When you lose this wager (and you will), you will promise to answer ALL the questions that anyone puts to you for two weeks. Honestly & in detail. Without resorting to evasion OR "read my paper".

Tom
 
Heiwa said:
Well if it is in two paragrahs it is not clear to me. Please, make it one paragraph and thus one sentence or, max two. What do you want to prove that I do not agree with? Why not just prove me wrong, HERE, in front of ... a few posters.
Click to expand...

You're axiom is flawed Heiwa, this is the way tfk is going to show you how it's wrong.

Unless you are afraid to be proven wrong, what have you got to lose?
 
bill smith said:
I would be very sure of the terms of any wager with T nefore you accept Heiwa. Force him to lay it out in 6 lines or less. Utter clarity is needed.
Click to expand...

For certain utter clarity is what you need bill, along with a clue.
 
Heiwa said:
Well if it is in two paragrahs it is not clear to me. Please, make it one paragraph and thus one sentence or, max two. What do you want to prove that I do not agree with? Why not just prove me wrong, HERE, in front of ... a few posters.
Click to expand...


The falling floors, as everyone sane understands, are THE BIG PART. The floor immediately below, the floor they hit, is THE SMALL PART.

You can run, but you can't hide.
 
bill smith said:
I would be very sure of the terms of any wager with T nefore you accept Heiwa. Force him to lay it out in 6 lines or less. Utter clarity is needed.
Click to expand...

Yes...it would be utterly horrible if Heiwa was tricked into communicating clearly for two weeks! How could he bear such a terrible burden?
 
Heiwa said:
Well if it is in two paragrahs it is not clear to me. Please, make it one paragraph and thus one sentence or, max two. What do you want to prove that I do not agree with? Why not just prove me wrong, HERE, in front of ... a few posters.
Click to expand...

This from someone who takes two paragraphs to state an axiom.

Really, Heiwa, if your position is so rock-solid, why do you have to resort to tricks, rhetoric, obfuscation, misdirection, confusion, and just general verbal sleight-of-hand to get your point across?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Yes...it would be utterly horrible if Heiwa was tricked into communicating clearly for two weeks! How could he bear such a terrible burden?
Click to expand...

Heiwa has disposed of any argument or theory put to him by any and all debunkers for the six months or so that I have been posting here. He refers you regularly to his paper which is only a click away and for which he frequently provides a link.He does not need to do more. YOU need to do more.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
I as trying to email somebody today but all I got was the following message,

Mailbox unavailable or access denied
Final-Recipient: rfc651;xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.5.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 Mailbox unavailable or access denied -

Never got this before.
Click to expand...

That's the standard message you get from the New World Order when they realize you're on to their nefarious schemes and have decided to silence you.

You'll be fine as long as you have a safe house and an alternate identity set up and ready to go.
 
tfk said:
Sophmoric, Anders.


The Wager:
I claim that, dropped from the same height, a complex, 3 dimensional structure, like multiple stories of a building, (i.e., something that is not a solid block) will generate a HIGHER peak force in the components of whatever structure on which they fall AFTER the dropped parts have been broken up & compacted than they would generate in their original, "pre-broken" state. As compacted rubble, it will also deliver a higher pressure, resulting in a higher stress and more damage in the impacted part.


A couple of clarifications:
1. The argument that "the pressure & stress will be the same when the impacted part breaks" is not an out. This relates to the peak force & pressure that the falling components are capable of delivering.

2. Note also that I am specifically excluding the vertical columns (<10% of the debris by weight, according to Ulrich) from the second part (i.e., "higher pressure") of this assertion. Due to their initially vertical position, they are quite effective as spears, delivering high pressures. But, in the case of the towers collapse, the assertion above stands for the 90+% of the rubble, which is NOT the vertical columns.
___

The Procedure:
We'll proceed like any published paper. I'll make my case. You get to make a rebuttal. I'll answer your rebuttal. The judges will decide the winner.

The Judges:
The judges of the wager will be any of the mechanical engineers, structural engineers or physicists posting here. Excluding you & me.

The Pot:

When you lose this wager (and you will), you will promise to answer ALL the questions that anyone puts to you for two weeks. Honestly & in detail. Without resorting to evasion OR "read my paper".

Tom
Click to expand...

Come on T- slim it down. Less is more- remember. How often hhave I told you...jeez.
 
bill smith said:
Heiwa has disposed of any argument or theory put to him by any and all debunkers for he six months or so that I have been posting here.
Click to expand...

If "disposed of" you mean "ignored", then yes, I agree.

He refers you regularly to his paper which is only a click away and for which he frequently provides a link.He does not need to do more. YOU need to do more.
Click to expand...

I've read his papers. They are embarrassingly amateurish. His frequent references to them are akin to the village idiot shouting, "Look at my dunce cap, everyone! See what a world-class fool I am?"
 
bill smith said:
Heiwa has disposed of any argument or theory put to him by any and all debunkers for he six months or so that I have been posting here. He refers you regularly to his paper which is only a click away and for which he frequently provides a link.He does not need to do more. YOU need to do more.
Click to expand...


Yes, Heiwa has "disposed of" the arguments that destroy his mad garble of basic physics and expose him as a fraud. He hasn't, of course, addressed any of those devastating arguments; he has "disposed of" them--he has hand-waved them away. His paper is worthless garbage. He needs to address the indisputable FACT that the collapsing floors are the BIG PART; the single floor they fall onto and crush is the SMALL PART.

There is a reason why he always runs from this death-blow to his delusions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom