• 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.

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

tfk said:
I can see that Bill's up to his usual...



Simple. To the point, and then you're back to "Ignore", Bill...

1. You said that you "had measured the deceleration of the plane".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4940035

You've never measured that. You've never attempted to measure anything. You wouldn't know how to measure it if you wanted to.

You lied.

2. You also said that I "performed acceleration measurements on the plane". And implied that I agreed with you that it didn't slow down. I have never done, nor said that I've done, this measurement.

You lied again.

2. You KNOW you lied. It wasn't a memory slip. You KNOW that you haven't a clue how to measure deceleration on the plane. You KNOW that you don't have the software necessary to do those measurements. You KNOW that you wouldn't know how to use it, even if you did. These aren't mistakes. These aren't "misremembering", bill.

These are lies.

3. You KNOW that we've never agreed on any significant aspect of the events of 9/11. Your opinions are driven by hatred, paranoia and ignorance. Mine by facts & engineering. We discussed the topic of the plane deceleration at great length, and you KNOW that we NEVER agreed. Most certainly, I never suggested with a single word that I agreed with your nonsense.

More lies.

4. You lied, just as you casually, effortlessly lie on a daily basis. Nobody needs to go running off, doing research, to find that you lie daily.

Yesterday on this very thread:

Dave Rogers has been exquisitely clear what he thinks of "Smith's Law".
In direct contradiction to what he has told you, you say:



That's another lie, bill.

5. Yesterday on this very thread:



That's not a mistake, bill.

That's a lie.

6. Yesterday on this very thread:


That's not a mistake, bill. You KNOW that you possess none of the knowledge required to make that judgment. You KNOW that you don't even know what the words (like "rigid body") mean. Much less, understand the concepts that would determine the answer to that question. So, that's not a "mis-statement", bill.

That's another lie.

7. Today on this very thread:


I don't "attempt to discredit you", bill. That's not a lie. Just a glaring misperception. The facts discredit you. Science discredits you. Engineering discredits you. But mostly, YOUR OWN WORDS discredit you. Your arrogance discredits you. Your insincerity discredits you. Most of all, your casual lying discredits you.

But there IS another lie in that sentence, bill. That would be the word "failed" in: "... failed attempts to discredit me..."


8. Yesterday on this very thread:



The irony drips & pools.
Like molten metal...

ONE day. ONE thread. Quite the tally.
__

When you lie about yourself, or about events, that's your own business. I could not possibly care less. It's your reputation that is DOA.

You lied about me. Then told me that the burden was MINE to prove you wrong.

In the list of adjectives that describe the true nature of your habitual lying, I guess we can simply add "lazy", "slandering", and "apathetic" to "carefree" & "pathological".


BTW, Bill, I am PERFECTLY HAPPY to have the folk (what was that again... Oh yeah...) "Draw ur own conclusions". I am counting on it.
Click to expand...

[Sigh] Put up the posts T. We all know you have them. Failure to do so does not help your case at all.
 
bill, take a look at these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_moment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strength

I think it's great that you're trying to ask questions; maybe part of you wants to move past the denial phase into a deeper understanding. One can only hope!

You did make one statement which I found curious: 'somehow we still we had a collapse at virtual freefall speed'
Can you tell me what that means to you?
Question 1 For example, does it mean 'indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration' (9.8 m/s2)?

Question 2
If I were to ask you to clarify when something is at 'virtual freefall speed' and when it is not, how would you decide?

a) >90% of 9.8m/s2 (1g acceleration)
b) >80%
c) >70%
d) >60%
e) >50%
f) All of the above
g) None of the above

Just curious. If you answer question 1 and 2 directly and honestly, I'll reward you with a virtual lollipop.
 
Newtons Bit said:
When a column nears buckling stresses it begins to bend. This internal bending moment is equal to the maximum plastic bending strength of the column. The splices cannot resist this force and they sever before the column bends much.

I've already said this.
Click to expand...

And have you found any columns with failed splices in the rubble?

And how to apply a gravity force on a vertical column so that it nears buckling?
 
Just as an aside, planes do have seat belts, tfk. :D I guess you meant to say "air bags" or "shoulder straps" or that the seat belts in planes have less to do with protecting the passengers on impact than controlling the passengers just before impact.
 
tfk said:
I can see that Bill's up to his usual...



Simple. To the point, and then you're back to "Ignore", Bill...

1. You said that you "had measured the deceleration of the plane".
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4940035

You've never measured that. You've never attempted to measure anything. You wouldn't know how to measure it if you wanted to.

You lied.

2. You also said that I "performed acceleration measurements on the plane". And implied that I agreed with you that it didn't slow down. I have never done, nor said that I've done, this measurement.

You lied again.

2. You KNOW you lied. It wasn't a memory slip. You KNOW that you haven't a clue how to measure deceleration on the plane. You KNOW that you don't have the software necessary to do those measurements. You KNOW that you wouldn't know how to use it, even if you did. These aren't mistakes. These aren't "misremembering", bill.

These are lies.

3. You KNOW that we've never agreed on any significant aspect of the events of 9/11. Your opinions are driven by hatred, paranoia and ignorance. Mine by facts & engineering. We discussed the topic of the plane deceleration at great length, and you KNOW that we NEVER agreed. Most certainly, I never suggested with a single word that I agreed with your nonsense.

More lies.

4. You lied, just as you casually, effortlessly lie on a daily basis. Nobody needs to go running off, doing research, to find that you lie daily.

Yesterday on this very thread:

Dave Rogers has been exquisitely clear what he thinks of "Smith's Law".
In direct contradiction to what he has told you, you say:



That's another lie, bill.

5. Yesterday on this very thread:



That's not a mistake, bill.

That's a lie.

6. Yesterday on this very thread:


That's not a mistake, bill. You KNOW that you possess none of the knowledge required to make that judgment. You KNOW that you don't even know what the words (like "rigid body") mean. Much less, understand the concepts that would determine the answer to that question. So, that's not a "mis-statement", bill.

That's another lie.

7. Today on this very thread:


I don't "attempt to discredit you", bill. That's not a lie. Just a glaring misperception. The facts discredit you. Science discredits you. Engineering discredits you. But mostly, YOUR OWN WORDS discredit you. Your arrogance discredits you. Your insincerity discredits you. Most of all, your casual lying discredits you.

But there IS another lie in that sentence, bill. That would be the word "failed" in: "... failed attempts to discredit me..."


8. Yesterday on this very thread:



The irony drips & pools.
Like molten metal...

ONE day. ONE thread. Quite the tally.
__

When you lie about yourself, or about events, that's your own business. I could not possibly care less. It's your reputation that is DOA.

You lied about me. Then told me that the burden was MINE to prove you wrong.

In the list of adjectives that describe the true nature of your habitual lying, I guess we can simply add "lazy", "slandering", and "apathetic" to "carefree" & "pathological".


BTW, Bill, I am PERFECTLY HAPPY to have the folk (what was that again... Oh yeah...) "Draw ur own conclusions". I am counting on it.
Click to expand...

What about your rubble compaction paper? Any progress? You know, that IKEA book case that disassemblies itself when hitting solid ground and becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground and everything. I look forward to it!
 
Heiwa said:
And have you found any columns with failed splices in the rubble?
Click to expand...

Uhh, yea. Just about all of them.

And how to apply a gravity force on a vertical column so that it nears buckling?
Click to expand...

Gee, that's not a hard one. Once all the floors are peeled away from the columns they'll do it under their own self-weight.
 
Heiwa said:
And have you found any columns with failed splices in the rubble?
Click to expand...

Newtons Bit said:
Uhh, yea. Just about all of them.
Click to expand...

:dl:

Mother of God, Heiwa, there are even pictures. NCSTAR 1-3C. That subreport goes so far as to identify individual columns splices and failures.

Pictures and textual descriptions are available for nothing more than the effort to download the report. But heaven forbid a truther ever actually read the very thing they're criticizing :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
bill, take a look at these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_moment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_strength

I think it's great that you're trying to ask questions; maybe part of you wants to move past the denial phase into a deeper understanding. One can only hope!

You did make one statement which I found curious: 'somehow we still we had a collapse at virtual freefall speed'
Can you tell me what that means to you?
Question 1 For example, does it mean 'indistinguishable from gravitational acceleration' (9.8 m/s2)?

Question 2
If I were to ask you to clarify when something is at 'virtual freefall speed' and when it is not, how would you decide?

a) >90% of 9.8m/s2 (1g acceleration)
b) >80%
c) >70%
d) >60%
e) >50%
f) All of the above
g) None of the above

Just curious. If you answer question 1 and 2 directly and honestly, I'll reward you with a virtual lollipop.
Click to expand...

Unless you think NIST is wrong with their average of about 10 seconds or less for the collapses I see no reason to deviate greatly from that. You'll be saying their report and FAQ are wrong next. Maybe YOU are seeing the light.
 
bill smith said:
Would the weld be brittle like cast iron and the column be somewhat ductile like steel ?
Click to expand...

When an engineer says brittle, they're referring to the post-yield behavior of that material. In low carbon steel, a bar would yield at about 0.2% strain (or 0.2% elongation in tension) and would rupture (fracture, tear apart) at about 3% strain.

With most welds, there's very little post yield behavior.
 
bill smith said:
[Sigh] Put up the posts T. We all know you have them. Failure to do so does not help your case at all.
Click to expand...


The real engineers here are so much smarter than you and they know so much more, yet you never tire of being slapped around by them. How do your regular humiliations advance your insane cause?

What did Mackey get wrong in his lecture, Bill?
 
bill smith said:
Unless you think NIST is wrong with their average of about 10 seconds or less for the collapses I see no reason to deviate greatly from that. You'll be saying their report and FAQ are wrong next. Maybe YOU are seeing the light.
Click to expand...


How many times will this free-fall nonsense have to be explained to you? When do you call a halt? The buildings were not blown up, Bill. There were no explosives anywhere in the WTC complex. It's over.
 
boloboffin said:
Just as an aside, planes do have seat belts, tfk. :D I guess you meant to say "air bags" or "shoulder straps" or that the seat belts in planes have less to do with protecting the passengers on impact than controlling the passengers just before impact.
Click to expand...

LMAO...

"Seat belts...? When did they put those on aeroplanes??
My Sopwith Camel ain't got no stinkin' seat belts...!"

Of course, should have been "air bags"...

Of course, seat belts are really useful in a variety of situations. Turbulence, overshooting a runway at low speeds, etc.

But "... controlling the passengers ...", eh? I've heard flight attendants give lots of, uh, "interesting" interpretations of their SOPs.

For controlling the passengers, I'd recommend a dart gun, served up by one of "The Zine Sisters". (Thora or Stella).

Or a taser.

Crashing into the ground, or in the incomparable language that ONLY a gov't bureaucracy could produce, "controlled flight into terrain", is, of course, unsurvivable.

I don't believe that, before Capt Sully & the Hudson River landing, there had been any successful water landings. Perhaps one of the other pilots might know of one.

But it makes people feel better to "embrace a comforting fiction..."

Did anyone else notice that, in the Hudson River landing, a few of the passengers had saved their laptops. But when they were boarding the boat, one of the jerk deck-hands on the boat was intentionally throwing them back into the water? They were done, they were safe. It was all over. But this pudknocker suddenly had a milligram of authority, and he was gonna exercise it, dammit...

I would have thrown him in after mine.

Tom
 
tfk said:
I don't believe that, before Capt Sully & the Hudson River landing, there had been any successful water landings. Perhaps one of the other pilots might know of one.

But it makes people feel better to "embrace a comforting fiction..."
Click to expand...

There are numerous cases of successful ditchings, but mostly of small aircraft. In WWII in the Pacific they happened quite often.

Capt. Sullenberger's landing is the absolute paragon of the species. In general, if a significant fraction of the occupants survive a ditch, it's a good one.
 
Heiwa said:
What about your rubble compaction paper? Any progress? You know, that IKEA book case that disassemblies itself when hitting solid ground and becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground and everything. I look forward to it!
Click to expand...
.
Ironic that you attached this post to my very abbreviated list of your Prime Sycophant, Bill's, recent lies.

Let's see if the apple falls very far...

My "rubble compaction paper".
I've never said one word about writing a paper.

This is YOUR, uh, (shall we be kind?) "fiction".

An "IKEA bookcase that disassembles itself"...?
You'll find nothing in any of the postings that I've placed here that mentions anything of the sort.

That would be another one of your, uh, "fictions".

An "IKEA book case that ... becomes solid rubble that destroys the ground..."
You'll find nothing in any of the postings that I've placed here that mentions anything of the sort.

That would be another one of your, uh, "fictions".

An "IKEA book case that ... becomes solid rubble that destroys ... everything"
You'll find nothing in any of the postings that I've placed here that mentions anything of the sort.
That would be another one of your, uh, "fictions".

Yes, Anders. I think that it is quite ironic that you should attach this posting to my list of Bill's lies.

Tom

PS. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd be willing to bet that your statement that you're "looking forward to it" is another, oh, what would be an appropriate word for it ...

... maybe "fiction"?

PPS. Don't follow bill down the path of unapologetic liar, Anders. Just a suggestion. Entirely your choice.
 
R.Mackey said:
There are numerous cases of successful ditchings, but mostly of small aircraft. In WWII in the Pacific they happened quite often.

Capt. Sullenberger's landing is the absolute paragon of the species. In general, if a significant fraction of the occupants survive a ditch, it's a good one.
Click to expand...
.
How about that...

I was talking about large commercial airlines.

My flight instructor told me that ("no successful landing") statistic back in about 1990. Clearly he either didn't know about the earlier "prop plane" landings, or I didn't catch the qualification.

It's interesting that, since 2000, there have been 2 midsize that have been successful. Both with under wing engines, too. Gotta be a bear to keep from nose-planting once those guys hit the water.

This is the one that stuck out for me:

"On April 16, 1952, the prototype de Havilland Australia DHA-3 Drover was ditched in the Bismarck Sea between Wewak and Manus Island. The port propeller failed, a propeller blade penetrated the fuselage and the pilot was rendered unconscious; the ditching was performed by a passenger. The survival rate was 100%."

Based on hard historical statistics, if you want to maximize passenger survival during a water emergency, the first two steps in the standard FAA procedures should be revised to:

Step 1. Knock out the Pilot & Co-pilot.
Step 2. Choose a passenger at random...

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom