Canadians:Take this guy's money.

[Furcifer]

A problem I can see is that no peer-respected engineer or scientist has--or would--declare that the NIST report "violates the laws of physics", yet it is just that peer-respected respected engineer or scientist whom you would want to judge the contest.

Quite the dilemma.

Yah, not even Nanothermite Jones is that stupid.

 

[tfk]

Mr. F,

Sorry, I don't believe in coincidences this, uh, coincidental.
Ain't my fault. Mama drowned the dumb ones.

Wow I don't remember it being open to some of the best universities out there: Harvard, MIT, Yale, Oxford, Stanford, Columbia, Cornell and Princeton. These schools have some of the best engineers and physicists in the world.

Thank you.
BS Mechanical Engr., Cornell, '72.

A lot of people have told me JREFies are delusional cowardly blowhards.

Oh darn.

I don't believe that for a second.

Whew. That's a relief.

I'm sure they can work together to contact every professor there about this challenge.

Uh, it's your publicity stunt. The publicity costs are yours, too.


tom

PS. Me and my Cornell Engineering Degree would like to inform you that you are a ... what was that again?, oh yeah ... "delusional cowardly blowhard".

Feel free to prove me wrong by:

1. placing $10,000 into an escrow account, out of your personal control.
2. publishing a clear & objective set of criteria for successfully meeting your challenge.
3. publishing the competent, objective judges who will determine the success or failure of any given submittal.

You know, just like the JREF challenge did.

 

[TJM]

Mr. F,

Sorry, I don't believe in coincidences this, uh, coincidental.
Ain't my fault. Mama drowned the dumb ones.



Thank you.
BS Mechanical Engr., Cornell, '72.



Oh darn.



Whew. That's a relief.



Uh, it's your publicity stunt. The publicity costs are yours, too.


tom

PS. Me and my Cornell Engineering Degree would like to inform you that you are a ... what was that again?, oh yeah ... "delusional cowardly blowhard".

Feel free to prove me wrong by:

1. placing $10,000 into an escrow account, out of your personal control.
2. publishing a clear & objective set of criteria for successfully meeting your challenge.
3. publishing the competent, objective judges who will determine the success or failure of any given submittal.

You know, just like the JREF challenge did.

Well said TFK

Now then Mr. Fullerton, do you accept the challenge put before you, or do you run away with tail tucked firmly between your legs, as most truthers do?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I consider this a joke and a waste of my time because I've seen truthers do similar things over the years and when they get their smug, ignorant noses rubbed in their failure they disappear without paying out so much as a penny. I'm sure more than a few professors share that belief.

The idiots throw out the promise of large sums of money because they think it makes the challenge irresistible. Who could possibly pass up the opportunity to win lots of money?

When the bait doesn't work, it's taken as further proof that the challenger's belief is implicitly correct. It doesn't occur to them that the challenge itself is poorly constructed, or that the challenger has failed to engender any kind of trust in the challenge.

 

[T.A.M.]

The idiots throw out the promise of large sums of money because they think it makes the challenge irresistible. Who could possibly pass up the opportunity to win lots of money?

When the bait doesn't work, it's taken as further proof that the challenger's belief is implicitly correct. It doesn't occur to them that the challenge itself is poorly constructed, or that the challenger has failed to engender any kind of trust in the challenge.

Exactly...and others here have clearly laid out what would be a reasonable challenge...

1. Money is (A) proven to exist, and (B) is placed in a guaranteed/safe place known to all parties.
2. Challenge of what exactly has to be proven, and what forms of evidence are considered valid.
3. Judges of the challenge (ie those who decide if the required proof has been provided and is valid) must be TOTALLY independent of both the challenger and the person taking the challenge and must be neutral in terms of their pov re: the challenge (ie no truther scientists or debunker scientists please).

Of course cmatrix will never agree to the above, as he would then have to actually chaulk up the money, and knows he would almost certainly lose it.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

If a winning entry looses, all they need is a lawyer, take the submitted winning entry to a judge showing engineers and physics professors say it is valid to collect the money when cmatriz refuses to pay because of his failed fantasy physics. Whoever has time should take his money. He fails to demonstrate how the law of physics were violated, and has no clue they never would be, or could be. cmatriz is not qualified to judge the submissions with his fantasy version of physics and gravity.

Applicants must explain precisely, using sound scientific terminology

Like he does?

Here you will find the details of the crackpot NIST theory

I like his scientific terms, they are reflective of his understanding of physics.

Who is emailing this reward to the Universities listed? I copied the current posters and web page; is this a binding contract? Or fraud?
What are the chances he pays? Can a judge force him to pay?

Will cmatriz email this reward fraud to MIT, engineering. Wait, they may die laughing at the reward.

If your question is not related to any of the areas above, please email engineering@mit.edu directly. We will respond in a reasonable period of time only to those questions not covered by the offices or areas described above.
MIT School of Engineering
Room 1-206
77 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
tel. 617-253-3291
fax 617-253-8549

Department of Physics, 4-304
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
tel: 617.253.4800
fax: 617.253.8554
email: [EMAIL="physics@mit.edu"]physics@mit.edu[/EMAIL]

What would be interesting, the responses.

 

[Furcifer]

If a winning entry looses, all they need is a lawyer, take the submitted winning entry to a judge showing engineers and physics professors say it is valid to collect the money when cmatriz refuses to pay because of his failed fantasy physics. Whoever has time should take his money.

If I thought he had the money I would. I doubt if he has a car or anything of value to make the effort even remotely worth while. It might get interesting if he got a money order for the $10K. Then I'd give it a whirl, but as it stands now his "challenge" is nonsensical. There's no way to answer the gibberish he's laid out as the requirements.

I don't think he even realizes that.

 

[jaydeehess]

A quick perusal of this thread indicates that at least three times the call has been made to prove that the money is held in trust by an outside party, that clear outlines of what will constitute 'proof' be established, and that the list of judges and their qualifications be made public.

Though this seems like a very reasonable list of requests , so far nothing of the sort has come forth.

BTW Mr. Fullerton, there is a big difference between the words "preceding" and "proceeding". A revision may be in order.

In controlled demolitions such a crimp is caused by blowing the middle columns first and then preceding to the sides

Action "A" cannot both precede another action "B", AND occur after"B" at the same time. It violates causality.

 

[TJM]

Well the suspense is killing me here:

Will our hero return with a verifiable account where our money is held?

And will he come up with an independent, impartial judge who will decide our victory?

Does a chicken have lips?

Or is it just the sound of sweet sweet truther fail.

Time will tell.

 

[beachnut]

... a valid entry can never be produced. Feel free to prove me wrong. A delusional cowardly blowhard certainly couldn't.

Cue vigorous hand-waving.

If you have a valid claim about NIST tell us. But first contact some professors to get an opinion on your current contest. This will be great.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/app-physics/contact.html

Contact Stanford; are you afraid to get feedback? Share your results of what Stanford tell you about your claims. Can't do simple stuff?

http://engineering.stanford.edu/contact/index.html
Stanford engineering. Why not let them have a copy of your contest. I have not had a good laugh from your failed movement today. Email them. Please share your replies. Good luck.

Have you emailed Stanford yet? Prove it.
Prove you have emailed or contacted any Universities.

 

[TJM]

Well said TFK

Now then Mr. Fullerton, do you accept the challenge put before you, or do you run away with tail tucked firmly between your legs, as most truthers do?

Mr. Fullerton, the topic is now whether you can agree to terms that are agreeable to both sides of the issue, which is not answered in your latest post:

I am extremely skeptical that you are an engineer. No competent engineer would buy the NIST fairly tale. Their crackpot theory states that gravity removed 8 entire stories of the remaining resisting structure simultaneously as the building was in _free fall_. Any competent engineer would know that's a violation of the LOCOE. This is the basis of the challenge and why a valid entry can never be produced. Feel free to prove me wrong. A delusional cowardly blowhard certainly couldn't.

Cue vigorous hand-waving.

I repeat: The question isn't whether TFK is an engineer or not, it's about setting the terms and conditions of your "contest". If you can prove the "JREFies" wrong, expose TFK and the others as liars, then you will totally pwn us for all the world to see and keep your 10 Grand!

Brother, that's the trifecta - you can shut all of us down forever.

What's stopping you?

 

[LashL]

Several more off-topic and/or bickering posts have been moved to Abandon All Hope. The topic of this thread is a specific offer of a monetary prize for proving that the collapse of 7WTC did not contravene any laws of physics, and the terms and conditions of that specific offer.

The topic of this thread is not the conservation of energy in the collapse of 7WTC or any purported "violation" of the conservation of energy, etc., and there are multiple pre-existing threads on those topics if that is what you wish to discuss.

If you want to discuss other topics, do so in the threads already dedicated to those topics, but this is not the thread for those discussions. I strongly suggest that all members make a concerted effort to stick to the topic, eschew personalization of your arguments, and abide by the Membership Agreement, as further breaches will, no doubt, be dealt with harshly.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LashL

 

[FFed]

cmatrix, can you prove that you have the $10,000 prize money?

 

[tfk]

Well CMatrix,

I am extremely skeptical that you are an engineer. No competent engineer would buy the NIST fairly tale. Their crackpot theory states that gravity removed 8 entire stories of the remaining resisting structure simultaneously as the building was in _free fall_. Any competent engineer would know that's a violation of the LOCOE. This is the basis of the challenge and why a valid entry can never be produced. Feel free to prove me wrong. A delusional cowardly blowhard certainly couldn't.

Cue vigorous hand-waving.

Seeing that you got your degree in "psychology & computer science" a paltry 17 years ago, and I got mine in mechanical engineering over 35 years ago, I'd say that you're fairly unqualified to make that judgment.

But allow me probe just a bit into this to check out your qualifications.

You have written:

Now here is where physics come into play. As WTC 7 was built gravitational potential energy was stored in the building. When something falls and there is nothing in its way, all the available gravitational potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy and the object will attain free fall acceleration. The problem is that with WTC 7 there should have been a massive amount of structure in the way to slow the fall. When the falling mass hit this structure most of the momentum and kinetic energy should have been used up in breaking up or deforming the structure. But for eight stories of fall this didn't happen. It was like that massive interconnected structure just wasn't there. The official story requires more energy and momentum to have been present in this system than could have been there. But energy and momentum can't be magically created out of nowhere in a closed system. They must balance. The laws of physics (conservation of energy and momentum) were violated if the official story is true.

If I can prove, beyond doubt, that the north wall of WTC7 could have fallen FASTER than "g" for a short period of time, and that it would have violated none of the laws of physics (including CoM or CoE), would that qualify as a "win" of your challenge?

Because my engineering degree tells me that the above (higher that "g" acceleration) is not only possible, but very likely.

And that you & your psychology degree (like Mr Chandler & his high school physics experience) are academically & professionally unqualified to make that judgment.


tom

PS. LashL, I beg your indulgence on this question for just a short period of time. It's got one foot in both camps (his monetary challenge & the CoM/CoE question.)

Thanks.

 

[tfk]

Look cmatrix,

I don't have any desire to beat you up about this. Having spent a fair amount of time in Calgary, Banff, & Vancouver amongst my travels, I've got a real soft spot for Canadians. I never had anything but great times, with great folks in my travels up in your beautiful country.

So, here's my offer. I don't want to take your money. It seems to me that you really, truly believe the stuff that you have posted here, and that you have posted on your other web sites.

And further, that you believe it sufficiently that you're (surprisingly, and injudiciously) willing to put a bunch of cash up on a wager. A wager, btw, if judged competently and objectively, you are 100% certain to lose.

So, I consider you one of the "good" truthers. One who is merely incorrect. Your breed is somewhat refreshing when compared to the intentionally, resolutely dishonest ones.

And this is the reason that I'm taking the time to explain this.

You are out of your arena. You have an amateur's appreciation of something as trivially simple as the physics of falling. This leaves you helpless to grasp the complexities of something as complex as the collapse of a building. Which, you & Mr. Chandler will be surprised to discover, is NOT as simple as "a rock falling in a vacuum".

So, I'll completely show my hand to you ahead of time. And save you the embarrassment (& financial loss) of that lost wager. (If I thought that you were one of the dishonest truthers, I'd take your cash in a heartbeat.)

The simple fact is that, as I stated before, it is possible (and from the data that I & others have examined, even probable) that the north wall (NOT the entire building) of WTC7 had an acceleration that, for a short period of time (about 1 second, not 2.5 seconds) exceeded "g".

And it is also a fact that this does not violate Newton's laws in the slightest. Trust me. Isaac would agree with me.

Here's your mistakes:

1. Newton's Law (essentially F= m a, which for a free falling body in a vacuum, where the only F = gravity) puts a limit on "a" equal to "g". But that "g" upper limit does NOT apply to every part of a falling body. It applies ONLY to the CG.

To give you a trivial example, if a body if falling & rotating, then while the CG of the body is falling at "g", the parts that are rotating towards the ground have an acceleration greater than "g", and those that are rotating away from the ground have an acceleration less than "g". No violation of Newton's laws.

And it is ENTIRELY likely, probable in fact, that this "rotation" does apply to the north wall of WTC7. I understand that you don't believe me. The fact is that the north wall is NOT a sphere in free fall. It's more complex.

2. By definition, an "object in free fall" has no other forces applied to it. The north wall of WTC7 was NOT "the whole building". And there is a 100% certainty that there are "other forces applied to the wall". It is also 100% certain that some of these forces are "downward". And that, as a consequence of the vector addition of forces, the sum of these forces and gravity can produce downward accelerations greater than "g".

I will happily show you exactly where these forces could, and probably did, arise.
___

Those are the mistakes that you made outside your field.

Now for the bigger mistakes, which ironically, are INSIDE your field of expertise: psychology.

3. Ego
Like Mr. Chandler, you have a rudimentary, understanding of physics. This amounts to a "high school" level of understanding. (Mr. Chandler should have at least a college level. But it sure doesn't show.)

You're applying the incredibly simplified version of physics that is pared back to it's absolute minimums to systems that are real, messy, complex.

There is a very specific reason that physicists have to go to such extreme, expensive measures (like frictionless air tables, etc) to demonstrated even simple principles. When you have real-world systems, they are messy. And full of other effects that can overwhelm the one or two that you're attempting to demonstrate.

The pristine world of "controlled variables", clean experiments, & "equations based on first principles" is the world of physics.

The sloppy world of real parts, made with real materials, moving in real space, under the influence of real forces, described by "sorry, the best we can do are these ugly empirical equations & hideous nomographs, but they have the decided advantage over your pretty equations of giving the right friggin' answer" ... that's the world of engineering.

As a representative of that sloppy, messy world, I'd like to suggest that you take your nice, pristine, pretty "F = m a" ...

... and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Respectfully, of course.



4. Delusions of moral & ethical superiority

In the case of something as complex as the collapse of a building, there are lots & lots of people with mechanical & structural engineering degrees who are far, far more acquainted with these "2nd order effects", their magnitudes and how they work in the real world than you are.

Or than a particle physicist (eg. Steven Jones) is.
Or than a designer of test fixtures (eg., Tony Szamboti) is.
Or than a professor of philosophy of comparative religions (DRG) is.
Or etc, etc, etc. all the other "experts" that you are parroting.

A boatload of these people (at NIST, in competent academia (i.e., engineering programs), in industry, etc. have examined the NIST results. These people are familiar with the "it fell pretty darn fast" results.

To an extraordinary, enormous, overwhelming percentile, these truly knowledgeable people have not picked up torches & pitchforks, and marched on Washington, DC. But have looked at these results and commented (in words or in actions) "so what...?".

These are the people who most understand what those results mean. And - more importantly - what they do not mean.

A fundamental requirement for your contention to be valid is that all these people are morally & ethically bankrupt.

That is the sort of misplaced sense of moral & ethical superiority that one would expect out of a 17 year old under the influence of a near-fatal dose of testosterone & "I hate mommy & daddy" angst.

Not out of a mature adult.

That, right there, is by far your biggest mistake.

And the one that it would do you the most good to examine carefully.

Regards,


Tom

PS. And, by not taking your cash, cm, I figure that I have now payed back the debt that I owed a bar full of Canadians in Calgary who were incredibly gracious to this foreigner amongst them when the US Hockey Team beat Canada about 12 years ago...

PPS. Your web page "NIST WTC 7 9/11 Theory Violates the Laws of Physics" is littered with one trivial mistake after another. If you'd care to hear about it, I'll point them out to you.

PPPS. And the last sentence on this page needs a small, but CRITICAL, re-write...

"The Fallacy of Emergence"

The fallacy of emergence occurs when a system is assumed to have a property that magically arises out of thin air because none of the parts composing the system have this property. Another way to say this is that an illusory property is mistaken for an actual property. For example, an apple is red but the atoms the apple is made of are not red. Therefore it is assumed that the redness property has been magically created out of nothing. The problem is that color is an illusion created by our minds due to the inability to see the actual physical mechanism involved. The property that actually exists is the ability of protons of a certain wavelength to bounce off objects and into our eyes.

 

[jaydeehess]

cmatrix, can you prove that you have the $10,000 prize money?

So far Mr. Fullerton has not provided any indication that he has the money available , nor that it is being held in escrow by a third party, nor has he revealed the specifics of what would constitute a valid proof, nor has he stated who will judge this competition or their qualifications.

It is obviously a conflict of interest if he will be the judge of whether or not his money will be disbursed.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

If a winning entry looses, all they need is a lawyer, take the submitted winning entry to a judge showing engineers and physics professors say it is valid to collect the money when cmatriz refuses to pay because of his failed fantasy physics. Whoever has time should take his money.

What money?

Before going to any time or trouble, I think everyone wants some kind of assurance there are any assets to seize. Doubtful.

 

[DGM]

Look cmatrix,

I don't have any desire to beat you up about this.

Yeah right! Game, set and match.


Cornell, '72 if I remember correctly?

 

[jaydeehess]

bouncing protons?
Secondary action preceding primary action?

Mr. Fullerton needs a copy editor with a background in physics.

 

[jaydeehess]

An Illusory property would be such as that attributed to nano-thermite by Steven Jones or a directed energy weapon envisioned by Judy Wood.