9-11 Presentation at NMSR, May 19 2010

Arguing with "debunkers" is like getting caught in a "Who's on First?" game.
 
Well, you know, I really understand things best when they are expressed in sonnet format. So, if you don't mind, since I find the Bazant/NIST hypothesis thoroughly bizarre and completely unsupported by known principles of physics, perhaps you could translate into sonnet form for me, hmm?

Here's a framework to get you started.
 
ergo said:
Well, you know, I really understand things best when they are expressed in sonnet format. So, if you don't mind, since I find the Bazant/NIST hypothesis thoroughly bizarre and completely unsupported by known principles of physics, perhaps you could translate into sonnet form for me, hmm?

Here's a framework to get you started.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's an effective approach. You should try drawing a free body diagram.
 
I think it's an effective approach, and since I'm the one who wants the sonnet, isn't that all that matters?
 
ergo said:
I think it's an effective approach, and since I'm the one who wants the sonnet, isn't that all that matters?
Click to expand...
No. While a sonnet might be effective at, say, communicating human emotion, the free body diagram is a time-tested method for communicating the relationship between bodies and the forces acting on them.
 
I'd settle for a limerick. A limerick outlining the Bazant crush-down, crush-up hypothesis. I would even offer a reward for the best one. $10 Canadian.


There once were two towers too tall
For their good, so they started to fall
...
 
ergo said:
I'd settle for a limerick. A limerick outlining the Bazant crush-down, crush-up hypothesis. I would even offer a reward for the best one. $10 Canadian.


There once were two towers too tall
For their good, so they started to fall
...
Click to expand...

I don't think this is a wise choice either. A limerick might offer the best explanation for the connection between a privy and a prostitute, but it does not explain the relevant system as effectively as a free body diagram.
 
ergo said:
Well, you know, I really understand things best when they are expressed in sonnet format. So, if you don't mind, since I find the Bazant/NIST hypothesis thoroughly bizarre and completely unsupported by known principles of physics, perhaps you could translate into sonnet form for me, hmm?

Here's a framework to get you started.
Click to expand...
You don't do physics so you are wrong about NIST and Bazant. Best part, you can't prove your statement, you are not capable. You only talk, no substance, just saying what is on the top of your head. Show where Bazant's paper is unsupported by physics. You posted nonsense.

You don't understand Bazant's work and to prove it you will not write a paper refuting it. The same with NIST, you can't even figure out if there was cross bracing in the core of the WTC; without any knowledge what so ever on the WTC, your statement on NIST is delusional nonsense.

You should have taken up engineering instead of posting nonsense and lies about things you can't understand.
 
ergo said:
What system are you needing help with, AZCat?
Click to expand...
I am not the one who needs help with the system being discussed in this thread. It appears from your previous posts that you do. I think it would be beneficial to your understanding if you tried to draw a free body diagram.
 
AZCat said:
No. While a sonnet might be effective at, say, communicating human emotion, the free body diagram is a time-tested method for communicating the relationship between bodies and the forces acting on them.
Click to expand...

Did you see my fbd in the last page? Yeah, that's ergo's idea of it.
 
ergo said:
I think it's an effective approach, and since I'm the one who wants the sonnet, isn't that all that matters?
Click to expand...

Your "sonnet" is certainly not what matters. What matters is your defense of your continued assertions that everyone else's physics is all wrong.

Playing childish word games is one of the worst defenses you could have ever come up with. It's not convincing anyone.

Have you even read the OP, BTW? It didn't have sonnets, just some physics that explains the gravitational collapse of the towers.

"Free body diagrams" are part of the language of physics. If you wish to discuss physics, you should learn the language, so that you are able to even discuss such things.

The fact that you're playing arrogant little games instead of discussing the physics you're attacking, or the OP for that matter, demonstrates only that you are one of those poor, deluded people who think others take their rants seriously.
 
AZCat said:
I am not the one who needs help with the system being discussed in this thread.
Click to expand...

Then why are you asking for clarification from me?

It appears from your previous posts that you do. I think it would be beneficial to your understanding if you tried to draw a free body diagram.
Click to expand...

Of what? And thank you for your concern. I think you should perhaps look into your own willingness to ignore accepted principles of physics than worry about whether others understand them or not.

Either that or compose the sonnet I asked for.
 
If you wish to discuss physics, you should learn the language, so that you are able to even discuss such things.
Click to expand...

... says the guy whose scientific lexicon includes the term "a ton of bricks!"
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Then why are you asking for clarification from me?
Click to expand...
I'm not.

Of what? And thank you for your concern. I think you should perhaps look into your own willingness to ignore accepted principles of physics than worry about whether others understand them or not.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should try to draw a free body diagram before making claims about the principles of physics.

Either that or compose the sonnet I asked for.
Click to expand...
This is not the most effective method for analyzing a physical system. In this case, a free body diagram is more useful. I think you should try to draw one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom