• 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.

9/11 Physics from Non-Experts

Apollo20 said:
Mackey: I and many others too numerous to mention are the evidence!

More condescension from you too!
Click to expand...
Main Entry: con·de·scen·sion
Pronunciation: "kän-di-'sen(t)-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin condescension-, condescensio, from condescendere
1 : voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior
2 : patronizing attitude or behavior
Click to expand...

Your posts have been consistently more condescending than R. Mackey's posts.
 
Mackey: As I say, if more inappropriate condescension is all that's on offer...
So, please drop the "personal" rubbish. My comments are NOT personal. They are directed to the tone of the regular JREFers. Based on these posters, (and they know who they are), I have to say that this site is about stifling debate. I have been an active scientist for 35 years so please accept my professional opinion, I know a patronizing attitude when I see one!
 
Apollo20 said:
Mackey: As I say, if more inappropriate condescension is all that's on offer...
So, please drop the "personal" rubbish. My comments are NOT personal. They are directed to the tone of the regular JREFers. Based on these posters, (and they know who they are), I have to say that this site is about stifling debate.
Click to expand...

How can I take your statement, above, as anything other than personal?

How can you be asking me to drop it? I asked you to support your statement. That is not "personal" rubbish at all.

Apollo20 said:
I have been an active scientist for 35 years so please accept my professional opinion, I know a patronizing attitude when I see one!
Click to expand...

I've been an active, professional scientist for 12 years. I don't see how my "professional opinion" is relevant, nor yours. And while a poster may have a "patronizing attitude," you claimed that this forum existed to stifle debate. Now, for the third time, please support that claim, or retract it.
 
R. Mackey: I will retract nothing. But I will say that I know you are a very smart guy. That's why I can't believe you see this site as anything but reactionary.
 
Apollo20 said:
R. Mackey: I will retract nothing. But I will say that I know you are a very smart guy. That's why I can't believe you see this site as anything but reactionary.
Click to expand...

And I too have considerable respect for your expertise and intellect.

Nonetheless, I don't see how you can claim that "this site" (assuming you mean the JREF Conspiracy Theories Forum) exists to "stifle debate," as you stated on the previous page. I've already asked you three times to support this, and I won't ask again. I will merely point out that, until you do support it, there is no reason to take this claim seriously.
 
Well, Mackey, that's fine, I really don't care if you think there is some kind of useful exchange of ideas about the collapse of the WTC going on here....
I for one don't see it. I stand by the words I had to say about the JREF Conspiracy Forum 2 months ago.. You should try PHYSORG.... it is a little better for a scientist. New ideas are at least listened to, at least to some degree, and useful ideas are tossed around rather than tossed out!
 
I've read PhysOrg, and while I have no problems with it, I see similar bickering there as well.

I also will not presume to speak for all members here, but I am certainly interested in reading your new ideas when you have them finished and ready for distribution or actual publication.
 
I love it.

Apollo says this forum exists to stifle debate and yet here he is, debating.

Despite annoying many posters with his reluctance to clearly state his position, we find him still here with an active account.

Meanwhile, we all know what happens to posters who try to stir things up in Twoofer Land.
 
R.Mackey said:
I've read PhysOrg, and while I have no problems with it, I see similar bickering there as well.

I also will not presume to speak for all members here, but I am certainly interested in reading your new ideas when you have them finished and ready for distribution or actual publication.
Click to expand...

Did you miss this new idea from the 70's:

I checked out R. K. McGuire et al., "Live Load Effects in Office Buildings". In the chapter, "Results of live load survey - Variance of sustained load", the mode is given as 0.45 kPa and 90% of the samples are less than 1.0 kPa. The average appears to be around 0.55 kPa = 11.5 psf. This would indicate that my use of 25 psf live load for the area outside of the core is more likely an overestimate than an underestimate.

Is anyone aware of more recent developments that would contradict this?
 
Apollo20 said:
Mackey: As I say, if more inappropriate condescension is all that's on offer...
So, please drop the "personal" rubbish. My comments are NOT personal. They are directed to the tone of the regular JREFers. Based on these posters, (and they know who they are), I have to say that this site is about stifling debate. I have been an active scientist for 35 years so please accept my professional opinion, I know a patronizing attitude when I see one!
Click to expand...



Wow.

-Gumboot
 
CHF said:
I love it.

Apollo says this forum exists to stifle debate and yet here he is, debating.

Despite annoying many posters with his reluctance to clearly state his position, we find him still here with an active account.

Meanwhile, we all know what happens to posters who try to stir things up in Twoofer Land.
Click to expand...

Have you considered that Apollo, like myself may still be undecided on the collapse issue?

Over at the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice Forum I am accused of being a misinformation agent, and worse. Here I am accused of being a twoofer, a liar and a fraud. It is tiresome but I'm learning not to take it personally. It seems to me that open minds and closed minds are found in roughly the same proportions (1:5 respectively) in both camps.

Nonetheless, my discussions here have helped me to understand what it takes to convince hard-core sceptics. This will help me immensely in improving my paper.
 
Last edited:
GregoryUrich said:
Have you considered that Apollo, like myself may still be undecided on the collapse issue?

Over at the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice Forum I am accused of being a misinformation agent, and worse. Here I am accused of being a twoofer, a liar and a fraud. It is tiresome but I'm learning not to take it personally. It seems to me that open minds and closed minds are found in roughly the same proportions (1:5 respectively) in both camps.

Nonetheless, my discussions here have helped me to understand what it takes to convince hard-core sceptics. This will help me immensely in improving my paper.
Click to expand...

I personally don't care which side of the fence you side on, and I don't recall making remarks to the contrary. That hardly matters to me, as I am only interested in the math/physics. I've just noticed you have been arrogant and condescending, and when you do so with me you will receive it back twofold. As of now I am not convinced you fully understand the physics involved, and not qualified to critique the work of Bazant. This is not to say you can't learn from it and create your own model, and I would encourage you to do so. If you are truly interested in the collapse and creating your own model I'm sure you will find people here more than happy to input their experience and knowledge.
 
Apollo20 said:
Mackey: As I say, if more inappropriate condescension is all that's on offer...
So, please drop the "personal" rubbish. My comments are NOT personal. They are directed to the tone of the regular JREFers. Based on these posters, (and they know who they are), I have to say that this site is about stifling debate. I have been an active scientist for 35 years so please accept my professional opinion, I know a patronizing attitude when I see one!
Click to expand...

Allright you are arrogant,

Came here to teach did you.

Stick it in your ear.

Wear it in your hat.

Take it to the door.

Shout it out.
 
Apollo20 said:
I have been an active scientist for 35 years so please accept my professional opinion, I know a patronizing attitude when I see one!
Click to expand...

Apparently your field isn't psychology.

Are those examples coming, any time soon ?

Well, Mackey, that's fine, I really don't care if you think there is some kind of useful exchange of ideas about the collapse of the WTC going on here....
I for one don't see it.
Click to expand...

That's probably because you're too busy reading your own posts.

See ? THAT was condescending.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Have you considered that Apollo, like myself may still be undecided on the collapse issue?

Over at the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice Forum I am accused of being a misinformation agent, and worse. Here I am accused of being a twoofer, a liar and a fraud. It is tiresome but I'm learning not to take it personally. It seems to me that open minds and closed minds are found in roughly the same proportions (1:5 respectively) in both camps.

Nonetheless, my discussions here have helped me to understand what it takes to convince hard-core sceptics. This will help me immensely in improving my paper.
Click to expand...

If you are really undecided on the collapse issue then I guess for you gravity is just another unproved item.

Where I live F=ma.
 
GregoryUrich said:
Issues:

1. Bazant models the plastic energy for compression of the lower part of the structure as a spring. The upper part should also be modeled the same way (i.e. two springs exerting pressure on each other). At maximum compression there is enormous force applied to the debris between the springs which likely accounts for the ejection of so much debris. This is also an energy sink.

2. Bazant doesn't take into account the momentum transfer due to the mass of the spring (the intact lower structure) being accellerated. This is a huge mass and requires alot of energy. I'm working out the numbers, but the displacement is dependent on a number of factors we should try to agree on. I will try to get to this shortly.

3. Bazant assumes that all energy will go into destroying the lower section of the tower when at least half of the energy will go toward destroying the upper section.

I have more but we can start with these.
Click to expand...

I have read many critiques of technical papers but cannot recall a single one which contained the phrase (or some variant) "I have more but this is just for starters". That is not the language of the intellectual; it is the language of the twoofers. Please, if you have more, take your time, consolidate it, and present it. If you do not have more, say so. I can wait for you to present a coherent complete and full critique. Please advise when your critique is complete and finished.
 
Apollo20 said:
Well, Mackey, that's fine, I really don't care if you think there is some kind of useful exchange of ideas about the collapse of the WTC going on here....
I for one don't see it. I stand by the words I had to say about the JREF Conspiracy Forum 2 months ago.. You should try PHYSORG.... it is a little better for a scientist. New ideas are at least listened to, at least to some degree, and useful ideas are tossed around rather than tossed out!
Click to expand...

By the way here's what Frank said about PHYSORG.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1650
Chainsaw:

I am sorry to see you too have become so close-minded. I thought you were one poster who was open to new ideas, but apparently I was wrong. Anyway, Chainsaw, this is obviously NOT the place to present anything that anyone might call a new theory of anything connected to 9/11 so I wont bother. It is clear to me that this so-called "discussion forum" is filled with close-minded NISTIAN nay-sayers who have but one mission: to stifle criticism of the NIST Report. That is why the NISTIANS on this site have one thing in common: they offer no new insights into 9/11. This is rather pathetic for a science-oriented site, but to be expected..... However, it is entertaining to watch the NIST APOLOGISTS preach the NISTIAN CREED like well-trained parrots.

Have anything new to present Frank?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom