Common Sense

[The Almond]

I don't suppose someone not on ignore could ask for a link to this article, that shows it on the NCE website: http://www.nceplus.co.uk/home/?ChannelID=3 ? They don't seem to have such an article, and the only places I can find it are (surprise surprise!) twoofer sites.

I smell fiction, ladies and gentlemen.

I did a search on NCE, too, and I didn't find an article by Dave Parker, or one that stated anythink like what 28th Kingdom quoted. I don't know if it's from there, but it doesn't seem like it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can't take anymore of this.

28th, welcome to ignore, turd.

Ditto

 

[28th Kingdom]

"Cannot be applied to the physical world," huh. Hilarious. Why is that? Edict from you? Let's hear it.

Here is what you might not understand.... our 5 senses are how we perceive reality. (physical world) Our five senses are separate from our thoughts (metaphysical - beyond the physical world) In order to prove something is possible in the physical world... you must show proof that can be observed with the 5 senses i.e. visual simulations.

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... unless you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective

2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : [SIZE=-1]SUPERNATURAL[/SIZE]
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : [SIZE=-1]THEORETICAL[/SIZE]

 

[R.Mackey]

Here is what you might not understand.... our 5 senses are how we perceive reality. (physical world) Our five senses are separate from our thoughts (metaphysical - beyond the physical world) In order to prove something is possible in the physical world... you must show proof that can be observed with the 5 senses i.e. visual simulations.

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... until you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.

Main Entry: meta·phys·i·cal [qimg]http://m-w.com/images/audio.gif[/qimg]
Pronunciation: -'fi-zi-k&l
Function: adjective
http://m-w.com/dictionary/metaphysics
2 a : of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses b : [SIZE=-1]SUPERNATURAL[/SIZE]
3 : highly abstract or abstruse; also : [SIZE=-1]THEORETICAL[/SIZE]

That's the best you can do? Really?

Again, you asked for my credentials. I answered truthfully. What, dare I ask, are yours? After this latest outburst, I'm sure we're all dying to know.

 

[28th Kingdom]

This statement is scientifically inaccurate.

Blame Wiki:

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

 

[LashL]

Rocket scientist. I work for NASA on artificial intelligence. Lots of physics modeling and time-series analysis of sensor data. I trained in Math, Physics, and Aeronautics at university. So, no, I'm not a structural engineer, though I have studied solid mechanics and FEA. Just with a different spin on things.

off topic

I have a sneaking suspicion that you might know someone I know, another rocket scientist who lives in LA, has a couple of degrees in aerospace engineering and a degree in physics, and who also worked as a USAF test pilot instructor...

/off topic

 

[The Almond]

Blame Wiki:

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

You think everything wiki says is accurate? That explains a lot. Just for your own edification, it would help you to learn the difference between a vector and a scalar.

ETA:

And you quote wiki without referencing it? Plagarism much?

 

[Horatius]

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... unless you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.

So, once again, all we need to do to convince him is re-build the towers, and knock them down again. Simple!

Minded, that is.

 

[Skibum]

It's growing, even in America........

Yes it is, I've done a couple jobs where the plans were in metric. After a couple days of getting used to it, I actually liked using metric measurements.

 

[Mr.D]

We Truthers... actually adhere to scientific laws, probability, common logic and reason...

Free fall in its strictest sense is the condition of acceleration which is due only to Gravity. In other words, the objects undergoing free fall experience only one Force: their own weight.

Oh friend... don't worry I've got a Perry Mason moment coming for you... so roughly, how many feet does an object fall per second at freefall? And, by roughly I mean... as close as you can get it.

I'm tired of letting you people get away with posts like this... it's like a hit and run... of nonsense.

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

So where are these "Truthers" using scientific laws? In the quoted bits above, you've only shown the logical ability to misunderstand Wikipedia entries.

Your notions of 'freefall,' 'force,' 'acceleration,' 'velocity,' are all scientifically incorrect; and therefore any 'theories' you build using those false notions are bunk. (Proof: The definition you use of freefall does not include 'air resistance.' QED)

 

[28th Kingdom]

When you look at angles that show the unobscured collapse of WTC 2... you can see that the building is still falling faster than the debris, down to at least the last 400+ feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

Here is visual proof (sensory evidence) that explosives can be used to bring down large buildings:

(Why can't we see any charges going off in this CD?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg

(Notice the dust cloud that forms at the base of this building after it comes down...look familiar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGsNADQicgc

Now... please provide physical proof that transferring loads can bring down large buildings. Remember... when the impact floors "gave out" due to the outer columns failing... according to NIST, WTC 2 still had 37 non-severed core columns... of which, only a couple had moderate impact/fire damage... so, actually...these impact floors didn't really give out completely from the bowing outer columns....because we still have to account for these 37 non-severed (which means they still ran from the base of the building through the impact floors and up to the top) core columns that somehow managed to all fail simultaneously in the span of one second after the outer columns failed.

Please, provide physical proof this is possible.

 

[LashL]

SSDD

You're a fraud, 28th. It's long past time for you to put up or shut up.

Respond to R. Mackey's posts, and don't forget to show your work.

 

[babazaroni]

Address... what I'm saying... and make some sense... and prove my theories/points to be scientifically inaccurate.

To do this, we will have to be able to model your thought processes in a computer simulation. We are about halfway there, but you will have to provide more data for the final model. Don't change anything, just keep posting.

 

[Mr.D]

Your theories/calculations only exist in the infinite realm of thought where anything is possible... unless you demonstrate them in a way that can be perceived with our five senses... until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.

What then exempts your "theories" and "calculations" from the same claim?
That is ...

According to 28th Kingdom's own post, Until 28th Kingdom demonstrates his/her theories "in a way that can be perceived with our five senses," 28th's "theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality."

Hence you have debunked yourself.

BTW, has anyone else noticed what happens if you Caesar cypher "CT" by negative 1 (or plus 25)?

 

[JimBenArm]

Now, that's a fine looking badge... I might just have to debunk meself... so that I can wear one.

He should go ahead and wear one. He's the best 28K debunker around. Just has to open his mouth and speak.

 

[JimBenArm]

Mackey... don't you understand how abstract your calculations are? In fact... that's a great word to describe all of the verbiage I've heard from NIST and others on here... just abstract data and terms... that cannot be applied to the physical world of sight and sound and/or converted into visual simulations... because they are inconceivable i.e. unimaginable i.e. not plausible.

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualizations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.” Parker, Dave.

"WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualization," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.

28K, don't you understand how well these concepts describe the real world? How anyone who has a functional brain cell can see how they work? Do you think they were made up just to confuse morons like you?

Just how stupid are you, really? I mean, you've found an unattended terminal in the asylum, and you're posting from there, aren't you?

 

[babazaroni]

until then - your theories will remain imaginary concoctions (purple elephants doing the hokey pokey) that exist independent of reality.[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

You are dissapointing me 28K. Your steel-boned whale doing a handstand was much higher quality.

 

[babazaroni]

(Why can't we see any charges going off in this CD?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtmwJVmBvXg

Did you see any debris being ejected during those explosions?

Did you hear anything like this when the towers fell?

Do you understand why we say the tower collapses did not look like CD?

 

[Skibum]

When you look at angles that show the unobscured collapse of WTC 2... you can see that the building is still falling faster than the debris, down to at least the last 400+ feet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKzhlOdB-I

Thank you for providing proof of at least a 16 second collapse time.
I guess we can put that "near freefall speed" garbage behind us.
Also at approx 10-11 seconds you clearly see that the falling debris is well ahead of the collapsing building.

 

[Skibum]

Also at 12-13 seconds a large piece of debris is just about to hit the ground, well ahead of the rest of the collapse.