If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

FalseFlag said:
What is constant acceleration? What is average acceleration? What is acceleration?
Click to expand...

Constant acceleration was your claim. It would have been most odd for you to have made such a claim if you were ignorant of what the terms acceleration, average acceleration, and constant acceleration meant.

Are you ignorant of those terms' meanings?
 
jsfisher said:
Constant acceleration was your claim. It would have been most odd for you to have made such a claim if you were ignorant of what the terms acceleration, average acceleration, and constant acceleration meant.

Are you ignorant of those terms' meanings?
Click to expand...

I have learned much since then.

I am not going to make the same mistake. I want your definitions of those terms so there can be no argument when I give my answer. It's funny how someone asks me a question but no one is willing to give me the necessary definitions and numbers so I can answer it.
 
FalseFlag said:
I have learned much since then.

I am not going to make the same mistake. I want your definitions of those terms so there can be no argument when I give my answer. It's funny how someone asks me a question but no one is willing to give me the necessary definitions and numbers so I can answer it.
Click to expand...

It is still your claim. What matters is what you meant by it, so it is your definitions that matter.

So here we are. You made a claim, and you have run away from it. Doesn't say much for the claim; does say something about you, though.
 
jsfisher said:
It is still your claim. What matters is what you meant by it, so it is your definitions that matter.

So here we are. You made a claim, and you have run away from it. Doesn't say much for the claim; does say something about you, though.
Click to expand...

I have not run away from anything.

I'm trying to answer a question. No one wants to give me the necessary data to answer it.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
I have not run away from anything.

I'm trying to answer a question. No one wants to give me the necessary information.
Click to expand...

Why should we need to provide you necessary information in support of your claims? They are your claims, remember? Either you can support them, or you can't.

Given your apparent lack of facility with the hard sciences and engineering, "you can't" is the default choice. And, yes, by not supporting the very claims you put forth, you are, in fact, running away from them.

A better approach may be to understand the nonsense of Cole, et al., rather than defend it. There are people here than can help you with the former; that latter is a fool's errand.
 
jsfisher said:
Why should we need to provide you necessary information in support of your claims?
Click to expand...

I was asked a question.

tfk said:
What was the average acceleration of the upper block, once it started to collapse?
Click to expand...

I then asked for the information I need to answer it.

FalseFlag said:
Please give your definition of average acceleration. I will accept anything reasonable. I am not trying to debate you, I just want your definition.

Please give the time interval that you want "average acceleration" to apply to.

Then, please give the value of your "average acceleration" and the direction.
Click to expand...

No one will provide this information.
 
FalseFlag said:
I was asked a question.



I then asked for the information I need to answer it.



No one will provide this information.
Click to expand...

It is in the paper World Trade Center Collapse what did and did not cause it, the abstract to
The Greening & Benson computer model.
 
FalseFlag said:
I was asked a question.

I then asked for the information I need to answer it.

No one will provide this information.
Click to expand...


That's all great, but I'm referring way back to a claim you made very early in the thread (part I, actually). You were parroting Cole, if I recall correctly, and the claim was that the upper tower descended with constant acceleration.

Your claim, pure and simple. It is completely independent of any questions that have been put to you recently.

Either support the claim with evidence, or run away from it.
 
jsfisher said:
That's all great, but I'm referring way back to a claim you made very early in the thread (part I, actually). You were parroting Cole, if I recall correctly, and the claim was that the upper tower descended with constant acceleration.

Your claim, pure and simple. It is completely independent of any questions that have been put to you recently.

Either support the claim with evidence, or run away from it.
Click to expand...

You really, really, really don't want me to do this. You don't, because the answer is going to be another thrashing like the one I gave earlier today.

This is one of the reasons no one will give me the information I am asking for. You know what's coming.

I played your "basic physics" game for a reason. Now, it's time to put this thread, and your absurd arguments, to bed for good.

I will wait a little longer to see if anyone will give me the information I'm asking for, and then I will just proceed on my own.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
The bolded text and line after appeared to make it sound like you were meaning that the falling block applied a greater force to the floor below than the floor below applied back. You clarified the answer. Was there a point to replying then?
Click to expand...
Sorry. Lack of reply is too ambiguous. I didn't know if you read my answer, and therefore if I was in error. Safest bet was to bump the question.
 
FalseFlag said:
You really, really, really don't want me to do this. You don't, because the answer is going to be another thrashing like the one I gave earlier today.

This is one of the reasons no one will give me the information I am asking for. You know what's coming.

I played your "basic physics" game for a reason. Now, it's time to put this thread, and your absurd arguments, to bed for good.

I will wait a little longer to see if anyone will give me the information I'm asking for, and then I will just proceed on my own.
Click to expand...

Please by all means proceed Your pearls of wisdom are causing my sides to hurt from unsuppressible fits of laughter.
 
FalseFlag said:
Eyewitness testimony exists to the contrary.

Proof: https://youtu.be/MCSEDSSxdNs?t=1515
Click to expand...

Cherry picked testimony that people heard things that sounded to them like explosions at some point in time during the fires is not proof of explosives.Some witnesses referred to the sounds of the bodies of jumpers hitting the pavement as sounding like explosions, do you believe that the jumpers all had explosives strapped to them?

NIST did not test for explosives.

Proof: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm Point 22

Failure to test for explosives is not proof that explosives were not used.
Click to expand...

Why would NIST test for explosives? This wasn't their job. NIST were not the first Investigators of 9/11.The NYPD and FBI tested the debris for explosives and found not traces. Why then should NIST do it? Did the FBI and NYPD lie about finding explosives? What about the 40,000 people that were helping in those investigations? Why concentrate only on NIST, then that report was merely a more indepth engineering report after it was felt that FEMA's basic report wasn't indepth enough.


Fact. Over 100 eyewitness reported explosions.
Click to expand...

Something sounding like an explosion during a fire is not evidence of explosives.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that had explosive charges been used, then way more then 100 people would have heard them, they would have been audible over the greater part of New York and New Jersey Cities, somewhere in the range of about 4 million people!

Fact. NIST did not test for explosives.

Conclusion, NIST ignored evidence and failed to perform a complete investigation.
Click to expand...

What physical evidence of explosives did NIST ignore?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom