Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

You are lieing, and thus discredited. Again. But you are funny!

BTW, I noticed that you did not make any of the videos you link to... next time you must submit your own.
:dl:

You are welcome to watch my film when it is finished.

I am not lying. Some of that is a actually mentioned in the film.
 
Do you think we're having a private conversation here? This is for everyone to learn. I cannot disprove the calculations in the papers. You say you can.

Is there any reason that we should believe you're not lying?

I didn't say I could disprove. I can question the unsourced quantitative estimates in those papers. When you understand the papers we can have a thread all to ourselves to discuss them.
 
I am not lying. Some of that is a actually mentioned in the film.
You are lieing about understanding the math. And you just lied again! You have negative credibility. I'm not interested in someone else's videos. You must film your own. When will your video be ready to view?
 
You are welcome to watch my film when it is finished.

I am not lying. Some of that is a actually mentioned in the film.

you act just like docker

got any verifiable evidence yet,


you should read NIST again, I think you miss something when you said you read all 10,000 pages
 
I have it in front of me. Its not my work I might add but its a good job. I will present it when gravy understands the papers he keeps dump-linking in here.
I knew enough to show that the "probability" calculations you presented were total BS, although I've never taken a statistics class and you say you have.

So bring it on, jessica. We're all waiting.
 
I didn't say I could disprove. I can question the unsourced quantitative estimates in those papers. When you understand the papers we can have a thread all to ourselves to discuss them.

you stil sound like docker,

go ahead bring on the good stuff

see if your number are up to the task, or even qualify for evidence
 
I knew enough to show that the "probability" calculations you presented were total BS, although I've never taken a statistics class and you say you have.

So bring it on, jessica. We're all waiting.

I admitted those were someone elses guess work. What about the KE calculations I gave you? Oh thats right you dismissed them based on your misreading of a caveat in the NIST report.
 
I didn't say I could disprove. I can question the unsourced quantitative estimates in those papers. When you understand the papers we can have a thread all to ourselves to discuss them.

Everybody can question anything. That's not something to be proud of.

Please explain the papers to us, since you understand them so well.
 
I said I dont buy them not could disprove them. I dont buy the simplifying assumptions they are based on. Greenings can be discounted because he isn't even an engineer.
I asked you specifically about Bazant and Zhou's paper.

If you don't "buy" them, you must be able to disprove them. Unless you're lieing!
 
I admitted those were someone elses guess work. What about the KE calculations I gave you? Oh thats right you dismissed them based on your misreading of a caveat in the NIST report.
Nope. You claimed they were the design calculations. I showed you NIST's statement that there is no evidence of that, Les Robertson's statement that the design was for a low-speed collision, and beachnut pointed out that your calculations were off by a factor of 10. Can't you get anything right?

And why couldn't you tell that the probability calculations were complete bunk, when I easily could? I don't get it.
 
Nope. You claimed they were the design calculations. I showed you NIST's own statement that there is no evidence of that, and beachnut pointed out that your calculations were off by a factor of 10. Can't you get anythig right?

And why couldn't you tell that the probability calculations were complete bunk, when I easily could? I don't get it.

If there is no evidence that these were the design estimates why does nist include them, and include a precise figure of 600 mph? Did they pull the figure out of their nethers?
 
I said I dont buy them not could disprove them. I dont buy the simplifying assumptions they are based on. Greenings can be discounted because he isn't even an engineer.
So if a chemist's calculations about physics are correct, we should ignore them because they came from a chemist?

Is that your contention, jessica? That someone's title or education is the determining factor in their math being correct?
 
ahem

I don't suppose jessicarabbit has volunteered her own qualifications, since she finds Dr. Greening's wanting?

Or found the errors, that must be so obvious, in his reasoning?

No? You cannot imagine my surprise.

Let's go, sweetheart.
 
If there is no evidence that these were the design estimates why does nist include them, and include a precise figure of 600 mph? Did they pull the figure out of their nethers?
It's called "investigating". You should try it some time. Did you notice they found no evidence of any calculations done for the 600 mph figure? You selected a design parameter that didn't exist! That NIST said didn't exist in the very paper you cited!
 
So if a chemist's calculations about physics are correct, we should ignore them because they came from a chemist?

Is that your contention, jessica? That someone's title or education is the determining factor in their math being correct?

Well Steven Jones is discounted here because hes not an engineer. In fact hes a nuclear scientist just like greening.

As I said the maths is correct but the assumptions aren't.
 
If there is no evidence that these were the design estimates why does nist include them, and include a precise figure of 600 mph? Did they pull the figure out of their nethers?
Because they were pointing out that they had no evidence that those numbers were correct! How did they know that? They investigated it! Get it? Science!
 
It's called "investigating". You should try it some time. Did you notice they found no evidence of any calculations done for the 600 mph figure? You selected a design parameter that didn't exist! That NIST said didn't exist in the very paper you cited!

Really? Even though they attributed the parameter to the port authority in 1964. The caveat you site says they couldn't find the actual analysis but they know the parameters assumed in it.
 

Back
Top Bottom