Verifiable, OBJECTIVE evidence of explosives

WildCat said:
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:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Gravy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
jessicarabbit said:
I am not lying. Some of that is a actually mentioned in the film.
Click to expand...
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?
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Please explain the papers to us, since you understand them so well.
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
jessicarabbit said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

R.Mackey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let's go, sweetheart.
 
jessicarabbit said:
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?
Click to expand...
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!
 
Gravy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
jessicarabbit said:
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?
Click to expand...
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!
 
WildCat said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom