na85 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 People that crown themselves engineers are an interesting breed. Yes, we are. Don't lump us all in with Poly, though. I like to think I'm fairly level-headed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Engineers generally are not level headed people. They will believe whatever the empire tells them to believe. A perfect example of this is the Bin Laden tapes. Here we have a black man with a pug nose masquerading as Bin Laden (middle eastern with long nose) and any engineer I know will insist its Bin Laden. Generally the engineers I have met will say Bin laden attacked us on 911 but do not have a single rational reason for believing this. I'm going to hold off in my explanation as to how the second law of thermo explains the collapse as being impossible. Its a two sentence explanation. I want to wait and hear what na85 thinks of the Bin Laden confession tape. If he thinks that is BinLaden I will not provide my explanation because it provides scientific knowledge & understanding to someone that just wants to maintain a lie. I've also been told by the same character that my financial education is controlled by UNESCO to keep me in the dark and that he knows more from spending a month watching internet videos and reading books. Actually I know this from many english & history majors that I have known through the years. I have recently heard it again from learning about the bankers. Its not only your education, but also mine in electrical engineering. We are kept in a box. So geoffery, you consider yourself a rational person and you have been on this thread many times. Can you give a single reason why you think Bin Laden attacked us on 911 - a level headed person would be able to provide a level headed answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 na85:Oh please. S is used for all kinds of things. Entropy, specific gravity, the length along an arc, etc. Drop the ad hominem attacks It is, but engineers use "s" for dynamic systems of all types as a standard variable. I'm trying to show that Riverwind is not an engineer. I don't think engineers are gods or particularly scientifically literate but one thing is true about engineers: they know basic applied science and basic calculus as well as anyone else. They spend four years practising this. There is absolutely no possible way in this universe an engineering grad could make an error like this: Riverwind:Consider a table with four legs that is supporting a 1000kg mass. Assume the following:1) The gravitation constant is 10 (i.e. 1000kg requires a 10000N force to keep it stable) 2) Each leg can support 4000N - if the force exceeds this it will collapse. 3) Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid. In a normal situation each leg will have a 2500N force acting on it - well within its capabilities with room to spare. Assume a catastrophic event occurs that exposes the legs to fire that gradually weakens two of the legs. Assume the fire does not act on each leg equally. Eventually, one leg weakens to the point where it cannot support the 2500N force and collapses. At this point the weight will shift instantaneously to the other 3 legs because the structure is rigid and attached to the ground. This means that each leg will now have 3333N of force acting on it. Still within the tolerances of the undamaged legs which means the structure should remain standing That would be like finding a boxer that couldn't skip rope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 It is, but engineers use "s" for dynamic systems of all types as a standard variable. I'm trying to show that Riverwind is not an engineer.It should not make a difference whether I am an engineer or not because you should address the science in my arguements. The fact that you are obessed with attacking me personally illustrates how desperate you are. I have told you before that I don't give a damn what credentials someone claims to have on this forum because such things can be proven one way or another. I only mentioned that I am an engineer as well because I got tired of you trying to use your allegeded qualifications to brow beat others.Since you like stupid questions then answer this: What kind of clothing did the MC wear when you got your iron ring? There is absolutely no possible way in this universe an engineering grad could make an error like thisSo what is the error? Note that I made this assumption Each leg is attached to the ground and the table top is rigid..The calculations are correct given that assumption. That said, I did assume without stating that the remaining legs were wide enough to ensure the center of mass was still between them so there would be no rotation after the first leg collapsed. That was an assumption that I should have stated, however, omitting that assumption does not change the validity of my conclusions. In fact, if I redo the analysis assuming the table starts to pivot on two legs then the force on those legs would be 5000N. This would cause them to collapse immediately. At that point the entire 10000N weight shifts to the last leg which causes it to collapse immediately. The table top could only rotate if one leg was capable of remaining standing while it rotated. In this example, all legs would collapse before an rotation could occur. In a more realistic scenario where the collapse of a leg takes time then you would see a small amount of rotational momentum imparted to the table top before the legs collapse. However, this momentum would not necessarily be large enough to cause a tipping motion and the table top would still collapse straight down. This example illustrates how a straight down collapse of a structure can occur as a result of asymmetric damage. This example does not prove, in itself, that the WTC should have behaved this way. However, it does prove that the truthies are wrong when they claim that it is impossible for a building to collapse straight down unless all supports are destroyed simultaneously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 100 % wrong and you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. What kind of clothing did the MC wear when you got your iron ring? Exactly the same as what I was wearing. your allegeded qualifications to brow beat others. Nope - just to sniff out a BS artist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 100 % wrong and you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about.That is not a counter argument. Exactly the same as what I was wearing.Cute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Cute The only way I would know that is to be there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 That is not a counter argument. I'v ealready explained why you were wrong. It was a waste of time then as it would be now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 everybody: stop hurting the internets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 we've heard it all before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Mission Accomplished!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I'v ealready explained why you were wrong. It was a waste of time then as it would be now.And I have already explained why your counter arguments are a bunch of BS that do not alter the facts that I presented.Incidentally, the example with the table completely refutes the 'second law of thermodynamics' argument that you were harping on before. The bottom line: buildings can collapse straight down even if they experience asymmetric damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 I know, George Bush is God, the moon is made of cheeze and that really was Bin Laden in those confession tapes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Alright guys, let's see if we can get to 200. Polynewbie, start posting more youtube videos... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Monbiot & Magic If anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is by definition an idiot, then Moncbiot would have to sling that label at Colonel Robert Bowman, former head of the U.S. “Star Wars” program; Andreas von Bülow, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense; former CIA analysts Bill Christison and Robert David Steele; former Scientific American columnist A. K. Dewdney; General Leonid Ivashov, former chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense; all the members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and Pilots for 9/11 Truth; and most of the individuals listed under “Professors Question 9/11” on the “Patriots Question 9/11” website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canadian Blue Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 today, it was a pretty good movie. A hell of a lot more interesting then watching those cheesy youtube videos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 You should watch 911Mysteries:Part1: Demolition. 911Mysteries free video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 So geoffery, you consider yourself a rational person and you have been on this thread many times. Can you give a single reason why you think Bin Laden attacked us on 911 - a level headed person would be able to provide a level headed answer. Any other level headed folks out there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 So geoffery, you consider yourself a rational person and you have been on this thread many times. Can you give a single reason why you think Bin Laden attacked us on 911 - a level headed person would be able to provide a level headed answer.Bin Laden wants to get the US out of the middle east and he despises governments like the House of Saud that he views as puppets of the US. He attacked the US because he wanted to provoke the US into invading a Muslim country and committing many atrocities in the process. His hope was that this would trigger a backlash in the Muslim world and lead to the overthrow of US friendly governments. Bin Laden understand estimated the amount of sympathy the US would get after the attack and over estimated the ability of the Taliban to resist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Can you give a single reason why you think Bin Laden attacked us on 911 - a level headed person would be able to provide a level headed answer. Yes, hatred, combined with a motive to restore the caliphate; with him as Caliph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stignasty Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 President Bush sent the UFO aliens a message by using the secret communicator (that looks like the book "My Pet Goat) to stop the terrorist airplanes but the corpse of Joseph Stalin shot the UFOs down by forming a personality cult in the Masonic temple and creating a wave of floating pyramid eyeballs. It's the TRUTH!! If you don't believe it you will be a slave to Stalin, and one of your arms will grow longer than the other! You can't deny the TRUTH!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Yes, hatred, combined with a motive to restore the caliphate; with him as Caliph. Thats what the papers say, but if this 'celiphate' is real, how are they going to get us ? The papers do not ask what caused those buildings to collapse on 911. The NIST report doesn't investigate it. No one in mainstream is asking the unanswered questions of 911. The USA has a criminal government, we know that because trillions have gone missing from the Pentagon. GW Bush is best buddies with Clinton. Clinton has whores have sex with him in the Oval office. Enemies of Clinton get killed - he is worse than the Bushes. The Bushes and the Bin Ladens vacation togather. Bin Ladens invested in Harken, a failed first venture of George Jr. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Bush Sr is all over the Kennedy assasination and the assasination of MLK. The Arabs don't hate us. They hate our banking system. This 'celiphate' is nothing more than rumours likely started by the white house. The White House admitteldly spends 1.5 billion per year to shape public opinion. Does anyone have any actual evidence that supports the notion that Bin Laden attacked us on 911 ? Bin Laden wants to get the US out of the middle east and he despises governments like the House of Saud that he views as puppets of the US. He attacked the US because he wanted to provoke the US into invading a Muslim country and committing many atrocities in the process. His hope was that this would trigger a backlash in the Muslim world and lead to the overthrow of US friendly governments. Bin Laden understand estimated the amount of sympathy the US would get after the attack and over estimated the ability of the Taliban to resist. Rumours. BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverwind Posted March 10, 2007 Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 Bin Laden wants to get the US out of the middle east and he despises governments like the House of Saud that he views as puppets of the US. He attacked the US because he wanted to provoke the US into invading a Muslim country and committing many atrocities in the process. His hope was that this would trigger a backlash in the Muslim world and lead to the overthrow of US friendly governments. Bin Laden understand estimated the amount of sympathy the US would get after the attack and over estimated the ability of the Taliban to resist. Rumours. BS. It is infinitely more plausible than anything you have come up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolyNewbie Posted March 10, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2007 I've used physical evidence & fact. Your beliefs are based on rumours and your physics analysis proves you to be a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.