9-11 First Responders See Loonylies Loser Tactics
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 First Responders See Controlled Demolition -- FACT
Next: easy proof for rectangular-wedge tiler Re: the revised Maximum Tiler conjecture in 2D and 3D #522 Correcting Math
From: Henry on 24 Mar 2010 11:35 Remy McSwain wrote: > "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message >> Remy McSwain wrote: >>> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message >>>>>>>> So, you don't "think" the massive hurricane and earth quake >>>>>>>> resistant steel frames of the towers broke into pieces on >>>>>>>> 9-11-01? >>>>>>> Sure I do. >>>>>> But, you don't "think" they disintegrated. LOL... Like I >>>>>> said, nut job, you need to learn some basic English. You also >>>>>> need to learn how to read and think.... <chuckle> >>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disintegrate >>>>>> >>>>>> dis�in�te�grate >>>>>> >>>>>> -verb (used without object) >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. to separate into parts or lose intactness or solidness; >>>>>> break up; deteriorate: >>>>> So why did you stop there? >>>> Because you have a great deal of difficulty reading and >>>> thinking, >>>> and I didn't want overwhelm your "mind" again. Do you agree with >>>> the definition? If not, amuse us by providing us with yours. >>>> <chuckle> >>> Wrong, KOOK! >> Show us your "definition" of disintegrate, nut job. <chuckle> >> In your "mind", the massive hurricane and earth quake >> resistant steel frames of the towers didn't "separate into parts, >> lose intactness or solidness, break up, or deteriorate". >> Apparently, >> you must "think" they're still standing. You're as far gone as >> ironhead and "allyou". Thanks for the laughs, nut job.... <vvbg> > I would... ...but that would require the ability to read and think.... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 11:48 "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message news:hodbg5$l8t$2(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu... > Remy McSwain wrote: >> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message >>> Remy McSwain wrote: >>>> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>> So, you don't "think" the massive hurricane and earth >>>>>>>>> quake >>>>>>>>> resistant steel frames of the towers broke into pieces on >>>>>>>>> 9-11-01? > >>>>>>>> Sure I do. > >>>>>>> But, you don't "think" they disintegrated. LOL... Like I >>>>>>> said, nut job, you need to learn some basic English. You >>>>>>> also need to learn how to read and think.... <chuckle> > >>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disintegrate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> dis�in�te�grate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -verb (used without object) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. to separate into parts or lose intactness or solidness; >>>>>>> break up; deteriorate: > >>>>>> So why did you stop there? > >>>>> Because you have a great deal of difficulty reading and >>>>> thinking, >>>>> and I didn't want overwhelm your "mind" again. Do you agree >>>>> with >>>>> the definition? If not, amuse us by providing us with yours. >>>>> <chuckle> > >>>> Wrong, KOOK! > >>> Show us your "definition" of disintegrate, nut job. <chuckle> >>> In your "mind", the massive hurricane and earth quake >>> resistant steel frames of the towers didn't "separate into >>> parts, >>> lose intactness or solidness, break up, or deteriorate". >>> Apparently, >>> you must "think" they're still standing. You're as far gone as >>> ironhead and "allyou". Thanks for the laughs, nut job.... >>> <vvbg> > >> I would... > > ...but that would require the ability to read and think.... > <chuckle> What's the matter, KOOK? Truth hurt so much you had to snip it?
From: Henry on 24 Mar 2010 13:37 Remy McSwain wrote: > "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message >> Remy McSwain wrote: >>> "Henry" <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote in message >>>> Remy McSwain wrote: >>>>>>>> But, you don't "think" they disintegrated. LOL... Like I >>>>>>>> said, nut job, you need to learn some basic English. You >>>>>>>> also need to learn how to read and think.... <chuckle> >>>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disintegrate >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> dis�in�te�grate >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -verb (used without object) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. to separate into parts or lose intactness or solidness; >>>>>>>> break up; deteriorate: >>>>>>> So why did you stop there? >>>>>> Because you have a great deal of difficulty reading and >>>>>> thinking, >>>>>> and I didn't want overwhelm your "mind" again. Do you agree >>>>>> with >>>>>> the definition? If not, amuse us by providing us with yours. >>>>>> <chuckle> >>>>> Wrong, KOOK! >>>> Show us your "definition" of disintegrate, nut job. <chuckle> >>>> In your "mind", the massive hurricane and earth quake >>>> resistant steel frames of the towers didn't "separate into >>>> parts, >>>> lose intactness or solidness, break up, or deteriorate". >>>> Apparently, >>>> you must "think" they're still standing. You're as far gone as >>>> ironhead and "allyou". Thanks for the laughs, nut job.... >>>> <vvbg> >>> I would... >> ...but that would require the ability to read and think.... >> <chuckle> > What's the matter With you? You don't "think" the the massive hurricane and earth quake resistant steel frames of the towers "separated into parts, lost intactness or solidness, broke up, or deteriorated". Apparently, you "think" they're still standing. You're as far gone asironhead and "allyou". Thanks for the laughs, nut job... <chuckle> -- "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein. http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Remy McSwain on 24 Mar 2010 14:23 In news:hodiks$3r9$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: <nothing> LOL! That's all you've got left, KOOK; a bunch of senseless snipping and word games instead of telling us why your cites all say there was a collision, and yet, amazingly, you claim there wasn't one. ROFLOL!
From: AllYou! on 24 Mar 2010 16:40
In news:4baa0937$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au, Peter Webb <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> mused: > "AllYou!" <idaman(a)conversent.net> wrote in message > news:uqCdnaa5sqElYzTWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d(a)posted.choiceonecommunications... >> Notice that he's never given his opinion as to what forces he >> thinks were acting upon the upper block DURING THE COLLISION >> with the lower support structure? > > Well, this has been discussed. > > But as I keep pointing out, the forces literally do not enter > the equations for what happens after inelastic collisions (or > elastic ones, for that matter). And as I keep pointing out, the issue that was under debate, and remains so, isn't what happened AFTER the collision. The issue is what were the forces being exerted on the upper block DURING THE COLLISION. The statement in question was about what was happening during the interaction of the upper block with the support structure. As such, your continued insistence that equations which only apply "after inelastic collisions" is nonsensical to the issue of what happened DURING THE COLLISION. It's just a continuation of a long trend of obfuscation on your part in a transparent attempt to avoid admitting that you were wrong. > As I have done on many previous > occassions, I recommend you Google "inelastic collisions" or go > straight to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision and > note the complete absence of any force term or even any terms > with the units of force in any of the discussion or solutions. > The concept of "force" is as relevant to solving the equations > of motion for collisions as is the colour the floors were > painted - ie completely irrelevant. That is why the Wikipedia > page (and Physics 1 textbooks) don't even mention "force" as > something that enters the equations. Yes, and because that site confirms that those equations are ONLY to be used for the purpose of determining the VELOCITIES of masses that collided AFTER the collision is all over, then you've just proven, again, that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Those equations don't, in any way, address what was happening DURING THE COLLISION of the upper block with the lower support structure. And THAT is the issue under debate. What the other KOOK claimed was that the only forces acting on the upper body DURING THE COLLISION with the lower support structure was its weight (mg), and the normal upward reaction (N) of that lower support structure. In any debate about what forces were in play DURING A COLLISION, an equation of what the resultant velocity of a mass AFTER a collision is irrelevant. It's a red-herring you keep posting so as to avoid admitting that you're wrong. Ironically, that red-herring in yet another error. >> He keeps trying to divert his answer to the time period that >> it was falling, but before the collision, but, as we've both >> pointed out, the statement refers to the time DURING THE >> COLLISION. > > Actually, the exact word they use is "falling", but that doesn't > matter; as I said their statement is absolutely correct. I know that you said it, and you're just as wrong now as you were then. >> Hell, he's the one who also came up with the analogy of a blob >> of goo being thrown at, and hitting, a wall, and yet, he's >> never been able to tell us whether or not he thinks that this >> collision resulted in a force being applied to the wall. > > It does. Was it an inelastic collision? So what formula would you use to determine the magnitude of that force? Or do those equations you keep citing for inelastic collisions not apply in this case? >> He knows that if he admits that it did, that he would also have >> to admit that there was a force being applied to the goo as >> well. > > There was. > >> And if he does that, then his whole argument collapses just as >> quickly, and as obviously, as the WTC. > > Perhaps if you provide an exact quote of something I said that > you think is wrong? Just look at the above. You're wrongly citing the equations of what happens AFTER a collision to the case of what happens DURING a collision. The issue of what happens DURING a collision is what's under debate. Therefore, to cite equations for what happens AFTER a collision is as relevant as citing the equations for how many trucks it would take to haul off the debris. That's not the issue under consideration. |