Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:18am PT
|
some of you guys are more fanatical than christians! but of course you are all right and the non-believers are like sinners!
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:08am PT
|
re: How can Flight 93 have hit the ground in only x seconds, unless it was traveling at an average velovity of y?
The only way to accurately time an even, from start to finish, is with the same clock... Or, with clocks that have been validated to have been synchronized.
Why? I doubt very seriously that all of us have watches that are synchronized, thus the margin of error can be in minutes, not just a few seconds... If we were all in the Valley and witnessed an event, and gave our accounts of it, a single event that we all witnessed WOULD be reported at different times.
When precise times are needed, and seconds matter, there can be little margin for error.
How has the margin of error this would introduce been analyzed, validated, and accounted for in regards to the times you guys put all this irrefutable "proof" on?
I.e., if the time x cannot be validated/verified to be accurate, then the average velocity y cannot be assumed to be accurate.
GIGO!
Again... Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Why is your claim extraordinary? Because it would violate the laws of physics if a piece that large, with that shape, hit the ground at anything near that speed, if falling from 31,000 feet, and had nothing to provide the "work" to overcome the drag.
Plain, and simple. (But not for the simple minds.)
See, this is where Occam's Razor comes in... As we have 2 scenarios:
1) The times reported are inaccurate
2) The laws of physics are violated
Explain to me how it averaged 460mph, yet you are alluding to it meeting thinker air, having the most drag it possible could, yet still average 460mph. Explain to me how it violated the laws of physics, as you should be familiar with those, engineer.
PS... As I've said, if Flight 93 was "shot down out of the sky, flying miles high at 500 MPH, the debris field would be enormous". This alone FALSIFIES this hypothesis. Unless or course, the gobment was able to secretly fan out and comb through x square miles, and gather all of the pieces, and not be seen by anyone, etc...
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:28am PT
|
According to the wiki site, once an opbject reaches "TV" it's speed is reduced by 1% every 525ft. So if the object was at 460 at 31,000ft, it would be roughly traveling at 189mph when it hit the ground.
However, we cannot use this. We know the average was 460mph. There really is no point argueing, why not spend the time to figure it out. I told you yesterday, repeatedly... In fact, I even brought up the above that as the atmosphere gets denser, velocity slows (HALO jumper). I told you today, but you guys will not listen to anything that doesn't yield the result that you want.
You accept admitedly bunk math, violations of the laws of physics, and unreasonably complex conspiracies that can't even be pinned down in order to believe in the boogie man.
Don't believe me?However, we cannot use this. This is a willful denial and ignoring of the laws of physics... You are putting them aside, when it suites you, in order to maintain your belief.
As an engineer, you should be ashamed of yourself.
GIGO!
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 09:29am PT
|
Hey Jolly,
Regarding your 42 second collapse calculation video and since you are an engineer and have done structural analysis, why is the force of acceleration under gravity not a factor after the block encounters the first floor of resistance?
He calculates the velocity of the block when it hits the floor based on acceleration of gravity, but then no longer uses acceleration of gravity after this point?
Why is this Jolly?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:24am PT
|
Jolly,
You apparently missed my previous reply, questioning the time it took F93 to hit the ground. (See last post on previous page)
Also, you missed where I specifically said, if you want to know where you are wrong [as per the engineers at my nuke that looked at this thread], just "reread my posts regarding it, as they all pretty much agree with me, but cotrrected me on some of my nomenclature".
Also note... This morning over breakfast, one of the Sr Design Engineers here in my Dept (Nuclear Oversight), who once worked for the NRC, laughed his arse off at this, namely you, in that 1) you should know all of this, and 2) even when presented with the info in several posts (not just mine) that you still disregard the laws of physics and all that you should have been taught. He thinks you are deluded.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:01pm PT
|
Rok... You're an idiot.
Edit: "Plane" and simple.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:08pm PT
|
rrradam,
you stole my line.
however, i find it really hilarious when Rox uses Jr. High math to argue the complexities of fluid dynamics. next up klimmer, will use his HS physics experiments to bring this discussion up a notch....freaking hilarious.
black ops? the only thing black is where some of these guys have their heads....
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
|
RJ, stop belittling yourself. i will put my education and work experience against yours anyday. got a job yet? oh, yes....you work at ST filling the pages with drivel....
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
|
Rok... You're an idiot
No he isn't and that's the problem. He just thinks he is a lot more
knowledgeable than he is. Rok, you clearly know a lot about radios and
surveying, I guess. It is patently obvious you have zero knowledge of
aerodynamics so leave that alone, OK?
Not unless they have a BIg surface to weight ratio. 100 ton aircraft completely devoid of structural integrity don't have that kind of surface. They generally find the orientation of LEAST resistance and maintain that ... (generally) .. think, like an arrow.
You are contradicting yourself here. If an airliner has lost its structural
integrity then it does have a very high drag coefficient which you are equating
with surface to weight ratio. If it has lost structural integrity then it most
likely is a very poor arrow as it will likely not have much longitudinal or latitudinal stability which an arrow needs.
If it has poor longitudinal or latitudinal stability then the drag is going to be sky high and it isn't going to accelerate much.
That might also explain why the aircraft was perhaps seen in an off axis roll just before crashing, by witnesses!
What the heck is an "off axis roll"? By definition a roll is a rotation about the aircraft's longitudinal axis, period.
There ain't no nuther kind of roll! You're just advertising your lack of knowledge by saying things like this.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
|
so you admit that you come across as an ass, and often, and yet you don't suffer fools. got some work to do, adam--on adam.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:28pm PT
|
Coz wrote
Vanity fair ran a front page article, of course they flew out the Bin Ladens for their safety.
Osama a rougue son of the family .
That article came out in 2003. For a few years, the flights were in the realm of rumor and were not confirmed by the government. Deniers scoffed at the reports as conspiracy theory until Richard Clarke confirmed them in 2003, years later.
Bin Laden is "reported" to be an outcaste in his family but there are also many reports that secret they still support him. Of course they can't do so publicly. The Saudis are totally in bed with the Wahhabi faction of Islam which is the religious and personnel supplier for Al Queda.
Peace
Karl
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 01:34pm PT
|
rrradam,
you stole my line.
however, i find it really hilarious when Rox uses Jr. High math to argue the complexities of fluid dynamics. next up klimmer, will use his HS physics experiments to bring this discussion up a notch....freaking hilarious.
black ops? the only thing black is where some of these guys have their heads.... What I find disconcerting is Jolly's ability to completely miss such obvious errors regarding the physics/mechanics of this, especially since he 'says' he's a degreed mechanical engineer.
Why disconcerting? Because careful thinking (something he should have been taught) coupled with even an entry level knowledge of the material (something he should be well beyond entry level, if an engineer) will show the obvious flaws, much of what I've tried to get him to see.
Shows the power of confirmation bias.
so you admit that you come across as an ass, and often, and yet you don't suffer fools. got some work to do, adam--on adam. Yes, I do. (6th & 7th Step). I have no problem recognizing and acknowledging it. No ego here... It allows me to be wrong, acknowledge it, and perhaps learn. I just need more patience with idiots, or at least learn to walk away from them and stop engaging them.
Edit: Rok... Tony was talking to me, hence my name (see bold words in quote above). So, not much of a reader either, are you, as you seemed to wildly misread a simple one line sentence, that was pretty direct (I.e., no ambiguity).
You are embarassing yourself.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 02:55pm PT
|
Lots of time being spent here on aerodynamics, etc, which may not really matter.
This whole discussion revolves around some assertions that the flight 93 debris field was spread over a large area. Beyond some very small and lightweight debris (which could have been spread by the explosion and wind).
According to the county coroner, no human remains were found outside the immediate impact area.
Not sure if there is other good evidence (beyond posts on conspiracy sites) of any other major debris any distance away. Absent that, there's no reason to disbelieve the official version of events.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-flight-93#roving
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:08pm PT
|
Not that it matters much, but I'd just like to highlight yet ANOTHER time when you are talking out of your arse... (see last quote and reply)
So, you are also a drunk? Or have you achieved the status of a dry drunk? Those 12 step programs are SUCH a trial for you, I can tell. Nope... Recovering 'addict', as in I go to NA (Narcotics Anonymous). 22 years in October, including alcohol, although I wasn't much of a drinker... I did put 40 units of Bacardi 151 in my arm once, and that proved to be really stupid, as it was way too much considering my weight at the time. Sponsor people too.
In regards to:Never been in one myself, but my wife used to run those programs. NOBODY "runs" any of the 12 Step Programs... NOBODY has any authority at any meeting/group... At most, people are "trusted servants" (see the 12 Traditions), so you are full of sheite (muslim).
So, not only do you INCORRECTY assume, but you once again show where you don;t know what you're talking about, leading me to believe that you just make things up as you go along.
Oh, wait... That was just an ad hominem, right?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:16pm PT
|
Wow, dude... I guess you told me.
Your debating skills are just too much for me.
Edit: This still applies, even after your obvious edits, AFTER I made this reply.
Guess I should have quoted you again, eh?
Granted, I edit some replies (for wording) too, but NEVER after someone replies to it.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:22pm PT
|
Worth a repost, because I like what I write.
I know, I know...The They, in collusion with the Washington Post, somehow must've fabricated this entire list of victims of the Pentagon crash, including passengers. Because such a scenario sure makes a lot more sense than, you know, a real plane actually crashing into the building.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/911victims/?&page=1
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
|
I am coming in and out of a brightly lit workarea into a dim computer room/guest room.
rj's self admission that he isnt too worried about what other people write...
like when a model airplane loses a wing and it rotates, like an autogyro, fluttering down. I used to build and fly little gas motored powered airplanes controlled on a long wire string ... anybody remember those?
thanks for confirming your expertise in fluid dynamics and drag coefficients...
i once shot off a model rocket too, but i refrain from thinking of myself as a rocket scientist...
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:35pm PT
|
Lots of time being spent here on aerodynamics, etc, which may not really matter.
Steve... The talk of aerodynamics came in after some posted that this piece from the Lockerbie bombing came down at 450MPH or greater, after falling from 31,000 feet:
One retard, guess who, even believes that his math shows it could have been up to 900 MPH.
The reasoning being, if it came down at the same speed as Flight 93, Flight 93 should be in the same condition.
Simply understanding "terminal velocity" shows that this is IMPOSSIBLE, yet they just won't accept physics. They through physics out, citing the time it take to fall as 45 seconds, yet will not address my points about how accurate this time in a reply two pages back (last post).
So, the reason it is relevant, is it serves two purposes:
1) It dirrectly refutes a claim made by these conspiracy theorists
2) It show the confirmation bias, in that even though it violates the laws of physics, they still believe it
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:38pm PT
|
steve,
didnt you know that Popular Mechanics is on it?
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 03:47pm PT
|
adam,
I think you failed to get them to understand Garbage In, Garbage Out...
there is little assurance that many of the "facts" quoted on this thread are truly Factual...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!