Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MeatBomb
Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:41pm PT
|
BlowCocks:But that poster (rrradam) was absolutely right. rrradam IS an ass. And I ain't winking MF. You are an ass, and I will say it to your face, punk.
hahahaha! No worries rrrrAdam as RokJox is just a jobless windbag who walks his bike up hills and sponges off his family. He is all talk, which is mostly inaccurate BS, and is as dumb as a box of Rox.
|
|
MeatBomb
Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:44pm PT
|
BlowJox criesJDX WAS an airline expert, he WAS/IS a major player in this argument, and he was run off by the braying of asses, to our loss
JDX was a fraud and a poseur. It's no wonder you liked him. When are you getting run off?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 07:47pm PT
|
Karl Baba -- "If you hung out in person, you'd have a good time."
No way Jose.
We'd be at each others throats, going for the juggler.
Couple a hard right hooks to the jaw.
Some eye gouging and head butts thrown in for good measure.
Over all good abuse to the "meat package" by hard hits to the kidney area.
You never "lived" in Camp 4 until you've survived one of these ......
|
|
MeatBomb
Gym climber
Boise, I dee Hoe
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 08:01pm PT
|
RokCocksLots of 12 step programs. The wife has worked at a half dozen or so rehab centers, of varying sorts. As a drug and alcohol counselor.
Is it tough for her to come home from work right into a work environment? I feel for her, and the rest of your poor family. Maybe you should do the right thing for not only yourself, but the SuperTopo community, and your family.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:46pm PT
|
MOre force Werner; direct frontal assault to the package with full monkey claw. Or bolt like Bolt. I like the sprint option better now that my grip isn't what it used to be.
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 10:54pm PT
|
Yes edejom, we know there's massive fraud and bad accounting in the defense department and contractors. I want it cleared up as much as anyone.
What's your point?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:09pm PT
|
I'll beat you to it. Have you figured out yet that oil isn't a chlorinated radioactive nucleotide more toxic than plutonium?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:19pm PT
|
Back when we smoked that airplane weed from the Merced Lake we probably inhaled more than 2 grams of oil it was soaked in.
You think?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2010 - 11:27pm PT
|
Twas the oil of wisdom. But bess not be talkin bout that shite hee-ah.
I like olive oil the best. Real peppery and green. Great to dip olive bread in.
|
|
edejom
Boulder climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 12:13am PT
|
Mono, no point--carry on...
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 07:23am PT
|
Rok...But that poster (rrradam) was absolutely right. rrradam IS an ass. And I ain't winking MF. You are an ass, and I will say it to your face, punk. Wow... You sure told me, again!
An internet tough guy. Perhaps you'll get the chance some day... Where do you climb? I'm pretty transparent, not just an anonymous username, as a simple google search will show who I am, where I live, etc... In fact, many on this site know who I am. I have no problem saying I can be an ass, and that I'm in recovery, because I don't live vicariously through some internet persona like a D&D character.
Bravado on the net is pretty laughable, guy... Worse than the kid who taunts others while standing next to the teacher at recess... That was you, wasn't it? Anybody can be 6' tall, undefeated in a fight, suave lady killen MENSAn brainiacs, when they are likely in their 30's, posting from their twin bed (with Scooby Doo sheets) still at mom and dad's house, and look like and talk like the comic book store guy from the Simpsons:
Back on track now...
Again... I have yet to see any verification of the numbers you provide, and even Jolly take as irrefutable fact (why? 'cause it's in an 'official report'? [irony]) other than someone else showing (with again unverified numbers) that the "wing" came down in 46.5 seconds, so you believe that it all hit the ground at the same time, regardless of shape/size and the drag it would offer.
Also, since we are to use the time the data recorder stopped as the time the large piece hit the ground, was the data recorder in that piece? Nope... Yet, you CONFIDENTLY believe that since the data recorder stopped at that time, all pieces came down at that time, thus ALL the numbers are "QUITE" accurate, thus irrefutable.
The way it is done is:
A+B+C+D=E
Not:
A=E
Your thinking, and Jollie's (you're not off the hook either) is not disciplined. The "laws of physics" don't describe physics or the universe as much as they limit and describe they way we must think (requires "disciplined thinking"*) about things... They outline the boundaries, and going outside those boundaries is going outside the laws of physics. Sure, it may be convenient to do so, but the results tend to be unreasonable and absurd. GIGO!
More food for thought...
(though, since it seems you are dieting, others may chew on this)
Do a little research and you will see that most WWII dive bombers reached a max speed in a dive of between 275 and 380 MPH, and these are aircract aerodynamicaly designed to fly, and dive with engines running at full throttle, and some with "dive brakes" deployed to slow the craft enough to maintain manuverability.
Now before you jump on dive brakes... You may want to research them first, to see their purpose and the amount of drag they added to the craft, and that not all were equipped with this feature.
So... We have planes specifically designed to FLY, in a dive, with engines running, but these go slower than your big piece of the Lockerbie plane, that has no aerodynamic properties anymore, that you believe was going 450MPH (and even up to 900MPH, according to your math) when it hit the ground.
Jolly... Again (what 4th or 5th time now?), I detailed my issues with what little of your vidoe I could watch (~25%) in items #2 and #4 pages back, in which the engineers I've shown this thread to pretty much agree.. And, you have not addressed these but instead admitted that you know he uses the incorrect formulas, oversimplifies the numbers, yet you still hold it up as proof. In fact, you even contradict yourself, as in one thread, you state that you never implied nor believe that the structure remaining would have arrested the fall, THEN you cite his saying that if his math is done correctly the fall would have been arrested, THEN you change to it would have been arrested and fallen like a tree. You confidently chose the speculation that supports your view the most, as an example "Molten Steel", which was verified "HOW"? Despite this lack of disciplined thinking, you confidently hold up "molten steel" as a proof.
Again, the way it works is:
A+B+C+D=E
Not:
A=E
Confirmation bias.
You keep saying that (paraphrasing) "all I do is parrot the official version", yet I never do this, as all I do is poke hole in the obvious and demonstratably false things I see said. I do this with plain reason, logic, and basic physics, and even showing the absurd math.
Examples... "The fire was hot enough to melt the steel..." Nobody says this, yet you guys keep saying that's what we believe. "There is no way the building could fall in less than 42 seconds, because..." Absurd, both considering the dynamic loads, and the absurd math you confidently cite as proof. "Huge conspiracy requiring literally thousands of people, and explosives on every floor, remote controlled air-plains, GWB evil empire..." All of this are easily shown to be absurd to believe. "The huge piece of plane in the Lockerbie bombing came down at 450MPG - 900MPH" This is also eaily shown to be false, by physics, and plenty of examples where clear thinking considering things like 'drag', 'skydivers', dive bombers' show that it is absurd.
Note - That these are just a few things that I have addressed, so, please, show me where I parrot the 'official version'. In fact, many of the pics I post, I get from both 'believer' and 'truther' sites, as well as independant ones.
And, again... Please explain how you, as an engineer, believe that the Lockerbiw piece can fall at greater than TV, as you FINALY seemed to get it, but then say that you "can't accept the known physics of TV, because it fell in just 46.5 seconds".
Careful, clear, disciplined thinking will show you that this can't be the case. Even hints like the 'dive bombers' should help, but they just don't when you suffer from such confirmation bias.
And since you missed it, or may be ignoring it... Another user, regarding your super math video proof, asked you: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? It appears he got further into it than I could before it stopped.
No answer? But the video is still valid, right?
GIGO! As far as your lack of disciplined thinking, if your brain were my 4 or 6 year old, it would be in "time out".
Dude, you are over the place.
* re: disciplined thinking...
The lack of this is what is requiring me to italicize such words as most, as much as, such, etc... Because you guys miss these words and assume ALL.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 08:57am PT
|
Read #4 again, as I gave you detailed issues with his math... Namely, subtracting the static numbers (top floors weight from wild ass guess) form each other, THEN applying f=ma to determine dynamic loads, and this is not the way you do it.
To calc the force (dynamic load of the top floors impacting the next floor), he needs to calc the dynamic load of the top floors, not use absurdly incorrect math to yield an absurdly incorrect number.
I went off the information provided. I did no research what so ever. With the numbers given, the average speed was 460mph. That means at some point it was going a lot faster, and at some point it was going slower. All I ever said, is that it was probably fairly close, as there is no way to tell. As an engineer, you should have seen the big waving red flag! That this would violate the laws of physics. You in fact later acknowledge this, to some degree, then suspend the laws of physics... Here, let me quote you:this is a good little problem. Someone want to figure it out.
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.
See... "However, we cannot use this" (the laws of physics), since you "know the everage speed was 460MPH". You know that 'how'? Unverified assumptions carry more weight than the laws of physics?
Red flag! Both the one you missed, and now in your thinking processes.
As an engineer, you should've immediately questioned the numbers and looked into this, instead of willfully "not using" the laws of physics to guide you. Instead, you tossed the laws, and "knew" that the speed was 460MPH. Sloppy... Just like you math video.
GIGO! Because you lack disciplined thinking, likely due to confirmation bias.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 09:37am PT
|
okay, adam, roll up yer sleeves. we were talking about 9/11 and now it's the lockerbie crash. what is the gist of the argument here?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 09:52am PT
|
No need to roll up the sleeves for me... But you may want to get your vision checked, as not only did you think I edited out a post (missed it, even when you were looking for it), you seemed to have missed this post, just two pages back, that even had a big pretty picture in it that explains what you just asked:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1199984&tn=1160#msg1223643
Does that answer your question?
If not, here's a hint from that post:The reasoning being, if it came down at the same speed as Flight 93, Flight 93 should be in the same condition. RJ introduced into this thread the argument that that big piece came down at 450MPH, just like Flight 93, but it wasn't smashed to bits. "Prooving" that it was a missle that destroyed Flight 93.
Get it now? His "proof" is absurd.
And remember, I don't "profess the 'official version' is correct" as all you you seem to keep saying, as I generally limit my arguments to statements and beliefs that can be shown to be unreasonable or even impossible, and I post why. I do this independantly of the "official version".
|
|
monolith
climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 10:41am PT
|
Jolly said:
His math was very simple, and straight forward. On a video for the world to destroy, if they could. The point is the same. That amount of mass would not have crushed the entire structure.
Yes, his math was so simple, he forgot to factor in the force of gravity after contact with the first floor of resistance.
Why did YouTube Genius Boy suspend the laws of physics, Jolly.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 10:48am PT
|
sorry, adam, that doesn't cut it. we were talking about 9/11 and you're dumping a lockerbie photo in here. i can't follow the sh#t you spew out, and as the other guys say, you contradict yourself. you need to slow down and say a lot more with a lot fewer words.
i guess you're admitting to making an ass of yourself. the next step will be making a fool of yourself if you're not careful. try to be a better man. do it for your kids. they'll thank you some day.
|
|
Hawkeye
climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 11:01am PT
|
sheesh tony, i am pretty certain it was RJ that brought up the lockerbie stuff and the pics.
you see, when folks struggle with their points, can't except new information (such as hte Laws of Physics) then they go out of their way to find any shred of another off-topic item that might support their wild claims....that is where wolfboy (RJ) got hooked up.
adam's message has been pretty much the same and consistent. that is you truthers have so much invested emotionally into this that if their was a contradictory fact to your way of "thinking" (and i use that erm loosely) that you will not accept it.
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
|
you have to understand one thing about truthers, hawkeye. most of us started out right where you guys are. we accepted all the anomalies. we accepted all seemingly rational explanations to explain this one and that one. but at one point, it was just too much. a big logjam came loose and it started making a hell of a lot of sense from another point of view. it takes awhile to get used to the idea, believe me, and then you have to start rethinking a lot of things you took for granted, questioning so much of the sacred. but you guys are the ones with the big investment now. we have nothing to lose for being wrong and lots of times we wish we were. these little ego spats don't mean a thing to me. i've argued this stuff in much more dignified forums and questioned real experts on both sides. the experts on the government side all stand on shaky legs and keep the back doors open for a speedy retreat.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
|
sorry, adam, that doesn't cut it. we were talking about 9/11 and you're dumping a lockerbie photo in here. So, let me get this right... You 'truthers' can bring anything up you like that you think proves your point, but if someone addresses it, and proves it to false, then THEY (the 'believers') are bringing up stuff that doesn't belong?
Hell, looking through this thread would who you, that, as I said, it was RJ that introduced the photo and the false analogy as "proof".
OK... After I explained it to you in the above reply of mine, I asked in ther same reply:Do you get it now?
I see that you don't, and now have a better understanding as to how more complicated issues would be well beyond your grasp.
Hell... You can't even find a single reply, just a few pages back, that you saw and replied to, even when you are looking for it, and surmise that 'it must have been edited out'. Perhaps I am part of the big conspiracy, an agent of the Illumianti, sent here to the taco stand to keep up the charade because you guys are onto us. Yea... That's what it must be! The whole world is out to get you, and I'm part of it.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
|
Gonna cal BS on this, Tony: i've argued this stuff in much more dignified forums and questioned real experts on both sides. the experts on the government side all stand on shaky legs and keep the back doors open for a speedy retreat. .
Simple for you to prove you did as you say though... Link please.
I'd love to see these "real experts on both sides" that you have questioned. Bonus points if you had them in retreat.
Ooooh.... Busted talking out of your arse. Actually... What do they call people that make things up about themselves and state them as fact? Liars.
Link please.
You penned yourself into a corner now, as you can easily give us a link to said form, with said experts on both sides that you have questioned. Unless of course, you are lying, then all you can do is ignore this and/or offer up some retort, but still sans link.
See, this is what I have been doing in this thread... Poking holes in, and exposing such obvious crap for what it is, crap.
As I've said, I copy and paste the crap into a quote, then directly refute it.
Prove me wrong... Link please. I will gladly acknowledge I am wrong, and even apologize, as you will deserve it if you are not lying.
It's as simple as copy and paste into this thread by hitting this button:
But you are lying, arent you? Which is why you cannot/will not provide a link.
Link please.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!