Creative Speculation

AZCat

(8,347 posts)

79. I'm here for interesting discussions of the collapses...

Fri Dec 13, 2013, 10:05 PM

Dec 2013

with competent persons. You, however, don't seem to meet that criteria.

Your failure to demonstrate familiarity with basic physics concepts coupled with your hostility to admitting ignorance means you're not an interesting discussion partner.

Somehow I find it difficult to accept blame for your incompetence and arrogance.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

83 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm lost on terminology; i.e. free fall [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 OP

You're right. But some people here apparently believe buildings are supposed to collapse slowly. TheWraith Dec 2011 #1

Lol. Um, no. jesters Jan 2012 #4

Skyline Towers, Baileys Crossroads, Virginia, 1973 William Seger Jan 2012 #19

Which, if you had read the post I was replying to jesters Jan 2012 #27

Wrong again William Seger Jan 2012 #32

Free Fall jberryhill Dec 2011 #2

I chortled. n/t Nuclear Unicorn Dec 2011 #3

Everyone says "near free fall"... deconstruct911 Jan 2012 #5

no, I don't think free fall is inherently contrary to a controlled demolition hypothesis OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #6

"...(although you'll still find some people who seem to think it did).." jesters Jan 2012 #7

Still exhibiting your lack of understanding about Bazant Zhou? Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #8

Still claiming that he doesn't? jesters Jan 2012 #9

Sigh. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #14

A free fall drop jesters Jan 2012 #17

Sigh. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #18

One wonders if it is a LARED Jan 2012 #10

You don't have to wonder. jesters Jan 2012 #11

Look what up? LARED Jan 2012 #12

Good for you. jesters Jan 2012 #13

Ding! Ding! Ding! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #48

I'm thinking inability to understand. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #15

Heh. jesters Jan 2012 #16

status: false OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #20

OTOH says "False!" and then proceeds jesters Jan 2012 #21

Once again demonstrating for all LARED Jan 2012 #23

I note that you didn't respond to any of my points OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #24

Wrong again William Seger Jan 2012 #22

Doesn't matter how he derived it jesters Jan 2012 #25

Here we go again... William Seger Jan 2012 #26

Pay attention. jesters Jan 2012 #28

Oh, so it was just another pointless red herring, devoid of any actual argument? William Seger Jan 2012 #29

Not really. jesters Jan 2012 #31

Some "truthers" DO claim free fall in the towers... William Seger Jan 2012 #33

"it's 'truthers' who still claim free fall for the towers" OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #35

"I am stating that he is the only 9/11 researcher who is claiming free fall" Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #36

omfg. How ridiculous does this need to get? jesters Jan 2012 #37

There is nothing for me to be embarrassed about here, particularly in regard to Bazant. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #38

Bolo boffin, jesters Jan 2012 #39

As long as you keep misrepresent Bazant's work so egregiously Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #40

that is factually incorrect OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #41

From Bazant & Zhou, 2002 jesters Jan 2012 #42

again, this refutes your point literally on its face, and more thoroughly in context OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #43

No jesters Jan 2012 #44

"his calculations" of what? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #45

No. jesters Jan 2012 #46

right, that's what I said OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #47

Shyam Sunder said the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and he said that was freefall. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #50

Can you calculate what the "free fall" time would be for a building resembling the twin towers? AZCat Dec 2013 #51

Why should I? Isn't Dr. Sunder's estimate good enough for you? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #52

It's not me who has a problem with the NIST reports. AZCat Dec 2013 #53

Where do you get the idea that I have a problem with the bulk of the information Ace Acme Dec 2013 #54

From reading your posts - that's where I get the idea. AZCat Dec 2013 #55

What conclusions are you assuming for me? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #56

Of course - why would you double-check a simple calculation... AZCat Dec 2013 #57

Dr. Sunder is the expert. Do you think he's wrong? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #58

Do you understand the concept of irony? n/t AZCat Dec 2013 #59

Why, no, not at all! I'm sure your understanding of it eclipses mine completely! nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #60

That's what I thought. AZCat Dec 2013 #61

What makes you think I reject NIST's work? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #62

Other than your repeated assertions that the NIST lied... AZCat Dec 2013 #63

There is no reason for me to calculate free fall time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #64

Because you can't? That's okay. AZCat Dec 2013 #65

It's trivial. "Won't = Can't" is a dumbass formulation. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #66

What is trivial? The calculation? AZCat Dec 2013 #67

Yes, the calculation is trivial. The demand that I perform it is insulting. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #68

Insulting? Really? That's one of your more ludicrous claims. AZCat Dec 2013 #69

I am not relying on Dr. Sunder's authority. You are. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #70

Oh really? AZCat Dec 2013 #71

I repeated his claim because that is the official time. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #72

Well, then, I guess that's the end of the internet (at least for your type). AZCat Dec 2013 #73

What gives you the idea that I support conspiracy theories? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #74

<error> Internet not found. </error> AZCat Dec 2013 #75

IOW, nothing. You made it up. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #76

Why are you still here? AZCat Dec 2013 #77

I could ask you the same question. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #78

I'm here for interesting discussions of the collapses... AZCat Dec 2013 #79

You neither demonstrate your competence nor my incompetence. You make empty claims. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #80

I don't have to demonstrate your incompetence - it's demonstrated in your posts. AZCat Dec 2013 #81

Empty claims from a guy who claims to be a cat. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #82

Does your post have a point? AZCat Dec 2013 #83

Free fall ... T S Justly Jan 2012 #30

Zero G William Seger Jan 2012 #34

Unintentionally tautological, Seger refutes himself yet one more time. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #49