[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
Lol I'm not going to calculate anything. You're the one with the point to prove, you fix your calculation if you want to try and prove it. Your statement "it won't change the overall result" doesn't pass the smell test because obviously a mass colliding with an object at some speed is more likely to make a hole in it than the same mass simply resting on the same object. How can you claim to have any grasp of physics and not get this very simple concept?
And it is your exposition that is the problem. You've now explained why you used this particular model, which you failed to do before. Re-do the calcs, and if they still come out as "impossible", I'll start looking into this model and your other assumptions. But I have a strong suspicion that this will turn out to be "impossible" like the collapse models were "impossible", i.e. only if you choose to turn your brain off and stick your fingers in your ears.
You are most definitely wrong about that, see above.
Feel free to give a change in momentum model but just saying "no velocity therefore lol" is not an argument.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, it is an argument. If your model gives the same result for a bullet resting on your forehead as it does for the same bullet fired at your forehead, I don't need to know the correct model to know that yours is complete dogshit, and if you had even the most basic grasp of physics you would have been embarrassed by the fact you even presented it.
You are most definitely wrong about that, see above.Feel free to give a change in momentum model but just saying "no velocity therefore lol" is not an argument.An object falling at most a distance 400 m (assuming "the meteor" was somewhow impossibly formed at 106th floor from the top floors - in fact it would be much lower down because it would require a great deal of "intense
An object in freefall after 400m is moving at approximately 90m/s absent air resistance. The muzzle velocity of a handgun is between 200m/s and 500m/s. So yes, it's comparable. Not that it even matters for the purposes of this discussion - any model that doesn't take into account momentum or kinetic energy in some form is facially invalid. A hole punch doesn't work by resting on the paper you dunce.
Yes, it is an argument. If your model gives the same result for a bullet resting on your forehead as it does for the same bullet fired at your forehead, I don't need to know the correct model to know that yours is complete dogshit, and if you had even the most basic grasp of physics you would have been embarrassed by the fact you even presented it.
You have triggered yourself by your own ignorance of mechanics of solids and are now lashing out frantically at those more educated than yourself.
You once more have no idea about the WTC, even the mainstream stuff. "The meteor", recall the biggest bit of debris was formed under "intense heat and pressure" requiring it to be formed low down in order for the required KE to provide the "pressure" to "fuse steel, concrete and office materials" (quite unbelievable but this is your hill to die on). It had to be ejected horizontally in order to find its way to WTC6. That is, from vertical rest.
Ipso facto, just like comparing a resting bullet to a bullet shot from a gun.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I love the idea that I can try to prove some outlandish idea to you, provide a horribly incompetent mathematical model to support it, and then tell YOU to fix it.
hahahaha
You have triggered yourself by your own ignorance of mechanics of solids and are now lashing out frantically at those more educated than yourself.You once more have no idea about the WTC, even the mainstream stuff. "The meteor", recall the biggest bit of debris was formed under "intense heat and pressure" requiring it to be formed low down in order for the required KE to provid
You literally just said it fell 400m or thereabouts. Yes, I am aware that objects in freefall start at "vertical rest". They then accelerate at 9/81ms^-2 and gain velocity. Are you now suggesting it was at vertical rest at point of impact? Wtf are you even talking about now? Did your brain completely break?
An object in freefall after 400m is moving at approximately 90m/s absent air resistance. The muzzle velocity of a handgun is between 200m/s and 500m/s. So yes, it's comparable. Not that it even matters for the purposes of this discussion - any model that doesn't take into account momentum or kinetic energy in some form is facially invalid. A hole punch doesn't work by resting
400 m? So you think "the meteor", an amalgamation of steel and concrete fused from intense heat and pressure, 4 or 5 floors combined somehow they say, is the top 4 or 5 floors? Also subtract the height of WTC 6 which is around 30 m.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I love the idea that I can try to prove some outlandish idea to you, provide a horribly incompetent mathematical model to support it, and then tell YOU to fix it.
hahahaha
I know, right? Provide a complete joke of a "proof" for your own claim, then completely shift the burden by challenging everyone else to prove the opposite when they point it out.
I know, right? Provide a complete joke of a "proof" for your own claim, then completely shift the burden by challenging everyone else to prove the opposite when they point it out.
You have done nothing except give a false analogy.
You dont even know the difference between stress and strain ffs.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
An object in freefall after 400m is moving at approximately 90m/s absent air resistance. The muzzle velocity of a handgun is between 200m/s and 500m/s. So yes, it's comparable. Not that it even matters for the purposes of this discussion - any model that doesn't take into account momentum or kinetic energy in some form is facially invalid. A hole punch doesn't work by resting
Would need to be much further down, see above. Perhaps 60 m/s. Therefore false analogy. But keep going. Cant wait for the impulse model from you.
Lol at less than half the minimum speed presented being comparable btw.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I said a maximum. But if you want to apply a freefall model then you need a realistic height to calculate a final v.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Listen, billyshearstress, your model is so dogshit it's "not even wrong", as they say. It's ****ing comical that you're even trying to defend this steaming pile of manure in any way. And then you start throwing out figures only to come back to say how unrealistic they are when I respond to your own figures lol. What a ****ing clown.
Would need to be much further down, see above. Perhaps 60 m/s. Therefore false analogy. But keep going. Cant wait for the impulse model from you.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hahaha. Homeslice here has built a model to show that an object colliding with another object couldn't have possibly punched a hole in it without even using the speed of the collision in the calculation, and is flapping his gums about false analogies. ****ing dunce.
Nice try at burden shifting, but no, it's on you to prove your claim not on me to disprove it. So you can build a reasonable model. Or you can get ****ed. I don't much care which. But hearty lol if you think I'm going to fix your shitty calcs.
Listen, billyshearstress, your model is so dogshit it's "not even wrong", as they say. It's ****ing comical that you're even trying to defend this steaming pile of manure in any way. And then you start throwing out figures only to come back to say how unrealistic they are when I respond to your own figures lol. What a ****ing clown.
My model has nothing to do with the height. It is your baby.
You have done nothing except ad hom and say momentum, KE and velocity. Words you overheard an intelligent person say and are now repeating.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hahaha. Homeslice here has built a model to show that an object colliding with another object couldn't have possibly punched a hole in it without even using the speed of the collision in the calculation, and is flapping his gums about false analogies. ****ing dunce.Nice try at burden shifting, but no, it's on you to prove your claim not on me to prove mine. So you can build a r
Correct. It is called shear stress, force per unit area. The force is the weight.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Would need to be much further down, see above. Perhaps 60 m/s. Therefore false analogy. But keep going. Cant wait for the impulse model from you.
Lol at less than half the minimum speed presented being comparable btw.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The numbers not being exact doesn't make it a false analogy. That's pretty much what analogy means.
Correct. It is called shear stress, force per unit area. The force is the weight.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Right, so, just to get your claim straight, you are saying that this force doesn't change regardless of whether I gently rest this weight on the object, or fire it at the object at light speed, is this correct? Either it makes a hole or it doesn't, the speed doesn't matter?
Lmao this dunce. He knows a formula and can't even visualise in his tiny brain that if it doesn't make sense then he's applying the wrong ****ing formula, and just stubbornly keeps arguing that it's what the formula says.
Therein lies the problem, which anyone with a room temperature IQ would have understood well before now.
You have done nothing except ad hom and say momentum, KE and velocity. Words you overheard an intelligent person say and are now repeating.
We don't need big words or intelligence here, Billy. A thingie moving faster is more likely to punch a hole, innit? I think my dog understands this. Yet you don't seem to.
One reasonable point you make is that possibly an impulse model is more appropriate. But it will not make a difference to the overall result. Feel free to do that.The rest is a hopeless gish gallop of wrongness.The reason you do not understand is not my excellent exposition. You must read up the correct definitions, then you will understand.You say that stress is strain. Stress
Add 'Gish Gallop' to the ever-growing list of terms that Billy doesn't use correctly.
All over the place but yes, not exact is ok, in the complete wrong ballpark is not ok.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It was your number, you pig-headed tit.
