911 Mr Demo says: Will the REAL COLLAPSE please stand up

yeh the reality now is that you are whining that it proved the truther meaning correct and wiped out your foolish ill-construction since you cannot prove the disuse of the same meaning today. The event matches the word definition precisely hence the usage stands. Only a complete **** would think that a words meaning simply evaporates. (but then again surprise me)

 

thats what experts do, if you were one you would know.


and if you got a pair you got a blank to fill in unless of course you already see your error and want to duck out of your own challenge.

so lets start there so you can show us that you have a clue and that we are not just wasting our time here.

Successful explosive demolition of a building in a congested area always results in or approximates a _____________ condition during its descent.

 

What is the relevance of that dumbassed question?....ithas nothing to do with 9/11 and more to do with all the flopping red herrings you've been throwing about.

 

nothing important just boring ole high school physics

 

Um,no.

But it IS boring.

 

What game? He just told you why your GIFs are misleading and your OP challenge is horse (*)(*)(*)(*).

Care to explain why your GIFs AREN'T misleading and your OP challenge is something other than horse (*)(*)(*)(*)?

I was getting to the point where I was about to put koko on ignore.

But then he said this . . .

and I decided that I don't want to miss out on comedy like that.

 

When the quiz has been designed by an instructor that has no clue what he's talking about, it's best to simply switch classes. Why don't you fill in your own blank?

If you are trying to make a commentary about rate of descent, (which would shock me because it would be an actual attempt to have a discussion about what I said) then you messed up by inserting the word "always" in the statement.

Building demolitions are managed using planned timing of cuts. This timing can be as fast or as slow as the desires of the engineer that plans them. The main point of a controlled collapse is the control. This control attempts to persuade debris to fall in a desired location so that the debris can be safely removed, and to protect surrounding buildings. The main point of a controlled collapse is not the speed at which the building collapses. As such, collapse speeds can vary, depending on the desired outcome of the collapse.

 

In fact, I'm quite sure you would be surprised to learn that it's possible for a building to be demolished in such a way that the top of a building falls faster than the acceleration of gravity.

That's simple high school physics too.

 

1. The buildings are lined up and scaled to appear to fall at the same speed. (with the unspoken implication that they all fall at the rate of gravity)

ok we will run with that

1) if you feel they dont stip the variance and how it is significant such that it clearly voids the claim.

2. It is obvious that the buildings are different heights.

irrelevant

3. They are all shown falling for the same amount of time.

again irrelevant


thats the problem you want responses to completely ill framed problems.


If you came up with a bonafide problem I would respond.


the resultant trigger and follow through is the point, its not defeat-able by antics and malformed constructions.

Frankly I can see already this is going to be a complete waste of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time since you have thrown everything including the kitchen sink into the mix and I am supposed to sort your (*)(*)(*)(*) mess out line item by line item which makes it clear you do not understand proper application/process and I will tell you now if you dont stick strictly to the point it aint gonna happen but I will play for a couple posts.

 

I'm sorry, did you just say that speed is important, but distance and time are irrelevant?

 

either be specific and properly frame your responses or I am done with this.

 

I don't see any way for the question to be more specific.

Did you just say that speed is important, but distance and time are irrelevant?

Would it help if I use the word velocity?

 

all you need to do is answer my challenge

1) if you feel they dont stip the variance and how it is significant such that it clearly voids the claim.


start there if you want me to continue.

If you cannot sufficiently answer that question there is no need to go further.

I told you I am not going to get involved in your quagmire of semantics.

 

For those of you following along, Koko just made it obvious that he doesn't know that velocity is distance divided by time. Again, he just said that both points of data that are required to calculate velocity are "irrelevant."

The height tells us the distance that the building fell over the observed period. If we don't know the distances the buildings fell, or if we assume the period to be "irrelevant" we cannot possibly calculate their individual velocities, or "stip the variance" [sic] in their comparative velocities.

 

however in the graphics the answers can be reverse engineered.

thanks for playing.

 

To an extent, but this requires access to data external to the graphics. We need to know the heights of the buildings involved. You called this point of data irrelevant. We also need to know the amount of time represented by the graphics. You called this to be irrelevant as well.

Beyond that, the bottom line is that even if we assume these points of time to be the same between the reference collapses and the WTC, it's clear that the buildings are different heights. If two objects move through different distances in the same amount of time, by definition they cannot travel at the same speed.

 

if you were in fact an engineer you would know that all you need is a scale and stop watch. You do not need anything external to the graphics except said measurement tools, your eyes, your hands, brain, and knowledge.

This is not and never has been about the time it takes for each of the whole buildings to hit the floor, that is your ill-construction either through your lack of knowledge how to solve the problem or willful attempt to misinform.

On the other hand, for those who do not wish to go through your gymnastics one only need to watch the tops to see they ALL went into freefall after initiation. We know all 3 buildings on the right were demolished by explosives.

your position fails on every count.

again thanks for playing.

 

Oh geeze. In addition to needing to explain velocity to you, (which you still don't seem to understand) it has become obvious that I have to explain point perspective and foreshortening to you as well. This is growing tiresome.

 

Not to mention the complete and total logical falacy that WTC 7 MUST be a controlled demolition based on observation only and pretending it looks just like other controlled demolitions.

 

Your need to toot your horn is not the same as a need to explain velocity, your combining them does not make it the same, but I am sure it makes you feel good.

Oh believe me this is only the beginning, you are about to get so tired that you will soon fall asleep and throe in the towel. Thats what happens when you put your weenie on the chopping block and you can see that axe coming down with no place to run.

I was light years ahead of you, as usual, it is why I said stip the variance and significance ..... Glad to see you are catching up.

Feel free to run down every rabbit trail you want since you are already boxed in and you wont be going too far.

 

gesus you people crack me up.

really?

Lets go over that shall we.

make your case.

 

My posts are not for self promotion. They are strictly for educational purposes. It is an education you sorely require. You said that speed was important, but distance and time were irrelevant. How anyone pretending to be competent on this issue would allow themselves to make such a basic mistake is beyond me. We're not talking about high school physics here. This is 3rd grade science. If we want to find velocity, we need to know distance and time.

I suppose there are no lengths to which you will cease smashing your head against this problem that you seem completely incapable of grasping. It's entertaining in the way watching Charlie Chaplin repeatedly step on a rake is entertaining.

You're so far off base you're not even in the same town as the ballpark. The data required to determine the height of your reference buildings is external to the GIF. I'm quite sure that you don't even know what a scale is.

 

well that went right on over your head. lol

You made those statements as a result of your assumptions of what I said not me because you do not understand what I said.

I am not here teach, but to giggle at self proclaimed teachers who dont get it.

 

Community college was not good to you, was it. I would demand my money back if I were you.

 

Your empty assertions are not convincing anyone of consequence that you have any clue at all what you are talking about. I almost half expect your next post to use the Pee Wee Herman, "I know you are but what am I defense." You have proven yourself completely unqualified and incapable to discuss the topic you are attempting to discuss. Of course, like a genuine truther, you'll never let that blatant fact get in the way of trying. When you're ready to admit that we cannot compare the speed of collapse of two unreferenced buildings without knowing the height of the buildings or appropriately scale the time then we can continue.

Until then, I'm quite sure an honest consensus would agree that you've failed to make any appreciable point with this thread.