Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:13:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Bazant isn't NIST.


Glad you figured that much out. Now lets try the rest.

I explained the Bazant paper over in the main 9/11 thread, using standard equations from basic Newtonian physics. Guess you couldn't understand my explication.

The fact remains that a series of peer reviewed scientific and engineering papers have been published that clearly explain what occurred at the WTC on 9/11. In contrast, NO scientific papers have been published in peer reviewed journals supporting the tin foil hat version of events.

CHEERS! 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby manu » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:20:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t's an interesting cacophony of opinion we see here. This is why I see chaos coming. The military will try to contain it, but they will explode from the same confusion.


Lord, why call in the military when you have MonteQueste. :lol:

TWilliams I'm with you about forecasting. The American power elite are going to squeeze oil through as tight an extruder as they can, for as long as it lasts. Fifty years war for 10 years worth of oil also makes sense if the larger reason for entering and occupying the Middle East is to foist your dollar on the area and maintain the dollar hegemon.

CNN had a show on what would happen if the oil ran dry. The scenario was in 2009. Are they preparing everyone for the collapse?
User avatar
manu
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 751
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 03:40:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '
')Bazant isn't NIST.


Glad you figured that much out. Now lets try the rest.

I explained the Bazant paper over in the main 9/11 thread, using standard equations from basic Newtonian physics. Guess you couldn't understand my explication.


Should be easy enough for you to go find them. I never saw any equations. And I never saw any explanation of the Bazant paper.
Show it.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 04:01:35

Hey,...you are the one who doesn't understand the Bazant equations.

If you really want help in understanding them then find your original and more politely phrased question about them over in the main 9/11 topic and you'll find my explanation several posts after yours there.

Should be easy enough for you to do that.

If you really expect me to help you with that same bit of math over and over again, I'll have to start charging you my regular consulting fee.

Cheers! [smilie=headbang.gif]
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 05:50:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')f you really want help in understanding them then find your original and more politely phrased question about them over in the main 9/11 topic and you'll find my explanation several posts after yours there.

Should be easy enough for you to do that.


Liar, liar, pants on fire. This is all that you posted:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'C')ollapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It?

Zden?ek P. Ba?zant1 , Hon.M. ASCE, Jia-Liang Le2 , Frank R. Greening3 , and David B. Benson4

Abstract: Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. 8)


And I suggested that perhaps you would read through Bazant's paper and inform us as to how it was any different from any of the other claims by defenders of the official story that gravity was enough to fully explain the collapse. You didn't.

And you never posted any damn equations.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 12:25:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'y')ou never posted any damn equations.


Yes I did.

You are the one who can't understand the math in the Bazant paper. When you asked for an explanation I tried to help you. However, it seems you need help with more things then just math.


CHEERS! [smilie=3some.gif]
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 13:15:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'y')ou never posted any damn equations.


Yes I did.

You are the one who can't understand the math in the Bazant paper. When you asked for an explanation I tried to help you. However, it seems you need help with more things then just math.


CHEERS! [smilie=3some.gif]


I looked at the thread. There's nothing there. You didn't post any equations. You are a liar.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 13:33:19

Yes I did.

You are either as incompetent at searching as you are at math, or you
are a liar.

CHEERS! 8)
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby threadbear » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 13:40:11

Plantagenet, as I have mentioned before, is the narc at the rock concert tyring to sell everyone dope. Ignore him. There is over a page of disruption devoted to his efforts to disrupt here. Just put him on IGNORE. He's the only poster I've ever suggested people do this with, because he really seems to have an agenda.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 14:38:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'Y')es I did.


No, you did not.

The portion of the thread where I first posted the Bazant paper begins here:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26162-2010.html

Anybody can go and verify this. The thread ends only a few pages later so it's not much to search through.

You did not post any equations. If you weren't lying, you'd find whatever it is you claim to have posted and re-post it here to prove it. But you won't because you didn't.

You are a liar.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby mmasters » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 14:41:44

I agree with using the ignore feature on plantpagent. Complete troll. Have to admit he does a good job of inciting people though.
User avatar
mmasters
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 15:32:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'Y')es I did.


No, you did not.

The portion of the thread where I first posted the Bazant paper begins here:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26162-2010.html

Anybody can go and verify this. The thread ends only a few pages later so it's not much to search through.

You did not post any equations. If you weren't lying, you'd find whatever it is you claim to have posted and re-post it here to prove it. But you won't because you didn't.

You are a liar.



No, actually you are a liar, Carlhole. Neener neener boo boo.

Now to the proof.

First, if folks go to the page you linked to, they will find that the first reference to Bazant on that page is actually by me, not you.

Your claim that you were first to post about Bazant there is an obvious lie, as shown by your own link.

Secondly, my explication of the physics, including a simple experiment any truther can do to better understand how the equation F = MA applies in a real world situation, occurs through several posts, beginning at:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26162-0-asc-1965.html

Its a nice trick/lie for you to claim you searched and then to post a misleading link that doesn't lead to my posts.

If you are the example, perhaps the "truthers" should be better known as the "liars."

CHEERS! :roll:

PS: Now I understand why the moderators try to keep your crazy 9/11 stuff confined to one topic.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 15:58:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'F')irst, if folks go to the page you linked to, they will find that the first reference to Bazant on that page is actually by me, not you.

Your claim that you were first to post about Bazant there is an obvious lie, as shown by your own link.


Wrong. First mention was by me on the page before:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26162-0-asc-1995.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'S')econdly, my explication of the physics, including a simple experiment any truther can do to better understand how the equation F = MA applies in a real world situation, occurs through several posts, beginning at:

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic26162-0-asc-1965.html


Oh, you mean this!!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zorn', '
')its impossible to tell what exactly happened with teh main towers. but i have one question. those buildings were built to withstand 2.5 times their weight. That means you should be able to put 1.5 of onetower on TOP of the other, and it would still stand.

YOu mean to tell me the top 10 floors of one building falling onto the bottom section would collapse the entire thing? when its built to hold 2.5 times its weight? cmon. AT THE LEAST it would have sagged and slowed TREMENDOUSLY.



Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah! ROFL! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You guys really don't know anything about basic physics do you? You have no idea how the world operates. Scientific illiteracy in America is so pervasive.

OK...I'll help. Here's an experiment you can carry out to learn the difference between static loads and kinematic loads.

A. Place your head quietly on a table.

then

B. Lift your head up and bang your head down into the table.

Did you feel the difference? There are differents amounts of force involved. Even though your head weighed the same amount in both time A and B, putting your head into motion against the table [B=kinematic loading] produced greater force against your head then having it at rest on the table [A=static loading]. Get it? If not, repeat it with progressively harder impacts until you understand how putting an inert mass into motion increases the force.

As you bang your head into the table again and again you will hopefully eventually learn the principle behind the well known equation F=ma (force = mass x acceleration).


Cheers!


Oh, Holy Blithering Idiocy!! You're talking about where you tell people to do an experiment: Pick your head up off the table and let it fall down onto the table repeatedly noticing it's mass and weight. :lol

Just to remind everyone: This is Plantagenet's "Newtonian" analysis of the Bazant paper that mathematically describes the collapses of the Twin towers.

Is that your full comprehension of the Bazant paper, P?
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 16:16:43

Its too late for you to change your link, Carlhole. I already called "neener neener boo boo you're a liar" on the false link you had originally posted.

But I am glad to see you've found the key equation. Newton was a genius, wasn't he?

Bazant's work involves expanding the equation F=ma by individually delineating and then summing the masses involved in the collapse. In Bazant's second paper he adds an analysis of the possible variations in acceleration (a) that as might be induced by controlled demolition, and finds it is unneccessary to invoke CD to explain the building collapse. Bazant reaches this conclusion by comparing his calcualted results to the resistance factors constructed in the building. Guess what? The falling mass won by a longshot.

But Bazant didn't invent an entirely new physics. Yes, his analysis is based on good ol' Newtonian physics.

It's clear that you still don't understand that simple fact. Don't worry...most Americans are scientifically illiterate when it comes to math and physics.

Since you can't intuitively grasp how gravitational acceleration interacts with mass to create incredily large forces, and you have no knowledge of math or Newtonian physics, I suggested a simple experiment to bring the point home. In your case, you will probably have to repeat the falling head experiment over and over again from increasingly greater heights in order to understand the physics involved.

CHEERS! [smilie=headbang.gif]
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 16:21:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I')t's clear that you still don't understand that simple fact. Don't worry...most Americans are scientifically illiterate when it comes to math and physics.

Since you can't intuitively grasp how gravitational acceleration interacts with mass to create incredily large forces, and you have no knowledge of math or Newtonian physics, I suggested a simple experiment to bring the point home. In your case, you will probably have to repeat the falling head experiment over and over again from increasingly greater heights in order to understand the physics involved.


Here is an experiment for you, Plant:

Stand in front of a table and smash you face down onto it as hard as you possibly can.

What did you observe?

You observed that the table absorbed all the energy of momentum of your head, didn't it?

That's because the table (1) acted as mass absorbing some of the energy of your head as it smashed down, and (2) had significant structural integrity that your smashing down head could not overcome.

Now, we can continue this experiment with your head being smashed down onto the table at greater and greater speeds and forces, however, the table will always absorb some of the energy of your head due to the Law of Conservation fo Momentum. And the table will always absorb another quantity of energy due to its structural features.

Now let's suppose that you have 100 tables on top of one another and all firmly joined together. Moreover, extremely heavy, strong tables are on the bottom, and the tables get lighter and less strong as the column gets higher.

Then, you smash your head down on the topmost table very hard , so hard that you bite your tongue off and spit it out overboard.

According to the Law of Conservation of Momentum, and due to the energy necessary to overcome all the increasingly dense and strong tables on the way down, it is impossible for your head to hit the ground at the same time as your tongue, which is falling through air.

It's no complicated matter that things fall through air faster than they fall through structural steel.

The acceleration of the falling mass (your head plus any broken and falling tables) is necessarily slowed very significantly by the inertia of the table stack as well as it's structural strength.

In any case, why would your head and any broken tables simply not fall off to the side, following the path of least resistance?
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby CrudeAwakening » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 16:43:12

The Bazant paper assumes 'pancaking' of the floors.

Pancaking has been discredited, by NIST among others.

The Bazant paper is based on a false premise.
"Who knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics will be like in a hundred years?" - Economist speaking during planning for World Population Conference in early 1970s
User avatar
CrudeAwakening
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue 28 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 16:51:50

Plantagenet sounds exactly like that little faggot 'Smiley' that used to hang around these boards.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby TWilliam » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 16:53:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'H')ere is an experiment for you, Plant:

etc etc


Well illustrated Carlhole. Additionally, since his head and any damaged tables near the top of the stack have largely vaporized into particles so fine as to now be suspended in air, what mass is there to continue driving a collapse wave from the top down?
"It means buckle your seatbelt, Dorothy, because Kansas? Is goin' bye-bye... "
User avatar
TWilliam
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby threadbear » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 16:54:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'P')lantagenet sounds exactly like that little faggot 'Smiley' that used to hang around these boards.


Carhole--Never argue with someone who uses the expression "neener neener boo boo" It's way beneath you.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: PO.com Denial Towards the "Bigger Picture"

Unread postby Carlhole » Mon 11 Jun 2007, 17:27:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'P')lantagenet sounds exactly like that little faggot 'Smiley' that used to hang around these boards.


Carhole--Never argue with someone who uses the expression "neener neener boo boo" It's way beneath you.


Nothing is beneath the Carlhole!

BwaaHaHahahahahaaaa!
Carlhole
 
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests