Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 384
  1. #176
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


    Math majors that can't tell the difference betwen a typo and a math error.


    .05*150*150=1,125


    .5*150*150=11250


    Sorry about the typo.

    LOL Dan can't do basic multiplication to tell the difference
    You're obviously part of the 9/11 cover up........it's lazy typos like that RG that lead to the TRUTH!!!

  2. #177
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    so, now your claiming that the plane reached a velocity of 563 MPH at an al ude of between 5000-10000 feet.....your an asshat..
    Your understanding of both physics and basic english grammar sucks.

    The plane was going at 563 mph at the moment of impact, at 0 ft al ude.

    It reached that speed by pointing at the ground at full throttle, adding gravitational acceleration to that of the engines thrust.

    You're ignoring evidence and common sense.

  3. #178
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    You're obviously part of the 9/11 cover up........it's lazy typos like that RG that lead to the TRUTH!!!
    I will say it again, shilling for the NWO has great health insurance.

    twoofers are just jealous.

  4. #179
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    You're ignoring evidence and common sense.

    I'd say that right there pretty much sums up the argument Dan and the rest of the clowns are making don't you think?

  5. #180
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    Unemployed

  6. #181
    selbstverständlich Agloco's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    9,013
    Do you approve of his glaring math errors too?




    Doctors...
    1/2 v^2

    Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
    .05*150*150= 11,250 units.
    Help the good doctor out then because I don't see a calculation error. I do see a tie-poh though. Guess I should take everything RG says with a large chunk of sea salt eh?

    He even used arbitrary units and made simple ratios for you to digest. lol indeed.

    Neither one of you understood anything RG typed did you? No shame in admitting it. Honestly.

  7. #182
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    can't do math to tell the difference between typo and math error

    laaaaazzzzzyyyy
    So, typos don't matter. Thank You.


  8. #183
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    He even used arbitrary units and made simple ratios for you to digest. lol indeed.
    WOW, so he simplified it for us simpletons .....

    I mean...God forbid we have to use a much more accurate online kinetic energy generator...

    http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergyk...y_equation.php

    Thank you Master...

  9. #184
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

    ,,,amateur indeed...

  10. #185
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    Why don't you calculate the force with which United 93 is reported to hit the ground, dan?

    I'm curious to see your result.

  11. #186
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    Also, tell us how you know Jim Fetzer and what he said about SpursTalk.

  12. #187
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    WOW, so he simplified it for us simpletons .....

    I mean...God forbid we have to use a much more accurate online kinetic energy generator...

    http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpenergyk...y_equation.php

    Thank you Master...
    1 kilogram traveling at 563 miles an hour:
    31672.297119795 joule

    1 kilogram traveling at 150 miles an hour
    kinetic energy (K) = 2248.253568 joules


    31672/2248 = 14 and some change.

    The mass is the same, so that factors out, being a math major, you should understand that. ditto for the units.


    So, your fancy calculator came up with the exact same proportion that I arrived at earlier.

    Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
    .5*150*150= 11,250 units.

    Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
    .5*563*563= 158,484 units

    158484/11250= 14 and some change.

    Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.

    Shocking.

    My avatar equation is staring you in the face, and it still is too hard?

    Really?

  13. #188
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

    ,,,amateur indeed...
    No .

    Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?
    I stopped there as one doesn't really need to know much beyond that.

    If you can't do the math, why should I bother explaining the rest of the physics?

  14. #189
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    By the way, RG's KE calculation didn't account for the 40 degree angle in which the plane hit the ground...

    ,,,amateur indeed...
    But hey, you opened the can.

    most crash impacts, again, take place on landing or take off at angles much less steep than 40 degrees.

    So you have 14 times the kinetic energy than most normal crashers, and a much steeper angle of impact than normal crashes, and according to your good friend, it is highly su ious that this crash didn't look like normal crash, with normal debris fields.

    Wow.

    That is what you are hanging your hat on?

  15. #190
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    (a) A Boeing 757 weighs about 100 tons with a wingspan of about 125′ and a tail that stands 44′ above the ground. It would have been overwhelmingly larger than the trucks in this photograph, where the alleged crater from the crash was situated. Compare this crash site with those from bona fide crash sites to begin to appreciate the enormity of the deception involved.
    "bona fide" crash sites.

    Plenty of bona fide air crashes happen. When they happen, generally the pilots are trying not to crash them, and are flying fairly slow on take off or landing.

    Fairly slow in this case means roughly 200 miles an hour or so, sometimes much less:

    http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...d.main/236221/

    150mph seems about right

    My avatar is the equation for kinetic energy.

    If you read it and can understand the basic algebra involved, you will note that when you double the speed, you have multiplied the force/energy of motion by a factor of four.

    The data recorders said the plane hit the ground at a steep angle at 563 mph.

    Let's do some math.

    Since we are examining the same object's kinetic energy for two different speeds, we can simplify things somewhat, and set the mass to 1. We can also simply by not worrying about specific units, since we are looking at relative energies.

    This means we can set the kinetic energy equial to 1/2 v^2

    Kinetic energy of a low-speed crash:
    .5*150*150= 11,250 units.

    Kinetic energy of Flight 93 at impact:
    .5*563*563= 158,484 units

    158484/11250= 14 and some change.

    Something moving 3.75 times faster has 14 times the amount of kinetic energy.

    Compare this 30 mph crash:


    With this 120 mph crash:



    Do I need to start explaining the physics of direct versus glancing blows?

    Do you understand this basic element of physics?

    Given this rather solid, and easily verifiable experiment, would one expect the exact same wreckage pattern from a crash at 150-200 mph as one would see in a crash at 563 mph?


    A simple yes or no will do.

    If you are comparing this crash to other crashes, are your comparison crashes also at 500+ mph?

  16. #191
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    dan will now do everything except answer the question.

    Just like he won't answer questions about his correspondence with the real Jim Fetzer.

  17. #192
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...
    ??
    Last edited by Nbadan; 05-17-2012 at 11:13 PM.

  18. #193
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408

    If you can't do the math, why should I bother explaining the rest of the physics?
    So now we can't even plug in numbers into a generator? Condescending much?

  19. #194
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Was that a glancing blow or a direct impact? I forget...

  20. #195
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,596
    dan will now do everything except answer the question.

    Just like he won't answer questions about his correspondence with the real Jim Fetzer.
    Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...
    So now we can't even plug in numbers into a generator? Condescending much?
    Was that a glancing blow or a direct impact? I forget...

  21. #196
    W4A1 143 43CK? Nbadan's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Post Count
    32,408
    Neither one of you understood anything RG typed did you? No shame in admitting it. Honestly.


    Weak

  22. #197
    I play pretty, no? TeyshaBlue's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    13,319

  23. #198
    Veteran
    My Team
    Denver Nuggets
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Post Count
    12,134
    Moving this to the top because I too want to know how Dan knows this Fetzer fellow.

    Oh, and Dan, I'd still like you to answer my previous question. If you were face to face with a recipient of one of the "staged phone calls" from flight 93, would you call them liars?

  24. #199
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So now we can't even plug in numbers into a generator? Condescending much?
    You can. , I would encourage you do to so.

    If you had you would have figured out that the typo was a typo, and not an actual miscalculation.

    Why didn't you?

  25. #200
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Who says I'm hanging my hat on anything? I'm just pointing out that a 40 degree impact angle would effect your calculation....by the way, what kind of impact would a KE 14 times a 'normal impact' (whatever that is) have on an airplane...
    http://planecrashinfo.com/database.htm

    Feel free to compose a list of when/where they crashed.

    You will find data that supports what most experts I have heard say about plane crashes in general.

    Most experts will tell you that most crashes that happen are accidents.

    Most experts will tell you that most accidental crashes take place at low speeds, either shortly before landing, or shortly after take off.

    The implicaiton being that if you compar a high speed deliberate crash at a steep angle, to those kinds of crashes, you will not get a very valid comparison.

    Your guy, your claim.

    Do you think his claim that this crash looked different than other crashes is a meaningful distinction?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •