Randomness thread, part two.

[OngBonga]

Well, technically it's a post-tropical cyclone now, but it was a cat 3 just a few days ago, making it a "major hurricane", the furtherest east in Atlantic history. It's killed a couple of people in Ireland, took off the roof of a football stadium, serious storm.

We've had pretty skies today as ash from Portugal fires and Sahara dust is sucked North in the wake of the storm. Morons thought the moon was super bright instead of the sun being super dim.

[BananaStand]

Wanna get laid??

Get a fake, temporary, tattoo on your forehead that says "I'm a porn star". Then, force yourself on anyone you like.

They'll never catch you cause you can always just blame it on this guy...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/16...l-assault.html

[oskar]

"I fuck teen cunts"?
That's bold. Could be pussy. But if you're going this far you might as well go with cunts imo.
Unfortunately I can't find a non-blurred version.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Surprising. I'd think every person with a cell phone that walked past that guy on a sidewalk would be posting that to their favorite social media page with the caption, "Did I seriously just see that?"

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wait for it...

Superman!!

[BananaStand]

Wait for it...

Superman!!

Since there aint shit else going on here, I guess I'll talk about this....

Other than looking mildly cool, I'm not sure why this is impressive.

It seems to me that 95% of the challenge here is controlling a bike really fast downhill. But everyone in that video was doing that.

The next hardest part seems to be the changing of position. I guess it takes slightly above average core strength to tilt your pelvis on a bike seat. But if that's your thing, google "cirque du soleil"

It also doesn't seem to be significantly more risky to ride super-man style. A bike going 30 mph downhill is a deathtrap no matter what position you're in.

[OngBonga]

Since there aint shit else going on here, I guess I'll talk about this....

Other than looking mildly cool, I'm not sure why this is impressive.

It seems to me that 95% of the challenge here is controlling a bike really fast downhill. But everyone in that video was doing that.

The next hardest part seems to be the changing of position. I guess it takes slightly above average core strength to tilt your pelvis on a bike seat. But if that's your thing, google "cirque du soleil"

It also doesn't seem to be significantly more risky to ride super-man style. A bike going 30 mph downhill is a deathtrap no matter what position you're in.

This post will look ridiculous in like ten years when we realise how this single act totally revolutionised downhill cycling.

Dude rips it thanks to aerodynamics. Holding that position takes strength and stamina using muscles and posture not normally associated with cycling. If there's an edge to be gained here, and it certainly seems the case, then we'll see a new breed of top cyclists using different training regimes.

If this guy is the first to do this to gain a clear advantage in a professional race, well he's a legend already.

[oskar]

Since there aint shit else going on here, I guess I'll talk about this....

Other than looking mildly cool, I'm not sure why this is impressive.

It seems to me that 95% of the challenge here is controlling a bike really fast downhill. But everyone in that video was doing that.

The next hardest part seems to be the changing of position. I guess it takes slightly above average core strength to tilt your pelvis on a bike seat. But if that's your thing, google "cirque du soleil"

It also doesn't seem to be significantly more risky to ride super-man style. A bike going 30 mph downhill is a deathtrap no matter what position you're in.

I'd pay about three fiddy to see you do that. Double without a helmet.

[OngBonga]

Also props to what appears to be a female photographer on a scooter catching a photo while going in a straight line. She's got the skills too.

[Poopadoop]

Think it's pretty impressive. Not only is he going much faster than everyone else, he's expending less energy to do it relative to those guys pedalling their asses off.

[OngBonga]

I also love the hand gesture of the one cyclist who has an air of "for fuck's sake" about him.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Think it's pretty impressive. Not only is he going much faster than everyone else, he's expending less energy to do it relative to those guys pedalling their asses off.

This was my initial assumption, but ong's talk about core strength and endurance does point out things I wasn't considering.

I still hypothesize that planking is less muscle effort than pedaling, though.

I like the way it looks like he's on a fixed speed bike and he does a little syncing dance with his feet just before he puts them back on the pedals at the end.

@ong: the person on the scooter taking both hands off the bars and then taking their eyes off the road makes my heart jump every time. I guess it should be noted that they had the camera right there, and this is probably a thing they do, but still.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Other than looking mildly cool, I'm not sure why this is impressive.

Don't be jaded. This is totally cool and impressive. He's going faster lying down on the bike than those other folks who are actively pumping energy into their bike.

That's both unexpected and cool. Not to mention Superman.

[Poopadoop]

This was my initial assumption, but ong's talk about core strength and endurance does point out things I wasn't considering.

I still hypothesize that planking is less muscle effort than pedaling, though.

Don't think it's even close. Quadriceps are the biggest muscle group and those guys are pedaling like crazy. Superboy is just balancing; that's more about control than power.

[OngBonga]

This was my initial assumption, but ong's talk about core strength and endurance does point out things I wasn't considering.

I would imagine that with an accurate training regime, it will be more efficient in terms of energy. I'd imagine pedalling like fuck uses more energy than holding that posture, however cyclists are not normally trained to hold this posture. That might change with this guy.

[OngBonga]

Don't think it's even close. Quadriceps are the biggest muscle group and those guys are pedaling like crazy. Superboy is just balancing; that's more about control than power.

He's holding posture for a while. There will be a buildup of lactic acid, and at that point it could be real easy to lose balance. It's a question of stamina, it would need to be built up alongside a new sense of balance.

[Poopadoop]

He's holding posture for a while. There will be a buildup of lactic acid, and at that point it could be real easy to lose balance.

Oh is that how it works?

It's a question of stamina, it would need to be built up alongside a new sense of balance.

Basically he's just holding a rigid posture for about 30 seconds; the bike is supporting most of his weight. It definitely takes some stamina and strength in the core, but the main challenge is probably to not shit yourself thinking about crashing.

[BananaStand]

....the main challenge is probably to not shit yourself thinking about crashing.

This is where you lose me man. How is that not the main challenge when you're pedaling upright?

Is crashing while sitting really that much better?

If anything, I'd think superman-style would be safer. You're more likely to be tossed away from a crash, whereas crashing upright means you take your chances in a tangled melee of gears, metal, and bodies.

[BananaStand]

Also, I've definitely ridden a motorcycle like that myself. I'm not exactly a paragon of core strength

[OngBonga]

Also, I've definitely ridden a motorcycle like that myself. I'm not exactly a paragon of core strength

I prefer to think of you as some bitter partriot, not some fun seeking guy who does things that might be considered to be cool. Stop ruining my mental image of you.

[BananaStand]

I prefer to think of you as some bitter partriot, not some fun seeking guy who does things that might be considered to be cool. Stop ruining my mental image of you.

Is your mental image of me very handsome?

[OngBonga]

Is your mental image of me very handsome?

No, I'm afraid not.

[BananaStand]

No, I'm afraid not.

Do I at least have some cool features, like maybe an eye-patch, or a mullet?

Am I well dressed? Clean cut, or scruffy?

What kind of car do I drive?

Can I juggle?

[OngBonga]

No, no, scruffy, an American one like a Dodge, and no.

[OngBonga]

Neither an eye patch nor a mullet is cool fwiw.

[BananaStand]

Neither an eye patch nor a mullet is cool fwiw.

Both are cooler than soccer

[Poopadoop]

Do I at least have some cool features, like maybe an eye-patch, or a mullet?

Am I well dressed? Clean cut, or scruffy?

What kind of car do I drive?

Can I juggle?

I picture an eye-patch and a wooden leg from some accident you had with fireworks as a kid. On Halloween you always go as a pirate.

I see a tank top with the confederate flag on it.

Not sure but I imagine it's from the 1970s.

No, but you can open a beer bottle using only your toes.

This is fun.

[OngBonga]

Both are cooler than soccer

You think that hits where it hurts, but it doesn't. I don't even like football all that much these days, I lost interest in my early twenties. Mock cricket if you want to bait me, it's nearly Ashes time where cricket actually matters.

[Poopadoop]

Hmm, so I just got a free ticket from Pokerstars to play in the satellite to the PCA Main Event in the Bahamas in Jan.

100 people in the sat. get all expenses paid entry to main event. About 550 registered now but imagine the number will climb a fair bit before it runs on Nov. 5. Only sucky thing is the sat. starts at 7.30 GMT on a Sunday and is deep stacked, which means to make it to the top 100 I'll have to be up all night.

I would fucking love to bink that tourney and go to the Bahamas. Obv. more likely I'll go out around 103rd at around 5.30 am Monday obviously.

Any tips?

[Savy]

Don't bother playing it.

[Poopadoop]

Don't bother playing it.

I think I have a better chance than you do against Mayweather. And that's even if I just went all in every hand.

Actually even if I thought my odds were 1000:1 against binking an entry ticket I'd play. Bahamas in January? Yes, please.

[Savy]

I think I have a better chance than you do against Mayweather. And that's even if I just went all in every hand.

Actually even if I thought my odds were 1000:1 against binking an entry ticket I'd play. Bahamas in January? Yes, please.

If you don't value your own time correctly that is your issue.

You're very defensive too. Why ask if you don't want serious answers?

Also no poker in the commune.

[Poopadoop]

One of the best parts of winning would be knowing you'd be upset about it.

[Savy]

One of the best parts of winning would be knowing you'd be upset about it.

Why would I be upset about it?

[Poopadoop]

Why else would you tell me not to try? Is it out of an altruistic sense of kindness not wanting me to lose a night's sleep? Are you concerned for my health and well-being?

[Savy]

Why else would you tell me not to try? Is it out of an altruistic sense of kindness not wanting me to lose a night's sleep? Are you concerned for my health and well-being?

If you ask for advice you'll get it, the EV of even very good players (which you may be I don't know) will be tiny & if you are a very good poker player then there will be lots of other much more +EV options to spend your time on which let you get that trip to the Bahamas.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The wild Savy in his native habitat has not been described in any scientific texts.
We should be careful not to displace our intent onto him or anthropomorphize any behaviors we observe at this time.


Savy is, though it's easy to miss it, actually a pretty nice guy. The advice he gives is what he believes is best.
He's just a cynic who doesn't get all dreamy-eyed about much, and certainly nothing to do with you or me.
As such, he tends to give advice that's blunt and pragmatic.

Look at it this way: if he truly thought you were a complete waste of his time, he wouldn't have replied.
So he at least thinks that much of you!

[wufwugy]

If thinking in terms of the EV that people do when talking poker, the tourney is probably not a good idea. However, if you think in terms of utility (as defined by economists, essentially preferences/desires/what-you-get-out-of-it), then the tourney could be worth it.

If the tourney is free, I would think something like shoving every round until like 10x-20x average stack size or bust would be a good way of managing utility by turning an initial shitty EV into a non-shitty one quickly. Or if you get more utility out of the challenge of trying to legit beat the other players even when you would get more EV towards a bahamas trip if you did something else regarding a potential bahamas trip, then the utility in playing would be better than it seems when just evaluating the EV.

[Poopadoop]

The wild Savy in his native habitat has not been described in any scientific texts.
We should be careful not to displace our intent onto him or anthropomorphize any behaviors we observe at this time.


Savy is, though it's easy to miss it, actually a pretty nice guy. The advice he gives is what he believes is best.
He's just a cynic who doesn't get all dreamy-eyed about much, and certainly nothing to do with you or me.
As such, he tends to give advice that's blunt and pragmatic.

Look at it this way: if he truly thought you were a complete waste of his time, he wouldn't have replied.
So he at least thinks that much of you!

I come on here excited about this and asked for tips on how to play the tourney. I didn't ask if I should play or not. So his advice to not play is not advice at all, it's just being a miserable twat for the sake of it.

I mean your outlook has to be pretty dismal to just throw an opportunity like that away because the chances are slim - you may as well throw away a lottery ticket you find on the ground because it's a long shot to win, or throw away the phone number a cute girl gives you 'cause you're afraid she'll say no if you ask her out. Fuck me.

All I have to do is stay up late one night playing poker for a chance to go to the Bahamas and play some more poker. And that's in January when its' fucking cold and miserable here. How fucking cool would that be? Ffs, it's not like I have to go get a root canal or something.

[Poopadoop]

If thinking in terms of the EV that people do when talking poker, the tourney is probably not a good idea. However, if you think in terms of utility (as defined by economists, essentially preferences/desires/what-you-get-out-of-it), then the tourney could be worth it.

Ok at least this has an explanation and some thought put into it.

For one, I don't see much -EV about playing poker for a few hours, even if it fucks up my night's sleep. maybe that's just me. For another, the upside is fucking huge. Getting out of the damp cold grey UK in January to go to the bahamas and play some more poker would be a - ok to me.

fwiw also, I don't know how many people in this tourney are actually shelling out the £530 entry fee and how many are just freerolling like me. My guess is there'll be a lot of other amateurs playing, and some of them will be doing some pretty stupid shit if experience is any indication. Also, in terms of tourney poker, variance is huge - the deck could just hit me in the face all night and boom, I'm the next Jamie Gold. Or it could hit me in the balls for an hour and I bust out. So my point is I'm not committed to playing all night to see if I qualify, I could very well spend a much shorter time playing.

If the tourney is free, I would think something like shoving every round until like 10x-20x average stack size or bust would be a good way of managing utility by turning an initial shitty EV into a non-shitty one quickly. Or if you get more utility out of the challenge of trying to legit beat the other players even when you would get more EV towards a bahamas trip if you did something else regarding a potential bahamas trip, then the utility in playing would be better than it seems when just evaluating the EV.

if I couldn't tell a straight flush from two pair, this might be the right strategy. I think I can play halfway decently though. Seems like deep stack poker can be approached either by being patient and waiting for spots or by being aggressive and trying to build a stack early.

[wufwugy]

For one, I don't see much -EV about playing poker for a few hours, even if it fucks up my night's sleep. maybe that's just me. For another, the upside is fucking huge. Getting out of the damp cold grey UK in January to go to the bahamas and play some more poker would be a - ok to me.

Essentially the type of thing you are saying is that you get more personal value out of playing a game at something like a .1% chance of winning $5000 than at not playing the game and instead having a 100% chance of something like "making" $25 worth of value by getting adequate sleep and what results from that. It's perfectly reasonable (and a prime ingredient into why people play chance games in the first place).

[Poopadoop]

Essentially the type of thing you are saying is that you get more personal value out of playing a game at something like a .1% chance of winning $5000 than at not playing the game and instead having a 100% chance of something like "making" $25 worth of value by getting adequate sleep and what results from that. It's perfectly reasonable (and the reason people play chance games in the first place).

There's 100 places who win entries so a priori the chances are a lot better than .1% all other things being equal.

There's also the fact that I could bust in less than five hours and not lose any sleep at all. So the downside is on a sliding scale, and it only gets larger as the chance of realising the upside gets larger.

Let's say I bust out in the first five hours. I lose no sleep and have some fun playing poker. maybe it's a bit boring sometimes waiting for people to act, but generally it's an ok sunday night.

Or let's say I get to 12.30 am (my usual-ish bedtime), and there's 500 players left, 100 of which will qualify and I have a mid-sized stack. If everything after that were random I'd win a ticket 20% of the time, for EV of $5000 x .2 = $1k.

The downside to playing another hour then busting is losing an hour's sleep, the upside is if I survive there's likely going to be only 400 players left and my ev goes up to $5000 x .25 = $1250.

There's just no scenario I can see where starting and continuing to play is a bad move in terms of EV. If it somehow worked that you had to sit there playing poker all night long and only at 10am did whoever hadn't fallen asleep been entered into a random draw to win the trip with a 5% chance maybe I'd consider not playing. But I probably would.

[Poopadoop]

In other news, Ong will be happy to hear I've joined him as a 9/11 tin-hatter. Too much of that just doesn't add up.

1. Planes don't bring down buildings 100x their own mass.
2. Buildings don't collapse at free fall speed a la controlled demolition from a fire.
3. Buildings that do collapse from a fire have much of their frames intact.
4. Footage of ground floor of WTC prior to it falling looks like bombs went off- windows blown out, walls in tatters. Something fishy there.
5. Explosions can be heard going off prior to towers falling.
6. WTC7 never got hit by a plane but burned for a few hours then came down in a free fall.
7. When the US is really attacked, the president gets whisked away to safety, he doesn't sit there reading with a bunch of kids.
8. Cell phones working at 30k feet?
9. Calls from planes with no background noise?
10. No plane wreckage, even the one that hit the ground in PA?
11. Pentagon 'plane' flew at inches off the ground at 500 mph straight into it's target. Bullshit.
12. Alleged hijackers turning up alive in S. Arabia.

Gtfo.

[OngBonga]

#2 is all that matters.

Oh and #6.

To be honest though, I'm past caring. They got away with it. I'm more interested in my cup of tea.

[OngBonga]

The image on my mug is Princess Diana passing her driver a Wham! tape.

[BananaStand]

In other news, Ong will be happy to hear I've joined him as a 9/11 tin-hatter. Too much of that just doesn't add up.

1. Planes don't bring down buildings 100x their own mass.
2. Buildings don't collapse at free fall speed a la controlled demolition from a fire.
3. Buildings that do collapse from a fire have much of their frames intact.
4. Footage of ground floor of WTC prior to it falling looks like bombs went off- windows blown out, walls in tatters. Something fishy there.
5. Explosions can be heard going off prior to towers falling.
6. WTC7 never got hit by a plane but burned for a few hours then came down in a free fall.
7. When the US is really attacked, the president gets whisked away to safety, he doesn't sit there reading with a bunch of kids.
8. Cell phones working at 30k feet?
9. Calls from planes with no background noise?
10. No plane wreckage, even the one that hit the ground in PA?
11. Pentagon 'plane' flew at inches off the ground at 500 mph straight into it's target. Bullshit.
12. Alleged hijackers turning up alive in S. Arabia.

Gtfo.

Oh this is DEFINITELY a troll. But work is slow, so....

#1) Are you an architectural engineer? Ya know, things that weigh 100x as much as a commercial airplane might have trouble keeping their balance if their are slammed into at 500 mph. Are you telling me, that if you're a man weighing 200 lbs, and someone threw a 2lb hunk of metal at you at 500 mph, and then it exploded on impact.....you'd still be upright? GTFO

2) Do you think that they just build these things in downtown areas without anyone saying "uhhh, what if it breaks?". The building is designed to come down that way. They already had some guy try to blow up the bottom of the building a decade before. Obviously they know big buildings are targets. You think they would just set them up like fucking legos? So if one got knocked off balance, it could just fall down across three city blocks? GTFO

3) A fire? That's what you're calling it? GTFO!

4) The building got hit by a speeding airplane that subsequently exploded. You're surprised some windows got broken? Also, I'm sure a shit load of people rushed out of that building while first responders were running in. Think there might have been a traffic jam in the lobby? You think they all took their turn in the revolving door? Or do you think someone maybe said "fuck this" and threw a chair through a window? If you're telling me that bombs are the only way windows get broken, GTFO

5) Just GTFO

6) Hmmmm, did anything happen near WTC 7 that might have affected its structural integrity? GTFO

7) Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you were so educated on secret service protocol. How do you know what's supposed to happen if the US gets attacked and the President is in an elementary school? You read it in a Tom Clancy novel so it must be true? GTFO!

8) The world trade center is 30,000 feet tall? gtfo

9) Are you saying that the calls were staged by someone who forgot to make it sound like an airplane? GTFO

10) HUH? There's pictures of it right here....Flight 93 GTFO

11) Dude....the plan went like this. 1) Buy Plane tickets 2) Kick pilot's ass 3) Crash plane. Pretty fucking simple. Yet we know that it was planned and trained for over a period of years. Don't you think these guy's learned a few flight maneuvers in all that time? Plus, this isn't even that sophisticated a move. It's basically just 'land with the wheels up'. You think that defy's physics? GTFO

12) You think it's headline news when there are Arab guys with the same name who look alike? GTFO

[OngBonga]

Fuck it, I'll bite, even though you're probably trolling too. I just can't leave that post alone.

1. Things that fall directly downwards have not lost their balance, they have lost their structural integrity. The buildings did not topple, they collapsed. Had they toppled, I don't think we'd still be talking about this.

2. "The building is designed to come down that way."
What utter bollocks. You're talking out of your arse here. No building has ever collapsed like that before, and here we have THREE in one day, one of which wasn't designed like the others. Furthermore, how does one make such a design? Strategically placed thermite? They're not admitting that, even though there's evidence to suggest it's what they did. If you're seriously suggesting that these buildings were designed to collapse in this manner as some kind of failsafe, then you're even more deluded than the worst of the conspiracy theorists.

3. Yes it was a fire. The impact at the top did not cause the collapse, the fire did. That's what they're saying. Incidentally, that you immediately argue it wasn't a fire shows that you're unaware what the official story is, and instead you're making your own assumptions. Like the worst of the conspiracy theorists.

4. The building didn't explode after impact. That said, windows popping out is nothing I'm wetting myself over. There could be an explanation for that beyond controlled demolition.

5. You GTFO. Firemen were saying they heard explosions.

6. It was on fire. Yet it still fell at (near) freefall, much like the other two buildings.

7. Yeah I'm not accepting this as evidence.

8. I think the argument was that cellphones were working on the plane. I'm sure this is possible, though by no means certain. Again, I can dismiss this point.

9. I'm unfamiliar with this claim, and have no real interest in researching it.

10. Yeah another point I'm happy to dismiss.

11. It would take an extremely skilled pilot to do what they claimed, however I can't sit here and say that's impossible, so another point dismissed.

12. The more interesting point about this aspect is that these guys' passports survived the impact and fire. THAT is something I can't dismiss. They should make planes and buildings out of the stuff they make passports out of.

In summary, I'll say that poop's list of issues can be mostly dismissed, however there are critical aspects of this that cannot be explained. Even you banana have raised questions that need answering, such as why are they saying fire did it if you agree that fire is unlikely to cause such an eventuality? Are they lying? Or are you wrong?

[OngBonga]

You think that defy's physics? GTFO

There are aspects of the official story that, in my unqualified opinion, defy physics. In particular, the manner of collapse (and the stated reason). They say fire did it. Yet for fire to do this, it would at least need to melt steel (I feel like I've been here before). jetfuelcantmeltsteelbeams.gif

Not only would it need to be capable of melting steel, but also to melt it all the way down to the bottom. Even then, the massive amount of masonry below the impact zone would offer *some* resistance in the form of structural integrity. Freefall cannot happen unless resistance is zero... that's why even falling through air doesn't actually acheive freefall, even air offers a little resistance. So how can thousands of tons of masonry offer the same level of resistance as air? Answer - because it was dust by the time the masonry collapsed down to that point. Fire isn't doing that.

And even if the steel was melted down to the bottom, it would need to be thoroughly melted, ie liquid all the way through. And even then, there is still the lower mass holding up the rest of the building. If the steel beams failed, then the building would topple, not collapse.

And before you try getting pedantic, by topple I mean to lose balance and fall sideways, while collapse is to lose structural integrity and fall downwards.

[BananaStand]

Fuck it, I'll bite, even though you're probably trolling too. I just can't leave that post alone.

Gothcya bitch!

1. Things that fall directly downwards have not lost their balance, they have lost their structural integrity. The buildings did not topple, they collapsed. Had they toppled, I don't think we'd still be talking about this

Not gonna split hairs about the physics. That the ratio of airplane mass, to building mass, is not low enough to make destruction of the building impossible. Especially when you add velocity and incendiary fuel.

2. "The building is designed to come down that way."
What utter bollocks.

Here's the science if you want...http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html.

3. Yes it was a fire.

Dude, I'm not stupid. I realize that there were flames. But when you talk about a "building on fire", it usually carries certain implied meanings and connotations. It suggests a kind of fire where someone smoked in bed, or faulty wiring ignited insulation, or something like that. It's a little different when a fire is caused by 2 tons of jet fuel hurling through the sky.

4. The building didn't explode after impact. That said, windows popping out is nothing I'm wetting myself over. There could be an explanation for that beyond controlled demolition.

I never said the building 'exploded'. I'm saying that you didn't have to be near the impact site to feel the effect of that crash. I'm sure that if you were in the building at all, or even within a block ofthe place, then the impact probably shook every atom in your body. I'm just not that surprised that some glass got cracked.

5. You GTFO. Firemen were saying they heard explosions.

Hmmm, rock solid evidence right there. I'm sure they were in a quiet area, without a lot of disturbances, and they weren't' distracted by anything else going on. I'm sure they weren't worried about saving lives at all, and spent all their attention being ultra focused on distant sounds and were able to identify them definitively as they happened. That all makes perfect sense.

6. It was on fire. Yet it still fell at (near) freefall, much like the other two buildings.

Reference the link above. It was not free fall. Had it been freefall, the building would have fallen much faster. Another point to consider is that while a building might seem solid....it's actually 95% air. A building imploding and collapsing on itself is well within accepted physics principles.

7. Yeah I'm not accepting this as evidence.

Yeah

8. I think the argument was that cellphones were working on the plane. I'm sure this is possible, though by no means certain. Again, I can dismiss this point.

If the plane was low enough to hit the building, why wouldn't cell phones work?

9. I'm unfamiliar with this claim, and have no real interest in researching it

.
It does sound kinda far-fetched.

10. Yeah another point I'm happy to dismiss

You might wanna have a talk with poop, he thinks you guys are on teh same team here.

11. It would take an extremely skilled pilot to do what they claimed, however I can't sit here and say that's impossible, so another point dismissed.

I realize that there are things about pentagon crash site that might raise some eyebrows, but those things would have also been obvious to any possible conspirator. I'm sure they would have picked a more 'believable' site had this all been staged.

12. The more interesting point about this aspect is that these guys' passports survived the impact and fire. THAT is something I can't dismiss. They should make planes and buildings out of the stuff they make passports out of.

I didn't hear about that. Sounds like fake news.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wow. This again?

Gotta love how everyone with no architectural degree has such firm beliefs about what a building is designed for and how it should fall.

As someone without an architectural degree, I'll choose to not speak in absolute terms about the design of the building.

1) Conservation of momentum means its not the mass alone, but the mass times the velocity that is important.
FWIW, I heard that the WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact from a plane, but not a fully fueled plane. It was meant as a safeguard against nasty storms leaving planes circling near NYC in poor visibility conditions. Those planes are meant to be at the end of their journey with much lower total mass. The fact that the buildings stayed up at all is beyond the design specifications of the architects.

2) Everything collapses at free fall if there's no structure underneath it to counter the acceleration of gravity.
Conservation of momentum means that once the initial collapse begins, and stuff is falling with non-0 velocity, the slowing effect of smashing through a lower structure is less and less. Assuming it takes roughly equal momentum transfer to crush each floor's support structure, if it's not enough to stop the first collapse, then it's only going to runaway with increased speed and mass at each collision.

3, 4) IDK. I'm not an expert, but I do know that looks can be deceiving, and there's more than one plausible explanation of the evidence.

5) I've heard plenty of things in my life that sounded like a bomb going off, but were not actually bombs going off.
Significantly, performing a stress and fracture test on a piece of 1/2" steel rebar booms like crazy when it snaps. I suspect that steel I-beams make an even louder boom when they fracture.

6 - 12) I can't speak to any of these things.

[OngBonga]

Not gonna split hairs about the physics.

I'm just making the distinction between "topple" and "collapse" here. In the context by which I'm using these words, the buildings "collapsed". This is merely an observation setting the tone of my points in #2.

I'll read that link shortly, though I really don't think it forms part of the "official story".

Dude, I'm not stupid. I realize that there were flames. But when you talk about a "building on fire", it usually carries certain implied meanings and connotations. It suggests a kind of fire where someone smoked in bed, or faulty wiring ignited insulation, or something like that. It's a little different when a fire is caused by 2 tons of jet fuel hurling through the sky.

I'm not being pedantic here. It was a fire. Obviously we all know what a fire is. How it's caused it kind of irrelevant... the official story says the fire was the cause of the collapse, so they're saying fire did it. That's not my opinion, that's theirs.

And a two tons of jet fuel has a maximum burning temperature... well below that required to melt normal steel, let alone fireproofed reinforced steel.

I never said the building 'exploded'.

Yeah I went back and I accept you meant the plane exploded, not the building, so fair enough. I'm not surprised either that windows popped... that could happen due to pressure changes that are way beyong my comprehension.

Hmmm, rock solid evidence right there.

Don't moan at me because you can't be arsed to search youtube.

Reference the link above. It was not free fall. Had it been freefall, the building would have fallen much faster.

You might want to have a look at the numbers here. Collapse was under ten seconds according to seismic data, and this is supported by video footage.

There really isn't a "much faster" with regards to its speed of collapse. If you dropped a 5kg ball off the top, and air offered zero resistance, it would take 9.65seconds to hit the ground. So this "much faster" that you refer to is under a second.

Another point to consider is that while a building might seem solid....it's actually 95% air.

The 95% air is offering somewhere near 0% of its structural integrity. The bulding is held up by things not called air.

I didn't hear about that. Sounds like fake news.

Nope, it's part of the official story...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PENTTB...orts_recovered

[BananaStand]

You might want to have a look at the numbers here. Collapse was under ten seconds according to seismic data, and this is supported by video footage.

ok.....

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1

[Poopadoop]

ok.....

So wait, a building falls faster than a free moving object with zero resistance? Oh ok, didn't know that about physics.

[Poopadoop]

1. If the plane hitting each tower was what caused them to fall, one might expect that to happen within seconds, not 30-90 minutes later or wtf it was. Look at what happened when the planes hit - did the tower even sway a little? Not perceptibly so, no.

2 & 3. Buildings aren't somehow "designed" to fall in a nice neat pile, don't know where you got that from. And yes, it was the fire (officially) that caused the collapses and not the impact.

4. Look at footage of the ground floor after a plane hit 900 feet above it. It's not just broken windows, the walls are in tatters. Hard to believe that people caused that by running into the walls.

5. News at the time was reporting explosions, so were eyewitnesses. So not sure where you're getting your gtfo from.

6. Doesn't matter if a building gets hit by some chunks of another building. see 1 above, if that caused it to collapse it wouldn't take 8 hours to do it. official story was the fire caused the freefall.

7. Seems pretty logical to secure your president when there's an attack going on. I guess they only apply that protocol to pres's they like though, and Bush fell into the JFK category on that one.

8. Cellphones in 2001 did not work at 30k feet on an airplane calling the ground. Sorry. Calls were faked.

9. Why would they bother? Obviously they don't expect it to be questioned by any of you sheep.

10. Sure, something hit the ground, just wasn't flight 93. Prove me wrong. Look at pictures of the crash site taken the same day and then compare it to other crashes where there's large chunks of plane, luggage, etc. lying everywhere in a smoldering heap. Somehow this particular plane is special because it just disintegrates?

11. It's not like flying a F16 mate. Ask any pilot how hard it is to control a jetliner and if they think they could fly it at treetop level never mind into a building on ground level at 500 mph and they will tell you to gtfo. These are big, heavy, clumsy planes, not designed for precision maneuvering at high speeds. An analogy would be comparing a formula 1 car to a bus in terms of control.

And lol that it's just landing with the wheels up. First, you don't land at 500 mph because you can't control the fucking plane at that speed well enough. Second, if you got super super lucky you might pull it off, on a good day. So saying it's not impossible is true, but saying it's extremely unlikely and should raise an eyebrow or two is more reasonable imo.

Pilots even say it would be next to impossible to hit the wtc at that speed. They've tried it in simulators and 9/10 times missed. So these arab guys who practiced in light planes were just so talented at flying they managed to go 3/3 on hitting buildings. Yeah, right.

[OngBonga]

If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1

Even if this is true (I got 9.54 seconds with some dirty google calculations) then the massive amount of masonry below the impact zone has offered very little resistance to the small part of the building at the top that was collapsing (under 2 seconds, under 20%). Obviously the part of the buildings around and above the impact zone had significantly less mass than the part below. So why is resistance so minimal? That building had a very large amount of inertia, but this was of very little relevance when it came to the collapse.

Inertia is resistance to a change in state of motion. The lower parts of this building had a very rapid change in state of motion, thus the forces were sudden and incredible. I fail to see how this can happen as a consequence of the mass of the top section.

I'll never buy the official story on this one.

[BananaStand]

i may have had some of the science and terminology wrong, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

A plane took out a big chunk of a building, about Five-sixths of the way to the top. It caused structural damage and a fire that eventually weakened that part of the building so much that the top sixth of the building fell down with so much force, that it could not be supported by the structure below it. Then that structure collapsed onto the floor below it. And so on and so on until the whole thing became a pile of dust.

That's what I mean when I say they are "designed that way". Floors are sort of 'stacked' on top of each other, so when the building comes down, everything falls downward.

Why is that so hard to believe?

[BananaStand]

The lower parts of this building had a very rapid change in state of motion, thus the forces were sudden and incredible. I fail to see how this can happen as a consequence of the mass of the top section.

How much do you think the top section weighs? The numbers are all given in the link I provided. The floor can hold 1,300t. The top section weighed 45,000t. So.....it collapsed. Then the floor below that, which is also has a capacity of 1300t, now just got slammed with something that weighs MORE than 45000t. So...it also collapsed.

[Poopadoop]

How much do you think the top section weighs? The numbers are all given in the link I provided. The floor can hold 1,300t. The top section weighed 45,000t. So.....it collapsed. Then the floor below that, which is also has a capacity of 1300t, now just got slammed with something that weighs MORE than 45000t. So...it also collapsed.

The plane hit a section of the building, it didn't shear out a section of it's supporting structure. The structure should be weaker on the section it hit, which should be the section that fails first. Assuming the fire did the rest (if you buy that part of the story), the top of the building should topple over, it shouldn't pancake down the way it did.

[OngBonga]

How much do you think the top section weighs? The numbers are all given in the link I provided. The floor can hold 1,300t. The top section weighed 45,000t. So.....it collapsed. Then the floor below that, which is also has a capacity of 1300t, now just got slammed with something that weighs MORE than 45000t. So...it also collapsed.

The point is that the lower part weighs more than the upper part. You try throwing a ten ton ball at a hundred ton wall.

I'm not sure where your "1300t capacity" thing is coming from. Each floor obviously has greater load-bearing capacity than this otherwise we have ourselves a critical design flaw and the buildings would have collapsed shortly after completion.

[BananaStand]

The structure should be weaker on the section it hit, which should be the section that fails first. Assuming the fire did the rest (if you buy that part of the story), the top of the building should topple over, it shouldn't pancake down the way it did.

It's like you're getting your physics lessons from a Bugs Bunny cartoon.

The top section of that building weighs like...a kajillion lbs. Either the structure below can hold it, or it can't. I know there are always dramatic moments in movies when a structure reaches its limit, struggles, teeters, and then finally collapses or topples. But in real life, once that top section got too heavy for the supports underneath, then the supports underneath are pretty much pulverized. I doubt that whatever support structures are left after a 500mph impact with a jet plane are strong enough to re-direct the falling of that massive, massive, unfathomably massive top section.

[BananaStand]

The point is that the lower part weighs more than the upper part. You try throwing a ten ton ball at a hundred ton wall.

I'm not sure where your "1300t capacity" thing is coming from. Each floor obviously has greater load-bearing capacity than this otherwise we have ourselves a critical design flaw and the buildings would have collapsed shortly after completion.

The lower part isn't a singular entity. It's a collection of structures stacked on top of each other. 1300 came from the site I've linked and quoted like three times in this thread.

Each floor can hold so much before it crashes down onto the floor below it. The weight of the floors above it, is mitigated by support structures that transfer the weight from top floors, to the ground, without affecting lower floors, or at least not affecting them that much.

So if those support structures are compromised somehow.....like......say they were hit by a massive commercial jet liner full of fuel at great speed.....then they are no longer able to do their job of transferring weight from the top of the building....to the ground.

Instead, the weight of the top of the building must now be entirely supported by the floors below it, which they are not strong enough to do.

I don't know if that counts as a design flaw. But yes, it does make large buildings susceptible to suicide kamikaze attacks with a large airplane.

[OngBonga]

i may have had some of the science and terminology wrong, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is a conspiracy.

A plane took out a big chunk of a building, about Five-sixths of the way to the top. It caused structural damage and a fire that eventually weakened that part of the building so much that the top sixth of the building fell down with so much force, that it could not be supported by the structure below it. Then that structure collapsed onto the floor below it. And so on and so on until the whole thing became a pile of dust.

That's what I mean when I say they are "designed that way". Floors are sort of 'stacked' on top of each other, so when the building comes down, everything falls downward.

Why is that so hard to believe?

This explanation would be acceptable if not for the rate of collapse. This is my whole problem with the official story.

When one section collapses on to the section below, the lower section resists this collapse, in exactly the same way air resists the descent of a skydiver. Air offers little resistance, and he can shape himself to be more aerodynamic, so the skydiver can reach velocities approaching freefall. Now I'll grant that the mass of the towers will pretty much negate any aerodynamic effects to the point of negligible, but the mass of the lower part is not negligible. It is more than the mass of the falling part.

For the official story to hold true, the mass of the falling section must have been significantly greater than the lower section yet to collapse. It wasn't, it couldn't be until collapse had reached at least half way down, and that assume the building isn't bottom heavy. It probably was bottom heavy, though I don't know this. It certainly wasn't top heavy.

[OngBonga]

The lower part isn't a singular entity.

It is though.

[OngBonga]

I don't know if that counts as a design flaw. But yes, it does make large buildings susceptible to suicide kamikaze attacks with a large airplane.

It would be a criminal design flaw. And that's the best case scenario here. That no other buildings appear to have this design flaw, that no other buildings were even checked for such design flaws, tells me there wasn't a design flaw.

[OngBonga]

It is though.

To elaborate on this point. Imagine a skydiver jumping out of a plane. The air below the skydiver acts as a "single entity". The diver is essentially at the top of a long column of air, and the density of this column will determine the resistance it offers as the diver falls. The air is essentially compressed as a result of the fall, and as the diver descends, the column gets shorter, and the compression is reduced.

Admittedly, this is a poor analogy, because rather than air being compressed, it is actually being displaced. It moves to the side of the diver, rather than increasing in density. However, if the air was not displaced, if instead it was compressed, the greater density of air underneath the skydiver would slow the descent.

When it comes to the WTC, the floors below were not displaced, they were compressed. So yes, they act as a single entity.

I'm sure mojo will correct me if I'm wide of the mark here.

[BananaStand]

I'm not sure what you're missing. The collapse of the building was slowed by the resistance caused by support from floors below. The building went down in 10 seconds. Without that resistance, it would have been 8 seconds.

It happened exactly the way you said it would have happened if it wasn't faked. So....it wasn't faked.

[Poopadoop]

The top section of that building weighs like...a kajillion lbs. Either the structure below can hold it, or it can't. I know there are always dramatic moments in movies when a structure reaches its limit, struggles, teeters, and then finally collapses or topples. But in real life, once that top section got too heavy for the supports underneath, then the supports underneath are pretty much pulverized. I doubt that whatever support structures are left after a 500mph impact with a jet plane are strong enough to re-direct the falling of that massive, massive, unfathomably massive top section.

Well if what you say is true, then the next time someone wants to do a controlled demolition of a building, all they have to do is knock out the support beams 90% of the way up the structure. From there, the top will fall down onto the bottom and collapse the whole thing.

Funny that that's not how they do a controlled demolition. Or maybe it's just because that won't work. It's almost as if someone smarter than you has already thought about this.

[Poopadoop]

The building went down in 10 seconds. Without that resistance, it would have been 8 seconds.

ya don't know how anyone can measure this when the whole scene is shrouded in smoke and dust.

[BananaStand]

Well if what you say is true, then the next time someone wants to do a controlled demolition of a building, all they have to do is knock out the support beams 90% of the way up the structure. From there, the top will fall down onto the bottom and collapse the whole thing.

Yeah, except that pretty much wrecks a good chunk of the surrounding city block.

Funny that that's not how they do a controlled demolition. Or maybe it's just because that won't work. It's almost as if someone smarter than you has already thought about this.

A controlled demolition would have a completely different set of concerns. I don't think that Al-Quaeda gave a shit if the WTC's neighbors took some building shrapnel.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, except that pretty much wrecks a good chunk of the surrounding city block.



A controlled demolition would have a completely different set of concerns. I don't think that Al-Quaeda gave a shit if the WTC's neighbors took some building shrapnel.

So your story now is it was just good luck all three wtc towers fell straight down? Kinda like the good luck all three of those amateur pilots had in hitting their targets at 500 mph? Wow the stars really lined up that day didn't they?

[OngBonga]

Yeah I'm getting 9.2 seconds.

https://www.angio.net/personal/climb/speed.html

415 meters, any mass value will yield the same drop speed.

Aerodynamic factors are virtually nil due to the massive mass/surface area ratio, so yeah I'm happy with 9.2 seconds as absolute freefall.

As for the actual collapse time, it's generally in the region of "under ten seconds".

So resistance is minimal. Maybe three quarters of a second in actual resistance. That's a monumental amount of force considering the bulk of the building is structurally intact. Dust, however, might offer this little resistance.

I'm bored.

[BananaStand]

I'm bored.

Yeah, let's get to the good stuff.

Like WHO you think really perpetrated this, and WHY

[OngBonga]

Yeah, let's get to the good stuff.

Like WHO you think really perpetrated this, and WHY

Yeah I mean this is where I get really bored. The honest answer is I haven't got a fucking clue, which is why I'm not particularly interested in spending my life shouting "it's bollocks". I think we're at the point now where more people than you realise think it's bollocks. Many people might be in positions where expressing their professional opinion that they think it's bollocks will be more hassle than it's worth. You dismiss the firemen who were there, many of these guys have apparently been dropping dead with 9/11 syndrome or some shite, which I guess is a form of CIA cancer.

This is where the real paranoia lurks, in asking the who and the why. I can base my opinion of the "official story" on my understanding of things like inertia and resistance, so for me at least it's grounded on something I consider to be a reasonably solid platform. But when we start asking who and why, there's no solid ground here, there's just paranoid theories about lizards or satan worshipping peedos doing the rounds on the internet. I'm interested in physics, not fantasy.

If I personally meet a shapeshifter, I'll get back to you on this one.

[Poopadoop]

Too many suspects to pin it down to one. Certainly someone more sophisticated than Al Qaeda though.

[OngBonga]

For the official story to hold true, the mass of the falling section must have been significantly greater than the lower section yet to collapse. It wasn't, it couldn't be until collapse had reached at least half way down, and that assume the building isn't bottom heavy. It probably was bottom heavy, though I don't know this. It certainly wasn't top heavy.

This isn't entirely true. I'm neglecting to consider the energy the upper section has once it is in motion, which will increase as the mass of the section in motion increases. I do get that each floor below will offer less and less resistance as the building collapses, but it will still offer a significant amount more resistance than air will. Even a medium of water will slow this down significantly. Surely a solid building offers more resistance than water. And the question remains how the upper section came to be in downward motion in the first place when its mass is maybe a quarter of the mass of what is supporting it.

It's obviously bollocks. Just don't lose any sleep over it.