[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Your assertion of beginning the collapse 20 floors down.

But you can have it. You can ignore air resistance also. And ignore inertial resistance from inward buckling.

You will not get more favourable circumstances and still you cannot support nist's 10 s collapse time.

Over to you. We await.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

For the 100th time, I'm not supporting anything. I asked how you arrived at your numbers, and as a result of your response I am content that your numbers are trash.

But for my own interest, I'll work out a function that takes all the relevant variables and gives us a collapse time as output at some point. When I can be bothered. It'll take me a while, I'm rusty on finding a closed form for recursive sequences (which is what we have right now when we go floor by floor). I think it's usually done using generating functions. Or we might be able to spot a nice geometric series. I'll have to play with it.

Or I could do what you should have done and make a spreadsheet and use the magic of autofill to work it out. But that's cheating and no fun.

You haven't disproven anything, your calculation is invalid. As for the rest, see above.

The paper is trash. The only useful bit is here.

"Must be almost free fall".

Naturally they cannot prove this. Any attempt to prove it results in dis-proof.

That's your hill. Go.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Maybe they proved it by looking at photos. Proof by looking at it seems to be all the rage these days.

Yes well I do this kind of crap from my phone while on a train journey.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Nice try.

You think you are getting out of this?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Your repeating of the freefall collapse and BLATANT LIE about nist claiming a 10s collapse time is noted. Stop lying idiot.

How did the towers collapse and how long did it take?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

The paper you yourself cited states not only that the collapse time was 10 s or less but that it HAD to be in freefall!

Credibility of gorgo drops to negative.

PS: we already knew.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Are you some sort of ****ing cretin? I've told you about half a dozen times in the last hour that I'm not making any positive claims.

For the record, this video conclusively proves the timing of the collapse of the two towers.

Nist does NOT claim 9 or 10s for collapse. It claims that time for when the first exterior panels (WHICH YOU CAN PLAINLY WATCH IN FREEFALL MOST OF THE WAY DOWN) to hit the ground.

As you can see in the above video, the building is nowhere near fully collapsed when that happens.

The paper I cited ISN'T A COLLAPSE MODEL AND ISN'T BY NIST dumbass. It's a simplified model and isn't attempting to measure the collapse time. You can't be this stupid.

billy,

You didn't answer my question about whether you have special expertise in estimating the weight of debris piles by looking at photographs or video. If so, could you please estimate the weight of the debris pile in the video I linked. And if there is any math behind your estimate, I would be keen to see it. If your expertise mainly derives from intuition rather than calculation, then I of course will understand if you are unable to show your work.

Oh and if I were to bother I would code this with Python. But it would take me a heck of a lot longer than the computer nerd i know is lurking here somewhere.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I know. But it's fun to watch you squirm under the pressure.

Does gorgo know his poster boy doesn't even believe the official story himself?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

If you mean software developer, that would be me. But I'm much more interested in finding a closed form mathematically than doing any coding.

I couldn't give two squirts about any "official story." I'm calling out your lying and terrible logic and junior high physics mistakes, not supporting an "official story."

Liar.

Sounds like 10 seconds is not the official story, and you just made that up. Seems like you enjoy making things up, you are doing a lot of it.

If not, show me where it says 10 seconds in the NIST report.

Again, let me show you the very same paper you literally just cited.

They say:

"So the collapse of the tower must be an almost freefall... observed to be 9 seconds".

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

And yet you can observe yourself that it's far longer than that. What's your point? Bazant was not tasked with timing the collapse, so it's irrelevant what he claims. He was wrong about the collapse time. Literally no one disputes this.

Aren't you the one that told us to believe what our eyes see not what you're told? The difference is I SHOWED YOU THE VIDEO. You've shown NOTHING.

Go ahead, dispute the timing in the video, dumbass.

So the authors of the paper you cited as some kind of authority, or something, have got the time wrong? What else do they have wrong? What do they have right? Did you read their paper? What exactly in the paper are you supposed to be referencing here?

They say it MUST have been free fall.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Ah the plot thickens. A man with too much time on his hands (proven by epic 2p2 post count and endless trolling). With the ability to easily do the above.

But let us stop this nonsense. You know I am correct already.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yes. The paper is not about the collapse time. It's about the collapse energy and the resistance to it. It's irrelevant that it's incorrect.

If you want to know what else they got wrong, read it and find out dipshit.

I wasn't referencing anything to you, idiot. I was showing it to d2 because he was undertaking a simplified version of it. I deleted my post because it's not relevant to this and I knew with certainty you would deflect to it as hard as you can, because it's a way to soothe your cognitive dissonance. And boy was I right.

Oh look, you're lying again. He said almost, and he based that on the incorrect timing. Fing idiot.