[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still
In summary, video and audio evidence CONCLUSIVELY shows the collapse times as:
South Tower: approx 15 seconds
North Tower: approx 22 seconds
Any attempt to use different numbers than these is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST (ie A LIE). I don't care if Bazant said the towers went to the moon, and I don't care if NIST said they collapsed instantly, THOSE ARE THE CORRECT TIMES.
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.
Or 9 seconds if you prefer. These "experts" (gorgo certified) are quite explicit about that.
"MUST be an almost free fall." (My emphasis).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
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.
Also NIST themselves:
No apology necessary.
Actually scrap that. Apologise.
Also do you agree with NIST and gorgo's experts?
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 relevan
Well nice own goal anyway.
Ugh. I'm gloating, how vulgar.
But then you are rather unlpleasant so it's fine.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
In summary, video and audio evidence CONCLUSIVELY shows the collapse times as:
South Tower: approx 15 seconds
North Tower: approx 22 seconds
Any attempt to use different numbers than these is INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST (ie A LIE). I don't care if Bazant said the towers went to the moon, and I don't care if NIST said they collapsed instantly, THOSE ARE THE CORRECT TIMES.
You said approx. What is your uncertainty interval? If I say 14.4 am I a liar? How about 14.49?
What a tangled web you weave.
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 relevan
"It's irrelevant that it's incorrect".
Well I guess kinetic energy and inertia have nothing to do with... time... I mean, anything is... possible... [trails off]...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also NIST themselves:
No apology necessary.Actually scrap that. Apologise.Also do you agree with NIST and gorgo's experts?Sent from my SM-A366B using TapatalkDipshit, it says right there "the first exterior panels". Literally in the bit you highlighted. So yeah, some stuff fell off the side and fell, shocker of all shocks, at free fall. Where the **** does it say that that's the collapse time for the whole building?
Dipshit, it says right there "the first exterior panels". Literally in the bit you highlighted. So yeah, some stuff fell off the side and fell, shocker of all shocks, at free fall. Where the **** does it say that that's the collapse time for the whole building?
Overly defensive reply noted.
They say some of the "cores" remained a while longer. The rate of collapse of these cores they dont say (we know full well what really happened to them ofc).
But this has no bearing on the falling floors, which they say fell at a rate of freefall. They "must" have, goes the claim.
But I am sure you will have no trouble accounting for all that in your model.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also NIST themselves:
No apology necessary.Actually scrap that. Apologise.Also do you agree with NIST and gorgo's experts?Sent from my SM-A366B using TapatalkAs has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you, that's not the collapse time. READ IT YOU DUMB FK. It says the time for the first exterior panels to hit the ground. I LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT TO YOU, DIPSHIT.
Overly defensive reply noted.
They say some of the "cores" remained a while longer. The rate of collapse of these cores they dont say (we know full well what really happened to them ofc).
Nothing to do with collapse time dumbass.
But this has no bearing on the falling floors, which they say fell at a rate of freefall. They "must" have, goes the claim.
You're lying and you know it. They do not say that.
Nobody needs to account for your lies.
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
Billy,
Using your own formulas and assuming the collapse started at the top floor, I make the total collapse time 15 seconds:
If we assume the collapse started on the 90th floor, I make it 11.5 seconds:
(Note the floor mass cancels out so the value doesn't actually matter. Only the ratio of additional mass to floor mass matters).
Here's my work:
I can send you the excel file if you want. All your numbers are complete bollocks.
You're full of **** Billy, you never did the calculations beyond 3 floors or you would have got the same results.
As has been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you, that's not the collapse time. READ IT YOU DUMB FK. It says the time for the first exterior panels to hit the ground. I LITERALLY JUST SAID THAT TO YOU, DIPSHIT.
Also in the final report (2005)
"Within 12 seconds, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble."
Note the seismic data also supports an average of 10 second collapse.
All sources of evidence considered, collapse is between 9 and 12 seconds. That's near free fall. As gorgo's experts claim. Actually they claim 9 seconds.
But gorgo + loltubz.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, Using your own formulas and assuming the collapse started at the top floor, I make the total collapse time 15 seconds: If we assume the collapse started on the 90th floor, I make it 11.5 seconds: (Note the floor mass cancels out so the value doesn't actually matter. Only the ratio of additional mass to floor mass matters).Here's my work: I can send you the excel file
On its face this looks wrong. I'll take a closer look.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, Using your own formulas and assuming the collapse started at the top floor, I make the total collapse time 15 seconds: If we assume the collapse started on the 90th floor, I make it 11.5 seconds: (Note the floor mass cancels out so the value doesn't actually matter. Only the ratio of additional mass to floor mass matters).Here's my work: I can send you the excel file
Yeah it's completely wrong.
Pen and paper rules.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You're full of **** Billy, you never did the calculations beyond 3 floors or you would have got the same results.
Ever heard of labelling axes?
Oh I think I see where you have gone wrong. Your initial v is way off for each collision. You must have messed up momentum conservation calc, or suvat. Both errors are equally bad.
If you have backwards calculated here you will not get away with it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also in the final report (2005)"Within 12 seconds, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble."Note the seismic data also supports an average of 10 second collapse.All sources of evidence considered, collapse is between 9 and 12 seconds. That's near free fall. As gorgo's experts claim. Actually they claim 9 seconds.But gorgo + loltubz.Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Again, not the total collapse time, liar. Address the video evidence or shut up. Also recall that you already conceded to my collapse time dozens of pages ago. You're simply obfuscating at this point. Pathetic.
At 11 seconds, the remaining structure was still taller than the 22 story Marriott hotel as you can see.
Why are you lying?
Ever heard of labelling axes?
Oh I think I see where you have gone wrong. Your initial v is way off for each collision. You must have messed up momentum conservation calc, or suvat. Both errors are equally bad.
If you have backwards calculated here you will not get away with it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Pretty sure it isn't, but if it is, I'm sure you can provide an example. Work it out for the first 3 floors and tell me what it should be for floor 3 then. Initial floor mass = 100kg, g=9.81, distance between floors = 3.8m. Go.
Ever heard of labelling axes?
Oh I think I see where you have gone wrong. Your initial v is way off for each collision. You must have messed up momentum conservation calc, or suvat. Both errors are equally bad.
If you have backwards calculated here you will not get away with it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ah wait, more has now appeared.
Ok i see you have 2 separate charts now.
15 seconds is 50% greater than they assert. Under the most favourable circumstances ignoring any inertial resistance from inward buckling and no air resistance, for a large flat area.
Thus disproving progressive collapse. Good job.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ah wait, more has now appeared.
Ok i see you have 2 separate charts now.
15 seconds is 50% greater than they assert. Under the most favourable circumstances ignoring any inertial resistance from inward buckling and no air resistance, for a large flat area.
Thus disproving progressive collapse. Good job.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I threw a noddy chart together just to get an idea of what the curve looks like. I'm not using the chart to prove anything, refer back to the spreadsheet for that.
Right, because a). 10 seconds is not a number anyone here is claiming and b). the collapse didn't start on the top floor. Note that if it started on the 95th floor, all else being equal, we are down to 11 seconds or so in the model. I'll defer to Gorgo on what number we are actually claiming.
I was just also demonstrating that even if it started on the top floor, the numbers you are throwing around like 27s and 100s are wildly out, using your own methodology, thereby showing that you can't have possibly done the calculations you claim to have done.
I'm at a banquet for my kid so I won't be back until later but I'll try to figure out what you want me to assert and do so later.
Here are the numbers for collapse starting on various floors using Billy's own methodology:
That's the time taken for the bulk of the mass to hit the ground using Billy's own momentum conservation model and neglecting air resistance and buckling etc. Obviously there will be some additional time for whatever's left on top to completely collapse down as well, but not much, since it's already going pretty fast.
