[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
I also calculate the time for exterior panels to strike the ground as around 9-10 seconds, as they were in freefall. Glad that my calculations agree with NIST on all counts then.
Apparently Sillybilly thinks the fall of the exterior panels equates to the collapse of the entire building.
And has Sillybilly addressed the timed videos of the collapse of the building?
I also calculate the time for exterior panels to strike the ground as around 9-10 seconds, as they were in freefall. Sounds like my calculations agree with NIST on all counts then, or are you going to cite something where NIST asserts collapse times for the rest of the building that are not in agreement?
Wait, we are going to NIST for times now? Not gorgo loltubz?
Oh and thanks. Again.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I guess this all that's left:
Wait, we are going to NIST for times now? Not gorgo loltubz?
Oh and thanks. Again.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Since you seem incapable of responding to requests for citation, I will put it like this: if the next response from you is not a link to a NIST report asserting a time of less than 11.5 seconds for the point of collapse to hit the ground, I will consider the collapse time issue closed and resolved.
.
I changed my mind about one thing: I DO feel sorry for Billy after seeing his last couple posts.
I won't engage him any more. I prefer not to be part of his public humilitation. He is obviously not well.
Peace!
I made the mistake of thinking Luciom was mentally ill early on. Turns out he was just evil. I'm not assuming anymore. He's coming here willingly and can leave anytime he wants. He gets made fun of until he does. That's my stance.
I made the mistake of thinking Luciom was mentally ill early on. Turns out he was just evil. I'm not assuming anymore. He's coming here willingly and can leave anytime he wants. He gets made fun of until he does. That's my stance.
Well, he is either so stupid that he doesn't understand that an exterior panel flying off the side of a building and the building it flew off are different things (even after having had it explained what must by now be several dozen times), or, more likely, he has some sort of mental defect which precludes him from being able to onboard information that would require him to admit that he was wrong about something.
BTW d2_e4:
Presuming we are discussing the south tower, the collapse initiated somewhere between 77 and 85, per this image:
I made the mistake of thinking Luciom was mentally ill early on. Turns out he was just evil. I'm not assuming anymore. He's coming here willingly and can leave anytime he wants. He gets made fun of until he does. That's my stance.
Fair enough. I wasn't attempting to advocate for OTHERS to stop engaging him. I was explaining why I am choosing to not engage him any further.
Peace!
Well, he is either so stupid that he doesn't understand that an exterior panel flying off the side of a building and the building it flew off are different things (even after having had it explained what must by now be several dozen times), or, more likely, he has some sort of mental defect which precludes his from being able to onboard information that would require him to adm
Right, he's just stupid and obstinate. Very common in conspiracy theory land.
BTW d2_e4:Presuming we are discussing the south tower, the collapse initiated somewhere between 77 and 85, per this image: source: https://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/2001...
I did the calcs for different floors between 75-110 as you saw, but the 11.5s figure is for 95 floors to it would be for the north tower. My uneducated guess would be that air resistance for a bunch of falling concrete and steel is negligible, and the supports between the floors are going to snap like matchsticks with the mass of 15+ floors collapsing on top of them, so neither of those factors are probably not going to slow things down much.
For the north tower:
I did the calcs for different floors between 75-110 as you saw, but the 11.5s figure is for 95 floors to it would be for the north tower. My uneducated guess would be that air resistance for a bunch of falling concrete and steel is negligible, and the supports between the floors are going to snap like matchsticks with the mass of 15+ floors collapsing on top of them, so neither
And since I'm now talking to someone who has half a brain, unlike billduncecap up there, settling on a "collapse time" is obviously a matter of defining the starting and ending points of the collapse. Truthers want to have their cake and eat it, too, when it comes to this, so I always time from the collapse initiation until the collapse is no longer progressing (so not counting any remaining settling, but definitely counting any floors still falling on floors below).
This is because of the obvious problem of counting when stuff from the top reaches the ground, that's just whatever was falling next to the collapse and will obviously be near freefall. Here we run into billy's attempt to latch onto NIST's time for the first exterior panels to hit the ground. This is a useless measurement in terms of what billy is trying to do. We know this, he doesn't appear to or won't admit it.
For the time that matters to claims such as billy or Deuces are making, you obviouslu need to count from initiation until no more progression. This is why simply reading what others cite as a collapse time is meaningless (unless you reference what their starting and endpoints are). They do not have the same goal we have here, so they are most likely not using the correct endpoints.
This is why I used the video evidence to demonstrate the complete collapse times and why they don't always match with numbers cited in other places by other people who aren't measuring it the same way we require for our purposes.
I realize you know this, but I just wanted to spell it out explicitly for you/anyone else that might be reading along.
I will no longer be responding to billy directly, only making fun of him. If anyone else has any questions I can help with, I will be glad to answer, of course. I've been debunking this and moon landing conspiracy theories since at least 2006.
Yeah, I didn't need to reach the issue of the start and end points. I wanted to know where he got his 27 second number from. Since it didn't agree with his own calculations, the answer is that he pulled it out of his ass as I suspected (or more likely parroting something from some conspiracy blog).
As an aside, dude is too dumb to use autofill in Excel to extend his calculation for 110 floors, so he worked it out for 3 and hand waved the rest away with "you see where this is going?" He didn't even calculate the time each floor took to collapse, only the initial velocity of each floor after impact, I had to look up the formula to work out the time as a function of initial velocity, distance and acceleration myself (you actually need to solve a quadratic for that, which is probably a bit beyond numbnut's abilities).
So whatever figures he's throwing around like 27 seconds, 100 seconds etc. are entirely made up. They are not the result of any calculation he did, not even an incorrect one.
That's hilarious.
And since I'm now talking to someone who has half a brain, unlike billduncecap up there, settling on a "collapse time" is obviously a matter of defining the starting and ending points of the collapse. Truthers want to have their cake and eat it, too, when it comes to this, so I always time from the collapse initiation until the collapse is no longer progressing (so not counting
TL.
DR.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yeah, I didn't need to reach the issue of the start and end points. I wanted to know where he got his 27 second number from. Since it didn't agree with his own calculations, the answer is that he pulled it out of his ass as I suspected (or more likely parroting something from some conspiracy blog).As an aside, dude is too dumb to use autofill in Excel to extend his calculation
Failure to follow earlier thread, noted. The 27 s and 100 s predictions use different models that include resistance estimates. As pointed out to you earlier.
We see the calc I began, this time allowing totally no resistance whatsoever to steelman you to the max, finished off by you at my request, results in a 50% longer time than that recorded.
You then decided to have a further model, resulting in a 15% longer fall time than the observed fall time.
Thank you for your hard work disproving the NIST claim.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Failure to follow earlier thread, noted. The 27 s and 100 s predictions use different models that include resistance estimates. As pointed out to you earlier.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I asked you for your model to arrive at the 27s and 100s predictions specifically. Why did you provide me a different model? And why did you claim it was the model that I asked for? Were you lying?
I am not responding to the rest of the drivel in your post, it's been addressed and re-addressed already.
You really don't. In particular you don't seem to understand that the report is referring to the time it took exterior panels to fall through the air to the ground from the upper parts of the towers. Even though this has been explained to you, you don't see it.
I asked you for your model to arrive at the 27s and 100s predictions specifically. Why did you provide me a different model? And why did you claim it was the model that I asked for? Were you lying?
I am not responding to the rest of the drivel in your post, it's been addressed and re-addressed already.
No lie from me. Quit projecting. I adjusted the model, I said I am re-doing calcs. To give you no escape from the inevitable conclusion.
We see your vague "some resistance" "moving fast" etc. I give you no way out. I am saying have it. Have the absolute shortest possible collapse time without any resistance at all. We know immediately in qualitative terms this is not possible in any case.
But where is the fun in that.
Your prediction, under optimum favourable circumstances (impossible in practice) gives a time 15% longer than observed.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You really don't. In particular you don't seem to understand that the report is referring to the time it took exterior panels to fall through the air to the ground from the upper parts of the towers. Even though this has been explained to you, you don't see it.
Exterior panels getting spammed hard here. Clinging to the exterior panels on the inevitable descent. Nice analogy that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No lie from me. Quit projecting. I adjusted the model, I said I am re-doing calcs. To give you no escape from the inevitable conclusion.We see your vague "some resistance" "moving fast" etc. I give you no way out. I am saying have it. Have the absolute shortest possible collapse time without any resistance at all. We know immediately in qualitative terms this is not possible in
Ok, I will review your adjusted model when you post it. This time, be explicitly clear about what it's calculating and what assumptions you are making if you want me to look at it.
Your prediction, under optimum favourable circumstances (impossible in practice) gives a time 15% longer than observed.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Repeating this fantasy over and over doesn't make it true.
Billy,
A bowling ball rolls off the roof of a building just as it starts to collapse.
a). What hits the ground first, the bowling ball or the roof of the building?
b). Do you consider to the building to have collapsed when the bowling ball hits the ground?
Now replace "bowling ball" with "exterior panel" and bask in the glory of what an exceptionally stupid person you are.
