[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 can, from technical reports.
But your 2p2 rambling is not a technical report, and you are struggling. So please clarify.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Link me to this NIST report that says "within 12 seconds" again please. I want to see for myself if it's even a technical report or intended for a general audience. And also see how they use numbers in other contexts.
Our model fully supports a collapse time "within 12 seconds", though, regardless of your blathering on about exactly what that phrase means (hint: it means within 12 seconds). According to the NIST FAQ, resistance from the floor supports was minimal, so I can fully buy in that it doesn't add more than half a second or so.You keep claiming to have a more accurate model that pred
[Voice echoing around vacant 2p2 forums]
The tower... the tower collapsed... in nine seconds... bezant... he said... nine seconds... the tower...
... is anybody... there?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Link me to this NIST report that says "within 12 seconds" again please. I want to see for myself if it's even a technical report or intended for a general audience. And also see how they use numbers in other contexts.
Link me link me link me
I have lost the internet.
Let me see how they use numbers... contexts.
You have heard of nist? They are kind of an international standard. A go-to source for agreed constants etc. For the scientific community you understand.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Link me link me link me
I have lost the internet.
Let me see how they use numbers... contexts.
You have heard of nist? They are kind of an international standard. A go-to source for agreed constants etc. For the scientific community you understand.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What? How am I supposed to know which exact PDF out of the dozens or hundreds they have published about 9/11 had the passage you quoted? You quoted it, so I am asking you to link it. Hardly unreasonable.
I know what NIST is. I want to see how they use numbers in that paper, dipshit.
[Voice echoing around vacant 2p2 forums]
The tower... the tower collapsed... in nine seconds... bezant... he said... nine seconds... the tower...
... is anybody... there?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Did I comment on Bazant? Why should I care that he said 9 seconds? Sounds like he was just giving the freefall calculation for approximation. As someone else said in this very thread, ever heard of approximation?
Like I keep telling you, only you conspiracy nutjobs care about exact collapse times because you think it supports your space laser fantasies. You are not his audience, and everybody else reading his paper probably doesn't care about the difference between "freefall" and "close to freefall", because that is not the purpose of his paper.
Energy is not momentum. We have not used an energy model. We are assuming there is enough energy for a collapse. We are assuming there is no resistance whatsoever. So there will always be enough energy to cause collapse here.The d2-billy model assumes the full mass of above floors coupling on impact with subsequent floors. This is the claimed to be progressive collapse domino e
You're a nut!!
Straw man.
We are assuming there is enough energy for a collapse. We are assuming there is no resistance whatsoever. So there will always be enough energy to cause collapse here.
Who the hell is we? We are doing none of those things.
The d2-billy model assumes the full mass of above floors coupling on impact with subsequent floors. This is the claimed to be progressive collapse domino effect. This model ignores multiple resistances and assumes no mass is lost. As we saw, this gives a minimum collapse time of 11.5 s. Once we factor in resistance and the lower mass due to debris and dust spewing outwards and
Again, Bazant shows that there is an order of magnitude more energy being released downwards to progress the collapse even when factoring resistance from the building.
Irrelevant. Has no bearing on the current argument and Bazant was neither tasked with doing so nor described the method he used to arrive at this number.
To repeat: Irrelevant. Has no bearing on the current argument and Bazant was neither tasked with doing so nor described the method he used to arrive at this number.
Ohhhhhhh you mean the exterior panel collapsed in 9 seconds?
No. The tower. The tower that collapsed. In 9 seconds.
The tower collapsed in 9 seconds.
You once again (actually more like 4 times in one post) deflected to the irrelevant timing of the collapse when nothing about that was being discussed, repeating your pansy-maneuver.
Reminder: here are the unaddressed problems with your theory (only some - if we get these taken care of, we can move to the others).
Explain how this description matches the evidence better than my description.
The evidence is that in every frame from just after 2:13, the central column structure is visible moving downwards towards the ground, until it disappears from view. In order to match your description better, what details that are visually apparent in the video can you point out to us that indicate it turned to dust rather than just falling down?
Some of the tower did since some if it is made of concrete and drywall. This explains the clouds of dust seen in the videos. This is completely expected in a collapse of this type.
There is no lack of debris that needs an explanation. This is something you just made up.
No matter how many times you deflect away from these problems, they will remain and I will put them right back up here and call you out for being a pansy about them.
Enjoy.
[Voice echoing around vacant 2p2 forums]
The tower... the tower collapsed... in nine seconds... bezant... he said... nine seconds... the tower...
... is anybody... there?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It doesn't matter. What happened happened. If various people put slightly wrong figures on it, that doesn't alter the case. It just means they were a bit out.
What? How am I supposed to know which exact PDF out of the dozens or hundreds they have published about 9/11 had the passage you quoted? You quoted it, so I am asking you to link it. Hardly unreasonable.
I know what NIST is. I want to see how they use numbers in that paper, dipshit.
There is the faq sheet.
And the report.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I see. You have abused the ambiguity for comic effect.
The nist report is different. They know about uncertainty. They are a recognised authority for weights and measures.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
By your very own "logic", had NIST written "within 11.9 seconds", this would represent a larger number than "within 12 seconds" (up to 11.85 vs up to 11.5).
Take a bow and bask in how gloriously cretinous that is.
By your very own "logic", had NIST written "within 11.9 seconds", this would represent a larger number than "within 12 seconds" (up to 11.85 vs up to 11.5).
Take a bow and bask in how gloriously cretinous that is.
To one tenth of a second.
Bask in the stupidity.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Did I comment on Bazant? Why should I care that he said 9 seconds? Sounds like he was just giving the freefall calculation for approximation. As someone else said in this very thread, ever heard of approximation? Like I keep telling you, only you conspiracy nutjobs care about exact collapse times because you think it supports your space laser fantasies. You are not his audience
He gives the freefall calc as less than 9 s and the observed time as 9 seconds.
Yes an approximation. Closer to 9 seconds than to either 8 or 10 seconds.
Ignoring data that disagrees with your wanted conclusion is called cherry picking and exposes your agenda to wilfully mislead yourself and others about what really happened.
What you should do is take my lead. Combine all the authoritative references to the collapse time into a single average. We should continue to find authoritative times should they be reported anywhere and combine these.
Bezant: 9 s.
Eagar: within 10 s.
Nist report: within 12 s.
Nist faqs: 9 s and 11s.
Mean: (9 + 10 + 12 + 9 + 11)/5 = 10 s.
Removing the contentious nist faqs figures:
Mean: (9 + 10 + 12)/3 = 10 s.
We have our final outcome confirmed once more. Progressive collapse under optimal circumstances, i.e. no resistance whatsoever and total mass available, would take 11.5 s.
For a ball park figure as to resistance Eagar estimates an additional 2 s. Which puts the minimum time 13.5 s.
But we need not muddy the waters.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
He gives the freefall calc as less than 9 s and the observed time as 9 seconds.Yes an approximation. Closer to 9 seconds than to either 8 or 10 seconds.Ignoring data that disagrees with your wanted conclusion is called cherry picking and exposes your agenda to wilfully mislead yourself and others about what really happened.What you should do is take my lead. Combine all the aut
Averaging out collapse times given by a bunch of sources, mostly approximations. Using the completely meaningless average figure to declare progressive collapse impossible.
Physics master Billy at work here, folks:
Hey Billy, I found another source that gives it as 22 seconds. When we put it into your average calculation, we now get 13 seconds. Progressive collapse is back on, folks! Phew, close one.
My source is 2+2 poster Gorgonian and video of the event. Glad we got that sorted.
Averaging out collapse times given by a bunch of sources, mostly approximations. Using the completely meaningless average figure to declare progressive collapse impossible. Physics master Billy at work here, folks:
This is hardly physics.
But yes it does negate progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
This is hardly physics.
But yes it does negate progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Only in your mind. The fact that a couple of people gave collapse times that are clearly at odds with what we see in the video doesn't make it impossible. Put down the crack pipe, Billy, drugs are bad, mmmkay?
Hey Billy, I found another source that gives it as 22 seconds. When we put it into your average calculation, we now get 13 seconds. Progressive collapse is back on, folks! Phew, close one.
My source is 2+2 poster Gorgonian and video of the event. Glad we got that sorted.
It only took circa 456 781 posts (+/- 0.5 posts) to fully break d2_e4.
Gorgo is his citation.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It only took circa 456 781 posts (+/- 0.5 posts) to fully break d2_e4.
Gorgo is his citation.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I think you're missing the point. If you're going to start citing figures from outside the official (NIST) report, any source is fair game. Let's just average them all together and then declare progressive collapse possible/impossible depending on what sources we find. What a fun game.
I think you're missing the point. If you're going to start citing figures from outside the official (NIST) report, any source is fair game. Let's just average them all together and then declare progressive collapse possible/impossible depending on what sources we find. What a fun game.
I wrote a (now classified) report that proved that the collapse time was 24.47834s. Please average that in with the others. Thanks!
