[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
1. It is in the Eagar article. The Professor of engineering at MIT, that Eagar. The building collapsed within 10 seconds, that guy. He claims without resistance it would have been 8 seconds. How is your subtraction? Any better than your rounding?
The freefall time from the same height as we used in our calculations is over 9 seconds, so either he thinks that the building collapsed faster than freefall or he's working with different inputs to us.
For the Record:
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm totally fine with believing that the towers must have collapsed in 10s and/or Space Lasers and/or The Towers Are Still Standing but Are Invisible. I'm not one to automatically or blindly accept official narratives. I'll happily believe what the evidence shows.
In my opinion, Billy has yet to provide compelling evidence against the official story.
The whole concept of averaging data points from 3 different sources, 2 of which aren't even official sources of those data points and only mention them essentially in passing as an approximation, to rule a theory as "impossible" is ****ing ridiculous.
Ok then just gorgo-tubz will do.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hi billy. Going to address the problems with your theory or run away like a pansy again?
Gorgonian is not the source. The video is the source. Do you think if I post a video of an event that somehow makes me the source of the information in the video? Like, honestly, even you can't be this ****ing stupid.
Right. So you, d2-e4 who has not yet, in some 45632648392293 posts about 9/11 not made a positive claim (so he says), now saying, in his own opinion, that the towers collapsed in 15 s and 22 s based on his own interpretation of video evidence?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Right. So you, d2-e4 who has not yet, in some 45632648392293 posts about 9/11 not made a positive claim (so he says), now saying, in his own opinion, that the towers collapsed in 15 s and 22 s based on his own interpretation of video evidence?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'd need you to define the start and end points of what you consider "collapse" for that. If you can do that sufficiently rigorously, I'll watch the video and let you know.
The freefall time from the same height as we used in our calculations is over 9 seconds, so either he thinks that the building collapsed faster than freefall or he's working with different inputs to us.
This is cited to give an opinion, as you requested, from an expert, as to the kind of additional time that would be added should resistance be considered. I do not personally agree with him. That is not the point.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
This is cited to give an opinion, as you requested, from an expert, as to the kind of additional time that would be added should resistance be considered. I do not personally agree with him. That is not the point.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok but if he's working with different inputs, or if he has some faster than freefall model, then our models are incompatible without reconciling those differences first. You can't just take the 2 seconds from his model and add it to ours if he's working with different floor heights or whatever else.
I'd need you to define the start and end points of what you consider "collapse" for that. If you can do that sufficiently rigorously, I'll watch the video and let you know.
As bezant says
The tower collapsed in 9 seconds.
How long did the tower take to collapse?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
As bezant says
The tower collapsed in 9 seconds.
How long did the tower take to collapse?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I have no idea. What are his start and end points? 9 seconds is pretty fast, not sure I agree with that number anyway.
The only meaningful start and end points for the purposes of comparing to the conservation of momentum model would be the time from when the first floor "pancaked" to when this floor reached the ground. I am not sure it is possible to ascertain this information to any degree of accuracy given the visual obstruction from large clouds of dust as can be seen in the video of the event. Different authors may of course be using other start and end points for what they define as "collapse".
Additionally, Bezant and Eagar may be experts in structural engineering, or material science, or whatever else they are experts in, but if they are not providing any calculations for their collapse time number and are just mentioning it in passing in narrative form, we can only assume that they watched the same video we all did and arrived at an approximate time with the aid of a stopwatch or frame count or similar. Therefore their expertise has no relevance to their assessment of the approximate time that the buildings took to collapse, and you or Gorgo or geezercgess or I are equally qualified to make the same assessment by watching a video of the event. Well, I'm not sure about you.
Somehow multiple experts know this but you do not, yet are unwilling to listen to them. The start point is when the towers began to collapse. The end point is when the towers finished collapsing.
9 seconds is pretty fast, not sure I agree with that number anyway.
I wonder whether we should respect the opinion of multiple experts... or you.
The only meaningful start and end points for the purposes of comparing to the conservation of momentum model would be the time from when the first floor "pancaked" to when this floor reached the ground.
A sensible suggestion.
I am not sure it is possible to ascertain this information to any degree of accuracy
Not even to the nearest day.
given the visual obstruction from large clouds of dust as can be seen in the video of the event.
It did not occur to you that one of the biggest organisations for standards in technology, with massive resources at their disposal, tasked with the very objective of determining what happened on 9/11 might be able to work this out to the nearest second? They could. And they did. It is in their final report. Unless they are lying. Which makes you a conspiritard.
Different authors may of course be using other start and end points for what they define as "collapse".
No. They are not. There are not different definitions of collapse. They each have an uncertainty. This is fundamental to any measurement.
Additionally, Bezant and Eagar may be experts in structural engineering, or material science, or whatever else they are experts in, but if they are not providing any calculations for their collapse time number and are just mentioning it in passing in narrative form, we can only assume that they watched the same video we all did and arrived at an approximate time with the aid of a stopwatch or frame count or similar. Therefore their expertise has no relevance to their assessment of the approximate time that the buildings took to collapse, and you or Gorgo or geezercgess or I are equally qualified to make the same assessment by watching a video of the event. Well, I'm not sure about you.
Bezant, Eagar and the nist team. And others. I have searched far and wide but the only reference to the collapse time concurs with a 10 second average time.
The only exception being... right here. 2p2 conspiritards the three stooges.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That seems to be pretty much just an assertion.
How long did the tower take to collapse?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There's no exact agreed figure, due to the difficulty of observation. Each tower seems to have been reduced to debris within about half a minute. NIST found that the partial cores began to subside at 15sec and 22sec respectively, this being observable only because the floors around the cores had already gone.
No amount of fussing over numbers is going to prove the existence of the space-based directed-energy super-weapon imagined by Judy Wood.
Boy billy, that was a lot of words to type and never once address the multiple demonstrable problems with your theory. Kind of a pansy move if you ask me.
Define 'ad hom.'
(Serious question; I'm almost certain you don't know what an ad hominem is.)
From the American heritage dictionary of the English language:
ad hominem
Attacking a person's character...
Usage Note: ... the literal meaning of the phrase “toward the person.”... ad hominem is usually used nowadays to describe a personal attack ... The phrase is now chiefly used to describe an argument based on the personal traits of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. This sentence was acceptable to 90 percent of the Panel in 1997 and 98 percent in 2013. The expression also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument... This use was acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel in 1997 and to 72 percent in 2013.
So, a clear majority of language experts agree that the use of the term ad hominem adequately describes ANY GENERAL PERSONAL ATTACK on the person REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS PART OF AN ARGUMENT.
Finishing a post with
"Oh and by the way Billy, you're an idiot"
Or
"You are not expected to understand this, because you were dropped on the head as a child"
Or
"geezerchess you dunning-kruger slack jawed yokel it is frightening people as dumb as you are actually exist god help us you have the vote"
Etc
Are not just "personal insults" they are ad hom attacks. By definition.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Boy billy, that was a lot of words to type and never once address the multiple demonstrable problems with your theory. Kind of a pansy move if you ask me.
Interesting you keep saying that.
"Pansy" is used as a derogatory, homophobic slur for an effeminate, weak, or gay man. It implies that the person is delicate, timid, or unmanly, drawing on sexist stereotypes that equate femininity with weakness. The term is considered offensive and is derived from a, now less common, usage in the early-to-mid 20th century.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It did not occur to you that one of the biggest organisations for standards in technology, with massive resources at their disposal, tasked with the very objective of determining what happened on 9/11 might be able to work this out to the nearest second? They could.
No, NIST was commissioned to report how buildings could be made safer in future.
There are not different definitions of collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There are, since it depends what endpoint you select, but the difficulty of observation applies in any case.
That seems to be pretty much just an assertion.There's no exact agreed figure, due to the difficulty of observation. Each tower seems to have been reduced to debris within about half a minute. NIST found that the partial cores began to subside at 15sec and 22sec respectively, this being observable only because the floors around the cores had already gone. No amount of fussing o
But it will pose the question of how exactly the towers did come down.
Until the possibility is seriously accepted there is no point speculating. Unless we want to feed the trolls. Tuppence a troll.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No, NIST was commissioned to report how buildings could be made safer in future.
There are, since it depends what endpoint you select, but the difficulty of observation applies in any case.
Except not difficult to multiple experts, none of whom mention the difficulty you experience.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Except not difficult to multiple experts, none of whom mention the difficulty you experience.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Why would they all come up with different figures then? Are they all in on the conspiracy, and leaving this discrepancy as a clue for those smart enough to see when they look?
