[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
So Billy, since you appear to have no response at all other than "hurr durr you guys think NIST got it wrong lol", I assume this is the last we'll be hearing from you about collapse time nonsense. Move on to the next thing.
I will.
That is, once you concede that the collapse time negates progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I will.
That is, once you concede that the collapse time negates progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
A sub 11.5 second time would, if it were accurate. The buildings took longer than 15 seconds collapse, which we can see for ourselves with our own eyes, so the actual collapse time does not.
Another interesting report here, by Chandler.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...
Cites detailed video analysis supporting near freefall timing.
(Also interesting is his main thesis as to the impossibility of prog collapse because the "pile driver" top portion began its disintegration ahead of the first "collision" and in any case lacked the force required.)
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Another interesting report here, by Chandler.https://www.researchgate.net/publication...Cites detailed video analysis supporting near freefall timing.(Also interesting is his main thesis as to the impossibility of prog collapse because the "pile driver" top portion began its disintegration ahead of
That's a long paper so it'll take me a while to read, but looks like it's at least something with supporting calculations and actual facts and evidence rather than "proof by looking at it" and "proof by unsupported assertion" a la the Judy Wood page you linked.
I also don't know that my limited understanding of physics would be sufficient to provide any meaningful comment on the contents of this paper. But I'll endeavour to read it and understand as much of it as possible, since I'm now kinda "involved" with all this.
On another note, congratulations Billy, it's been only a couple of months or so, but you've finally managed to provide something to support your case that is not the evidentiary equivalent of a colouring book completed by a 4 year old with some blunt crayons.
That's a long paper so it'll take me a while to read, but looks like it's at least something with supporting calculations and actual facts and evidence rather than "proof by looking at it" and "proof by unsupported assertion" a la the Judy Wood page you linked. I also don't know that my limited understanding of physics would be sufficient to provide any meaningful comment on th
It was merely a 5th citation as to the collapse time being practically free fall but sure, it is not difficult, just standard mechanics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
On another note, congratulations Billy, it's been only a couple of months or so, but you've finally managed to provide something to support your case that is not the evidentiary equivalent of a colouring book completed by a 4 year old with some blunt crayons.
Somehow I suspect you will be claiming this in the end. He will be in the "cranks, mavericks, people I dont agree with".
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It was merely a 5th citation as to the collapse time being practically free fall but sure, it is not difficult, just standard mechanics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Do you not understand the difference between this, which is a paper that is actually explicitly looking at the collapse time and providing evidence for how how the author arrived at his figures, and your other citations, which are just narrative asides in papers that are explicitly not about that topic, and the authors provide no evidence or methodology how they arrived at their figures? You don't understand this difference?
Do you not understand the difference between this, which is a paper that is actually explicitly looking at the collapse time and providing evidence for how how the author arrived at his figures, and your other citations, which are just narrative asides in papers that are explicitly not about that topic, and the authors provide no evidence or methodology how they arrived at thei
I have read nist, bezant, eagar, and chandler (re chandler i was actually trying to find a time in support of your 15/22) Chandler is against nist-eagar-bezant, i.e. prog collapse. All assume a collapse time of near freefall. Chandler cites video evidence supporting near freefall for a portion of the fall time. Chandler's main schtick is the impossibility of prog collapse period, using a forces model.
10 seconds is the standard time regardless of the main argument.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I have read nist, bezant, eagar, and chandler (re chandler i was actually trying to find a time in support of your 15/22) Chandler is against nist-eagar-bezant, i.e. prog collapse. All assume a collapse time of near freefall. Chandler cites video evidence supporting near freefall for a portion of the fall time. Chandler's main schtick is the impossibility of prog collapse perio
Well the others don't seem to explain why their time contradicts footage of the event, and from what you are saying, this guy explicitly references footage of the event, right? That's a massive difference.
Oh, and depending on your definition of "near", the model you gave and I did the calculations for can be considered "near" free-fall. It's something like freefall + 15-20%.
But 15 s is not near freefall.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Of course. What are you, some kind of conspiritard who thinks there was nobody in there?A key piece of the puzzle is the reaction of people in the towers when under attack. The effect is likened to a crowd control energy weapon.From the AI summary:Hence the reason for the "jumpers", the people jumping from the towers by sheer reflex action to avoid the unbearable energy waves.O
Does.that mean there was ordinary people in the plane in the Shanksville crash?
Put it this way, it might be useful for a military to have multiple means of waging war at its disposal.
DEWs were almost certainly used in Lebanon around 2010.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No one disputes the bolded. I'm just wondering why the military only uses its second best weapons in traditional wars and saves its best weapons for stuff like 9-11.
How does the NIST collapse time negates progressive collapse?
Ok, as we get into the analysis on page 10, the author says this:
Explicitly invoking Newton's Third Law puts this result in another light. Since the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, the falling block exerts a force of only 36% of its weight on the lower section of the building. In other words, as long as the falling block is accelerating downward we have the counter-intuitive result that the force it exerts on the lower section of the building is significantly less than its static weight.
I am really struggling with this statement. He claims that the forces in the interaction are equal and opposite, but I'm not sure they cancel out in the way he claims, because they are acting on different objects. Mechanics never was my strong point, so I'm probably misunderstanding something, but this just doesn't sound right to me at all. Why would the upper block be exerting a smaller force than its static weight if it's accelerating?
He then proceeds to argue against the collapse model based on this conclusion that only 36% of the falling mass was "doing the crushing". But I want to understand how we got here before I go any further.
On another note, congratulations Billy, it's been only a couple of months or so, but you've finally managed to provide something to support your case that is not the evidentiary equivalent of a colouring book completed by a 4 year old with some blunt crayons.
Don't get too excited. That guy isn't a PhD scientist or a professional engineer. He has a masters in math, so I guess that's better than the usual people on whom billy relies.
I've read the paper. I can't really comment on the crux of his argument, which is that I guess he says the building should have offered more resistance(?), but as far as timings go, he appears to be focusing only on the first 4 seconds of the collapse event, which he analyses in some detail. Unless I've missed something, he gives no overall collapse time or any analysis thereof beyond the first 4 seconds.
