[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
Actual engineers and qualified experts that have discussed Chandler's paper are not kind, for the record.
https://internationalskeptics.com/forums...
Chandler does make some pretty basic errors (eg not differentiating between a static and dynamic load), so it's not surprising. I can see why billy likes him.
Link does not work for me.
And i really want to know what the international wankers think. I mean skeptics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I now have a definitive calc for the collapse time based solely on available, irrefutable data.1. Calculating the total height of the fall.95% of the world trade centre was air, i.e. 5% solid material. 5% by volume gives 13.57% by area. The frontal surface area is therefore expected to squash down into a surface area of height 13.57% of the total height. 110 floors therefore co
Excellent. Now can you explain why your calculation contradicts footage of the event? After 11 seconds we can clearly see a significant portion of the building remaining, much more than 15 floors.
Link does not work for me.
And i really want to know what the international wankers think. I mean skeptics.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Thought we were listening to experts now, Billy? Or let me guess, we only listen to them when what they have to say supports your conclusion.
Yeah, according to this thread, looks like the part I intuitively found suspect is in fact total horseshit.
Sarcasm from this poster, obvs, but this is also the part I could not reconcile in my mind. I was afraid it was because I was missing some basic principle of mechanics. Looks like I wasn't.
You also did not get a few basics from me, which were clear enough.
I would not ordinarily point score on these things, because it is tricky and can be counter intuitive (btw watch Walter Lewin's mechanics lectures on loltubz, they're fantastic) but if you are going to throw mud at Chandler you will get what is coming. Because he is in fact correct.
All an aside ofc, the info I present from Chandler is the acceleration gives the correct collapse time and supports the growing list of expert analysis of the time being around 10 s.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Chandler was trying to expose the contradiction himself. Wasn't amazingly presented but with perseverence we see his point.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Whatever he was trying to expose, his argument seems to be predicated on the principle that an accelerating mass exerts less force than it does when it is static, which, as I suspected, is crazy talk.
Thought we were listening to experts now, Billy? Or let me guess, we only listen to them when what they have to say supports your conclusion.
On the contrary I need an update from them re the latest jokes about disabled people.
Seriously though give me a link that works.
Also a forum is not a properly authored paper. You see there is no accountability. Might as well cite reddit. Or 2p2.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You also did not get a few basics from me, which were clear enough.I would not ordinarily point score on these things, because it is tricky and can be counter intuitive (btw watch Walter Lewin's mechanics lectures on loltubz, they're fantastic) but if you are going to throw mud at Chandler you will get what is coming. Because he is in fact correct.All an aside ofc, the info I p
I'm not qualified to comment the mechanical principles he espouses, but they seem wrong, and I find the arguments that they are in fact wrong more persuasive than his arguments. But again, this has little to do with the timing issue.
Whatever he was trying to expose, his argument seems to be predicated on the principle that an accelerating mass exerts less force than it does when it is static, which, as I suspected, is crazy talk.
Note his point about the load giving 90% of the required load that would cause crushing and acceleration.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm not qualified to comment the mechanical principles he espouses, but they seem wrong, and I find the arguments that they are in fact wrong more persuasive than his arguments. But again, this has little to do with the timing issue.
Right, the timing is not even by him it is by someone else's video analysis.
Re him though, as he says this is undergrad stuff if that. It is A level mechanics and A level maths (dont even need the calculus really to get the point).
You are fibbing if you claim you cannot do this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Right, the timing is not even by him it is by someone else's video analysis.
Re him though, as he says this is undergrad stuff if that. It is A level mechanics and A level maths (dont even need the calculus really to get the point).
You are fibbing if you claim you cannot do this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I can follow the equations just fine. I'm just not convinced he is formed the right equations. For that, I'd have to get into the weeds on the mechanics side of things, which I don't really want to do. I always hated mechanics and it's tangential to the point we're discussing anyway.
Speaking of the point we were discussing, I think your calculation is wrong. You say there was 15 floors left after 10 seconds but in the video we see 30+ floors left after 11 seconds. What say you?
I can follow the equations just fine. I'm just not convinced he is formed the right equations. For that, I'd have to get into the weeds on the mechanics side of things, which I don't really want to do. I always hated mechanics and it's tangential to the point we're discussing anyway.Speaking of the point we were discussing, I think your calculation is wrong. You say there was 1
That is not evident in the video I have seen.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That is not evident in the video I have seen.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ah, you must have missed Gorgo's post where he posts a screenshot of the amount of building remaining after 11 seconds. Easy mistake, I'm sure, you've only been directed to it and asked to respond to it a few dozen times by now. Here it is, hard for you to say you missed it now.
Here's a reminder of how much of the collapse was not finished yet after 11-12 seconds for each of the towers: They didn't collapse in 12 seconds. It took 15 and 22 seconds. This isn't controversial.
So, again, how are there 30+ floors left after 11.3 seconds when you tell us the building had fully collapsed after 10 seconds?
Ah, you must have missed Gorgo's post where he posts a screenshot of the amount of building remaining after 11 seconds. Easy mistake, I'm sure, you've only been directed to it and asked to respond to it a few dozen times by now. Here it is, hard for you to say you missed it now.
I guess it is this?
I'll stick with the reports. I do not think this is admissible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh, you don't think this is admissible? So I guess we're not believing our own eyes now. Well, folks, Billy doesn't think it's admissible, so I guess that settles the matter. Glad we got to the bottom of that, then.
On that note though, I don't think your reports and calculations are admissible, because they contradict what I see with my own eyes and no explanation to reconcile this discrepancy has been forthcoming. So I guess we're at an impasse.
More wrong than right in this post.
I will not bother to correct since you did not bother to be accurate.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I agree there is a **** ton wrong with this but the reason you won’t correct it is that you can’t articulate what you believe happened. You have proven that over you last 200 posts here.
He doesn't believe they fell at all. He believes they got dustified by space lasers. So he's been trying to prove that they can't have fallen, because they "collapsed" faster than the laws of physics would allow. The only problem is that it is complete and utter horseshit, because he claims they collapsed in 12 seconds or less (NIST and other sources have in fact given figures
Right, so the only way they fell faster than the law of physics would be some other external force. It can’t possibly be the inability to accurately measure the actual time it took to collapse via video or sound. Of course, he has absolutely no proof of any other external force but he can’t admit that the limits of available measurements are the reason he can falsely claim that the falling building appear to defy physics.
Just a quick recap on Billy: when it suits his case, we need to believe reports over a freeze frame of a video that shows 30+ floors of a building intact when the reports say it had completely collapsed. But when it doesn't suit his case, we need to believe our own eyes that there was 1/10th of the volume of rubble that the reports claim by assessing it by looking at pictures. We won't even get started on the "experts" on Earth curvature, radius, sun distance etc.
Billy, your brain is irreparably broken. You are incapable of onboarding any information that contradicts your desired conclusion. You calling others intransigent is like Snoop Dogg calling others potheads. You, sir, are an obstinate idiot if I've ever seen one.
I now have a definitive calc for the collapse time based solely on available, irrefutable data.1. Calculating the total height of the fall.95% of the world trade centre was air, i.e. 5% solid material. 5% by volume gives 13.57% by area. The frontal surface area is therefore expected to squash down into a surface area of height 13.57% of the total height. 110 floors therefore co
It is not possible from your description of the building that the acceleration would be uniform. That is another erroneous assumption on your part.
It is not possible from your description of the building that the acceleration would be uniform. Each floor of the building would provide greater resistance than air to gravity until it was sheared from the supports.
That's kind of factored in to his 6.31 ms^-2 figure for acceleration, which is about two thirds of g/freefall. There appears to be sufficient support for using this figure, but it uses a lot of simplifying assumptions. And at the end of the day, the model can't be correct, because it predicts total collapse within 10 seconds and we still see the ****ing building standing after 11. The natural conclusion is that some of the simplifying assumptions are wrong and therefore the collapse time it predicts is incorrect. Billy's conclusion is that we should ignore what we see with our own eyes in the video and trust the model. Which he then of course goes on to use to "prove" that collapse is impossible.
TLDR: Billy dismisses empirical evidence that the model is incorrect then uses the model to argue that collapse violates the laws of physics, ergo space lasers. I'll leave it there without further comment.
Ah, you must have missed Gorgo's post where he posts a screenshot of the amount of building remaining after 11 seconds. Easy mistake, I'm sure, you've only been directed to it and asked to respond to it a few dozen times by now. Here it is, hard for you to say you missed it now.So, again, how are there 30+ floors left after 11.3 seconds when you tell us the building had fully c
I dont know. Alert the authorities, phone nist and tell them to revise all of their reports.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That's kind of factored in to his 6.31 ms^-2 figure for acceleration, which is about two thirds of g/freefall. There appears to be sufficient support for using this figure, but it uses a lot of simplifying assumptions. And at the end of the day, the model can't be correct, because it predicts total collapse within 10 seconds and we still see the ****ing building standing after
I understand he chose a number less than 9.8 ms2 but it is still not uniform.
Bottom line is neither his calculation for free fall or the actual collapse time he uses are actually accurate.
