[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
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
Yep.
In the red corner:
NIST, multiple independent experts, billy shears.
In the blue:
2p2 degens here we go.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oversimplified. Just like your reliance on it.
Perhaps jjjou-trump has edited since but he actually makes a good point here.
There would indeed be resistance! The entire point I have been making since post 1 here.
Well done sir.
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
Buffoonary. Again. Not surprised.
There is no resistance "factored in" to the recorded acceleration, which is not based on assumption but direct measurement.
There is no model predicting collapse time within 10 seconds! You are hopelessly confused as to what is direct measurement and what is a prediction using a model.
Models of prog collapse predict fall times in excess of the recorded time. That is how we know that prog collapse is BS.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Right, your calculations of the numbers you are comparing to determine impossibility are both inaccurate.
There is no resistance "factored in" to the recorded acceleration, which is not based on assumption but direct measurement.
If the 6.31 ms2 is a measurement not a calculation, it seems that you have disproven the expected 9.8 ms2 has occurred and that the collapse occurred at free fall speed. Congratulations on disproving your own hypothesis.
Still struggling somewhat with retired teacher Chandler's strange claim that an object in motion 'exerts less force than its static weight.' Momentum is mass times velocity, otherwise guns, whose projectiles are harmless at rest, wouldn't work (which they in fact very much do).
Still struggling somewhat with retired teacher Chandler's strange claim that an object in motion 'exerts less force than its static weight.' Momentum is mass times velocity, otherwise guns, whose projectiles are harmless at rest, wouldn't work (which they in fact very much do).
Ipso facto progressive collapse is insufficient to explain the destruction of the towers.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
If the 6.31 ms2 is a measurement not a calculation, it seems that you have disproven the expected 9.8 ms2 has occurred and that the collapse occurred at free fall speed. Congratulations on disproving your own hypothesis.
To be clear, are you no longer asserting the accn was uniform? Or are you conflating a general uniformity with a constant g?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Seems like billy should be smart enough to figure out how to get rid of the tapatalk signature.
Billy, I can't keep explaining basic things to you. If the model you are using predicts x and in reality you see y, then it doesn't mean that the laws of physics have been violated unless space lasers, it means that your model is wrong. This is pretty basic stuff.
The collapse of a building is going to be a very complex system so lots of simplifying assumptions necessarily have to be made to model it. There is the speed with which supporting beams and trusses fail, which I suspect is not linear with the force exerted - it would depend on the properties of the material in question, and the shape of these supporting structures. There are the forces being exerted themselves, which are going to depend on the mass of the collapsing structure, which can't be assumed to be uniform with every falling floor as some material is ejected to the side, some turns to dust (whooo, Billy, dustification!), etc. A simplifying assumption that it's one monolithic block falling under gravity while destroying some dominos held up with struts is going to be fine for some purposes and not for others. It looks like it's not fine for the purposes of working out the collapse time, since the predicted time is at odds with the time we observe in reality.
Notably, there is suggestion online that NIST took a large part of their analysis from Bazant. It's entirely possible that NIST copied his time and Eagar copied either him or them time. All of them appear to just assert this time without any supporting calculations or other evidence. **** knows what Chandler is doing with his static loads exerting more force than dynamic loads kookery, but Billy is taking something he worked out for the first 4 seconds of the collapse and extrapolating it, so definitely not convinced that's admissible, as he'd say.
So there really might only be one mistaken number that has propagated through the material written on this topic, and it's Bazant's. Note the exterior panel numbers (9-11s) have nothing to do with this, only the total collapse time. Billy loves to quote the NIST FAQ to muddy the waters and conflate the different times NIST gives, but the FAQ specifically says seismic readings and exterior panels for the times given there. The "within 12 seconds for everything turning to rubble" time given in the body of the report appears to be the erroneous one.
The collapse of a building is going to be a very complex system so lots of simplifying assumptions necessarily have to be made to model it. There is the speed with which supporting beams and trusses fail, which I suspect is not linear with the force exerted - it would depend on the properties of the material in question, and the shape of these supporting structures. There are t
The observation, *in reality* (superfluous - no phenomenon is a real phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon - Heisenberg) is the collapse time. The recorded event. The observed event. The event that occurred. The phenomenon. The time of the collapse of the tower.
Ah you mean the model of the collapse time.
Nooooooo, we mean the collapse of the tower. The actual. The real. The observed. The recorded. The measured.
In the words of Bazaar,
The tower was observed to collapse in 9 seconds.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The observation, *in reality* (superfluous - no phenomenon is a real phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon - Heisenberg) is the collapse time. The recorded event. The observed event. The event that occurred. The phenomenon. The time of the collapse of the tower.Ah you mean the model of the collapse time.Nooooooo, we mean the collapse of the tower. The actual. The real.
Wtf is this word salad? Your brain finally completely break? The recorded, observed time is 15+ seconds. Wtf are you going on about? We just observed and recorded it, right here. Unless you think some sort of special expertise is required to watch a video with a (figurative) stopwatch?
Also, I edited in some additional stuff.
I take Billy at his word that the 6.31 ms2 is a measurement of the occurrence. So, if correct, it occurred at about 2/3 the expected acceleration rate and was not a free fall. Ipso facto, no space lasers needed. Good job, Billy!
