[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
OK, WTC 1 is the north tower and I've demonstrated that it was at least 16 seconds. That doesn't look like an official declaration, just a description, so I wouldn't take it as gospel, but sure, let's look at WTC 2 now.
Let us say 20 s for good measure. I dont think it matters whether it be wtc1 or 2 or north/south tower.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
WTC 2 is much harder to find full video of, but this one is okayish.
Here it is at 2:33, collapse initiates.
Again, 10 seconds later, the top seems to be about even with WTC7.
At about 2:48, while it's very difficult to see, I'd estimate the top is arriving at the ground in this timeframe or so.
So, no, I don't agree that either tower collapsed in about 10 seconds, despite the 9/11 commission (which was not tasked with making these kinds of determinations) casually describing it as such.
And once again, casually glancing at any of these videos should make it very clear that there are lots of objects that are in free-fall and they reach the ground MUCH sooner than the collapse does. It's not even really very close to free-fall.
Let us say 20 s for good measure. I dont think it matters whether it be wtc1 or 2 or north/south tower.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Cool. That would be more than double an object in free-fall. It would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground in free-fall from a height of 1,362 ft (the height of WTC 2).
t = √2h/g
t = √2724/32.174 (ft/sec^2)
t = √84.665
t = 9.2013
Cool. That would be more than double an object in free-fall. It would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground in free-fall from a height of 1,362 ft (the height of WTC 2).
t = √2h/g
t = √2724/32.174 (ft/sec^2)
t = √84.665
t = 9.2013
Next, how to interpret the official story of a "pancake collapse"... i.e. floors stacking up one after the other, brought down by the force of the preceding floor above. Let us first interpret the pancake theory correctly then compare this with the evidence.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
OR...they could be holograms to make you THINK it's a normal collapse.
Aside: "Collapse" begs the question of downward motion. Yet the videos above show upward and outward movement of material. The downwards motion of material, evidenced by uniform layers of dust on the ground, can barely be considered as a collapse.
This will be assessed more fully once agreement is reached on what the official story claim of a "pancake collapse" means.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
LOL
You know homeboy is a flat earther, right?
Cool. That would be more than double an object in free-fall. It would take 9.2 seconds to reach the ground in free-fall from a height of 1,362 ft (the height of WTC 2).
t = √2h/g
t = √2724/32.174 (ft/sec^2)
t = √84.665
t = 9.2013
Are you conceding here that the buildings did not collapse at anywhere near "free-fall?" If you are not willing to concede that, as thoroughly as that has been demonstrated here, I don't think I'm interested in a "next topic."
I did notice you did not acknowledge my correction of your error regarding the collapse time of WTC 7. These aren't great signs.
right, its not like we are run by a cabal of pedophile rapist murders
Yes my downfall is to not assert 2 mutually exclusive ideas while your success is to violate the law of non contradiction! How many horizons do you have now? Three, four, five? Citations and examples for all of them please.What you are desperate to avoid is this:[url=https://postimg.cc/k6YzQDWZ][/url]Remember this? The evidence provided by the citation formerly known as a PhD?
If the horizon must always be fixed, why does it rise with height?
Are you conceding here that the buildings did not collapse at anywhere near "free-fall?" If you are not willing to concede that, as thoroughly as that has been demonstrated here, I don't think I'm interested in a "next topic."
I did notice you did not acknowledge my correction of your error regarding the collapse time of WTC 7. These aren't great signs.
Of course, I am giving you over 100% longer time than free-fall. We are saying 20 s for wtc1/2 to collapse compared to free-fall prediction of 9.2 s.
Yes the time for wtc7 was not 5.4 s total rather 18 floors took 5.4 s.
You are familiar with the panckake theory suggested by NIST?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes.
Are you aware that nist's investigation concluded that it is not the correct collapse theory?
See NIST WTC Towers Investigation FAQ item 28.
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
It goes on to direct the reader back to point 11 for the collapse mechanism that NIST's findings do indicate is true.
I just want to make sure it's clear because the way you've worded this multiple times makes it sound like you believe a portion of the building totally collapsed in 5.4 seconds.
The conclusion was that the roofline dropped an equivalent distance to 18 floors in 5.4 seconds.
Yes.
Are you aware that nist's investigation concluded that it is not the correct collapse theory?
See NIST WTC Towers Investigation FAQ item 28.
It goes on to direct the reader back to point 11 for the collapse mechanism that NIST's findings do indicate is true.
Correct, pancake was a conspiracy theory concocted by NIST, later debunked by others because the evidence does not support it. It never did. NIST accepted they made it up and proposed "inward buckling", i.e. progressive collapse aka pancaking.
They also conclude around 10 s collapse time (you can still have 20 s do not fear), near free-fall, impossible with resistance offered by inward buckling.
If each floor accelerates from rest then over 90 s is required for pancaking. This is evidently not consistent with the collapse time. Let us say generously that most floors, say 9 out of every 10 floors, somehow evaporated (or say the material became plumes of dust spat outwards and upwards, i.e. not collapsing) and the only resistance is offered by one floor out of 10 which accelerates from rest. In this scenario you would need a collapse time of 27 s. For even 20 s you need practically no resistance. There cannot be a progressive collapse. By the equations of uniform acceleration this is disproven.
Each floor, the whole bit, is required to disappear, not merely "inwardly buckle" and the material be still present to slow down collapse. Furthermore, there was no debris left at ground level to indicate such a phenomenon. More NIST conspiratarding.
There can be no progressive collapse nor resistance of any significance for even a 20 s fall. Supported by lack of appropriate rubble after collapse: the prerequisite for gravitational collapse is weight. Hypotheses of pancaking, inward buckle, and yes controlled demolition is a conspiracy theory on a par with all of them, are thereby disproven.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Correct, pancake was a conspiracy theory concocted by NIST, later debunked by others because the evidence does not support it. It never did. NIST accepted they made it up and proposed "inward buckling", i.e. progressive collapse aka pancaking.
It's called a hypothesis, sir.
They also conclude around 10 s collapse time (you can still have 20 s do not fear), near free-fall, impossible with resistance offered by inward buckling.
They do not. You quoted the 9/11 Commission Report which NIST had absolutely nothing to do with. The 9/11 Commission Report was written by a panel of politicans and was not tasked with accurately describing any part of the collapse, nor describing its mechanisms.
Why are you arguing against an already rejected hypothesis? What a truly bizarre post.
It's called a hypothesis, sir.
They do not. You quoted the 9/11 Commission Report which NIST had absolutely nothing to do with. The 9/11 Commission Report was written by a panel of politicans and was not tasked with accurately describing any part of the collapse, nor describing its mechanisms.
Why are you arguing against an already rejected hypothesis? What a truly bizarre post.
Nope that is NIST's analysis:
But you say they are wrong. You say 20s. Whichever, it is definitely not a progressive collapse. That much NIST admitted while also claiming the mass of the falling weight above brought down the floor below while the collapse of the floor below is independent of the weight above. A necessary consequence of, in their words, "free-fall".
We see how the pancake conspiracy theory survives in all but name.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh and there is also no mass (the tremendous mass that visibly turned to fine powder thereby increasing its surface area to nullify a free-fall model) visible at the bottom, post "collapse". Hence there is no mechanism for collapse possible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The buildings did in fact collapse, so there obviously was a possible mechanism. Buildings on fire do tend to suffer structural issues.
Begging the question. The buildings were there on sept 10th and were not there on sept 12th. "The buildings came down" or "the buildings collapsed" can be said for convenience.
But collapse means they came down, under force of gravity. Yet how can one floor collapse under the weight of the floor above yet begin its acceleration before the floor above has exerted its weight?
The "pancake" model was rejected because it assumes acceleration from rest for each of the 110 floors, which would take circa 100 s. Also because there was no pancake stack at the bottom (there was no mass of any significant density to cause any kind of gravity induced collapse.)
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Does this mean I get to mention the famous Qantas flight from Sydney to Santiago via Antarctica which would be impossible on the flat-earth model? I always enjoy that bit.
I'm not sure. Ask him for his diagram showing the Earth is flat using Pythagoras' theorem with an observer on the beach and the ocean and the horizon forming a right angle triangle or something. If only the scientists had thought of that, huh?
