[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
Nope that is NIST's analysis:
But you say they are wrong. You say 20s.
You should probably read that more closely. That wasn't the collapse time, that was the time for some exterior panels to strike the ground. Note that that is not the same thing as the collapse time. YOU SAID 20s. I did not. You can refer above for what I said. Were you trying to put the number 20s in my mouth so you can later say imply that was unreasonably high?
YOU AGREED WITH IT. Are you always going to be this dishonest? You've gotten literally every single thing wrong so far.
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".
Yes, it is a progressive collapse. Do you just not know what those words mean?
Just say you don't know the difference between the pancake collapse theory and the actual mechanism next time. You are simply using your ignorance of the difference as evidence that NIST is lying. Doesn't work that way, chief.
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 "
What? Is the floor above floating? It doesn’t need to wait for everything to transfer because it’s already under the weight, and once the supports fail, the floor will start falling immediately. Step on a rotten staircase.
Also, what are talking about wiht upward movement? Drop a bag of flour.
...also, you're arguing detonation - which is fine. But ffs, can you lead with that from here instead of the Deuces/NN reach arounds? I don't want to sift through petri dishes and 10-year-old car accidents that goes nowhere.
Oh I should've read that mess more closely the first time. Is he saying that each floor has to accelerate from 0 velocity at g? If I'm standing in the middle of the road and I get hit by a car going 60mph, I'm pretty much instantly moving at 60mph. I don't have to begin accelerating at the rate the car did to get up to speed.
What a hilarious misunderstanding of basic physics. Or maybe I just have no idea what he's trying to say with that word salad?
I'm sure he's got an explanation using Pythagoras, just wait.
You should probably read that more closely. That wasn't the collapse time, that was the time for some exterior panels to strike the ground. Note that that is not the same thing as the collapse time. YOU SAID 20s. I did not. You can refer above for what I said. Were you trying to put the number 20s in my mouth so you can later say imply that was unreasonably high?YOU AGREED WITH
In good faith you can have 20 s. Explain how NIST's inward buckling model is possible, i.e., that the weight of floors above can cause the collapse of floors below given the acceleration of lower floors must occur prior to above material exerting their weight. (To help you - see above - it takes at least 27 s for every tenth floor to accelerate from rest while nine floors in ten are in actual free-fall).
"progressive collapse" means a domino effect, each subsequent floor collapse is preceded by the one above. In this scenario the only way to for fall of 10 s (or indeed 20 s), is for all (or most in the case of 20 s) of the floors to begin descent prior to the weight above causing the descent. Effect precedes cause in other words. Hence why even NIST are reluctant to claim progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Oh I should've read that mess more closely the first time. Is he saying that each floor has to accelerate from 0 velocity at g? If I'm standing in the middle of the road and I get hit by a car going 60mph, I'm pretty much instantly moving at 60mph. I don't have to begin accelerating at the rate the car did to get up to speed.What a hilarious misunderstanding of basic physics. O
Read again, even more closely.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What? Is the floor above floating? It doesn’t need to wait for everything to transfer because it’s already under the weight, and once the supports fail, the floor will start falling immediately. Step on a rotten staircase.Also, what are talking about wiht upward movement? Drop a bag of flour....also, you're arguing detonation - which is fine. But ffs, can you lead with tha
I specifically said controlled demolition is a conspiracy theory, like inward buckling, mini nukes, plane hikackers, pancakes etc.
Evidence first, conclusions after.
The lack of debris of required density after collapse disproves the collapse hypothesis. Most debris was nothing but dust.
Failed supports would have offered resistance increasing as collapse progressed. This is incompatible with near free-fall, or half free-fall rate if you prefer. Yes you have it, they need floating floors that are falling, exerting enough force to bring down the building while simultaneously evaporating itself into nothing.
Look again at the fuming towers and ask what is happening. Use your eyes.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I specifically said controlled demolition is a conspiracy theory, like inward buckling, mini nukes, plane hikackers, pancakes etc.Evidence first, conclusions after.The lack of debris of required density after collapse disproves the collapse hypothesis. Most debris was nothing but dust.Failed supports would have offered resistance increasing as collapse progressed. This is incom
There just ins't any meat on this post. There were massive amounts of debris. Saying it was all dust doesn't work very well here.
It sounds like you're saying that if the supports failed, they should still offer a smidgen of protection causing the building to not fall at full speed because there just clinging on or something. rest a book on a pencil until it snaps, it doesn't fall at half speed for a bit and we don't have to wait for the weight of the book to magically appear.
In good faith you can have 20 s. Explain how NIST's inward buckling model is possible, i.e., that the weight of floors above can cause the collapse of floors below given the acceleration of lower floors must occur prior to above material exerting their weight. (To help you - see above - it takes at least 27 s for every tenth floor to accelerate from rest while nine floors in te
No, I'm good thanks. That has been done many, many times. But you can certainly show the math that got you that 27 second figure. That should be entertaining.
In this scenario the only way to for fall of 10 s (or indeed 20 s), is for all (or most in the case of 20 s) of the floors to begin descent prior to the weight above causing the descent. Effect precedes cause in other words. Hence why even NIST are reluctant to claim progressive collapse.
Yeah this is utter nonsense, my guy. Nothing about this is right. Nothing.
The lack of debris of required density after collapse disproves the collapse hypothesis. Most debris was nothing but dust.
No.
Failed supports would have offered resistance increasing as collapse progressed.
They did, but not much. Do you understand the magnitude of difference between a dynamic and static load?
I don't think you understand what near free-fall is. 40% more than free-fall is nowhere near free-fall, at least for the purposes of being "suspicious."
they need floating floors that are falling, exerting enough force to bring down the building while simultaneously evaporating itself into nothing.
Utter nonsense.
There just ins't any meat on this post. There were massive amounts of debris. Saying it was all dust doesn't work very well here.It sounds like you're saying that if the supports failed, they should still offer a smidgen of protection causing the building to not fall at full speed because there just clinging on or something. rest a book on a pencil until it snaps, it doesn't
I don't think he understands (among other possibly much more severe issues) that the weight of the building chunk will impart an order of magnitude more force when it is moving as opposed to at rest (ie dynamic vs static load). That top weight while falling absolutely OVERWHELMS any resistance underneath it. I'm surprised it didn't fall faster, personally.
Side note: what's with the literal baton pass between Deuces and this guy?
It's like Deuces fell off the edge of the earth.
So, I went and found a mechanical engineer's explanation of the pancake theory distinction because it has been a long time, and I'm not a mechanical engineer. I highly doubt Mr. Special up there will ingest this info in anyway, but for those that are curious, the distinction is between collapse intiation and collapse progression. NIST rejected the hypothesis that the collapse initiated as a pancaking, but the progression after that initiation was a pancaking process.
Here is his explanation:
"The pancake hypothesis of initiation stated that the rapid phase of the collapse of the twin towers started when a floor slab disconnected entirely from their seats at the perimeter and core columns. This would have happened when the floor trusses got so hot they started sagging. This results in catenary forces, like a hammock pulling on its poles with a much higher force than its vertical weight. It was speculated that perhaps enough floor trusses disconnected from their column seats by high tension because of that to rip free an entire floor. That first falling floor would impact the floor below like a pancake, and rip that one loose also - a pancake initiating collapse.
This was dismissed - it was found that the pull-in forces of the sagging floor trusses would sooner pull the columns inward than tear loose the floor-to-column connections, and collapse most likely started when a row of columns was pulled inward and out of plumb so much that they could no longer support their loads - collapse would thus initiate by column failure, not by floor ("pancake") failure.
The pancake hypothesis of progression is almost certainly true, and acknowledged as true by NIST in their FAQ, even though NIST didn't bother to study collapse progression in much detail. It holds that once the top part of the towers - an assembly of connected floors, walls and core system - descended, all of its parts descending inside the perimeter would inevitably hit floors still intact and totally overwhelm their truss seats - that would result in a pancaking collapse progression all the way down, and this action is recorded on video and described by fire fighters on the scene."
What does that mean? Some conspiracies are true. Could it be a demolition or a powerful laser or some hologram of some sort or are you strongly disagreeing with the collapse?
What happened that day? ... also FE is a much more interesting subject to talk than a building that fell 25 years ago.
Deuces, you seem to be struggling to gain traction here, to put it mildly. Perhaps I could give you some reasons why, not that I imagine you are one for taking criticism on board.
I think I am doing fine. And only if you thought I was doing fine would you say anything like that. In fact what is happening is you are feeling threatened by me and the thought that the government has been lying about 9/11. You might feel like your identity is threatened. If that's the case, by all means, take a break. For most people, it is difficult to accept that they are terribly wrong about something fundamental. The reason it is difficult is because you realize you're been, as an outgrowth of this errant belief, doing something morally wrong in your support of the people who have been lying to us. You can't face that you've been, in effect, the bad guy when you see yourself as the good guy. This can develop into an identity crisis and cause psychological strain. If you feel that, just take a break or leave the subject alone.
I think I am doing fine. And only if you thought I was doing fine would you say anything like that. In fact what is happening is you are feeling threatened by me and the thought that the government has been lying about 9/11. You might feel like your identity is threatened. If that's the case, by all means, take a break. For most people, it is difficult to accept that they are t
Ah good, you're back. I was afraid the jewish space lasers got ya.
Now that you're back, I'm sure you'll want to get right back to answering those questions, so here they are again for easy reference:
What evidence? WHAT EVIDENCE.
"Experts." Any that have said that have done so with NO EVIDENCE.
...
Molten metal or molten steel? If it was steel, how did they determine it was steel?
...
And HOW DID THEY DETERMINE THIS?
Also, now that you're back, will we not be seeing Billy Shears anymore?
You can watch this video to see how the collapse progressed from its initiation signaled by the dropping of the east penthouse at about :02 of the previous video:There is no scenario where this can be called anything near 5 seconds.
Why use an animation? And why take out the buildings in between building 7 and the twin towers?
No Gorgo actually the collapse should start from the first bit of debris that hit building 7. Building 7 collapsed over hours. Case closed.
