[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
You seem fully convinced for some reason that each floor needs to re accelerate from rest or something 110 times. If you swing a wrecking ball through a 110 post fence it doesn't hit the first fence board stop then re accelerate and stop again 110 times.
But I can see why the fall would looks suspicious if I did so believe that so I guess it is what it is.
Yes I am convinced each floor accelerates from rest.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
But you can beg the question of circles and spheres and expect a free pass.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I daresay there is a little bit more empirical evidence for my theory than yours. Or are you going to claim that every "experiment" showing the Earth is round is also flawed?
Proving that the earth is flat by starting with the assumption that the earth is flat is a winning formula.
Q: How do you know the earth is flat?
A: Because all plumb bobs hang parallel to each other.
Q: How do you know they are parallel?
A: Because they are all perpendicular to the flat earth.
Well, at least if the earth isn't circular, his reasoning certainly makes up for it.
Yes I am convinced each floor accelerates from rest.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You said this..
Now let us be generous here. Let us say that most floors, by some mysterious process we have not yet figured out, vanished into thin air (fact is stranger than fiction, we may see later...) and we are left with just one in ten floors. 9 floors offer no resistance, but just 1 in every 10 begin descent from rest. Even then, around 27 s would be required for the fall [can show but won't waste time if people are silly].
You can remove all the floors if you want or double them. The floors don't reset the falling mass from a stop.
Also, when you say just 1 in ten begin descent from rest, you seem to be implying that the falling mass is starting over from zero. It is not. And if its not, the floor that is at rest can be meaningless.
You seem fully convinced for some reason that each floor needs to re accelerate from rest or something 110 times. If you swing a wrecking ball through a 110 post fence it doesn't hit the first fence board stop then re accelerate and stop again 110 times.
But I can see why the fall would looks suspicious if I did so believe that so I guess it is what it is.
That's exactly what he thinks. That was enough for me to disengage. He doesn't understand anything and claims to be a mechanical engineer.
Interesting. There are additional forces, tensions in the wires caused by repeated collisions with the table and the rungs, I think. The left hand system is not well approximated with a free fall model.
Then certainly any building falling will have "additional forces" caused by beams etc being in tension and various repeated collisions. Pretty abrupt flip given y'all were the ones who brought free fall into this as a major point to begin with.
That's exactly what he thinks. That was enough for me to disengage. He doesn't understand anything and claims to be a mechanical engineer.
How dare you? The scientific community called me earlier to say that they are honoured to have an intellectual giant of Mr Shears' stature in their midst. His plumb bob theories of terrestrial gravitation are really causing quite the stir. Once he patches the slight circular reasoning issues in his proof, it has the potential to be revolutionary in the field.
Yes, I think the point is that each floor accelerates from rest at a rate higher than g, except the first one.
I don't think it has been calculated what that rate would be for each subsequent floor.
Let us completely ignore the upright supporting structures, just pretend they never existed. Also ignore the inward buckling scenario as as claimed by NIST, this just puts more stuff in the way. Ignore the lack of substantial mass present in the aftermath to cause collisions. Ignore the total absense of pancaked floors.
We now have optimum conditions for your scenario.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You said this..
You can remove all the floors if you want or double them. The floors don't reset the falling mass from a stop.
Also, when you say just 1 in ten begin descent from rest, you seem to be implying that the falling mass is starting over from zero. It is not. And if its not, the floor that is at rest can be meaningless.
I am being generous and saying 9 out of 10 floors do not exist, no floor, no supporting structure, nothing. Then we just have the resistance of 11 floors, again ignoring supporting structures which vanished, say NIST, due to inward buckling. Still it would take 27 s.
Now you say that each floor instantaneously acquires the same velocity as its predecessor in order that the whole system is in freefall collapse. Is this true of the 109th floor? 108th? Etc? It is not. What you need is for lower floors to begin descent BEFORE being hit by the floor above. There is no mechanism for progressive collapse. "progressive" means a domino effect.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Then certainly any building falling will have "additional forces" caused by beams etc being in tension and various repeated collisions. Pretty abrupt flip given y'all were the ones who brought free fall into this as a major point to begin with.
Hand wave dismissal. You could get a job at NIST.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Then certainly any building falling will have "additional forces" caused by beams etc being in tension and various repeated collisions. Pretty abrupt flip given y'all were the ones who brought free fall into this as a major point to begin with.
The free-fall "descent" is not my claim. I don't claim free fall because I don't claim there was a fall. A time approximating freefall is the NIST claim because they claim collapse. It is ofc debunked by the laws of kinematics, dynamics and structural engineering.
Exhibit B: now you see it, now you don't.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Do you see? What is happening to the sturcture falling at the bottom left of the dust plume?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Where is the rubble?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Spire turns to dust.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Where did the towers go?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Do you see?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
