Correct speed of building collapse

[stateofgrace]

Easy bud, I've only been on the case for a year and put in about 400 hrs on the mass analysis which has direct bearing on this. Right now I'm focused on the Bazant "Simple Analysis" which may give answers to some of the above issues. With my current best guesses I get 21 seconds, but I'm not going to jump up and down and yell "controlled demolition" because there are too many things that are unknown and I'm not even sure if a 1-d analysis can prove anything.

By the way, what's your contribution other than heckling from the sidelines?

My contribution ? it's to heckle from the sidelines.

See , bud, I’m a reader, I like to read well written , well worded arguments and formulate my opinion from the said arguments, kind of like the rest of the planet. Please remember it is YOU who is convinced not all is as it seems, not I, so before you fire off a few more snotty remarks please remember it is me, Joe public you are trying to convince.

So, again what are you waiting for exactly ? More excuses for simply waiting? Or simply waiting for more excuses?

Maybe you should also remember I am not in the slightest bit impressed by your pseudo intellect nor you trying to get me to not only indulge in your fantasies but to actually waste my time trashing them. If you have a point to make, make it., rather than telling everybody how dedicated you are to it all.

Now please try again, What are your calculated collapse times? Have you got any?

 

[Furcifer]

I am sticking with the failure times as seen on the collapse videos filmed on 9/11 on the full scale model.

Yes, by far the best. Try as we may, science cannot always provide the answer.

 

[jhunter1163]

This thread wouldn't be complete without at least one reply mentioning the clunkety-clunk theory

Hey, I gave Shafquat a mention in post #6, although I must admit I didn't come out and say "clunkety-clunk".

 

[GregoryUrich]

My contribution ? it's to heckle from the sidelines.

See , bud, I’m a reader, I like to read well written , well worded arguments and formulate my opinion from the said arguments, kind of like the rest of the planet. Please remember it is YOU who is convinced not all is as it seems, not I, so before you fire off a few more snotty remarks please remember it is me, Joe public you are trying to convince.

So, again what are you waiting for exactly ? More excuses for simply waiting? Or simply waiting for more excuses?

Maybe you should also remember I am not in the slightest bit impressed by your pseudo intellect nor you trying to get me to not only indulge in your fantasies but to actually waste my time trashing them. If you have a point to make, make it., rather than telling everybody how dedicated you are to it all.

Now please try again, What are your calculated collapse times? Have you got any?

First we have John Q. Public, then Joe Sixpack and now Joe Public.

With all due respect Mr. Public, on this thread I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

If you like to read, why not read the post you commented on...and see that I have calculated 21 seconds. It's preliminary so no need to get that JREF froth up.

So which fanatsies do you fantasize that am I trying to get you to indulge?

 

[LashL]

When I timed the collapses myself based on the best vantage points- I came up with at least 18 seconds...



I erred on the side of caution- I probably could have started the timers a lot sooner, but I was simply trying to address the "free fall" claim, and didn't find it necessary to be precise.

I hadn't seen that video before, Totovader. Nicely done.

 

[beachnut]

First we have John Q. Public, then Joe Sixpack and now Joe Public.

With all due respect Mr. Public, on this thread I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

If you like to read, why not read the post you commented on...and see that I have calculated 21 seconds. It's preliminary so no need to get that JREF froth up.

So which fanatsies do you fantasize that am I trying to get you to indulge?

It does not matter what you calculate, what we see on 9/11 is what you get; no more, no less! Much more complex than any models, I present the WTC falling due to impact, and fire. The details are interesting, but your 9/11 truth movement is built on lies and is like bigfoot, UFOs, and other fact less CT lies out there in the world of woo.

 

[stateofgrace]

First we have John Q. Public, then Joe Sixpack and now Joe Public.

With all due respect Mr. Public, on this thread I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

If you like to read, why not read the post you commented on...and see that I have calculated 21 seconds. It's preliminary so no need to get that JREF froth up.

So which fanatsies do you fantasize that am I trying to get you to indulge?

Have you indeed?

This is for both towers is it? Maybe you could now expand on how your now calculated times in anyway conflict with what was observed on sept 11th.

If you wish to indulge in intellectual gamesmanship I will gladly indulge you but I am sure you being such a dedicated individual would wish to put aside such fantasies and spread your message. Nobody is frothing is up, I am simply asking you layman questions, is that ok?Or is the layman beneath your level of intellect?

Equally so I assure you I don’t fantasies about your fantasies, simply because I have no idea what your fantasies are about, maybe you could enlighten me or maybe you prefer to keep them to yourself and just ask questions.

BTW if you are not trying to convince me of anything why are you committed to this and so dismissive of sideline hecklers? I haven't try to convince you of anything all I did was ask a question.

 

[GT/CS]

In almost every video I've seen the debris is falling faster than the towers.

Almost every video???? Are there videos where the debris does not fall faster?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Have you indeed?

This is for both towers is it? Maybe you could now expand on how your now calculated times in anyway conflict with what was observed on sept 11th.

If you wish to indulge in intellectual gamesmanship I will gladly indulge you but I am sure you being such a dedicated individual would wish to put aside such fantasies and spread your message. Nobody is frothing is up, I am simply asking you layman questions, is that ok?Or is the layman beneath your level of intellect?

Equally so I assure you I don’t fantasies about your fantasies, simply because I have no idea what your fantasies are about, maybe you could enlighten me or maybe you prefer to keep them to yourself and just ask questions.

BTW if you are not trying to convince me of anything why are you committed to this and so dismissive of sideline hecklers? I haven't try to convince you of anything all I did was ask a question.

So, you started of by suggesting that I get started on an analysis that you fantasize that I have had 6 years to complete. "Get to it" you said. I have gotten to it, but you probably know that, being that you have more than 2000 posts. Do you have the same question and attitude for NIST about why after more than six years they haven't gotten further than a working hypothesis on WTC 7?

Then you said I was trying to get you to indulge you in my fantasies. Since I don't discuss fantasies here, you must be referring to your idea of some fantasies you assume I may have. Which fantasies were you imagining? Or are you just using the common JREFer ploy of painting your perceived opponent as a fantasist.

It seems you have alot of preconceived notions about me. I'm interested learning from others, helping others to understand, and furthering our understanding through discussion when we do not agree. This does not usually work very well with someone with alot of preconceived notions. Also, it doesn't work very well with someone employing tactics. I am dismissive of hecklers because it just detracts from productive discussion.

If you are just a typical JREF put-down artist and can't let go of your preconceptions then I'm not interested. If not, maybe you could tell me why you are here.

 

[twinstead]

If you are just a typical JREF put-down artist and can't let go of your preconceptions then I'm not interested. If not, maybe you could tell me why you are here.

Is it possible to be a 'put down artist' yet still have a point?

Interesting you would use the word preconceptions. Is it possible that those on the opposite side of JREF also can't let go of THEIR preconceptions?

ETA: a test: exactly how do you handle opposition to your theory by otherwise intelligent and world aware people?

 

[stateofgrace]

So, you started of by suggesting that I get started on an analysis that you fantasize that I have had 6 years to complete. "Get to it" you said. I have gotten to it, but you probably know that, being that you have more than 2000 posts. Do you have the same question and attitude for NIST about why after more than six years they haven't gotten further than a working hypothesis on WTC 7?

Then you said I was trying to get you to indulge you in my fantasies. Since I don't discuss fantasies here, you must be referring to your idea of some fantasies you assume I may have. Which fantasies were you imagining? Or are you just using the common JREFer ploy of painting your perceived opponent as a fantasist.

It seems you have alot of preconceived notions about me. I'm interested learning from others, helping others to understand, and furthering our understanding through discussion when we do not agree. This does not usually work very well with someone with alot of preconceived notions. Also, it doesn't work very well with someone employing tactics. I am dismissive of hecklers because it just detracts from productive discussion.

If you are just a typical JREF put-down artist and can't let go of your preconceptions then I'm not interested. If not, maybe you could tell me why you are here.

Excuse me?

You dismiss me as an heckler for simply asking you a question . You then go on to suggest I have fantasies about you and your theories and in this post you then go onto label me as a typical Jreffer with preconceived notions and as such I almost deserve to be dismissed. Who do you think you are?

I asked you a question “bud“, a question about your alternative theories , you have skirted around and now try to blame me for being abrupt and off with you. Do you actually live in the real world? In the real world people will ask questions of your theories and dismissing them as hecklers does you no favours.

Do I apply these standards to NIST, well it appears in your preconceived notions I do not. The answer is yes, I do , of course I do, I apply it to anything I am told and expect the person who tells me such to back it up with fact and evidence, rather than get all snotty and try some lame put down. Or is your preconception that I am simply a typical Jreffer ? A put down artist ? A heckler? Maybe somebody who does not warrant your attention ?

You have stated on this forum you have calculated the collapse time of the towers was 21 seconds, I have now asked you to expand on this. you have not, you have gone off on one and got all huffy because I asked you a simple question.

I have zero preconceived notions about you, I could not care less about you, I simply want you to explain in lay terms to me , as a layman where you get your calculations from, why they are relevant and why I should be in the slightest bit interested in what you are saying. You are the one with problem with the events of 911, not I, you are the one that has spent time and effort trying to show something is wrong, not I. There is absolute zero burden on me to prove anything, let alone you wrong. The burden is on you to prove yourself right, with out resorting to belittling dismissive comments.

Are you capable of that ? Then on you go.

 

[Tweeter]

HistoryChannel says 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olDOKEu_9WU

 

[tsig]

Easy bud, I've only been on the case for a year and put in about 400 hrs on the mass analysis which has direct bearing on this. Right now I'm focused on the Bazant "Simple Analysis" which may give answers to some of the above issues. With my current best guesses I get 21 seconds, but I'm not going to jump up and down and yell "controlled demolition" because there are too many things that are unknown and I'm not even sure if a 1-d analysis can prove anything.

By the way, what's your contribution other than heckling from the sidelines?

Maybe you would get a degree in engineering then we can talk.

 

[tsig]

So, you started of by suggesting that I get started on an analysis that you fantasize that I have had 6 years to complete. "Get to it" you said. I have gotten to it, but you probably know that, being that you have more than 2000 posts. Do you have the same question and attitude for NIST about why after more than six years they haven't gotten further than a working hypothesis on WTC 7?

Then you said I was trying to get you to indulge you in my fantasies. Since I don't discuss fantasies here, you must be referring to your idea of some fantasies you assume I may have. Which fantasies were you imagining? Or are you just using the common JREFer ploy of painting your perceived opponent as a fantasist.

It seems you have alot of preconceived notions about me. I'm interested learning from others, helping others to understand, and furthering our understanding through discussion when we do not agree. This does not usually work very well with someone with alot of preconceived notions. Also, it doesn't work very well with someone employing tactics. I am dismissive of hecklers because it just detracts from productive discussion.

If you are just a typical JREF put-down artist and can't let go of your preconceptions then I'm not interested. If not, maybe you could tell me why you are here.

Are you ever going to say anything substantial or just keep pissing down your leg?

 

[Par]

HistoryChannel says 10
[“The tower that had taken ten years to build collapsed in ten seconds.”]

They’re not making a precise claim about the collapse time. Rather, they’re using a rounded value so as to better fit the flow and style of the narrative.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Excuse me?

You dismiss me as an heckler for simply asking you a question . You then go on to suggest I have fantasies about you and your theories and in this post you then go onto label me as a typical Jreffer with preconceived notions and as such I almost deserve to be dismissed. Who do you think you are?

I asked you a question “bud“, a question about your alternative theories , you have skirted around and now try to blame me for being abrupt and off with you. Do you actually live in the real world? In the real world people will ask questions of your theories and dismissing them as hecklers does you no favours.

Do I apply these standards to NIST, well it appears in your preconceived notions I do not. The answer is yes, I do , of course I do, I apply it to anything I am told and expect the person who tells me such to back it up with fact and evidence, rather than get all snotty and try some lame put down. Or is your preconception that I am simply a typical Jreffer ? A put down artist ? A heckler? Maybe somebody who does not warrant your attention ?

You have stated on this forum you have calculated the collapse time of the towers was 21 seconds, I have now asked you to expand on this. you have not, you have gone off on one and got all huffy because I asked you a simple question.

I have zero preconceived notions about you, I could not care less about you, I simply want you to explain in lay terms to me , as a layman where you get your calculations from, why they are relevant and why I should be in the slightest bit interested in what you are saying. You are the one with problem with the events of 911, not I, you are the one that has spent time and effort trying to show something is wrong, not I. There is absolute zero burden on me to prove anything, let alone you wrong. The burden is on you to prove yourself right, with out resorting to belittling dismissive comments.

Are you capable of that ? Then on you go.

You could simply confirm that your are not a typical JREF heckler (see some classic examples from TSIG above). In that case you can explain why you said I was "trying to get you to indulge in my fantasies". Which fantasies do you mean?

If you can't be intellectually honest about this simple issue, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

ETA: There you go again. Now you have a fantasy that I have some alternative theories. Which theories do you mean?

 

[GregoryUrich]

Are you ever going to say anything substantial or just keep pissing down your leg?

The only way you'd know if I am pissing down my leg is if you are under my desk. Monica, is that you? By the way that's not a cigar and you shouldn't inhale.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Maybe you would get a degree in engineering then we can talk.

So you have some fantasies about what degrees I may or may not have. Maybe you would get some information instead of inventing your own reality.

 

[AlanGreenspan]

Why are you talking about the speed of a collapse? I ask you because as far as I know you can measure the speed of an object, and since a collapse involves quite a large group of objects ... shouldn't you be talking about the duration of the collapse?

 

[tsig]

You could simply confirm that your are not a typical JREF heckler (see some classic examples from TSIG above). In that case you can explain why you said I was "trying to get you to indulge in my fantasies". Which fantasies do you mean?

If you can't be intellectually honest about this simple issue, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

ETA: There you go again. Now you have a fantasy that I have some alternative theories. Which theories do you mean?

Thanks I knew you read me. btw it"s tsig. just to be pedantic. What are you alternative theories?.