Poll

What is the truth about the 911 attack on the World Trade Center?

Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers.  Resulting fires caused the collapse.
14 (60.9%)
The planes were CGI and it was controlled demolition
2 (8.7%)
Something other than planes were flown into the twin towers,  missiles drones etc.
2 (8.7%)
The planes were holographic projections from a special satellite, and it was a directed energy weapon
1 (4.3%)
Something else.
3 (13%)
Denspressure
1 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 23

Voting closed: March 06, 2017, 10:56:40 PM

911 What is the truth?

  • 6866 Replies
  • 467785 Views
*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1440 on: February 28, 2017, 05:41:47 AM »
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg

Wow,  who would have believed it.   you really didn't know a point had no dimensions,  now you seem to not know what a catalyst is.

What do you think a catalyst has to do with forces existing?

Cause and effect.

catalyst
ˈkat(ə)lɪst/Submit
noun

a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
"chlorine acts as a catalyst promoting the breakdown of ozone"

a person or thing that precipitates an event.
"the prime minister's speech acted as a catalyst for debate"

Are we still not past this?

Why are you still here pushing NIST's story?

Found your dictionary again,  I'll warn you when some big words are coming up that way you can be ready with your cut and paste understanding.

In any event I was asking the organ grinder not the monkey.   You can chill out for a bit.

Where am I pushing NIST's story?   You still having reality disconnects?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1441 on: February 28, 2017, 05:44:30 AM »
I took it as an object, i was getting confused having no dimensions.

The correct wording from the start would've been a 100kg point load is applied.

You did the maths for that.

It doesn't represent the figures for a 100kg weight on a platform.

Took me ages to get it.

Let's move on, shall we?
It precisely represents the figures for a 100kg weight (including something with shape, an object) on the platform. All distributed loads acts as a point load concentrated at the center of mass when dealing with torque. You still don't get it - there is no difference between a point load or a distributed load in this example. If it's distributed, you just assume that the center of mass is at the specified location. I worded it correctly from the beginning, because it works either way.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1442 on: February 28, 2017, 08:26:03 AM »
A vast amount of crap that did not even answer any specific questions.

I want to see if you actually understand what you write or if you just think the shit you post supports your position.

Repeating the original statement/questions:

Okay, look again at your graph.

How much area suffered a temperature of near 1000 C or over?

Compared to a total area of one floor of the WTC 1 or 2?

How did they arrive at that analysis?

What inputs did they use?

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1443 on: February 28, 2017, 09:44:15 AM »
This thread has turned into a giant pile of shit with evar and rayzor's hard work lackey.

It's unfortunate...Anything to avoid discussing actual facts and reality.

From rayzor just saying things he read from somewhere that he has zero understanding of (just words and loud noises)..To trying to peddle imaginary forces that don't have to exist within our reality.

ANYTHING...To avoid an actual discussion...By God anything..

It's gonna get worse...Not better..

Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1444 on: February 28, 2017, 12:44:42 PM »
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1445 on: February 28, 2017, 12:52:23 PM »
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.

He didn't start that way, but certainly ended that way... Rayzor is no contest.

I will take my guilt for shit posting earlier today lol. It was just so stupid I couldn't help it. Doesn't mean it's helpful though or right.
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1446 on: February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM »
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1447 on: February 28, 2017, 01:53:31 PM »
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Pretty wise Rama.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1448 on: February 28, 2017, 02:15:07 PM »

I want to see if you actually understand what you write or if you just think the shit you post supports your position.


You don't appear to understand that the paper I referenced is generic,  that is it applies to high rise office buildings in general,  in the case of the WTC,  the only evidence I can use ( if I refer to NIST you'll just go bezerk again ),  so the best evidence is the video evidence,  which shows fires across multiple floors,  heavy black smoke from across entire floors.   After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C,  so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel.

The inputs and assumptions  are spelt out in detail in that paper.


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11120
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1449 on: February 28, 2017, 02:17:32 PM »
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Pretty wise Rama.

Logic is logic
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1450 on: February 28, 2017, 02:18:32 PM »
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.

Yep.   that's what passes for debate in conspiracy circles,   pictures of cats riding unicorns shitting rainbows instead of reasoned argument,   but maybe that's all that's left of the conspiracy theory?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1451 on: February 28, 2017, 02:20:43 PM »
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg

What was the point you were trying to make?   And what does a catalyst have to do with forces?
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1452 on: February 28, 2017, 02:30:57 PM »
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.
Thank you.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1453 on: February 28, 2017, 02:35:37 PM »
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Funny thing is that Heiwa's contributions to the thread have been somewhat more logical and reasoned that  BHS and disputeone.   

Here's a question for you,  have you ever seen or heard of a structural mechanics course,  or textbook  that didn't refer at some stage to point loads?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1454 on: February 28, 2017, 02:44:33 PM »
Remember Rama Set is an engineer, before you make yourself more silly.

Why not present an argument?

Point loads can't exist in and of themselves, that's the point we need something to cause the point load.

Are we really still not past this?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1455 on: February 28, 2017, 02:50:06 PM »
As for reason and logic, I'm still waiting for anyone to take this on.

Here's your smoking gun piece of evidence, geez, you can't handle Bhs, it's over, retire with dignity and honour.

Note that this hasn't been dubunked.

No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

The only way our physics can replicate the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition, trying to fudge numbers without a controlled demolition situation ends up with the model looking like my simple equation would predict.



Debunk it, or retire with dignity and honour.

>Our physics models can't simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with the official story.

>Our physics models can easily simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with a controlled demolition.


Should I believe physics? Or just take your word on everything?

Wait, don't answer that, I know.



Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?

Cough.

Wtc violating the laws of physics given the official story is strong (irrefutable?) evidence things didn't happen the way we were told.

Fact. Sorry.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1456 on: February 28, 2017, 02:54:41 PM »
Remember Rama Set is an engineer, before you make yourself more silly.

Why not present an argument?

Point loads can't exist in and of themselves, that's the point we need something to cause the point load.

Are we really still not past this?

You obviously have never had any formal training in structural mechanics,  other wise you would know that the concept of a point load is fundamental to basic structural calculations.  You can even simplify distributed load calculations for some calculations by converting UDL and UVL to point loads,  oh wait you posted a video on that,  but you obviously didn't understand what it was saying.   Any real world mass can be treated as a point load acting at the center of mass.   

As for someone with a PhD in engineering not knowing what a point load is,  words fail me.   


Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1457 on: February 28, 2017, 02:56:08 PM »
So, what causes a point load?

Something that exists, right?

Anyway enough derailing.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1458 on: February 28, 2017, 02:59:43 PM »
So, what causes a point load?

Something that exists, right?

Anyway enough derailing.

It's just a force acting at a point.    That's it,  nothing more nothing less,  it's about as basic a concept as you can get.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1459 on: February 28, 2017, 03:00:13 PM »
Lets look at something very basic, by your logic, a building would only need to be supported under the central point load.

In the real world the whole footprint of the building is supported because in reality, it is a distributed load.

Enough derailing.

You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1460 on: February 28, 2017, 03:03:22 PM »
You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?

Not true.   Care to back up that claim and quote where I said that.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1461 on: February 28, 2017, 03:04:52 PM »


These load bearing pillars can be described as holding a point load, in reality, it is much, much more complicated than that.

Bonus question, would knocking out three or four result in the buildings plumb collapse at free-fall?
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1462 on: February 28, 2017, 03:06:24 PM »
You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?

Not true.   Care to back up that claim and quote where I said that.

Here.

As for reason and logic, I'm still waiting for anyone to take this on.

Here's your smoking gun piece of evidence, geez, you can't handle Bhs, it's over, retire with dignity and honour.

Note that this hasn't been dubunked.

No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

The only way our physics can replicate the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition, trying to fudge numbers without a controlled demolition situation ends up with the model looking like my simple equation would predict.



Debunk it, or retire with dignity and honour.

>Our physics models can't simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with the official story.

>Our physics models can easily simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with a controlled demolition.


Should I believe physics? Or just take your word on everything?

Wait, don't answer that, I know.



Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s275%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?

Cough.

Wtc violating the laws of physics given the official story is strong (irrefutable?) evidence things didn't happen the way we were told.

Fact. Sorry.

Your silence is enough.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Master_Evar

  • 3381
  • Well rounded character
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1463 on: February 28, 2017, 03:10:47 PM »
The load of an object causes a point load. If i have cube, i can split it in half. Both ends sill weigh equally much. One end will be close to the pivot and act with less torque, the other will be further from the pivot and act with more torque. If you add the torques together, you get the same result as a point load with the load of the original cube and it's position.

One of the definitions of a center of mass is that the torque caused by gravitational loads from the object itself will be perfectly balanced and equal 0. If you put an object on some structural element and it is in rest, the distributed force will act as a single force concentrated at the center of mass, i.e. a point load.

It's also very important to distinuish point load from pressure. A point load only means that the force will be balanced at that point with the given magnitude. It doesn't literally mean that there is an infinitely small point applying a force. It acts as one, and it's the best tool for making torque calculations.

Let's compare it to gravity - gravity isn't acting on your body as if it's one object, in reality it acts differently on each particle in your body. So really, if you don't calculate the force on each single particle in your body you can't calculate the force of gravity on your body and get an answer that represents reality even closely, right? Just going by your logic.
Math is the language of the universe.

The inability to explain something is not proof of something else.

We don't speak for reality - we only observe it. An observation can have any cause, but it is still no more than just an observation.

When in doubt; sources!

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1464 on: February 28, 2017, 03:12:44 PM »
Pressure is very different, I agree.

Look I never claimed to be an authority on this. I'm just a guy that likes learning.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1465 on: February 28, 2017, 03:15:58 PM »
You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?

Not true.   Care to back up that claim and quote where I said that.

Here.
<snipped>

LOL  that was YOU making the claim not me,  that reality disconnect is a recurring problem for you isn't it.
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1466 on: February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM »
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.



BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1467 on: February 28, 2017, 03:21:31 PM »
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

What models are you referring to?

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1468 on: February 28, 2017, 03:22:10 PM »
NIST's models, specifically.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

*

Rayzor

  • 11331
  • Looking for Occam
Re: 911 What is the truth?
« Reply #1469 on: February 28, 2017, 03:29:34 PM »
NIST's models, specifically.

Ok,  skip to around 2:00 minutes or thereabouts.  For a side by side comparison of NIST's model and video of the collapse



Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.