[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 know I already did. But you are raging inside. Billy understands. Billy knows.See attached.Average 10 s.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
bump
From the report:
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely
So, according to the NIST report, it took 15 to 25 seconds for the entire building to collapse completely.
Looks like NIST and Gorgo agree.
This is not the nist report, this is the nist faqs which states the collapse times as 9 and 11 s. But if you read above, we already dismissed these two readings and are not included in the average, which is 10 s.
The cores do not form part of the progressive collapse model. You ought to read the accounts of progressive collapse.
The nist report states "within 12 seconds the collapse of wtc1 had left nothing but rubble" - see attached.
But then geezer is a self-confessed troll. Of course he is wrong.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
This is not the nist report, this is the nist faqs which states the collapse times as 9 and 11 s. But if you read above, we already dismissed these two readings and are not included in the average, which is 10 s.
I was quoting from the NIST link that you provided for us to read.
The cores do not form part of the progressive collapse model. You ought to read the accounts of progressive collapse.
The nist report states "within 12 seconds the collapse of wtc1 had left nothing but rubble" - see attached.
I thought you've said several times that there was no rubble. I'm confused.
And I read in the FAQ that they reject the idea of Progressive Collapse.
But then geezer is a self-confessed troll. Of course he is wrong.
I plead "Guilty!", with no apologies, to the charge of trolling intellectually dishonest posters like yourself.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Nice phone!
Another whole flurry of billy posts where he runs away from the problems with his theory like a pansy.
No one is surprised.
Billy, as I suspected, that report reads as though it is intended for a general audience, and numbers are often rounded even when it's obvious that more accuracy is available. Your assertion that "within 12 s" somehow confers a degree of measurement accuracy is completely moronic and I never want to hear such stupidity from you again. Well, aside from the flat Earth and electric Sun stuff, but that's grandfathered in.
We have our final outcome confirmed once more. Progressive collapse under optimal circumstances, i.e. no resistance whatsoever and total mass available, would take 11.5 s.
For a ball park figure as to resistance Eagar estimates an additional 2 s. Which puts the minimum time 13.5 s.
Cite for Eagar estimate of 2 seconds please.
I posted a map.
To be clear I cited google maps and ordnance survey. It transpires that these maps are constructed using triangulation.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
LOL. This is the map that Billy claims to have posted:
billy, we need a map that shows at a high level where the continents are relative to each other on your flat earth model, and what the centerpoint of the earth is (or approximate centerpoint if the outer edges of your flat earth are irregular).
Any claim that you have provided such a map is a blatant lie as far as I can tell.
Also, if you recall, your most recent conversation about maps started when Billy said "longitude, that's your problem", whatever that's supposed to mean. He did not respond when I pointed out that these map(s) he claimed to have posted also used the lat-long co-ordinate system.
Also, if you recall, your most recent conversation about maps started when Billy said "longitude, that's your problem", whatever that's supposed to mean. He did not respond when I pointed out that these map(s) he claimed to have posted also used the lat-long co-ordinate system.
Billy doesn't like your ad homs, bro. Of course he won't respond.
Billy, as I suspected, that report reads as though it is intended for a general audience, and numbers are often rounded even when it's obvious that more accuracy is available. Your assertion that "within 12 s" somehow confers a degree of measurement accuracy is completely moronic and I never want to hear such stupidity from you again. Well, aside from the flat Earth and electri
It is a 302 page report. It is the report. The final report.
Now, are you still claiming that the d2-gorgo-geezer, the holy trinity of wrong, loltubz collapse time is more correct than nist?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It is a 302 page report. It is the report. The final report.
Now, are you still claiming that the d2-gorgo-geezer, the holy trinity of wrong, loltubz collapse time is more correct than nist?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Do you agree with the NIST report that there was lots of rubble? Or are you staying with your 'dustification' story?
Holy trinity of wrong
I lolled.
Desperate stuff.
1. It is in the Eagar article. The Professor of engineering at MIT, that Eagar. The building collapsed within 10 seconds, that guy. He claims without resistance it would have been 8 seconds. How is your subtraction? Any better than your rounding?
Do you read anything? Like, at all?
2. No. I have given you the Eagar article already, cited and referenced. You have a real problem keeping up with me.
3. The fact you are asking is strange. You agreed that with resistance the time would increase by "not much". But any increase means progressive collapse is more impossibler than it is when resistance is not included. A dumb statement, indicative of your increasingly dim-witted posts.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
It is a 302 page report. It is the report. The final report.
Now, are you still claiming that the d2-gorgo-geezer, the holy trinity of wrong, loltubz collapse time is more correct than nist?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes, that is the report I read.
The 12 second collapse time given in the NIST report seems on the low side considering the video evidence available, but I suspect that there is an explanation for that which does not involve space lasers.
Billy, as I suspected, that report reads as though it is intended for a general audience, and numbers are often rounded even when it's obvious that more accuracy is available. Your assertion that "within 12 s" somehow confers a degree of measurement accuracy is completely moronic and I never want to hear such stupidity from you again. Well, aside from the flat Earth and electri
Not to mention that I assumed 12 seconds rather than within 12 s for the mean average of
Bezant: 9 s.
Eagar: 10 s.
NIST: 12 s.
Mean: 10 s.
Or for those who fail basic science:
10.333333333333... s.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Desperate stuff.1. It is in the Eagar article. The Professor of engineering at MIT, that Eagar. The building collapsed within 10 seconds, that guy. He claims without resistance it would have been 8 seconds. How is your subtraction? Any better than your rounding?Do you read anything? Like, at all?2. No. I have given you the Eagar article already, cited and referenced. You have a
I neither read nor keep track of every link you've ever posted. When I am interested in something specific, as now, I will ask you for the citation.
3. The fact you are asking is strange. You agreed that with resistance the time would increase by "not much". But any increase means progressive collapse is more impossibler than it is when resistance is not included. A dumb statement, indicative of your increasingly dim-witted posts.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You seem to think, that like you, I want to cherry pick evidence and torture numbers to support "my side", whatever that is. It doesn't even occur to you that not everyone engages in the same intellectually dishonest games that you do, and wants to cherry pick sources and quibble over the definitions of basic words and phrases, and some people just want all the information that is available regardless of whether it supports "their side" or not.
Yes, that is the report I read.
The 12 second collapse time given in the NIST report seems on the low side considering the video evidence available, but I'm sure there suspect that there is an explanation for that which does not involve space lasers.
The report said there was rubble, which obv argues against the space laser dustification theory.
Yes, that is the report I read.
The 12 second collapse time given in the NIST report seems on the low side considering the video evidence available, but I'm sure there suspect that there is an explanation for that which does not involve space lasers.
NIST or gorgo-geezer-d2?
Who is correct?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I neither read nor keep track of every link you've ever posted. When I am interested in something specific, as now, I will ask you for the citation.You seem to think, that like you, I want to cherry pick evidence and torture numbers to support "my side", whatever that is. It doesn't even occur to you that not everyone engages in the same intellectually dishonest games that you
Projecting all over the place.
The only source I have rejected is gorgo and his hangers-on, d2 and geezer. Not because you present long times but because it is you. You are not an authority on how long the (alleged) collapse took. NIST and other engineers are.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Projecting all over the place.
The only source I have rejected is gorgo and his hangers-on, d2 and geezer. Not because you present long times but because it is you. You are not an authority on how long the (alleged) collapse took. NIST and other engineers are.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
NIST said there was rubble. What say you about that?
Not to mention that I assumed 12 seconds rather than within 12 s for the mean average of
Bezant: 9 s.
Eagar: 10 s.
NIST: 12 s.
Mean: 10 s.
Or for those who fail basic science:
10.333333333333... s.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The whole concept of averaging data points from 3 different sources, 2 of which aren't even official sources of those data points and only mention them essentially in passing as an approximation, to rule a theory as "impossible" is ****ing ridiculous.
Projecting all over the place.
The only source I have rejected is gorgo and his hangers-on, d2 and geezer. Not because you present long times but because it is you. You are not an authority on how long the (alleged) collapse took. NIST and other engineers are.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Gorgonian is not the source. The video is the source. Do you think if I post a video of an event that somehow makes me the source of the information in the video? Like, honestly, even you can't be this ****ing stupid.
Yet another flurry of posts by billy the pansy where he runs and hides from the problems with his theory.
Let's review those problems for him here, again, so he doesn't forget them or get confused and think collapse times have anything to do with these problems:
1) billy has watched videos of the collapse of the towers (let's just pick one, say WTC1) and described the central columns falling downward at the end of the collapse as "turning to dust."
billy has not explained how that description fits what is seen in the videos better than "collapsing to the ground" given that the column structure is seen moving downwards until it is out of sight in the video. Nothing in the video supports his claim, which is central to his theory.
2) billy claims that large amounts of dust and debris is for some reason unexpected in a collapse of a building containing a lot of concrete and drywall as well as other materials that can contribute collectively to "debris." billy has not explained why this is unexpected and would support his theory that the building is turning to dust instead of simply collapsing and crushing its contents to dust.
3) billy claims there is not enough debris in the resulting piles of debris after the collapse and this must mean that large portions of the building were turned into dust. billy has provided absolutely no evidence for this claim at all. In fact, his reasoning is of the form "proof by just look at it" without showing anything to look at.
None of these 3 issues has a single thing to do with the collapse time, so his continuing deflections to that are red herrings. billy has run from explaining these 3 issues with his theory at least a dozen times now. This is the behavior of a coward. A pansy. A child.
Will billy face the problems with his theory, or will be run away again. Like a pansy?
