[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
He's going to tell you you are wrong because he waited for Judy Wood to tell him what to think.
In any case you seem to be lost in the trees. Stand back and see the woods.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yeah, and then zoom out another 100,000 miles or so and observe the entire outlines of North America and Australia at the same time, which is easy enough to do because the world is, well, you know.
I don't think it is like tag team wrestling. To the contrary, I suspect that Deuces doesn't want his "genius" to be associated with billy's idiocy. I'll leave it to others to dissect the underlying pathology of that reasoning.
Nope. I note that you would rather guess than give a source yourself. See, they counted the truckloads of debris (over 108,000) and know how much each load weighed. It totaled 1.8 million tons. This info can be found in lots of places including:Hamill, Denis (September 16, 2001). "Rescue Workers Keep Up Quest for Signs of Life Ruin All Over, But Not One Unkind Word". Daily News
Your "source" takes us to this page.
Friggin clown.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I don't think it is like tag team wrestling. To the contrary, I suspect that Deuces doesn't want his "genius" to be associated with billy's idiocy. I'll leave it to others to dissect the underlying pathology of that reasoning.
Speaking of which, bumping this article for deuces:
https://dhughes.substack.com/p/in-defenc...
I would like your opinion.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm not spending half an hour figuring out how to format basic algebraic manipulations to post here only for you to reject it with your deeply analytical insight that "tHe lAw oF gRaViTy iS nOt sCiEnTiFic". If you've done the work, should take you a few seconds to quote it.
Billy I assume these lasers were used in Maui? It seems like more people mention funny business going on there than on 911.
Billy, I'm just going to completely ignore any claims you make regarding collapse times or amount of debris removed from the site since you've shown no work or provided any evidence for these and as it stands they are empty assertions you might as well have pulled from thin air.
I'm not spending half an hour figuring out how to format basic algebraic manipulations to post here only for you to reject it with your deeply analytical insight that "tHe lAw oF gRaViTy iS nOt sCiEnTiFic". If you've done the work, should take you a few seconds to quote it.
You routinely ignore requests to define terms also.
It can be seen qualitatively that inward buckling cannot cause a free fall collapse. See above. Failing that see earlier calcs. From memory I went through how 27 s could be generously estimated. Then the thread went tits up with constant ad hom attacks.
The "theory" of equating UG with TG rests on the observation that bodies free fall at the same rate. Therefore g is independent of the mass of the falling body, g = GM/r2, from equating inertial with gravitational mass. That which causes the attraction is the very same thing as that which resists acceleration. Seen as a freak of nature but now codified into some inherent principle or law. Hmmm.
In this expression for g, leaving aside the problematic G, the radius and mass of Earth require independent verification. Guess what the Cavendish calculation of M depends on? Yes, Newton's law of gravity. Oh dear. Further, Eratosphenes's radius measurement assumes the outcome of sphericity and a massive distant Sun. Al Biruni's depends on a fixed non-refracted geometric horizon. Which you do not have, remember the boats.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You routinely ignore requests to define terms also.
It can be seen qualitatively that inward buckling cannot cause a free fall collapse. See above. Failing that see earlier calcs. From memory I went through how 27 s could be generously estimated. Then the thread went tits up with constant ad hom attacks.
And from memory, your assumption was that everything was dustified, therefore you did not have any appreciable momentum from floors collapsing on to the floors below them in your calculation. This is why I want you to be crystal clear about your assumptions.
I'll get back to the gravity stuff later, let's cover this off first. If you're denying that you made this assumption I will try to find the relevant post(s).
Also, are you going to give any sources for the amount of debris removed from the site other than Judy Wood and "trust me bro"?
I'm pretty sure there was no dustification. My source is Elton John.
And it's not dustified
Just a simple word
It's two towers droppin'
Of the trade centre world
Nice straw man about freefall collapse despite being demonstrably shown otherwise multiple times. Another idiotic failure.
The history.co.uk link redirects to the homepage for me too FYI.
And from memory, your assumption was that everything was dustified, therefore you did not have any appreciable momentum from floors collapsing on to the floors below them in your calculation. This is why I want you to be crystal clear about your assumptions.I'll get back to the gravity stuff later, let's cover this off first. If you're denying that you made this assumption I wi
We start with freefall rate of collapse assumed. That seems reasonable.
This immediately, without qualification, negates progressive collapse.
The reason is obvious. Floors must have begun to fall BEFORE being impelled to do so by the floor above in order to achieve a rate of g. Therefore progressive collapse is unequivocally impossible.
On its face, the NIST hypothesis of progressive collapse in any form (panckake, inward buckle, flavour of the month etc) is dead in the water.
So what happened. The only possible scenario for free fall collapse is...
There was no collapse.
That is before getting into other arguments which just dance on the NIST grave.
Now, final point from me on this because you will never see. I would just like deuces opinion on the david hughes article. Thanks.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
We start with freefall rate of collapse assumed. That seems reasonable.
This immediately, without qualification, negates progressive collapse.
The reason is obvious. Floors must have begun to fall BEFORE being impelled to do so by the floor above in order to achieve a rate of g. Therefore progressive collapse is unequivocally impossible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
None of this makes any sense in the slightest. Why are we assuming freefall and why would assuming freefall mean floors must have begun to fall before being impelled to do so? Can you be a bit clearer about what you're talking about?
Do you think that each floor starts off accelerating at g? Seems like it's been explained about 1000 times to you why this is not the case and you're just stubbornly pressing ahead with this dumb assumption.
Try and explain your reasoning for why each floor starts off accelerating at g without the assumption that everything above it turned to dust.
