[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Just the collapse times for both towers.

Still waiting to hear where it's wrong, champ.

This is like when the flat earthers inadvertently prove the globe in their experiments.

South just over 15 seconds
North just over 22 seconds

Billy, why did you lie about doing the calculations when if you had done the calculations using your own method you would have got a collapse time of 15.4 seconds (or even less if you used 10 for g instead of 9.81)?

Remember when billy showed up, straw-manned the 9 second collapse time, I schooled him with video and he said "fine" and conceded that I was correct about the collapse times? Then he comes back today and jumped at the chance to obfuscate about the collapse times so he didn't have to face reality? Suddenly he thinks anyone gives a sht what Bazant said the collapse time was or that NIST never timed the entire collapse (only time to first panels striking the ground and a vague mention of everything turning to rubble in 12 seconds - which is neither meant as a precise timing nor a timing of the complete collapse).

The collapse times can be precisely measured using videos of the event, which has been done for him multiple times. He even conceded to my times. Yet, here he is today, jumping around and creating as much FUD as he can about them because he knows if people pay too much attention to the details of his theory, he will be exposed as a liar without question.

His solution to attempt to prevent being exposed as a liar is, of course, to lie more, but sorry, billy. You won't get away with it.

The collapse times are EXPLICITLY demonstrated in the video I provided. It is irrelevant what is printed elsewhere, especially if they are not explicitly listed as a time from collapse initiation to end of the progressive collapse (he has not provided a reference that states this figure by NIST).

He makes junior high level physics mistakes while claiming to be credentialed in physics.

He has also handwaved away highly credentialed experts who have refuted Judy Wood's theories (she's also lost in court over the facts presented in her theories, but we will save that for another day).

And now today, he is handwaving away d2_e4's thorough dismantling of his math, where he demonstrated that even using his method, the collapse time matches the actual event very closely.

Does that just about sum it up?

billy,

Can we get back to your methods for determining the weight of debris piles? Do you just eyeball it or is it more complicated?

I've been doing that with your pictures, and I often don't see what you see. Why do you think that is?

Billy is a smug liar. (IMHO)

The 27 s is a more realistic model that includes around 10% of the inertial resistance that would be experienced by a progressive collapse. Over 100 s includes the actual resistance that would be faced. The 27 s model is given as a steel man. But why stop there. Let us steel man the feck out of NIST and still expose the fairytale.

We have the most favourable model possible for NIST's claim. The final analysis is complete.

Now, all we are doing is debunking the NIST claim and proving beyond reasonable doubt that progressive collapse is impossible. We do not need at this stage to bring in alternative models as to how the buildings went puft. You need not be a Dr Wood advocate just yet. But you will unequivocally not be able to claim there was a collapse.

Acknowledgements: billy shears for modelling assumptions and calcs. D2 for data analysis. The gorgo for, you know, being here.

1. Air resistance is ignored despite the area of the floors.

2. Inertial resistance due to inward buckling is ignored. While inward buckling is the NIST scenario, we will pretend it did not exist, there was nothing except floors suspended in mid air ready for freefall without obstruction.

3. We will assume a fall from the 90th floor (d2 began with 20 floors of mass for first collision). That's a positive claim requiring support but nevermind, we will allow it. The entire mass of the 20 floors is considered a block that freefalls from rest without resistance before coupling with the floor below which again experiences no resistance etc etc.

4. We now have the most favourable assumptions for NIST's collapse claim.

5. The NIST claim, based on accurate timings and seismic data (their words) is a collapse time averaging 10 seconds.

6. Collapse time predicted by model is 11.5 seconds.

7. Prediction is 15% longer than actual time.

8. Progressive collapse is disproven.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You have bad eyesight?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Why are you lying about me lying?

We are now totally ignoring any resistive effects, totally un-sound method but it leaves you without wiggle room.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

My uncorrected eyesight is indeed very poor. But I'm wearing glasses when viewing your photos.

Sounds like after confidently declaring that my calculations were wrong, you were unable to find any actual issues or errors. I'll take your apology as.... implied.

So, when I asked you for your calculations to arrive at the 27s number, why did you give me a different set of calculations? I specifically asked for how you arrived at your numbers. You gave me a formula that arrives at different numbers. So, for the final ****ing time, show me how you arrived at the 27s number.

Anyway, that's all rhetorical. It's abundantly clear you didn't do any calculations and you lied, otherwise there is no possible world in which you would provide a formula that gave a different result to the one you claimed. Even you aren't that ****ing stupid.

Pointless responding to the rest of your babble as you can't quote where NIST claims freefall or 10s for anything but an exterior panel. You're "debunking" a straw man you made up.

The only emotion I am experiencing is mild annoyance at dealing with a stubborn dumb moron like you. Who the **** marked your exam papers for you to get those qualifications, Helen Keller?

I note with interest that you will confidently assess the mass of rubble by looking at pictures yet you balk whenever someone else makes any sort of approximation or estimate.

It's your method you total dunce. I used your method and calculated it out to 110 floors, whereas you just calculated it for 3 and hand waved the rest away. How are you so ****ing stupid that you don't understand that I used your own ****ing formula?

Absolutely intentional lying.

Let's just take stock of where we are with Billy:

- Claims videos of WTC collapse to show the towers disintegrating into dust.
- Claims to be able to identify the mass of debris by looking at pictures.
- Claims to have done calculations showing collapse time to be at least 27 seconds but the back of the envelope calculations he actually provided don't agree with his own claim.
- Constantly lies about the collapse times given in the NIST report.
- Thinks the Earth is flat.

Well, I'm sold.

billy,

I'm not going to ask about anything related to celestial bodies, space travel, or 9/11, because I know where you stand on all those issues.

Which of the statements below do you also believe are true?

--Vaccines very likely cause autism.
--5G very likely causes cancer (or has some connection to COVID).
--Chemtrails are evidence of governments spraying chemicals for nefarious purposes.
--JFK wasn't killed by a gunshot in Dealey Plaza.
--Jeffrey Epstein is still alive.
--Secret groups of elites are directly controlling the weather
--Adam Lanza did not kill 20+ people at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
--Thomas Crooks did not attempt to kill Donald Trump at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
--Barack Obama very likely was born in Kenya.
--The Clintons have killed or directed the killing of several people. (I obviously am referring to things like Vince Foster conspiracy theories, not the ordering of military strikes as commander in chief.)

Oh I have a few to throw out there.

-Bill Gates wants to depopulate the planet
-The pyramids (or other historical wonders) were built by aliens
-The holocaust did not happen as reported
-New Coke was intentionally inferior to drive up demand for Coke Classic
-Any one or more of the following are still alive: Elvis, Hitler, Michael Jackson
-Any one or more of the following are dead: Paul McCartney, Avril Lavigne, Britney Spears
-Leftists or any other group are trying to replace white people in the US or other countries with minorities
-Michelle Obama is transgender

Someone sounds salty.

Oh and you lost all credibility when deferring to the gorginator for the loltubz collapse times.

Gorgins presented clear reference to a 9 second collapse time, from his own experts, stating the necessity of a freefall collapse; and I myself cited NIST twice in 2 separate reports giving 10 s average collapse time.

It's all over now. Baby blue.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

The only thing you gave from NIST that spoke of collapse times (rather than the time taken for an external panel to fall to the ground) was a figure of 12 seconds (assuming this is rounded, this means 11.5-12.5 seconds). Your own conservation of momentum calculation which you yourself failed to apply properly gives 11.5 seconds. There is no irreconcilable difference here, so the collapse time issue is resolved. There's still the open question of how you hallucinated the figures of 27 seconds and 100 seconds, but since you refuse to provide the calculations for those we'll just assume you're lying again and made them up.

Now let's focus on how you know the mass of the remaining debris.

The ad hom is strong with this one.

Thanks again for your assistance in disproving the NIST claim of progressive collapse.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk