[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
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 p
Attempt to distract and ad hom, noted.
We just debunked the NIST official narrative about the WTC. This is epic.
But, elvis and stuff.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I think that I know how he did the math. He assumed that the debris pile was roughly conical, which allowed him to calculate the total volume of the debris.
V= (1/3) × π × r² × h
Weight of course is just density times volume. W=D × V
He knows the volume from his previous calculation. And he knows the weight because it is trust me bro. Density then is the trivial calculation of trust me bro divided by volume. As it turns out, debris piles are far less dense than most people imagine.
aD hOm
dEbUnKeD oFfIcIaL nArRaTiVeS
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 th
Oh and let us see the citation from gorgo, the very same gorgo you, d2, asked for the collapse times. What's that? "The collapse of the tower must be an almost free fall... observed to be 9 s"? (See attached).
Wow. 9 s. Which puts your calculated time 28% higher than what actually happened. And your prediction, remember, has no air resistance, no buckling resistance and has the top floors falling as a block.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
At first glance, one might be confused about whether billy is mainly disingenuous or mainly dumb. His persistence suggests that he is mainly dumb. The obvious lying and refusal to answer basic questions suggests that he is mainly disingenous. I guess the true answer is that he is dumb enough to believe the earth is flat and dumb enough to believe that a rational person might be persuaded by his ham-handed efforts at lying and deflection.
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 th
We see that calling me a liar is projection. One report states an average of 10 s.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
At first glance, one might be confused about whether billy is mainly disingenuous or mainly dumb. His persistence suggests that he is mainly dumb. The obvious lying and refusal to answer basic questions suggests that he is mainly disingenous. I guess the true answer is that he is dumb enough to believe the earth is flat and dumb enough to believe that a rational person might
Classic resort to ad hom to deflect from epic exposure of 9/11 narrative.
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 th
Also another lie or sloppy reading or not understanding uncertainty - they say within 12 s in that report. 12 s is not 2 sf here.
They say elsewhere 10 s average, i.e. 9.5 to 10.5. Oh and the observation of 9 s, thats 8.5 to 9.5 s. We'll not forget that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Also another lie or sloppy reading or not understanding uncertainty - they say within 12 s in that report. 12 s is not 2 sf here.
They say elsewhere 10 s average, i.e. 9.5 to 10.5. Oh and the observation of 9 s, thats 8.5 to 9.5 s. We'll not forget that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Cite for 10s, as you've been asked a million times. Not for external panels, for the point of collapse to hit the ground. The one report you've cited is not NIST, as you've been told a thousand times. It was for another purpose entirely, not for establishing exact collapse times, and it literally says "the duration observed was about that of freefall" and then proceeds to give the freefall calculation. I can confirm as an English speaker that 11 seconds is about 9 seconds, and that the author of this sentence was not saying that it was exactly that of freefall. What do you think it's saying?
You've been asked so many times to cite it and you haven't so I have to assume you're making **** up.
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
You've yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the Ad Hominem Fallacy even is.
I doubt you even know the different types of ad-hominem fallacies. (There are at least two: Circumstantial and Abusive.)
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-A
So it is over with Flatty declaring himself the winner because a report claims a piece of the building fell in 10 seconds when the report is contradicted by video evidence of a longe4 collapse of the whole building and a retraction of Flattys previous concession that the collapse was 27seconds?
What did Flatty do all these alleged calculations for?
Classic resort to ad hom to deflect from epic exposure of 9/11 narrative.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
billy,
I just can't take you seriously until you tell me how you estimated the weight of the WTC debris pile. If your next response is anything other than an explanation of your method, then I guess we will have our answer.
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-A
To be fair, attempting a good-faith conversation with a smug liar like yourself can be frustrating and upsetting.
At first glance, one might be confused about whether billy is mainly disingenuous or mainly dumb. His persistence suggests that he is mainly dumb. The obvious lying and refusal to answer basic questions suggests that he is mainly disingenous. I guess the true answer is that he is dumb enough to believe the earth is flat and dumb enough to believe that a rational person might
Yeah, I retract my previous assessment. He is very stupid. He's just had his pants pulled down around his ankles in front of everyone and is proudly strutting around declaring victory, and genuinely seems to believe in what he's saying.
Cite for 10s, as you've been asked a million times. Not for external panels, for the point of collapse to hit the ground. The one report you've cited is not NIST, as you've been told a thousand times. It was for another purpose entirely, not for establishing exact collapse times, and it literally says "the duration observed was about that of freefall" and then proceeds to give
3 reports, 2 from NIST and one from an independent "experts". All hostile witnesses from my POV.
Thanks again for disproving progressive collapse and NIST.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yeah, I retract my previous assessment. He is very stupid. He's just had his pants pulled down around his ankles in front of everyone and is proudly strutting around declaring victory, and genuinely seems to believe in what he's saying.
If BillyBones wasn't such an insufferable so-and-so I'd feel sorry for him being publicly humiliated like this.
He's almost literally begging to be humiliated here, so it is what it is.
3 reports, 2 from NIST and one from an independent "experts". All hostile witnesses from my POV.
Thanks again for disproving progressive collapse and NIST.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Since you seem incapable of responding to requests for citation, I will put it like this: if the next response from you is not a link to a NIST report asserting a time of less than 11.5 seconds for the point of collapse to hit the ground, I will consider the collapse time issue closed and resolved.
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
Yeah, I retract my previous assessment. He is very stupid. He's just had his pants pulled down around his ankles in front of everyone and is proudly strutting around declaring victory, and genuinely seems to believe in what he's saying.
Well, i guess all you have left is ad hom and the dreaded...
Psychobabble baby!
Thanks again for disproving progressive collapse. Good work.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
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 TapatalkI also calculate the time for exterior panels to strike the ground as around 9-10 seconds, as they were in freefall. Sounds like my calculations agree with NIST on all counts then, or are you going to cite something where NIST asserts collapse times for the rest of the building that are not in agreement?
Well, i guess all you have left is ad hom and the dreaded...
Psychobabble baby!
Thanks again for disproving progressive collapse. Good work.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Please, for the love of god, look up what "ad hominem" means. You are just embarrassing yourself with every post.
You've yet to demonstrate that you even understand what the Ad Hominem Fallacy even is.
I doubt you even know the different types of ad-hominem fallacies. (There are at least two: Circumstantial and Abusive.)
Wait, geezerchess has made a substantive post?
And on the day we debunked the 9/11 official narrative also.
What a day.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
