[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Brain washing like, for example, flat out refusing to acknowledge the plain English meaning of a passage you yourself quoted? That sort of brain washing?

What's an exterior panel, Billy?

Since I never once used the term exterior panel I have no responsibility to define it. You on the other hand have a long list of terms you have used to support various (terrible) points and flat out refused to define.

Define exterior panel.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

This open dissent in TeamBilly is refreshing. A true anarchy.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'm going by what you cited, donkey. Forget that other report, we're only concerned with what you yourself cited from NIST.

I think you meant shortest possible descent, not longest. I'll let you off with that as a brain fart.

You think the first seismic readings come in only after the collapse of the building is complete? You must know a fair bit about how seismic readings work during the collapse of large buildings, but could you source that claim just in case? Intuitively, one would think that you would get seismic readings before the bottom floor hits the ground, from things like debris ejected from the sides (for example, exterior panels), or shock waves travelling at the speed of sound through the building structure itself.

And why are you averaging figures given for different purposes? If you have 3 oranges and 5 apples, you don't have an average of 4 pears. They are different readings and they mean different things, taking an average of them is meaningless. If I fire a bullet at a target and you run from the same point to the same target, the average of your time and bullet time is not a meaningful measure of anything.

The reason WTC1 and WTC2 have different collapse times is because the collapse started at different floors. This has also been explained to you multiple times.

You are quoting a passage that gives the time for the first exterior panel to hit the ground and claiming it to be the collapse time of the building, so you need to define it. A plain English reading of this passage does not support your assertion that this is the time NIST are claiming for the collapse. It supports the obvious interpretation that this is the time for the first exterior panel to hit the ground, as it presumably fell off to the side.

Why does it take 100 attempts of explaining something this basic to you for you to understand it? Are you honestly that ****ing tupid? Like, someone as stupid as you should not be able to write in complete sentences.

You think wrong. I said the longest possible recorded descent is the steelman.

The seismic data is cited in the nist report. You have read the nist report, right? We can use any data from nist we want. Since all we have done and continue to do is debunk nist. (I have nothing against nist per se you understand).

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

The time we calculated is the shortest possible time because we neglected all resistance factors you numbnut. We calculated the shortest possible time it would take a building of that height to experience a floor-by-floor progressive collapse under gravity, with momentum being conserved during floor-on-floor collisions.

The longest possible time would be infinity. The building doesn't collapse at all. This would happen if, for example, the first floor collapses down on the second floor but the second floor is strong enough to not undergo collapse, thereby stopping the progression. Or just if there is no collapse to start with. What do you think the longest possible time gives us in terms of contradicting NIST exactly? If we say the longest possible time is 11 seconds and the NIST time is 10 seconds, what have we debunked?

You're the one who is "debunking" NIST, you need to first cite a reasonable figure to debunk. You calculated the shortest possible time for the building to collapse to be 11.5 seconds. You didn't calculate the shortest possible time for an exterior panel to hit the ground to be 11.5 seconds. You didn't calculate the shortest possible time for seismic readings to be 11.5 seconds. So you haven't debunked anything NIST said.

Dumb Sunday is it, down there in the big L? Up north we have no such problem.

The RECORDED time, i.e. observed time, should be the LONGEST possible time we can give them in order their fairytale is given the maximum possible chance of success. Likewise we give them the SHORTEST possible fall time by ignoring resistances.

Given there is no overlap between the observed time and predicted times, we have a satisfactory proof.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

1. Define exterior panel.

2. The nist time is 10 seconds. From 3 sources, two nist and one fully independent from nist and a hostile witness for TeamBilly (they gave 9 seconds).

3. Predicted time is 11.5 s (given

4. Either 15% longer or 28% longer.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Why not just rageQuit d2? Continue with this attitude and we might need to reconsider some things. Like your future with TeamBilly.

See another hostile witness here, they say both buildings "within 10 seconds". This means less than 10 seconds:

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01...

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

A thin flat piece of steel attached to the exterior of the building, I'd imagine. The material issue here being that it is in freefall rather than being subject to our conservation of momentum calculations, as it does not collide with the remainder of the building once it's falling. That is the plain English reading of the passage you quoted, the onus is on you to find evidence to the contrary if you want to dispute this obvious interpretation.

Not for what we calculated.

You're too ****ing stupid and stubborn for me to continue this discussion. I'm not talking to you about this again until you understand that we didn't calculate the minimum time for exterior panels that fell off to the side to hit the ground or for seismic readings to be taken, which is what you're comparing it to.

Who is this person and why should I care what they say? Are they an expert ascertaining an exact collapse time or just some rando throwing out an approximate figure? For the 100th ****ing time, in colloquial English 12 seconds is about 10 seconds. World class lathletes run the 100 in about 10 seconds. The longest you've ever lasted with a woman is about 10 seconds. See?

We have video of this event. We can use that to see for ourselves how long it takes. There is no need to take some random journo's word for it.

Where are you getting that 10 seconds is the longest possible observed time then? Try to use words in a way that makes sense.

It's all starting to make sense.

Indeed we are. You are a living embodiment of his phenomenon.

Is the NIST report Billy is failing in his attempt to refute the shadow commission’s report authored by Maxwell and Epstein? That would certainly explain the inconsistencies to Dueces and make it obvious why the sheeple don’t understand them.

Is there a magnetic North Pole is your flat earth model? Where is it? Is there a magnetic South Pole? Where is it?

Maybe this was an early model of the discombobulater that Trump was telling us about the other day? We know he was probably involved in the shadow commission with his buddies from pedo island, pedo Utah ranch and pedo NYC mansion.

Billy's got to be a shrink's wet dream. Multiple books' worth of material there.

No. I have provided two sources for my claim of an amount of debris. You have provided none. You still lose.

And don't forget, even if my number were wrong, it doesn't make yours correct.

His join article he just cited as a discussion of the clean up but apparently Flatty wants pictures of the 20-30,000 debris loads before he will believe any numbers or provide any calculations.

Didn't see this article.

Ragequit right on cue.

Why are you crashing out here? Have the ramifications of what you have proven finally dawned on you?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk