[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
Not especially. But I find discussing conspiracy theories fun. Like I said earlier, Conspiracy Theories are always more interesting than reality.
If you think the collapse was 15 to 22 s then ok. But that is not the official story.
I'm going by what 'I saw with my own eyes' (to be hitherto referred to as the Billy Principle (TM Pending).
Cherry picking from the official story and mad stuff people think they saw is mental gymnastics of such intensity I am surprised y'all can function.
I have nothing to gain by blindly accepting the Official Narrative (TM Pending). Nor do I have anything to lose by accepting any of the myriad Conspiracy Theories.
This ending is as pathetic as when Stephen King's evil clown turned out to be a space spider after 1,000 pages.
What is this "15 s and 22 s" claim being parroted around?
Previously some gorgo special, now everybody is saying it, it seems.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Need I remind you that you yourself provided a statement from "experts" saying the collapse was done in 9 seconds.
No I didn't.
No they didn't.
No it doesn't.
Trust me bro
Your "multiple sources" includes unsubstantiated claims of 1.8m tonnes, on the assumption the towers collapsed i.e. begging the question fallacy.
You claim it's unsubstantiated but you've never even examined the claims.
Your interpretation of video evidence is secondary to expert hostile witnesses I cite from Nist and other sources as above.
You cannot cite any expert witnesses claiming the complete collapse took a different amount of time, and you refuse to dispute the video evidence on the grounds of if you do it will prove you wrong.
The debris (lack of), the dustification, the strange fires, the molecular effects, the low temps, magnetic effects, etc etc - these are what we (you do not) see.
Debris: seen and quantified
No "dustification" has ever been demonstrated
No fires behaved strangely
Molecular effects: vague and unsubstantiated
Low temps: vague and unsubstantiated
Magnetic effects: vague and unsubstantiated
You have presented NOTHING on ANY of those topics.
You are a failure.
Boomer signature
What is this "15 s and 22 s" claim being parroted around?
Previously some gorgo special, now everybody is saying it, it seems.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That's because everyone but you saw it demonstrated and agrees with it.
You are the only one denying reality over and over again.
Just to add to what Gorgo said - Billy, it's abundantly clear to everyone that you just refuse to acknowledge any information that is not favourable to your claims (the NIST timing being that of an exterior panel, and the seismic readings not being the same as total collapse being prominent examples), and then somehow persuade yourself that by refusing to acknowledge it, the information has ceased to exist. Whatever else you may or may not believe, and however right it may or may not be, that behaviour is definitely the sign of someone who is batshit insane.
If you think the collapse was 15 to 22 s then ok. But that is not the official story.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There is no official figure for the time taken for either of the Twin Towers to collapse completely, because that's not possible to measure precisely. I think NIST assessed the time for the first exterior panels to hit the ground, at the initiation of collapse, at 11sec for WTC1 and 9sec for WTC2, based on video and seismographic evidence. After initiation, if I recall correctly, the cores of both towers were still standing to a height of 60 and 40 storeys respectively before subsiding from the 15-25sec mark. You can't put an exact figure on the time of collapse for either tower. It takes a while for that amount of falling debris to pile itself, and there are post-event photos of emergency workers standing next to a pile at least three storeys high.
Just to add to what Gorgo said - Billy, it's abundantly clear to everyone that you just refuse to acknowledge any information that is not favourable to your claims (the NIST timing being that of an exterior panel, and the seismic readings not being the same as total collapse being prominent examples), and then somehow persuade yourself that by refusing to acknowledge it, the in
Go TeamGorgo!
But still, thanks for the help.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There is no official figure for the time taken for either of the Twin Towers to collapse completely, because that's not possible to measure precisely. I think NIST assessed the time for the first exterior panels to hit the ground, at the initiation of collapse, at 11sec for WTC1 and 9sec for WTC2, based on video and seismographic evidence. After initiation, if I recall correctl
You "think" this and that "takes a while" "pile itself" "I'm a-gibbering" just-so story from guy on internet. Or official and non-official expert reports from named authors with accountability for what they say. Hmm. Who should we go with here...?
How many times do I need to say this? All the references are given above.
The nist full report, "within 12 seconds".
The nist q and a, "9 and 11 s" (cores are irrelevant, we are talking about the floors here).
Two independent reports, "within 10 seconds" and "9 s".
Where the heck did this unverified as-seen-on-2p2 15 and 22 seconds come from. There is nobody serious saying this. Actually there is one guy who gave an otherwise reasonable report who claimed 16 s, not on the basis of observation, but based on the requirements of his collapse model not dissimilar to billy-d2. He claimed there is nothing online to verify the descent time. Which is wrong ofc. This report can be found with a standard search.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I think billy is a wonderful example of someone that sticks to his beliefs no matter what. A fine attribute if you are correct.
Yeah like having multiple expert reports saying a building collapsed in 10 seconds then disbelieving those reports because I seen it on youtube bro.
Oh wait. That's you that is.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Dueces, Flatty and Luckbox all share one common trait: for some reason they feel more right, and probably more special, when everyone else is arguing they are wrong.
The nist full report, "within 12 seconds".
The nist q and a, "9 and 11 s" (cores are irrelevant, we are talking about the floors here).
Those figures refer only to the time taken for the first exterior panels to hit the ground. 'Floors' don't come into it. Again, there is no official figure for the time taken for the buildings to fall down because it is not possible to ascertain or define such a figure, given both the visibility problem and the absence of a clear datum for the endpoint.
Where the heck did this unverified as-seen-on-2p2 15 and 22 seconds come from. There is nobody serious saying this.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
NIST observed that the cores, up to the stated heights, began to fall in that time frame.
Those figures refer only to the time taken for the first exterior panels to hit the ground. 'Floors' don't come into it. Again, there is no official figure for the time taken for the buildings to fall down because it is not possible to ascertain or define such a figure, given both the visibility problem and the absence of a clear datum for the endpoint.NIST observed that the co
Ok let us just kill this BS stone dead right here and now.
From the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), TW Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of materials engineering and engineering systems, and I quote,
"This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse WITHIN TEN SECONDS" (my emphasis).
Eagar's contact details are at the bottom of the article. Forward queries there and quit clogging this thread with BS claims.
https://eagar.mit.edu/publications/Eagar...
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So, you acknowledge that NIST are not claiming full collapse within 10-12 seconds, but you've found another source that is? That's progress, I guess.
Congratulations on finding an error in Mr Lord's analysis. He should have said within 12-13 seconds. Shame we weren't able to debunk NIST, though.
So, you acknowledge that NIST are not claiming full collapse within 10-12 seconds, but you've found another source that is? That's progress, I guess.
What? The Nist claims are 9 seconds and 11 seconds, flat times (nist faqs) and within 12 seconds, i.e. less than 12 s (full report). Get it right for just one time, please.
Eagar states within 10 seconds. That's less than 10 seconds.
So what in the world are you talking about d2? You have no clue here, clearly. You defer to gorgo's (and geezerchess) loltubz than to MIT.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Congratulations on finding an error in Mr Lord's analysis. He should have said within 12-13 seconds. Shame we weren't able to debunk NIST, though.
Should he.
The professor of engineering at MIT made an error he says. Please email him, address in the article. He should publish a correction. You do realise these articles are peer reviewed right? Facts are properly checked before publication? They have academic integrity to uphold.
While internet clown d2 says 12-13 seconds, some random numbers plucked from his ass.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Should he.The professor of engineering at MIT made an error he says. Please email him, address in the article. He should publish a correction. You do realise these articles are peer reviewed right? Facts are properly checked before publication? They have academic integrity to uphold.While internet clown d2 says 12-13 seconds, some random numbers plucked from his ass.Sent from m
Not important. There is no exact figure available and Eagar, who is not an official source, is talking in vague and approximate terms.
Should he.The professor of engineering at MIT made an error he says. Please email him, address in the article. He should publish a correction. You do realise these articles are peer reviewed right? Facts are properly checked before publication? They have academic integrity to uphold.While internet clown d2 says 12-13 seconds, some random numbers plucked from his ass.Sent from m
Why would I email him? You quoted him, you email him and tell him that 10 seconds doesn't agree with conservation of momentum calc. Lol at quoting someone and then telling me to email him.
What? The Nist claims are 9 seconds and 11 seconds, flat times (nist faqs) and within 12 seconds, i.e. less than 12 s (full report). Get it right for just one time, please.Eagar states within 10 seconds. That's less than 10 seconds.So what in the world are you talking about d2? You have no clue here, clearly. You defer to gorgo's (and geezerchess) loltubz than to MIT.Sent from
The NIST times for what? I haven't seen anything you've quoted where NIST gives times for the full collapse of the building. You seem to be incapable of understanding this very basic point.
Billy - explain, in your own words, exactly what NIST claim happened within 9 seconds or 11 seconds or 12 seconds. Be very specific.
Then quote the section(s) of the NIST report you feel support your explanation.
