[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

I have no problem with the 10 second statement. It is consistent with other reports. Bang in the middle of the Nist statement for instance.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'll just use their words, as my hostile witness. I have cited above multiple times and restated more times than that.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You cited times for an exterior panel to hit the ground and cause some seismic readings. Why do you feel our calculations debunked this claim or are in contradiction with it? We didn't calculate how long it would take for an exterior panel in freefall to hit the ground.

So what are you claiming now? These are the following positions you have taken, re collapse times, not necessarily in this order:

1. You dont care what nist said.
2. You care what nist said.
3. You defer to gorgo for an accurate statement of time, to which he says 15 s and 22 s.
3. You inexplicably claim between 12 and 13 seconds.
4. You ignore the nist final report stating categorically within 12 seconds.
5. You ignore Eagar from MIT and claim he has made an error.
6. You ignore another expert Bezant who stated 9 seconds.
7. You ignore nist faqs stating 9 s and 11 s.

How long did the collapse take d2? Assuming you still believe the towers collapsed. What did happen, in your opinion?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'm not making any positive claims about collapse times. I am asking you to cite what NIST said that you are claiming we debunked with our conservation of momentum calculation. The 9 and 11 second times were not for anything we calculated. 12 seconds is within what we calculated, which was 11.5 seconds.

You seem to have a lot of problems with plain English. Must be a northern thing.

Anyone else remember when bill conceded that the collapse times were at least 20 seconds?

LOL

hey billy, can you be specific on what part of the video analysis proving the entire collapse times were at least 15 seconds and 22 seconds you dispute? Ignore what anyone else SAYS about it and watch for yourself.

Others have different ideas of what constitutes the beginning and end of what they want to measure. I am counting from the first downward motion until the collapsing floors are no longer progressing downwards. This seems to me to the most relevant timing for what you are wanting to calculate.

So, with those endpoints in mind, and remembering that other people giving collapse times might be considering other beginning and endpoints (thus making their timings irrelevant for our purpose) - and thus, ignoring what others SAY the collapse time it is, after watching the videos provided, can you tell me why you disagree with the 15 second and 22 second figures?

Be as specific as possible without referencing other people's timings who do not necessarily use the same beginning and ending points we want to use.

It is about time you did make some positive claims. Let us all see what you think.

1. What brought down the towers?
2. How long did the towers take to come down?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yes, once reasonable resistance estimates necessary for progressive collapse models are factored in the collapse time is at least 27s, generously.

So your 15 s and 22 s fantasy is also impossible. But where is the fun in that.

You think billy will allow your pathetic attempt at obfuscation? That is going to wash here somehow?

We have MIT, nist and other experts stating categorically various times less than 12 seconds. And here we have claims of at least 15 s and 22 s. Blind ignorance, wilful most likely.

We are now deferring to an independent, expert, hostile witness, an advocate of progressive collapse by fire to provide us with the collapse time.

Eagar from MIT, says within 10 seconds, both towers, total collapse, no ambiguity. Putting the absolute minimum time for progressive collapse 15% longer than the recorded time.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

How the feck am I trolling? The only pure troll here is d2.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Once you answer my question, I'll think about it.

You have provided no such model despite repeated requests and promises to do so, so you can stop claiming it. As far as the rest of us are concerned, the 27s number is pure unsubstantiated fantasy.

By pretending to not understand plain English and stubbornly repeating that NIST gives collapse times of 9-11 seconds when they did no such thing. At least not in any of the passages or FAQs you cited.

1. Ignoring good-faith questions.

2. Referring to yourself in the third-person.

3. Treating us like you're a professor and we are your students.

There's more, but it's more fun for me to just sit back and watch you continue to play the role of the fool.

We need some good light comedy in these trying times. In that context, you're the right man in the right place. I thank you for bringing mirth to this forum.

He's using a round figure for both towers, presumably splitting the difference between NIST's 9sec and 11sec figures, which were actually the times taken for detached exterior cladding to hit the ground.

What part of

"The domino effect that caused the building to collapse within ten seconds"

is difficult for you to understand?

"WITHIN"

""Within" primarily means inside a specific area, space, or set limits (time, distance, or rules)."

Is it "building"? Is your house a building or just the damn roof? Clowns to the left and the right of me.

It is not a ****** average. I allowed an average before. Feck it. You have less than 10 seconds for a collapse that takes over 12 seconds as d2 willl confirm.

The professor of engineering at MIT vs cletus the slack. Who will win?

Friggin twilight zone here with you guys. Blissful, wilful ignorance you live in. Be honest, just once.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You didn't respond to my post at all. Read it again and try to understand it this time.

And yet the biggest clown of all you can see close up and personal in your own mirror!

What do professors at MIT believe the shape of Earth is?

MIT Professors vs Billy. Who will win?

We all know that dog won't hunt, my friend.

Yeah you want me to watch loltubz instead of citing expert opinion. What is there to respond to there.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

None of it. But I don't think it really matters what Eagar says.

Billy.

But that isn't what is being discussed here. It is the *collapse* times fo the wtc. Which you think, in line with gorgo but against even the longest estimate given by any expert, was 15 seconds and 22 seconds. Even d2 has had the sense to now distance himself from this tomfoolery. But billy would like to remind d2 he was earlier fully on board with the youtubz folly. And you certainly are now.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Riiiiiiiight, yes, because we have a youtube video and an abject moron to interpret it for us.

And yet before it mattered. But he was wrong. Because reasons. He meant to say exterior panel but ended up saying building. He said within, but he meant to say without.

And now it doesn't matter what he said. Because more reasons.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

1. I have not ignored a single good faith question.

2. That is not trolling.

3. I am schooing you yes, but that is not trolling.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

No.

I want you to read my post and understand it, then respond to it. Are you capable of that? It doesn't seem so.