[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.But that isn't what is being discussed here. It is the *collapse* times of 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
Billy, how are you getting along with trying to understand what the NIST times of 9 seconds and 11 seconds are for? I know it's a tough one, it involves reading words and trying to parse what they mean.
Anyone else remember when bill conceded that the collapse times were at least 20 seconds?
Yes. For the sake of argument. You may also recall that I do not believe the towers collapsed at all, my consistent position, hence the collapse times are relevant only to debunking the official claim.
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.
No.
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.
Wrong. The collapse time is objectively the time it takes to collapse.
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.
There was no collapse evident in any video. Ipso facto there is no collapse time. All we can do is cite what others claim is the collapse time.
Should we cite
A) you. Or
B) the professor of engineering at MIT.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Can mods make this Billy's walk-on song for the forum?
Destruction leads to a very rough road, but it also breeds creation
And earthquakes are to a girl's guitar, they're just another good vibration
And tidal waves couldn't save the world from dustification
Dream of dustification
Dream of dustification
Dream of dustification
Dream of dustification
Billy, how are you getting along with trying to understand what the NIST times of 9 seconds and 11 seconds are for? I know it's a tough one, it involves reading words and trying to parse what they mean.
How are you getting along with reconciling the contradictions in your head relating to the collapse time being simultaneously
1. Gorgo's/geezerchess's infamous 15 and 22 seconds.
2. Nist's within 12 seconds.
3. Your inexplicable 12-13 seconds.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy's theme song:
Destruction leads to a very rough road, but it also breeds creation
And earthquakes are to a girl's guitar, they're just another good vibration
And tidal waves couldn't save the world from dustification
Dream of dustification
Dream of dustification
Dream of dustification
Dream of dustification
Syllable fail.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
How are you getting along with reconciling the contradictions in your head relating to the collapse time being simultaneously
1. Gorgo's/geezerchess's infamous 15 and 22 seconds.
2. Nist's within 12 seconds.
3. Your inexplicable 12-13 seconds.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I don't need to get along with anything, you're the one who's struggling with basic English words. I understand that you're extremely feeble-minded, so I'm trying to not be too judgemental, but this is really embarrassing, even for you.
Yes. For the sake of argument. You may also recall that I do not believe the towers collapsed at all, my consistent position, hence the collapse times are relevant only to debunking the official claim.
There are multiple videos from a variety of angles of the towers collapsing. It is irrelevant that you don't believe they did other than to demonstrate you lack sanity.
Then what you think about the collapse times is irrelevant.
What specifically was wrong in what I said? And yes, I have described what constitutes the beginning of the collapse and what constitutes then end of the collapse. Do you disagree with what I have described as the beginning and end? Yes or no.
There was no collapse evident in any video. Ipso facto there is no collapse time. All we can do is cite what others claim is the collapse time.
Objectively false.
We should observe the collapse and time it. Try it.
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
I don't think it has ever mattered, for the reasons previously given. His observations are not official (I haven't seen any precise official figures for the collapse times, and in any case it depends which endpoints you want to pick -- 'Floors or cores?' you might say -- plus there's the visibility problem) and he does not say how he derives the 10sec figure, but it looks as though he just averaged the NIST figures for the fall of exterior cladding. It's simply not important, regardless of his academic standing at the time.
Just a reminder of what wtc1 collapsing looked like for those that think there's no video of the collapse.
Clearly visible here:
the building collapsing
exterior panels hitting the ground (when nist stops their timer) well before the collapse is finished
part of the core structure still standing after the floors have been stripped off of them (during the collapse)
the core structure falling straight down (not being dustified) several seconds after the rest of the collapse has finished
I don't think it has ever mattered, for the reasons previously given. His observations are not official (I haven't seen any precise official figures for the collapse times, and in any case it depends which endpoints you want to pick -- 'Floors or cores?' you might say -- plus there's the visibility problem) and he does not say how he derives the 10sec figure, but it looks as th
Floors. Progressive collapse is the claim.
"Looks as though"... no. Words have meaning. "Within" means inside 10 seconds, not an average of 9 and 11.
"The buildings", not the cladding. The buildings.
"Simply not important". Except when assessing the time required for progressive collapse vs the observed time. Therefore quite important.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, how are you getting along with trying to understand what those 9 and 11 second times mean? Do you need any help?
Floors. Progressive collapse is the claim.
"Looks as though"... no. Words have meaning. "Within" means inside 10 seconds, not an average of 9 and 11.
"The building", not the cladding. The building.
"Simply not important". Except when assessing the time required for progressive collapse vs the observed time. Therefore quite important.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No, not important, because his paper is not official and because he used a rounded figure which happened to suit his argument and which he did not explain but which is pretty obviously the average of the NIST figures for the fall of exterior cladding.
If you don't believe that the buildings collapsed, as we all saw them do, you need to state exactly what you imagine happened instead. Bear in mind that as far as we know there is not and never was any such super-weapon as Judy Wood had to posit in order to market her crank theory to the gullible.
No, not important, because his paper is not official and because he used a rounded figure which happened to suit his argument and which he did not explain but which is pretty obviously the average of the NIST figures for the fall of exterior cladding. If you don't believe that the buildings collapsed, as we all saw them do, you need to state exactly what you imagine happened in
What is his argument?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Incidentally, it's likely that the paper in question was largely written by grad student Christopher Musso, with Tom Eagar (who sadly died in 2022 at only 72 -- mind, he was on the heavy side, which is not good for life expectancy) running an eye over it and allowing the use of his name as co-author.
Eagar and Musso, being metallurgists, aimed to explain how the towers fell due to degradation of the structural steel in the heat of the fires. That's all.
bUt tHeY sAiD 1o sEcOnDs bRo!1111!!!1
Billy, are you still struggling with the highly technical argot in the NIST paper, like "exterior panel" and "seismic reading"? Let me know if you need an adult to come and help there, slugger.
Incidentally, it's likely that the paper in question was largely written by grad student Christopher Musso, with Tom Eagar (who sadly died in 2022 at only 72 -- mind, he was on the heavy side, which is not good for life expectancy) running an eye over it and allowing the use of his name as co-author.Eagar and Musso, being metallurgists, aimed to explain how the towers fell due
So you have not read the paper and have no idea what his argument is.
But he ate hamburgers and got his grad student to do his work for him.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, are you still struggling with the highly technical argot in the NIST paper, like "exterior panel" and "seismic reading"? Let me know if you need an adult to come and help there, slugger.
Is the collapse time still 12 to 13 seconds?
Or have you acceded to the gorgo loltubz?
Or is it within 12 seconds as per the nist report?
Or something else?
What caused the towers to collapse?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Is the collapse time still 12 to 13 seconds?
Or have you acceded to the gorgo loltubz?
Or is it within 12 seconds as per the nist report?
Or something else?
What caused the towers to collapse?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. A more cynical man than I might start to suspect that you are being evasive.
It's not important and it's not official, Billy, therefore a poor selection of strawman on your part.
You now need to explain exactly what you think happened, and to support your claim.
