[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
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 feel like it's a good time to advance the discussion towards what you think happened with the towers instead of fall speed because I think you're going full Deuces here arguing a point that isn't at all relevant to the argument you want to make. And the cover argument isn't super influential with the audience here anyway.
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.
How about the nist report which states total collapse *within* (there's that word again) 12 seconds. Is that official?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I feel like it's a good time to advance the discussion towards what you think happened with the towers instead of fall speed because I think you're going full Deuces here arguing a point that isn't at all relevant to the argument you want to make. And the cover argument isn't super influential with the audience here anyway.
No.
My argument is that progressive collapse is impossible. The time for such a phenomenon to happen is longer than the observed time.
If you agree with this and want to go further I have signposted you to the suggested reading. If you do not want to buy the book Judy Wood has done interviews also, freely available online. There is the david hughes report also. A good interview is with richard hall, go to richplanet.net.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I do not think the theory that the planes hitting the buildings and resulting fire and structural damage caused the buildings to collapse is somehow dependent on whether that collapse took 10- 20 seconds. There is no real method to measure conclusively when the collapse started or finished. Flatty, thinks it disproves something in the NIst and proves something he won’t explain because he is afraid of everyone laughing at him. Again.
I do not think the theory that the planes hitting the buildings and resulting fire and structural damage caused the buildings to collapse is somehow dependent on whether that collapse took 10- 20 seconds. Flatty, thinks it disproves something in the NIst and proves something he won’t explain because he is afraid of everyone laughing at him. Again.
Speak coherently, one time.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Lol at refusing to answer a question for days on end, then coming back with questions for me instead of answering, then claiming I'm the one deflecting when I tell you to get ****ed with that, you clown.
Why does the NIST time of 12 seconds make progressive collapse "impossible" when the conservation of momentum model gives a time of 11.5 seconds?
Lol at refusing to answer a question for days on end, then coming back with questions for me instead of answering, then claiming I'm the one deflecting when I tell you to get ****ed with that, you clown.
Why does the NIST time of 12 seconds make progressive collapse "impossible" when the conservation of momentum model gives a time of 11.5 seconds?
Deflection noted.
3.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
This clown is a PTW. We should cut off the troll’s supply of attention.
So, according to this information, we have an upper bound of 11.5 seconds for the observed collapse (no higher as this puts us *without* 12 seconds), and a lower bound for the collapse model of 11.5 seconds.
Now, by your own admission the time is lengthened by "not much" due to resistance. Yet any increase at all gives a timing outside of the upper bound for the collapse. Again we see the impossibilty of progressive collapse.
Thanks for the assistance.
Oh and deflection noted, 4.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So, according to this information, we have an upper bound of 11.5 seconds for the observed collapse (no higher as this puts us *without* 12 seconds), and a lower bound for the collapse model of 11.5 seconds.Now, by your own admission the time is lengthened by "not much" due to resistance. Yet any increase at all gives a timing outside of the upper bound for the collapse. Again
Within 12 seconds would be 12 seconds minus epsilon for any epsilon greater than zero. I don't know where you got that 0.5 seconds is the smallest possible epsilon. Made it up like everything else?
So, according to this information, we have an upper bound of 11.5 seconds for the observed collapse (no higher as this puts us *without* 12 seconds), and a lower bound for the collapse model of 11.5 seconds.Now, by your own admission the time is lengthened by "not much" due to resistance. Yet any increase at all gives a timing outside of the upper bound for the collapse. Again
You still need to say exactly what you think happened.
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
Please just tell me why I shouldn't believe my eyes when I watch the video. And please tell me why I SHOULD believe my eyes on your random dustbowl pics. And please tell me why I should NOT believe my eyes when I see NASA pics of earth from outer space.
I'm confused...and you're the sole source of that confusion.
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
Now you're just flat-out lying. (Unless you only consider a question 'good faith' if the correct answer doesn't make you look bad, in which you're delusional.)
I sometimes forget you don't know what words mean.
