[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
Anyway, tell us exactly what range the phrase "within 12 seconds" covers please.
billy knows confronting any of my posts means he loses, so he just ignores them and calls me lolgorgo and talks about loltubez.
Pansy ass poster.
There is no exact value. That's the entire point! Friggin clown show round here now.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Wtf. We know g to at least 4 decimal places you clown. We know the speed of light to at least 3 decimal places in km/s. That doesn't mean we quote it to that precision every time we use it.
Just to recap where we are today with Billy:
- Obstinately claiming that "within 12 seconds" means 11.5 seconds or less or alternatively demanding a definition of "within".
- Claiming that all measurements are always, in all contexts quoted with the precision with which they are measured (lol).
- Refusing to address magnetic poles.
- Ignoring all of Gorgo's points.
- Claiming to be doing a masters in physics (I guess they have pretty lax standards up north).
- Being a total ass clown, same as every other day.
What can I say - another day, another gift. Billy, you might just keep me entertained all summer at this rate.
While billy runs and hides like a pansy from simple questions that destroy his stupid worldview, I found this angle of the WTC1 collapse I had never seen before. It is remarkably clear that the central columns that remain standing briefly after the main collapse don't simply turn to dust, but fall down. You can see it extremely clearly in this video.
collapse starts at about 1:45 (and finishes at about 2:08, for those that care about the actual collapse time, where you can still see the central columns standing). At 2:13, the central columns begin falling down and are out of view into the cloud of dust below it by 2:16. You can see it every inch of that drop from 2:13 to 2:16, moving downward.
There is simply no denying what is clearly visible in these videos.
Billy is a liar and will continue to run away from me like a pansy.
Wtf. We know g to at least 4 decimal places you clown. We know the speed of light to at least 3 decimal places in km/s. That doesn't mean we quote it to that precision every time we use it.
That is convention. Do you know what a convention is? The value of g varies from about 9.76 to 9.85 m/s2. Hence why 9.8 or averaged to 9.81 are the standard measurements used. The uncertainty is implied by the sig figs used. You are confusing (everything but specifically here) the conventionally agreed value with the measurement. Same with c. These effectively have no uncertainty because they are fixed by agreement.
But keep ad homming and talking ****. It's funny.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You gave me some conventional constants that by definition do not have uncertainty intervals, hence not measurements.
You also gave me pi and Euler's number, which also have no uncertainty. Please tell me the measuring device to measure a quantity to billions of decimal places?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Welcome to Billy's science class.
Question 1: gorgo runs 22 m at a speed of 7 m/s. How long did it take him?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
While billy runs and hides like a pansy from simple questions that destroy his stupid worldview, I found this angle of the WTC1 collapse I had never seen before. It is remarkably clear that the central columns that remain standing briefly after the main collapse don't simply turn to dust, but fall down. You can see it extremely clearly in this video.collapse starts at about 1:4
Yes at 2.13 we see the column, Dr Wood refers to as the "spire", disintegrate into dust. Most of the towers ended the same way. This explains the lack of debris and the volume of dust produced.
We also see large chunks of debris spewing outwards. This, plus the volume of dust, gives a significant decrease in the mass available to impart momentum to subsequent floors in the collapse model.
That, and the resistance given by buckling, is the final death of a progressive collapse model.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Question:
Billy runs 22m at the speed of 5.6 m/s
Did Billy run the 22m within 4 seconds?
You gave me some conventional constants that by definition do not have uncertainty intervals, hence not measurements.
You also gave me pi and Euler's number, which also have no uncertainty. Please tell me the measuring device to measure a quantity to billions of decimal places?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The speed of light had uncertainty before the metre was re-defined using it and it was still usually quoted to a lot fewer significant figures than it had been measured.
I'm giving constants because they are commonly used in scientific literature. Is it honestly your contention that every single measurement is always quoted with the precision with which it was measured in all contexts?
Nobody cares what you kooks call it. That's part of the central column structure.
Explain how this description matches the evidence better than my description.
The evidence is that in every frame from just after 2:13, the central column structure is visible moving downwards towards the ground, until it disappears from view. In order to match your description better, what details that are visually apparent in the video can you point out to us that indicate it turned to dust rather than just falling down?
Some of the tower did since some if it is made of concrete and drywall. This explains the clouds of dust seen in the videos. This is completely expected in a collapse of this type.
There is no lack of debris that needs an explanation. This is something you just made up.
We also see large chunks of debris spewing outwards. This, plus the volume of dust, gives a significant decrease in the mass available to impart momentum to subsequent floors in the collapse model.
As Bazant clearly demonstrated in his simplified model, there was still an order of magnitude more energy present than required to progress the collapse.
That, and the resistance given by buckling, is the final death of a progressive collapse model.
See Bazant again.
You have quite a lot to answer for in this post. Don't run away like a pansy again. Address the issues or your theory fails.
