[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's issue with the magnetic poles and compasses is the same as his issue with flight times. He knows that any answer he could give is incompatible with actually plotting things on a map of a flat earth, which is why he won't address either issue and why he won't tell us anything about the shape of the Earth (other than that it is flat) or where continents, magnetic poles, oceans etc., are in his conception of the earth.
This failure is so glaringly obvious that I tempted to think that he is trolling. But I can't imagine any troll being this persistent over a period of years, which leaves a crippling combination of egocentrism, stubbornness, and stupidity as the best explanation for his behavior.
billy's issue with the magnetic poles and compasses is the same as his issue with flight times. He knows that any answer he could give is incompatible with actually plotting things on a map of a flat earth, which is why he won't address either issue and why he won't tell us anything about the shape of the Earth (other than that it is flat) or where continents, magnetic poles,
I would ask billy again about why the positions of the stars in the sky appear to observers at different points on the same line of longitude to be consistent with a round earth and inconsistent with a flat earth. But if I can't get billy to tell me where the continents are on a flat earth, then what are the odds that he can have a productive discussion about the position of stars relative to Earth.
I would ask billy again about why the positions of the stars in the sky appear to observers at different points on the same line of longitude to be consistent with a round earth and inconsistent with a flat earth. But if I can't get billy to tell me where the continents are on a flat earth, then what are the odds that he can have a productive discussion about the position of s
Considering he thinks the Sun is "much closer than commonly accepted" and powered by electricity... good luck with that.
yeah. Believing that the sun is powered by electricity is even loonier than believing that the Earth is flat.
Nitpicking - 22/7 is an approximation of pi, but pi is not an approximation of 22/7. 3.14 would be an approximation of 22/7 (and pi), though.
Kinda like 5.5 is an approximation of 5.51 but 5.51 is not an approximation of 5.5.
And would you like to try the question also, or are you ready for teach to show everybody?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I would ask billy again about why the positions of the stars in the sky appear to observers at different points on the same line of longitude to be consistent with a round earth and inconsistent with a flat earth. But if I can't get billy to tell me where the continents are on a flat earth, then what are the odds that he can have a productive discussion about the position of s
Longitude.
There lies your problem.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
And would you like to try the question also, or are you ready for teach to show everybody?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No, although I know what answer you want. I'll answer your questions when you start answering mine, and your dumb little lesson about significant figures is irrelevant in this context. You're claiming that the NIST measurement cannot have been more accurate than the accuracy with which it was quoted, which has nothing to do with your little demonstration here.
Now, tell me the range of values that "within 12 seconds" covers in your view, and I'll tell you the answer to your question.
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 detai
See Bazant. Let us see Bazant. Let us see what Bazant has to say.
Bazant says,
"The observation that the duration of the collapse of the tower,"
*checks notes*
"observed to be 9 s, was about the same as the duration of a free-fall in a vacuum".
Thank you Bezant. That will be all.
Wait, wut?
THE COLLAPSE OF THE TOWER, OBSERVED TO BE 9 S. Says Bezant.
The collapse of the tower. Not the exterior wall. Not a window. Not a bit that broke away. The tower. The collapse of the tower. You hearing this?
THE TOWER. Please acknowledge receipt of this information.
The tower. The collapse of the tower. In 9 seconds. OBSERVED. TO BE. NINE. SECONDS.
The tower collapsed in 9 seconds.
According to Bezant.
Hellooooooooooo??? Anybody there? 9 seconds? The collapse? In 9 seconds, the tower that collapsed? The tower that collapsed in 9 seconds, the world trade center.
Ipso facto we know that progressive collapse is unequivocally, unreservedly, categorically...
impossible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No, although I know what answer you want. I'll answer your questions when you start answering mine, and your dumb little lesson about significant figures is irrelevant in this context. You're claiming that the NIST measurement cannot have been more accurate than the accuracy with which it was quoted, which has nothing to do with your little demonstration here.Now, tell me the r
I also occasionally answer bad faith questions. As is the case here.
I will repeat: within 12 seconds is 11.5 seconds or less. The reason being that the interval 11.5 < x < 12 rounds to 12 seconds. 12 seconds is excluded by the statement "within 12 seconds".
A calculated value of say 11.6 seconds is not a measurement. The measurement is 12 seconds. Unless the uncertainty is say 11.55 < x < 11.65. Which it is not. Because they give the measurement to 2 sf. Any statement to 3 sf is meaningless.
Hence the required lesson above.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
A deal is a deal: the answer to your question is 3 seconds. Which also happens to be your record for lasting in bed.
See Bazant. Let us see Bazant. Let us see what Bazant has to say.
Bazant says,
"The observation that the duration of the collapse of the tower,"
No. Bazant does not say that about the amount of energy required to progress the collapse. This is called a deflection Stop being a pansy and immediately deflecting as soon as you are caught.
Pansy move #1.
You ignored an ENTIRE POST of problems with your theory by immediately deflecting to something else entirely. Take a deep breath, refocus, and address the problems with YOUR CLAIMS and stop running and/or deflecting like a little pansy.
I will quote just some of the unaddressed issues with your theory below as a reminder about what you ignored and ran from:
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.
Your move.
