[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
No. They are not. There are not different definitions of collapse. They each have an uncertainty. This is fundamental to any measurement.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
None of these papers provide the collapse time as a scientific measurement. It's always just part of narrative prose. There is no additional information as to how this time was measured, the start and end points, etc.
The only information we have in this regard is from the NIST FAQ for their 9-10 second time, and there it is clear that those times are not for the building to collapse fully but for some material that was ejected to the side during the collapse hit the ground.
The 12 second time given by NIST says that this is how long it took for the building to be "totally reduced to rubble" (which is not a scientific term as far as I know). Having watched a video of the event, it would seem that this figure is not accurate, and it in fact took more in the region of 15-20 seconds for the building to be "totally reduced to rubble".
As far as I know, whatever mechanism said NIST was responsible for the collapse, they have not provided any calculations as to how long it took. So if they said "progressive collapse" in one place and "within 12 seconds in the other", and it turns out that "within 12 seconds" was actually incorrect for whatever reason, I don't see why that would imply that progressive collapse is also incorrect, much less impossible. I don't understand why if one of these assertions is mistaken it automatically invalidates the other.
Why would they all come up with different figures then? Are they all in on the conspiracy, and leaving this discrepancy as a clue for those smart enough to see when they look?
Yes the conspiracy to stop people knowing about 15/22 that only the 3 stooges are aware of.
The times are consistent. 9 s and 11 s per tower. As per the faqs you have flatly denied.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
None of these papers provide the collapse time as a scientific measurement. It's always just part of narrative prose. There is no additional information as to how this time was measured, the start and end points, etc.The only information we have in this regard is from the NIST FAQ for their 9-10 second time, and there it is clear that those times are not for the building to col
Gotcha.
Nist = wrong.
D2/geez/gorg = right.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
As far as I know, whatever mechanism said NIST was responsible for the collapse, they have not provided any calculations as to how long it took. So if they said "progressive collapse" in one place and "within 12 seconds in the other", and it turns out that "within 12 seconds" was actually incorrect for whatever reason, I don't see why that would imply that progressive collapse
And the other experts are also wrong.
Can you find anybody, besides 2p2, who agrees with you?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
And the other experts are also wrong.
Can you find anybody, besides 2p2, who agrees with you?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The entire scientific community. I cited dozens of experts earlier in this thread with credentials. You ran away from that like a pansy too.
It's a trend with you.
Running from things that disprove your theory.
Yes the conspiracy to stop people knowing about 15/22 that only the 3 stooges are aware of.
The times are consistent. 9 s and 11 s per tower. As per the faqs you have flatly denied.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, so if these times are in contradiction with the video, what conclusions can we draw from this? Explain to me how we get from "experts were mistaken/lying about collapse times by a few seconds" to "collapse model proposed by NIST is impossible." The collapse model is not predicated on those specific collapse times as far as I know.
Sounds like Gorgo has other experts to back up those times. Maybe you should address that first.
I know I've posted this before, but we seem to have forgotten that nist tells you outright not to trust their collapse timings:
Recall that their number is based explicitly on the seismic data.
But billy has to cling to it
I know I've posted this before, but we seem to have forgotten that nist tells you outright not to trust their collapse timings:
Recall that their number is based explicitly on the seismic data.But billy has to cling to itYes annoying isn't it to constantly re-post the same thing because people claim they did not see it.
I have also posted this multiple times. They say the "cores" took longer to fall. How could the cores be seen? Because the floors - the carriers of kinetic energy and momentum causing (allegedly) progressive collapse - had gone already. Progressive collapse by definition cannot include the cores. It cannot domino into itself.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes annoying isn't it to constantly re-post the same thing because people claim they did not see it.I have also posted this multiple times. They say the "cores" took longer to fall. How could the cores be seen? Because the floors - the carriers of kinetic energy and momentum causing (allegedly) progressive collapse - had gone already. Progressive collapse by definition cannot i
I'm glad you've seen it. Then you know that their collapse time is not reliable. Yet you quote it constantly. You should stop. And also address the problems with your theory that you are still running away from.
Billy, question, if the NIST report said "within 14 seconds" instead of "within 12 seconds", would you still be making the same argument about their collapse model being impossible? 11.5 seconds COM calcs + 2 seconds from Eagar is within 14 seconds.
I notice suddenly billy cares about defining what the beginning and ending of the collapse are. Before he was insisting nist meant the whole collapse and focusing on endpoints was a red herring.
Odd how that changed suddenly.
For the record, nist says the seismic data isn't reliable and that's what they used. That has nothing to do with the columns. Nobody has ever been adding that time to the collapse time.
The video record is unreliable for a precise timing of the complete progressive collapse, but it can be used to get an idea, and the idea is at least 15 seconds and 22 seconds. Happy to give a +/- 2 seconds to each because the end is obscured.
This is entirely uncontroversial from just watching any complete video of the collapse.
It also has nothing to do with why billy's theories are wrong.
Yes annoying isn't it to constantly re-post the same thing because people claim they did not see it.
Maybe you shouldn't lie so much about what you've posted in the past and then you'd get more of the benefit of the doubt (Map Rococo requested, 27 second calcs spring to mind).
I notice suddenly billy cares about defining what the beginning and ending of the collapse are. Before he was insisting nist meant the whole collapse and focusing on endpoints was a red herring.Odd how that changed suddenly.For the record, nist says the seismic data isn't reliable and that's what they used. That has nothing to do with the columns. Nobody has ever been adding th
Pretty obvious that Billy thought he had a calc that showed 27 seconds to be the minimum time required for collapse (which would indeed be something, as it would also invalidate the video), he unsurprisingly has no such calc, so instead of admitting it, he has now spent the last 2 weeks quibbling over half a second here and there and finding bizarre and outlandish arguments why basic words and phrases like "within 12 seconds" don't akshually mean what they seem to mean.
Pretty obvious that Billy thought he had a calc that showed 27 seconds to be the minimum time required for collapse (which would indeed be something, as it would also invalidate the video), he unsurprisingly has no such calc, so instead of admitting it, he has now spent the last 2 weeks quibbling over half a second here and there and finding bizarre and outlandish arguments why
Interesting narrative you have constructed there.
The 27 s minimum timing assumes some reasonable amount of resistance. It is a far more realistic model. But you were never going to accept that, too much wiggle room.
So I have removed all possible resistances, and still the time required for the model to work is longer than the observed time.
You still do not accept this. You continue to make up excuses. Once you are led to the point of saying multiple experts including nist are wrong about objective facts, direct irrefutable measurements, then we have a clear view of where the argument stands.
I am satisfied. If concession is made on the impossibility of progressive collapse then we may continue to the further evidence of DEW.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The 27 s minimum timing assumes some reasonable amount of resistance. It is a far more realistic model. But you were never going to accept that, too much wiggle room.
Lol, stop lying. You don't have a 27 second model, or you would have produced it by now, and you're not going to try and build one because you know as well as I do that it would require an entirely unreasonable amount of resistance - if I had to make an educated guess, an order of magnitude or two more resistance than the materials actually used in the building can offer. Your whole ****ing building would need to be made of unobtanium.
So I have removed all possible resistances, and still the time required for the model to work is longer than the observed time.
It's not longer than the observed time. It's longer than the time some authors have stated. The time we observe in multiple videos of the event is not at odds with the COM model. Odd that you can accurately estimate the mass of large piles of debris from one picture but you seem to be incapable of timing an event you can see on video. Experts have also told you how much debris there was, Gorgo gave you sources for this which you ignored, because in this case looking at pictures beats the experts. Is that because one of these things supports your theory and the other contradicts it, you intellectually dishonest clown?
You still do not accept this. You continue to make up excuses. Once you are led to the point of saying multiple experts including nist are wrong about objective facts, direct irrefutable measurements, then we have a clear view of where the argument stands.
The irony of someone who thinks the earth is flat and the sun is electric deferring to experts when it suits him is pretty delicious. Experts can't get the curvature or radius of the earth right, or tell us how far away the sun is or how it gets its energy, but when it comes to measuring out 12 seconds vs 14 seconds for an event occurring behind massive clouds of dust, they are absolutely infallible.
I am satisfied. If concession is made on the impossibility of progressive collapse then we may continue to the further evidence of DEW.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You have yet to answer how some authors being mistaken about the collapse time makes progressive collapse impossible. The time they are quoting is not an output of the progressive collapse model, it is their best estimate based on the same videos we all saw. We don't even know exactly what they consider the start and end points of the collapse event, because they haven't told us.
More posting by Billy without addressing the problems with his theory.
What a pansy.
Looks like Billy is doing his favourite thing of pretending to not understand the points that have been made by his interlocutors, selectively ignoring those posts that would require him to acknowledge these points, and spreading the same horseshit over and over again in another futile attempt at proof by repeated emphatic assertion.
Lol, stop lying. You don't have a 27 second model, or you would have produced it by now, and you're not going to try and build one because you know as well as I do that it would require an entirely unreasonable amount of resistance - if I had to make an educated guess, an order of magnitude or two more resistance than the materials actually used in the building can offer. Your
Ad hom and other fallacies everywhere just so you know.
The 27 s model is better laid out and more detailed than the d2-billy. You can read about it in a very good book, see attached.
Here however, because I am dealing with hardcore official narrative zealots, it is superceded by d2-billy. Nullifying the need to consider ANY resistance. Leaving you with no rebuttal. Except by denying expert reports and denying the very official narrative you are tied to.
Hence why the argument is very much in my favour, objectively.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
