[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
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it in a very good book, see attached.Here however, because I am dealing with hardcore official narrative zealots, it is superceded by d2-billy.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 den
Fine, if you want to use "ad hom" to mean "insult", use it, but that doesn't automatically make it a fallacy, dumbo. An insult and a fallacy are different things.
I'm not reading your stupid ****ing book. If you want to cosign the model you can present it here yourself, as you said you'd do multiple times. Otherwise, for the purposes of this conversation, it does not exist.
So you going to answer the rest of the post of just ignore it like you do with all the other points which are inconvenient to your theory? Sorry, I forgot, your tiny brain is incapable of dealing with multiple points made in one post, I should have split it out.
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.
Sorry your gish galloping distraction has failed miserably.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Fine, if you want to use "ad hom" to mean "insult", use it, but that doesn't automatically make it a fallacy, dumbo. An insult and a fallacy are different things.I'm not reading your stupid ****ing book. If you want to cosign the model you can present it here yourself, as you said you'd do multiple times. Otherwise, for the purposes of this conversation, it does not exist.So yo
I don't entertain **** parades. So yes I am going to ignore your pathetic attempts to distract. I will lay this out once more:
1. Minimum progressive collapse time with no resistance is 11.5 seconds.
2. Average collapse time presented in all expert reports thus far found online is 10 seconds.
3. Therefore progressive collapse is not the mechanism by which the towers were brought down (for want of a better neutral phrase).
That is all there is to it. Unless you have some other expert report that presents a different collapse time there is nothing more to be said except for you to concede.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yeah, I didn't need to reach the issue of the start and end points. I wanted to know where he got his 27 second number from. Since it didn't agree with his own calculations, the answer is that he pulled it out of his ass as I suspected (or more likely parroting something from some conspiracy blog).
3 weeks later:
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.
El oh el.
I don't entertain **** parades. So yes I am going to ignore your pathetic attempts to distract. I will lay this out once more:1. Minimum progressive collapse time with no resistance is 11.5 seconds.2. Average collapse time presented in all expert reports thus far found online is 10 seconds.3. Therefore progressive collapse is not the mechanism by which the towers were brought d
Right, so you are going to ignore any questions that are inconvenient for your theory by characterising them as "distractions", got it. You are an intellectually dishonest, obstinate, dumb assclown oxygen thief and you can get ****ed, then.
Until you explain how some authors getting the collapse time wrong leads to the conclusion that the progressive collapse model is impossible, you have no case whatsoever. Zero. But even your single-celled brain must understand this, hence you are stubbornly ignoring the question.
2. Average collapse time presented in all expert reports thus far found online is 10 seconds.
Zero expert reports tasked with properly timing the relevant part of the collapse have been cited by you. Zero.
But LOL at you citing the collapse time that YOU LITERALLY JUST AGREED was unreliable (the NIST report which only deals with collapse initiation, by the way - collapse time is outside the scope of their report AND they tell you it uses an unreliable method IN ADDITION to telling you it stops the timer when the first panels hit the ground - ALL things that disqualify them from being useful for the task, but YOU STILL INSIST ON CITING IT).
Then you cite Bazant (which you can't even @#*$ SPELL) who also wasn't tasked with timing the collapse as his paper is only about the energy required to progress the collapse, in a paper that mentions NOTHING about how it was timed, what endpoints it used, NOR if it was anything more than a wild approximation (it was most likely using the same seismic data that the NIST report used, which is not only unreliable, it uses an inappropriate endpoint).
The CLEAR video evidence shows the collapses took AT LEAST 15 and 22 seconds. Neither NIST nor Bazant dispute this anywhere (since they were never tasked with timing the collapses and did not do so outside a glance at the seismic data). Since they were never tasked with it, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO ATTEMPT TO BE ACCURATE.
You fing idiot
What a clown.
Also, noting again that you haven't addressed the problems with your theory.
If the match is finally over. I score it as a complete shut out of Billy boy.
I love how we selectively need to either defer completely to experts when it suits Billy's agenda (like to time an event you can't even see, and not even something they were tasked with), and can't trust experts for **** when it doesn't (like to tell us the Earth is round). Not a massive intellectually dishonest hypocrite at all, then, our Billy. Not at all.
Right, so you are going to ignore any questions that are inconvenient for your theory by characterising them as "distractions", got it. You are an intellectually dishonest, obstinate, dumb assclown oxygen thief and you can get ****ed, then.Until you explain how some authors getting the collapse time wrong leads to the conclusion that the progressive collapse model is impossible
"Some authors" = every author. Unless you know others.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"Some authors" = every author. Unless you know others.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
One of them got a time less than freefall without resistance (so lol), and the other copied it from NIST presumably, mistaking the exterior panel time (9-10s) for the total collapse time. Because it was not something that was important as far as his paper, it was a narrative aside.
The only time of interest for our purposes is the NIST "within 12 second" number. This is indeed probably incorrect for "total collapse" or "everything turning to rubble". So if you just focused on that instead of all the other horseshit you keep spewing, that might be something of a more interesting discussion. But we don't need to do any calculations to see that this time is clearly at odds with what we observe in the video.
The point remains that these timings are not the outputs of the progressive collapse model, so your assertion that if these timings are wrong then the model is "impossible" is just a complete non sequitur. Unless you can show that the model is somehow related to these timings, which you clearly can't, or you would have by now. The timings are just a different data point which may or may not be accurate in some reports. They have nothing to do with the collapse model itself.
I don't know how many times I need to repeat this very basic ****ing fact before in permeates your thick, obstinate skull and you start acknowledging it. This has to be about the 5th time in two days already.
Part 1 is over.
Sequel? That depends on whether the degenerate side can climb out of the hole of insanity they themselves have dug.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Guy sitting in padded cell flinging **** at the walls and calling everyone else insane is.... something.
One of them got a time less than freefall without resistance (so lol), and the other copied it from NIST presumably, mistaking the exterior panel time (9-10s) for the total collapse time. Because it was not something that was important as far as his paper, it was a narrative aside.The only time of interest for our purposes is the NIST "within 12 second" number. This is indeed p
With a 12 seconds time (it is within 12 s but you know how generous billy is) your case is not helped. Unless you believe that the addition of resistive forces gives a resultant to cause half a second or less additional fall time. Eagar suggests two seconds for instance.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
billy, you've gotten absolutely boat raced in this discussion.
Humiliated.
Embarrassed.
Not a single human being has been convinced by your awful attempts at a logical argument.
Zero.
I just wanted you to have that update.
With a 12 seconds time (it is within 12 s but you know how generous billy is) your case is not helped. Unless you believe that the addition of resistive forces gives a resultant to cause half a second or less additional fall time. Eagar suggests two seconds for instance.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
If you can show me definitively that resistive forces add more than half a second, and I verify your other inputs (floor height, can't remember if there are any others), and I do some research to verify the correctness of the model itself, then I will concede that the 12 second number incorrect. Which we suspect already because we can see it for ourselves in the ****ing video.
However, this number being incorrect does not invalidate the progressive collapse model, as it is not an output of the model as far as I know. It's just an incorrect number unrelated to the progressive collapse model. As has now been explained to you at least 6 ****ing times.
Hopefully they will avoid a part 2. At some point this fight has turned into your senseless beating and should be called. You have not convinced anyone of anything.
1. Minimum progressive collapse time with no resistance is 11.5 seconds.2. Average collapse time presented in all expert reports thus far found online is 10 seconds.3. Therefore progressive collapse is not the mechanism by which the towers were brought down (for want of a better neutral phrase).That is all there is to it. Unless you have some other expert report that presents a
No, that doesn't follow. The dust clouds precluded any exact observation of the fall of the towers' floors. The figures given by various sources can only be estimates. Since they disagree, they can't all be right, and they can all be wrong. The most secure data points are the times after initial descent at which only the partial core of each tower was still seen to be standing, shorn of its floors. These do not require an 'impossible' collapse time.
The null hypothesis is that the buildings fell due to impact and fire damage after jihadis flew large jets into them. You can't show that this was not possible, therefore inviting a more exotic explanation, merely by citing what are obviously fallible figures in this or that paper.
Billy seems to struggle with very basic logic; certainly when applying it would lead him away from his desired conclusion.
If you can show me definitively that resistive forces add more than half a second, and I verify your other inputs (floor height, can't remember if there are any others), and I do some research to verify the correctness of the model itself, then I will concede that the 12 second number incorrect. Which we suspect already because we can see it for ourselves in the ****ing video.H
See the degenerate condition of this side? Any trace of coherence has all but vanished.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hopefully they will avoid a part 2. At some point this fight has turned into your senseless beating and should be called. You have not convinced anyone of anything.
I did not expect to.
But what I have done is force you and others into adopting contradictory statements, hilariously attack nist for being wrong on matters of the most basic direct observation, and provided good humour for the wise observer.
It is as Socrates was with the sophists, he would never convince them, merely show the rational reader how fallacious they were.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No, that doesn't follow. The dust clouds precluded any exact observation of the fall of the towers' floors. The figures given by various sources can only be estimates. Since they disagree, they can't all be right, and they can all be wrong. The most secure data points are the times after initial descent at which only the partial core of each tower was still seen to be standing,
Yes we know what you think.
The experts are wrong. You are right.
More exotic than the jihadis. Ok.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I did not expect to.But what I have done is force you and others into adopting contradictory statements, hilariously attack nist for being wrong on matters of the most basic direct observation, and provided good humour for the wise observer.It is as Socrates was with the sophists, he would never convince them, merely show the rational reader how fallacious they were.Sent from m
Well, you are certainly not the second coming of Socrates. Your method failed you.
