[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, I may not be ready to know but do you think a plane crashed in Shanksville or are you unsure? My questions aren't a trap. I am just curious. The debris doesn't look to be much so maybe plane but lasers? Lots of possibilities, I guess.
Feck is Shanksville?
Oh and I dont give a feck about traps. I am so over levelling y'all.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Is Shanksville real or are we jumping ahead here?
Still struggling somewhat with retired teacher Chandler's strange claim that an object in motion 'exerts less force than its static weight.' Momentum is mass times velocity, otherwise guns, whose projectiles are harmless at rest, wouldn't work (which they in fact very much do).
Yeah, he tries to explain this by way of analogy of a hammer driving a nail into Styrofoam vs. into wood, but I don't really understand how this supports his argument at all. Perhaps someone else can make sense of it.
The fact that a downward accelerating block would exert a force less than its own weight on the target block may be difficult to accept intuitively, but that is because our experience suggests the target block would resist the crushing blow. A rapidly moving hammer head driving a nail into a solid block of wood typically exerts a force on the nail many times the weight of the hammer head. But that is true only if the nail resists the blow. The large force that drives the nail into the wood is matched by a force that simultaneously decelerates the hammer head, which is why multiple blows are typically required. If, however, the nail is placed on a block of Styrofoam it will not significantly resist the blow. It will be driven into the block with very little force. The falling hammer head will meet so little resistance that it will be able to accelerate the whole time. In the case of WTC1, the falling block acts like the hammer head driving the nail into Styrofoam, but, changing the picture a little, it is the interface between the two blocks that is soft. Something other than the falling block (explosives?) must be destroying the structural integrity of the interface zone so that it offers only a small fraction of the resistance it was designed to provide.
I'm not sure how much of the above actually makes sense and how much is nonsense, but it does seem to rather conveniently get him to where he clearly wants to go, which appears to be "I don't know, therefore controlled demolition".
Buffoonary. Again. Not surprised.There is no resistance "factored in" to the recorded acceleration, which is not based on assumption but direct measurement.There is no model predicting collapse time within 10 seconds! You are hopelessly confused as to what is direct measurement and what is a prediction using a model.Models of prog collapse predict fall times in excess of the re
For one, you have extrapolated acceleration to be constant during the duration of the fall. Extrapolation is in fact the opposite of direct measurement.
So, we have an extrapolation that fails to match observed data. I guess there are two options left:
- The extrapolation is invalid
- Space lasers
Which of these is the more likely explanation is left as an exercise to the reader.
It can be safely said it is part of the whole psyop, the broad objective to give reason to carry out the PFANAC plan of regime change in Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya.... and Iran. In other words a false flag. Fairly uncontroversial stuff. Qui bono? US-Isreal-Saudi axis. Who loses? The other sovereign governments. In the long run they are failing ofc.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
For one, you have extrapolated acceleration to be constant during the duration of the fall. Extrapolation is in fact the opposite of direct measurement.
So, we have an extrapolation that fails to match observed data. I guess there are two options left:
- The extrapolation is invalid
- Space lasers
Which of these is the more likely explanation is left as an exercise to the reader.
Or some unnoticed bit of resistance that causes the collapse to suddenly change its rate of acceleration. There is no record of this happening, even by 2p2 degen committee. But y'know, could have happened.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Repeated argument from authority fallacy noted. Again.
Do you know what an argument from authority fallacy is, Billy?
With this, you seem to have now officially conceded the debate.
Now that the collapse debate is apparently over, can be get back to flat earth arguments?
Not quite. I am saying some bad fuzzy photo which is unclear as to what it shows is not strong enough to prove the collapse time.
Quick reminder:
1. NIST faqs. 9 and 11 s.
2. NIST final report. Within 12 s.
3. Bezant report. 9 seconds.
4. Eagar report. Within 10 seconds.
5. Chandler video evidence (billy calc). 10 s.
On the other hand:
1. Gorgo fuzzy photo.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Repeated argument from authority fallacy noted. Again.
Do you know what an argument from authority fallacy is, Billy?
Yes, it is an oft misunderstood fallacy with a few different facets.
A faulty appeal to authority is where we cite an authority on one subject but who is in fact not an authority on that subject. For instance, we might cite 2p2 legend gorgo for his views on mechanics. Gorgo may be an ace when it comes to music, but for science, perhaps not.
On the other hand, citing Dr Judy Wood, an expert in interferometry and materials science would be a reasonable thing to do when discussing matters of, say energy weapons, materials etc.
However, simply citing an authority to prove an argument is insufficient. We cannot simply say for instance Earth is a globe because Brian Cox says so. But we could cite his opinion to support a reasoned argument.
In the case of hostile witnesses, which is what I have cited re NIST, Bizzy, Eagar (Chandler not a hostile witness), this is a reasonable thing to do. Particularly for direct uncontroversial measurements.
Thank you for listening to billy's logic class.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Or some unnoticed bit of resistance that causes the collapse to suddenly change its rate of acceleration. There is no record of this happening, even by 2p2 degen committee. But y'know, could have happened.
Oh and the times given by
NIST
Eagar
Bezant.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
No record except footage of the event. Why is this video evidence "inadmissible", Billy?
In the case of hostile witnesses, which is what I have cited re NIST, Bizzy, Eagar (Chandler not a hostile witness), this is a reasonable thing to do. Particularly for direct uncontroversial measurements.
Thank you for listening to billy's logic class.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
How were these direct uncontroversial measurements made, Billy? Apart from Chandler's measurements of the first 4 seconds of the event, I have not seen anything from the other sources laying out their methodology.
Quick reminder - Billy's "logic" literally involves putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "la la la can't hear you" when presented with evidence that contradicts the conclusion he wants to reach. Do you realise that is the behaviour of an insane person, Billy?
Yes, it is an oft misunderstood fallacy with a few different facets.A faulty appeal to authority is where we cite an authority on one subject but who is in fact not an authority on that subject. For instance, we might cite 2p2 legend gorgo for his views on mechanics. Gorgo may be an ace when it comes to music, but for science, perhaps not.On the other hand, citing Dr Judy Wood,
But according to you, these same experts are giving us collapse times which invalidate their own model with the application of some high school physics, right?
Yes, it is an oft misunderstood fallacy with a few different facets.A faulty appeal to authority is where we cite an authority on one subject but who is in fact not an authority on that subject. For instance, we might cite 2p2 legend gorgo for his views on mechanics. Gorgo may be an ace when it comes to music, but for science, perhaps not.On the other hand, citing Dr Judy Wood,
No. An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person insists an argument is correct simply because it is made by an authority with no other evidence, especially while ignoring contrary evidence.
This is precisely what you are doing.
Precisely.
This is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy.
I haven't seen someone lose every point they try to make so thoroughly since Brian James. It's pretty damn funny.
How were these direct uncontroversial measurements made, Billy? Apart from Chandler's measurements of the first 4 seconds of the event, I have not seen anything from the other sources laying out their methodology.Quick reminder - Billy's "logic" literally involves putting his fingers in his ears and shouting "la la la can't hear you" when presented with evidence that contradict
That's you that is. (Projection).
I have not ignored any evidence at all.
Well, except 2p2 degens united. But that can hardly be considered evidence.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The lame screenshot is inadmissible. Full and clear video, sure.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Full and clear video has been posted. You called it gorgo-tubz and refused to look at it and address it, you lying little ****.
Lol
But according to you, these same experts are giving us collapse times which invalidate their own model with the application of some high school physics, right?
Yes. But that is a far more controversial, nuanced and politicised question.
Matters of collapse times and similar uncontested bare facts can be taken as read.
With the exception of the 2p2 degen squad. But we want to at least approach something serious here.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Yes. But that is a far more controversial, nuanced and politicised question.
Matters of collapse times and similar uncontested bare facts can be taken as read.
With the exception of the 2p2 degen squad. But we want to at least approach something serious here.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Are they blowing the whistle on themselves by giving the clues to those who are not so blind that they will see, Billy?
No. An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when a person insists an argument is correct simply because it is made by an authority with no other evidence, especially while ignoring contrary evidence. This is precisely what you are doing. Precisely. This is a textbook appeal to authority fallacy.I haven't seen someone lose every point they try to make so thoroughly since Brian J
Right. But we do not require anything more for the factual info of the collapse times. Both official narrativists and their detractors agree on the collapse time, within reasonable uncertainty.
And no, your opinion of 15 s, 22 s, or whatever damn thing you are claiming yesterday or today, does not count here. It is not a question of opinion.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
