[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

No collapse also negates theories of controlled demolition.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I think I'm beginning to see something of a pattern developing:

- We show that all the earth's gravitational field lines are parallel by surreptitiously first assuming that the earth is flat.

- We show that the NIST version of collapse is impossible by surreptitiously first assuming that the whole building was instantaneously pulverised to dust.

Some might call those hidden assumptions a little disingenuous, Billy Boy, but notwithstanding that, see any problems here? Your assumptions are orders of magnitude more wild than the thing you're using them to prove in the first place.

And then you will no doubt go on to use the parallel field lines to argue for a flat earth, or your calculations based on zero dropping mass to argue for space lasers, completing the chain of [strike]circular[/strike] linear reasoning. If you're doing this on purpose you're a scumbag and a liar like Deuces, if you're doing it by accident you don't have the reasoning ability of those same 10-11 year olds you keep talking about. Either way, doesn't look great for you.

Anyway, that was lots of words and pictures, and not a single calculation in sight to show how you arrived at 27 seconds. Why is that, Billy?

Holy Turboposting, Batman

This seems to be your major source of confusion. If a floor collapses sues to the floor above it falling on it, you have to consider conservation of momentum not just acceleration from g.

You haven’t actually done anything but make naked assertions. Obviously I can simply point out your errors without providing a ton of details. The more details you give the more you can expect.

Brofessor Billy's thesis appears to be that everything got pulverised to dust (presumably by the space laser), so nothing fell on anything. He then uses this as an underlying assumption to calculate that the building could not have collapsed as NIST described. And because it could not have collapsed as NIST described, the only reasonable explanation is that it was pulverised to dust by the space laser.

In other news, Billy has also invented a perpetual energy source:

Spoiler

Show

Space wot now?

The collapse scenario (NIST) is disproven above for a number of reasons. The turning to dust is part of the proof and shows what happened to the material that did not appear piled up at the base. Conservation of momentum is invoked hand-wave style to support collapse. Momentum requires mass. The mass is not falling freely, it is dust and hence subject to non-negligible air resistance.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Nobody is triggered, little buddy, but I take this transparently evasive joke of a reply as a tacit admission that you have no response to the substance of my post.

Right, so your assumption is that all or a majority of the mass turned to dust, correct? You are stating this as an assertion, and your only proof of it is some photos showing a lot of dust. Basically, you're just talking out of your ass, you have no idea whatsoever how much of the mass turned to dust and how much remained solid. I've seen rooms with a lot of dust, yet somehow the whole room did not turn to dust.

You keep complaining about hand waving, yet you have shown zero working or calculations to support any of your numbers or other assertions. Your pictures are evidence of... let's see... the square root of **** all. Well, they are evidence that there was a lot of dust. You see that picture and your conclusion is "everything turned to dust". So, who is doing the hand waving here?

Billy, what force would be necessary to do serious structural damage to WTC towers via impact and then what effect would a jet fuel explosion and long burning fire have on the building? Can you give us an N calculation and an equivalent calculation of the strength or potential of such an explosion.

Then are you able to compute or provide others calculations of such forces by others that would show the planes that struck the WTC could not have generated such forces?

How do you account for all of the other photos that show debris not reduced to dust?

You are mixing up 2 separate discussions in the same post in a failed attempt at ad hom.

The photos are there to be assessed. Does this look like a collapsing building?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I am not mixing anything. I am demonstrating a pattern of hidden assumptions and transparently faulty circular reasoning on your part.

I have shown you metal structures of significant size turning into dust in mid air. I have shown you the majority of the two towers dissipating into the atmosphere, evidenced by the material pluming up and outwards and the lack of remaining debris.

There are those who do not see when they are shown.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I don't know. No. No. Show the photos please.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yes, but I am not an expert on collapsing buildings. Are you? If so, perhaps you could provide those calculations that make you think it doesn't.

Ok, it is not for me to tell you what you are seeing.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You haven't shown photos of either of those things. What you've shown is photos of dust. The stuff about metal structures turning to dust in mid air, or the stuff about the majority of the two towers dissipating into the atmosphere, those are your own personal assertions offered with no proof whatsoever. The photos do not unequivocally show those things.

Weird how Billy is so stringent on the scientific method and methods of proof on other things, but happy to look at some pictures with lots of dust and instantly conclude that the whole building (or a majority of it) turned to dust. The possibility that some of the building turned to dust and some of the building remained to trigger a progressive collapse doesn't even enter his mind. Perhaps Billy lacks object permanence and thinks that because he can't see through the dust, anything behind it has ceased to exist.

I showed you a metal object, named "the spire" turning from solid metal into dust in seconds. I showed you metal infrastructure visibly turning to dust in mid air. The proof is the images.

You are unconvinced, i respect skepticism. This is just one part of a fully coherent narrative based on primary evidence - photos, video, eye witness reports - that leaves for dust... the NIST version of events (and controlled demolition, and mini nukes etc.)

Being frightened of the ramifications of what this means politically etc is irrelevant to what the evidence shows. You don't need to hypothesise on that. Just work out what happened, based on the evidence.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

You posted a lot of contextless pictures. Show me this again, with a clear explanation of exactly what it's showing and how we ascertain that these are in fact images of metal objects turning into dust. Also, please provide a source for the images, or some other way of knowing that they have not been manipulated.

Hence there was not enough debris to warrant a scenario of progressive collapse.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

The context was the downing of the world trade center in 2001. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it. We all remember where we were that day. We are seeing nearly 1 million tons of steel and concrete turning into tiny particles of dust.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk