[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
Is this true, Billy? Have you been lying about the rubble pictures? Son, I am disappoint. You know what is turning to dust? My faith in you, that's what.
I believe 57's claim that there were 1.8 million tons of rubble. That seems like a lot of mass to trigger a progressive collapse. Do you have any evidence that this figure is inaccurate?
Yeah there's a thing called conservation of mass. You see, small particles of a thing have the same mass as its integral. Except the surface area is vastly different, hence the above arguments.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Now we are beginning to look at hard evidence, you switch to open ad hom attack and suddenly want to move on? Interesting.
My advice is to steer clear of his posts given his slur implying I am anti-semitic.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I've seen no hard evidence other than you saying "look at the pictures, look at the videos, it turns to dust". If you have hard evidence of any of your claims, post it.
Yeah there's a thing called conservation of mass. You see, small particles of a thing have the same mass as its integral. Except the surface area is vastly different, hence the above arguments.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So your claim is that the majority of the 1.8 million tonnes was dust?
I've seen no hard evidence other than you saying "look at the pictures, look at the videos, it turns to dust". If you have hard evidence of any of your claims, post it.
So you now believe the images are not doctored or do you need me to verify? (many are the same images Gorgo posted. Certainly his video shows the same). That's quite telling. Perhaps you think there is something in them.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So you now believe the images are not doctored or do you need me to verify? (many are the same images Gorgo posted. Certainly his video shows the same). That's quite telling. Perhaps you think there is something in them.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I believe you that these images are not doctored. I do not agree with you as to what they show.
And good lord, stop it with the psychobabble schtick in every post. I am happy to evaluate your case and evidence on its merits. So far those merits are lacking.
Hence there was not enough debris to warrant a scenario of progressive collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I did not provide those pictures to represent the amount of debris but to show that there was debris other than dust. Gorilla math, I would expect about 130 feet of rubble from the collapse of the building as it was around 1400 feet high with 110 floors. So I don’t know why you think this debris field isn’t adequate.
I also just saw a stat that the WTC site used about 2.0 million tons of construction materials, which is pretty close to what was removed from the site when they tore down everything for the memorial.
The majority of the material was disintegrated into dust. Since 1.8 million tonnes is a reasonable estimate for the material then yes. However this is a 57 claim so it needs cross checking.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The majority of the material was disintegrated into dust. Since 1.8 million tonnes is a reasonable estimate for the material then yes. However this is a 57 claim so it needs cross checking.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok thanks. Your claims are very hand wavy and you've not provided anything in the way of supporting evidence regarding the debris situation. I do not believe you that the majority of it was dust.
Neither of which are faster than g. You said he was surprised it did not collapse faster than g.
10 seconds requires freefall under gravity from rest with practically no air resistance. Hence any quicker rate is faster than g.
But he does not believe NIST's report, an oversight on my part. He is a maverick. I respect that.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I did not provide those pictures to represent the amount of debris but to show that there was debris other than dust. Gorilla math, I would expect about 130 feet of rubble from the collapse of the building as it was around 1400 feet high with 110 floors. So I don’t know why you think this debris field isn’t adequate.I also just saw a stat that the WTC site used about 2.0 mil
I know there was debris other than dust. I am saying there was not enough substantial debris. The analyis of debris has been done by legitimate authorities on the subject matter looking at all available photos and video and there is insufficient debris to support a collapse model. But we don't need to take their word for it, we just look at the evidence. You can be persuaded by a few cherry picked photos if you wish.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok thanks. Your claims are very hand wavy and you've not provided anything in the way of supporting evidence regarding the debris situation. I do not believe you that the majority of it was dust.
There is more substantial evidence re rubble. Will post when i have more time.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There is more substantial evidence re rubble. Will post when i have more time.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok, but just so we're keeping track, you have yet to post anything persuasive regarding *any* of your claims, despite repeated assurances that you will do so later.
The one thing that's definitely turning completely to dust are your promises.
I think you do a lot better with flat earth than 911, Billy. You're making structural arguments that aren't supported by real word mechanics and then ask to look at a pic or a youtube video that doesn't demonstrate what you're claiming.
And the only thing other than that, which is probably the best play, is to regurgitate what is a banana over and over again and state that the good stuff is coming later to simply avoid addressing any of this.
I'm curious: for the people who believe whatever it is you believe about 9/11...why do you believe that? I mean 25 years is a long time to believe in government fairy tales? And it's not like people think the Bush II admin was filled with good people. Is it really something that Cheney couldn't have pulled off?
I think you do a lot better with flat earth than 911, Billy. You're making structural arguments that aren't supported by real word mechanics and then ask to look at a pic or a youtube video that doesn't demonstrate what you're claiming.And the only thing other than that, which is probably the best play, is to regurgitate what is a banana over and over again and state that the
You do love the flat earth, come out of the closet.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Faster THAN IT DID, not FASTER THAN g you absolute fool. No wonder you fail at everything, you can't read.
Oh lord here come the caps.
Yes if you recall I agreed you can say 20 s descent time if you wish. It makes no difference, collapse is still impossible.
But NIST (your overlords) report 10 seconds, consistent with free-fall. Therefore any quicker fall rate than this requires a fall rate greater than g. So you see the source of the confusion.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
