[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Do your 'collapse happened in 10s' experts believe the earth is flat?

Do they believe that we never landed on the moon?

Does Dr. Wood believe we landed on the moon? If she does, then she's just another sheeple like the rest of us.

Jolly hockey sticks old chum!

Seriously though give me the citation for Dr Wood's opinion on "ground based reflected from orbit" weapon you were lying...er, I mean speaking about.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Ah yes, symbolism, zealotry and ritual. And a violent regard for the non-believer.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Not responding to the latest evidence for torus earth I see. Hmm, I wonder why.

Blasphemy!

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Billy, I think you don't understand, and therefore fail to appreciate the genius of the torus solution. For one, it resolves your issues with radius measurements as it has two radii. Secondly, the distance to the horizon depends on where you are standing and which direction you are facing, so any discrepancies with the horizon distance can be resolved by turning the observer's head.

I think we've solved it, Billiam! Get your Pythagoras out for the lads and get cracking with the calcs, son.

Billy isn't even trying any more. His smoke and mirrors act has worn thin. He seems to have run out of gimmicks.

New question for Billy: Was 10/7 a false flag?

Of course it ****ing was.

Next.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'm not your mother, Billy. If I were, you'd be living in my basement. I don't have to wipe your chin when you drool and I cannot be arsed to reconstruct the search I did a couple of weeks ago.

If you did not know that Wood claims the use of a 'top-down' (her words) directed-energy or 'free-energy' (whatever that means) weapon, of no exactly specified kind, but either space-based or using a space-based reflector, and a novel power source, perhaps involving cold nuclear fusion (since we all know that actual directed-energy weapons don't have the power to pulverise buildings, or anything like it), then I guess you should have known, seeing you're such a fan. Of course you can declare yourself against all those claims if you like.

But you evidently do know that Wood relies on citing the 'Hutchison effect', which she pretends is a scientific principle. Except it isn't, it's a notorious and only mildly amusing hoax.

Pretty funny that Billy thinks the shape of the Earth has not been confirmed with the required scientific scrutiny, but will bet his life on some scammy pseudoscience mumbo jumbo in a heartbeat. He'd be every con man's dream mark if he had any money.

Damn Billy, sounds like Wood is not only a ball fondler, she buys into the whole "space" story too. Told you bro, none of them can be trusted. They are all in on it.

What-ho! Giving me the bum's rush eh old boy?

Let's just say you made up a lot of things, perhaps something second-hand from gorgo's indestructible skeptics brigade.

Tally-ho!

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Being specific, there is a paper co-authored by Dr Wood that apparently existed at some point but appears not to exist online right now. It is this that detractors seem to attack, rather than the primary work, Where Did the Towers Go? (Cheapskates).

What with all the alleged tech gurus round here surely one of you guyz can find the article for me?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Thank you for actually giving a straight answer to a simple question. I appreciate it! (Of course, it's easier to appreciate good things that almost never happen.)

I could, but I'd rather eat razor blades than go wading through whatever dark corner of the internet you junkies go to to mainline your nonsense.

Try the wayback machine.

Seems old sport 57 on red has been journeying the darkside.

You "could"? A bold claim. Prepare to be spammed unrelentingly.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'm not doing **** for you till you acknowledge my torus model.

There is a lousy paper by a man called James Gourley, back of a cigarette packet stuff. There is no reference section, just hyperlinks to his sources. Needless to say the source to Dr Wood's mysterious paper is broken.

Gourley it seems is responsible for most of the nonsense recycled by the differently-abled online.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'll try to find the article.

All hail the Torus.

Quid pro quo.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Good sport.

Apparently it is called "the star wars beam weapon" according to the "scientific critique" by James Gourley.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I tried to find the article. I found two different links to the article, and they were both broken links.

Couldn't even find the article on Morgan Reynolds' own website.

Sorry about that, chief.

Not enthusiastic or detailed enough. Give 3 reasons why it's better than your flat model.

https://web.archive.org/web/201112081928...

That's the article I think. I'm not sure how much it changed over the years or why they seemingly decided to eventually take it down entirely but it does include the quote "indicates an extraordinary high-energy weapon was used top-down to preserve the bathtub and surrounding structures", which I assume is where the space laser claims come from (along with constantly talking about vertical holes in the buildings and choosing to call their article "The Star Wars Beam Weapons").

It does however also end by saying "we make no claim about whether the directed energy weapon operated from a space-, air-, or ground-based platform" but given the former things you can see why people might think they were in fact making claims about where the DEW came from.

I think that's it! Thank you!