[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
Like a lot of the other idiots around here, he thinks that being vague, cryptic and evasive makes him sound smart.
No I just cannot be fully bothered to provide info to people who are unwilling to match my effort. Like right now I could give you 100 observations that prove this is not a 3959 mile ball. Then you google 2 seconds for professor dave: "refraction".
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What are the pictures of Earth from space composites of, Billy? I thought you liked believing what you see in photographs.
False equivalence. 9/11 is photographed and videod by countless individuals. Horizon observations are reproducible.
There is (nearly) not a single photo of "earth" that is not composite (of photos taken of earth - individually showing no earth curve).
*nearly* because there is one claimed genuine photo which is the earth rise from the moon. Ironically looking the most fake.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What about eyewitness testimony from astronauts? Made up? Hallucinations?
No I just cannot be fully bothered to provide info to people who are unwilling to match my effort. Like right now I could give you 100 observations that prove this is not a 3959 mile ball. Then you google 2 seconds for professor dave: "refraction".
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I don't know about 100, but the ones you've given so far are either straight up falsehoods or wildly inaccurate.
False equivalence. 9/11 is photographed and videod by countless individuals. Horizon observations are reproducible.There is (nearly) not a single photo of "earth" that is not composite (of photos taken of earth - individually showing no earth curve).*nearly* because there is one claimed genuine photo which is the earth rise from the moon. Ironically looking the most fake.Sent f
Here are a bunch of non-composite pictures of earth taken daily:
Latest one posted is from 2 days ago: https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/?date=2026-02...
Fake?
[quote=NASA site]
EPIC (Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera) is a 10-channel spectroradiometer (317 – 780 nm) onboard NOAA’s DSCOVR (Deep Space Climate Observatory) spacecraft. EPIC provides 10 narrow band spectral images of the entire sunlit face of Earth using a 2048x2048 pixel CCD (Charge Coupled Device) detector coupled to a 30-cm aperture Cassegrain telescope (Figure 1).
....
The EPIC instrument has a field of view (FOV) of 0.62 degrees, which is sufficient to image the entire Earth, which has a nominal size of 0.5 degrees.
[/QUOTE]
All fake, Billy? NASA making **** up?
What are the pictures of Earth from space composites of, Billy? I thought you liked believing what you see in photographs.
The Apollo photographs, including the first ever photograph of the whole Earth (taken by Bill Anders from Apollo 8, on 21 December 1968) and 'Earthrise' (by Anders again, three days later, from Moon orbit) are 70mm Hasselblad originals and are not composites.
The Apollo photographs, including the first ever photograph of the whole Earth (taken by Bill Anders from Apollo 8, on 21 December 1968) and 'Earthrise' (by Anders again, three days later, from Moon orbit) are 70mm Hasselblad originals and are not composites.
These are the only ones claimed to be not-composite. For obvious reasons. But again, not reproducible. So not submissible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
These are the only ones claimed to be not-composite. For obvious reasons. But again, not reproducible. So not submissible.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Nowithstanding your completely moronic "not reproducible" argument, I like how you skipped over my post showing non-composite pictures of Earth taken every single day. They are reproduced every single ****ing day.
Good lord Billy, I actually find myself getting angry that someone as stupid as you exists.
Oh dear, I think the non-composite daily Earth pictures broke his brain.
No I just cannot be fully bothered to provide info to people who are unwilling to match my effort. Like right now I could give you 100 observations that prove this is not a 3959 mile ball. Then you google 2 seconds for professor dave: "refraction".
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"I won't give you evidence because all you'll do is provide counter-evidence."
Everybody here is, I think, online enough to see that in the wake of the Epstein files a lot more commentators who have stayed far away from 9/11 are coming out to question the official story, even the Young Turks. I doubt anyone who has been mocking me this whole time will ever admit they were wrong, but the countdown to them admitting it to themselves has begun.
Gorgo I feel like you are not at all interested in the shadow 9/11 commission referenced in an email to Ghislaine Maxwell in which she was invited to join said commission. Am I wrong? Tell me you have some interest in the fact that the daughter of someone who stole nuclear secrets from the U.S., who was later convicted of child sex trafficking, was invited to be on a shadow 9/11 commission. If you don't can you explain why you don't?
A week after 9/11 someone named Levine emailed her and asked only "where is the real pilot?". You can label that as too short and cryptic to suggest much, but I personally struggle to come up with scenarios not related to 9/11, given it is 1 week after 9/11, which would involve fake pilots. Asking about the real pilot is also saying there is a fake pilot. In what context, a week after 9/11, would a fake pilot be a thing to talk about other than involvement with 9/11 among people super connected to the super elite? I'm not saying there isn't one. I'm saying that if you want to assume the email doesn't expose involvement in 9/11 you need some range of alternative explanations which would make sense. I can't think of any.
Nowithstanding your completely moronic "not reproducible" argument, I like how you skipped over my post showing non-composite pictures of Earth taken every single day. They are reproduced every single ****ing day.
Reproducible means a DIFFERENT group of researchers, not the same ones.
"I discovered a new planet".
Really? Can I see?
"Er, no. But here's a picture of it. Not doctored, honest".
Ok, here's 24 billion dollars (NASA annual budget).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Everybody here is, I think, online enough to see that in the wake of the Epstein files a lot more commentators who have stayed far away from 9/11 are coming out to question the official story, even the Young Turks. I doubt anyone who has been mocking me this whole time will ever admit they were wrong, but the countdown to them admitting it to themselves has begun.
I doubt you understand why you're widely mocked around here. It's not because you have challenged the 'official' 9/11 narrative.
Reproducible means a DIFFERENT group of researchers, not the same ones.
"I discovered a new planet".
Really? Can I see?
"Er, no. But here's a picture of it. Not doctored, honest".
Ok, here's 24 billion dollars (NASA annual budget).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Lmao, so now pictures of a round Earth and astronaut's testimonies are inadmissible because they're all from NASA, do I have this right? Would it shock you that other countries have space agencies and astronauts too? Do they count as different researchers you complete clown?
So, Billy, now that I've disabused you of the notion that there are only a handful of non-composite pictures of a round earth, and shown you where you can find thousands of them updated daily, you must now be ready to accept that the Earth is round, because you're such a rational and scientifically minded guy, right? Because if not, that would make you a stubborn moron, and you're definitely not one of those, right?
