[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

They say they are built so the top splays outwards by a few cm compared to the bottom. Although they also note this is not measured, rather it is by calculation. This means the upright cannot be vertical i.e. perpendicular to the ground. It must be oblique.

Mostly the verticals are vertical, in the true sense of the word, and parallel to one another.

The guy has to redefine level to mean tangential to a sphere for goodness sake.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I'll admit I only skimmed the article, but pretty sure it says they are built vertical, i.e. perpendicular to the ground. Can you quote this splaying part please?

Yes, on a curved surface, horizontal would mean tangential to the surface, and vertical means perpendicular to the tangent. Pretty basic stuff.

We'll deal with curvature or otherwise in the extension class.

Right now you are in Billy's catch up class: Angular velocity.

1. Angular velocity is the rate of change of angular displacement. Measured in radians per second but we can simplify this by converting this to revolutions per day. Ducy? You will.

2. A rigid rotating sphere turns through the same angle regardless of the lateral point at which it is measured. It takes the same time to perform this rotation.

3. Hence, the angular velocity of a rigid rotating sphere is a constant for the entire body. No two points on the sphere observe a different angular velcocity.

4. In the heliocentric spinning ball religion, the world turns on its axis once per day.

So how in the world of feck, gorgo feck, is angular speed of your spinning fantasy VARIABLE?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

If earth is curved then the top of the towers are necessarily wider than the bottom, i.e. perpendicular to tangent, i.e. splayed out. If earth is flat then they are either built parallel and perpendicular or splayed and oblique.

In any case it looks like laser tests to measure the distances have been proposed but not carried out. Pointless anyway, uncertainty intervals too great relative to measurements I expect.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I know what the scenarios are. You claimed that they were parallel. I asked you how you knew they were parallel. From the equivocation above, it seems that you don't. What you probably meant when you said you knew they were parallel was "I know they are they are parallel because they are perpendicular to the flat level horizonal Earth". Another one of those hidden assumption circular reasoning things you like to do.

Billy, on this "splaying" - think back to our horizon diagram. Would you describe the target and the observer as splaying apart (assume they are line segments rather than points)? From their own point of view they are both perpendicular to the ground and perfectly vertical. But they are not parallel to each other because the geometric distance between them is not constant along their height.

Does billy think that all space missions were faked or does he think that some or all of them were planned and executed based on a secret understanding that the Earth is flat?

Does billy agree that, when evaluating the likelihood of a conspiracy, we should consider whether there are any possible motives for the conspiracy that seem plausible?

I'll let Billy speak for himself of course, but my impression is that he is just bewildered as to how we have all been brainwashed by TV to believe that the Earth is round (or otherwise curved) when horizon dip observations make it clear as day that this is just not possible.

I think a lot of things must be bewildering to him. Shoe tying, for instance.

I would not, though I expect you would.

Here we have a possibly testable (by observation) prediction.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Space may be the final frontier.

But it's made in a hollywood basement.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

What is this conspiracy you speak of?

Do you realise earth is proven to be stationary by a number of observational tests? The reason for rejecting this conclusion is preference, nothing more.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Dude, what? In which way is the earth stationary?

That it doesn’t rotate on an axis, or that it doesn’t orbit the sun, or that the solar system isn’t orbiting the Milky Way, or that the galaxy itself is stationary? Because as far as I know, the earth is moving in all of those ways currently. Please explain.

If I go to the image gallery on NASA's website, I can find a million images purportedly taken from space of what appears to be a spherical Earth. NASA must know those images are fake, which means there must be a conspiracy to disseminate those fake images to the world. Dozens of people who have been in space have talked about the wonder of observing our blue "marble" from space. Those people must be lying. How could this not be a conspiracy from your perspective?

since I'm only reading 30% of Billy's posts I may be incorrect but didn't he mention a few posts ago that he isn't a flat earther in the traditional sense? If not, then what is the shape of the earth? I know we'll never get an image of what he believes but maybe a description?

Crossnerd touches on my biggest complaint with a non-spherical earth which is the fact we can calculate, with precision, how the earth interacts with the sun and moon in any point in the future. We know when the moon will rise and set for the next thousand years, where it will be in the sky at any point and it's phase. We know when and where the next solar and lunar eclipses will occur and for my lifetime, every prediction we have made has been correct and all 100% based on a spherical earth.

This is 100% correct and is the ultimate nail in the coffin of the flat earth theory. All of that math is reproducible by anyone (though extremely tedious and pretty difficult). All predictions have been accurate to within the tiniest margin of error. There's just no way around it except to pretend it doesn't exist or call the math voodoo and refuse to do it (which is, of course, the path they take).

I did a bunch of those calculations in college in a short unit around the May 1994 eclipse and they suck.

I made this request repeatedly and he made it clear that he had no intention of answering. I also don't what the bolded could mean when you consider that billy rejects all evidence of curvature.

Learn some science, CN. billy knows that the earth is stationary because the earth doesn't move underneath your feet if you jump.

Speaking of conspiracies...how is this pretend intense interest in flat earth nonsense not a sheeple conspiracy to soil this thread, especially in light of the Epstein files and what they said about 9/11?

I figured you would all stick your heads in the sand, but I didn't imagine that would look like this. Sad.

Deuces, what shape is the Earth?

You all don't get it. Billy is simply a detective, following the evidence wherever the horizon dip science leads him, and we are but Watsons to his Holmes. And if that place is the somewhat non traditional conclusion is that our home base is in fact a pancake on the back of a turtle, well, as Holmes said - "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

You should all be grateful; we need more intrepid sleuths like Billy, willing to stand up to centuries of brainwashing and dogma at great personal cost, on this beautiful blue plane of ours.

No axial rotation.

Primarily see

1) Michelson-Morley observational tests.
2) Lack of Coriolis deviation observed as bodies moving above Earth surface. Includes drop tests - null result.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk