[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
Who is this person and why should I care what they say? Are they an expert ascertaining an exact collapse time or just some rando throwing out an approximate figure? For the 100th ****ing time, in colloquial English 12 seconds is about 10 seconds. World class lathletes run the 100 in about 10 seconds. The longest you've ever lasted with a woman is about 10 seconds. See?We have
This is not colloquial English class. This is measurement class. 12 seconds is 20% longer than 10 s. That is unacceptable in this context.
Video? You going back to gorgo loltubz now when you have the measurements confirmed by experts?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ragequit right on cue.
Why are you crashing out here? Have the ramifications of what you have proven finally dawned on you?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Hey man, I didn't prove ****, you're the calculation guy, remember? That's what I'm telling the men in dark suits when they come round asking questions after seeing this thread. Don't back out now, Billy, we almost got em!
This is not colloquial English class. This is measurement class. 12 seconds is 20% longer than 10 s. That is unacceptable in this context.
Video? You going back to gorgo loltubz now when you have the measurements confirmed by experts?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
What context you dumb prick? The non-NIST people you quoted saying 10 seconds weren't doing it in the context of establishing exact collapse times. And the NIST report says it for exterior panels, not for the whole building, which we've thankfully now defined.
What context you dumb prick? The non-NIST people you quoted saying 10 seconds weren't doing it in the context of establishing exact collapse times. And the NIST report says it for exterior panels, not for the whole building, which we've thankfully now defined.
"Dumb prick"
Pal you weren't sure whether we were establishing the minimum or maximum time.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok Billy, it's Sunday and I've made my list of things I'd like to be doing today, in order of preference (which I have abridged in the interests of brevity):
1. Playing some Sunday poker tourneys.
2. Watching the snooker.
3. Having a nice Sunday lunch.
......
946737. Getting shot in the chest with projectile diarrhea.
946738. Hacking my balls off with a dull knife.
946739. Spending another second talking to you.
Peace.
(Credit to Rococo, from whom I shamelessly stole this joke/format).
This is not colloquial English class. This is measurement class. 12 seconds is 20% longer than 10 s. That is unacceptable in this context.
Video? You going back to gorgo loltubz now when you have the measurements confirmed by experts?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
But it’s acceptable to average together the times of two building falling? Looooool Flatty!
I think we probably all know a couple of people prone to conspiracy theories in real life, but I have to admit, I don't know any flat earthers. Billy has that distinction all to himself.
I have a friend whose son-in-law's parents were avid Flat Earther. When my friend would visit them in Arizona, he was subjected to one flat-earth yootoob video after another.
I remember when I was about 13 or 14, I came up with some sort of progressive betting strategy for even odds bets (I knew that Martingale didn't work, but "mine was better") and was convinced that I'd become wildly rich because I'd thought of something that hadn't occurred to any casino or bookie in the world because I was just so smart.I think people like Billy are forever st
In the 1990's there were a spate of 'Win at Blackjack without Counting Cards' themed books. Virtually all of them involved some kind of betting progression that of course had nothing to do with the points in the deck(s).
In the 1990's there were a spate of 'Win at Blackjack without Counting Cards' themed books. Virtually all of them involved some kind of betting progression that of course had nothing to do with the points in the deck(s).
They are still here, in the form of "gambling gurus" on social media and YouTube, and always will be.
Billy, if you had to have a rare moment of introspection, would you say that your problem is that you're mostly stupid, mostly crazy, or some combination of both?
FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!
A possible third option is that he's just been trolling us this whole time.
A fourth option is that his genuis is so far beyond our comprehension that dummies like us just assume he's stupid or crazy or trolling.
5. You do not see, even when you are shown.
There is no evidence, no matter how irrefutable (here for instance you ignore Newtonian mechanics, mathematics, classical logic, direct measurement, photographs, video, eye witness accounts) that will cause you to question the 9/11 official narrative.
It is simply groupthink, the group tells you what to think. There is a psychological test whereby the subject is presented with 2 lines, one clearly longer than the other. The rest of the group are plants who claim the shorter line is actually the longer line. Most subjects go along with the lie in order to
a) fit in
b) think they must be wrong because the majority must be right
c) think they have misunderstood the question
It is fear of social shame, generally.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
"I'm the sane one, it's all the others who are crazy," said every crazy person ever.
Trust me, if you had irrefutably proved something, people would be paying attention. The only thing you have irrefutably proved here is that you are a ****ing lunatic.
Re: "You do not see, even when you are shown."
Sounds like flat-earthers even when shown hundreds of NASA photographs.
Funny he hasn't seen that nist doesn't say the complete collapse happened in 10 seconds anywhere, yet he proceeds as if they do.
Funny he hasn't seen that video evidence clearly demonstrates the collapses took 15 and 22 seconds, yet he proceeds as if it doesn't.
Funny he hasn't seen that there is no shortage of debris from the collapses despite multiple sources and no counter-evidence, yet he proceeds as if there is.
Funny that all his conclusions depend on not seeing these things.
"I'm the sane one, it's all the others who are crazy," said every crazy person ever.
Trust me, if you had irrefutably proved something, people would be paying attention. The only thing you have irrefutably proved here is that you are a ****ing lunatic.
Wrong. There are many who do see.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Funny he hasn't seen that nist doesn't say the complete collapse happened in 10 seconds anywhere, yet he proceeds as if they do.Funny he hasn't seen that video evidence clearly demonstrates the collapses took 15 and 22 seconds, yet he proceeds as if it doesn't.Funny he hasn't seen that there is no shortage of debris from the collapses despite multiple sources and no counter-evi
Need I remind you that you yourself provided a statement from "experts" saying the collapse was done in 9 seconds.
Nist claimed "within 12 seconds" and "9 and 11 seconds" for wtc 1 and 2.
Seismic data proves 10 s average time.
A further report states "within 10 seconds".
Your "multiple sources" includes unsubstantiated claims of 1.8m tonnes, on the assumption the towers collapsed i.e. begging the question fallacy.
Your interpretation of video evidence is secondary to expert hostile witnesses I cite from Nist and other sources as above.
The debris (lack of), the dustification, the strange fires, the molecular effects, the low temps, magnetic effects, etc etc - these are what we (you do not) see.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Funny he hasn't seen that nist doesn't say the complete collapse happened in 10 seconds anywhere, yet he proceeds as if they do.Funny he hasn't seen that video evidence clearly demonstrates the collapses took 15 and 22 seconds, yet he proceeds as if it doesn't.Funny he hasn't seen that there is no shortage of debris from the collapses despite multiple sources and no counter-evi
Funny and amazin'!
I saw videos 'with my own eyes' that showed the collapse in real time(s) at 15 to 22 seconds.
So, am I supposed to trust what I see or not?
n.b. I don't have a dog in this fight. In fact, I'm kinda rooting for some Laser Theory/ Lizard People Theory/The Buildings Are Still There But Invisible Theory to be true. Those theories are far more interesting than the relatively mundane Official Narrative (TM Pending).
I saw videos 'with my own eyes' that showed the collapse in real time(s) at 15 to 22 seconds. So, am I supposed to trust what I see or not?n.b. I don't have a dog in this fight. In fact, I'm kinda rooting for some Laser Theory/ Lizard People Theory/The Buildings Are Still There But Invisible Theory to be true. Those theories are far more interesting than the relatively mun
Yeah you are a conspiritard, we know.
If you think the collapse was 15 to 22 s then ok. But that is not the official story.
Cherry picking from the official story and mad stuff people think they saw is mental gymnastics of such intensity I am surprised y'all can function.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Run Forest, run!
