[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
No.My argument is that progressive collapse is impossible. The time for such a phenomenon to happen is longer than the observed time.If you agree with this and want to go further I have signposted you to the suggested reading. If you do not want to buy the book Judy Wood has done interviews also, freely available online. There is the david hughes report also. A good interview i
Right, which obviously points towards no planes hitting the wtc but instead the use of energy weapons. My point is, is arguing in defense of those things over collapse speed seems to be a little more relevant to the core parts of the argument than building collapse speed - even if you feel it is a prerequisite for those beliefs.
Anyway, the site is very heavily consistent with those beliefs as each link here looks to be a rather lengthy video. But anyway, I do appreciate the link
Show Ref Guest / Subject Topics Discussed Release Date Select
293 Andrew Johnson What is the reason for MSM change in attitude towards UFO's ? 30-11-2021 Watch
291 9/11 Trick Show An explanation about why the 9/11 video and radar analysis was undertaken 10-09-2021 Watch
277 Andrew Johnson Israel and its influence over America 29-11-2019 Watch
256 Chris Hampton Jo Cox, Birmingham 6, Sex, climate, 9/11 technology 01-08-2018 Watch
244 Mark Conlon & A. Johnson 9/11 disinfo and lack of evidence of planes 09-09-2017 Watch
233 Richard D. Hall Puppets, Middle East & 9/11 Video Analysis 21-10-2016 Watch
231 Andrew Johnson David Icke's work, the CIA, 9/11 & disinformation 23-09-2016 Watch
221 Dr Judy Wood Directed energy weapon used on 9/11 24-01-2016 Watch
213 Andrew Johnson Is there a link between crop circles & 9/11 24-11-2015 Watch
178 Richard D. Hall 2014 Lecture - Perfidious Planet 26-04-2014 Watch
177 Morgan Reynolds Evidence which shows planes were not used on 9/11 29-03-2014 Watch
166 Richard D. Hall 2013 UK Tour: 9/11 cover up, media & money 02-08-2013 Watch
144 Richard D. Hall Horse psy-op, Saville psy-op, Horsham, Twins & UFOs! 08-03-2013 Watch
143 Dr Judy Wood A lecture about WHAT happened on 9/11 - Part 2 01-03-2013 Watch
142 Dr Judy Wood A lecture about WHAT happened on 9/11 - Part 1 22-02-2013 Watch
140 Dr. Judy Wood Energy weapon used on 9/11 & the cover up 08-02-2013 Watch
129 Best of Richplanet 1 9/11 & the technology behind it 09-11-2012 Watch
122 Andrew Johnson 9/11 energy weapon & the cold fusion cover up 21-09-2012 Watch
108 Andrew Johnson Comparing video and radar evidence on 9/11 15-06-2012 Watch
85 Andrew Johnson Directed energy weapons and the 9/11 cover up 06-01-2012 Watch
78 Dr. Judy Wood - Part 2 9/11, "Where Did The Towers Go" 18-11-2011 Watch
76 Dr. Judy Wood - Part 1 9/11, "Where Did The Towers Go" 11-11-2011 Watch
58 Andrew Johnson Dr. Judy Woods Book: Where Did The Towers Go? 27-05-2011 Watch
10 Andrew Johnson 9/11 Physical evidence, what happened to the towers 25-06-2010 Watch
9 Andrew Johnson 9/11 TV footage and amateur video analysis 18-06-2010 Watch
Within 12 seconds would be 12 seconds minus epsilon for any epsilon greater than zero. I don't know where you got that 0.5 seconds is the smallest possible epsilon. Made it up like everything else?
Deflection noted, 5. (To be clear, this is your continued refusal to give opinion on causation and clarify collapse time. Options you have so far claimed: <12, 12-13, 15 and 22).
Significant figure error. Before you were claiming that 10 s is basically 12 s and now you expect an uncertainty better than half a second.
What a tangled web of contradictions you are weaving d2.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Please just tell me why I shouldn't believe my eyes when I watch the video. And please tell me why I SHOULD believe my eyes on your random dustbowl pics. And please tell me why I should NOT believe my eyes when I see NASA pics of earth from outer space.
I'm confused...and you're the sole source of that confusion.
You should believe your eyes when watching the video. Then you will see the towers disintegrating into dust. You can see huge chunks of metal quite literally becoming fumes of dust before they hit the ground. Watch again, carefully.
What you will not be able to do is measure a collapse time for a building that did not collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Deflection noted, 5. (To be clear, this is your continued refusal to give opinion on causation and clarify collapse time. Options you have so far claimed: <12, 12-13, 15 and 22).Significant figure error. Before you were claiming that 10 s is basically 12 s and now you expect an uncertainty better than half a second.What a tangled web of contradictions you are weaving d2.Sent
You corrected me on the significant figure error, remember. I didn't object to your correction.
Regardless, if the uncertainty is half a second, it goes in both directions. You can't say "within 12 seconds" means "no more than 11.5 seconds" without also conceding that it could mean "no more than 12.5 seconds". Why don't you just go with the plain reading of the words and go with "no more than 12 seconds"? You seem to have a lot of problems with plain reading of English words when it suits you to have them.
That "within 12 seconds" actually means "no more than 11.5 seconds" might be your most bizarre claim so far, and that's saying something.
Deflection noted, 5. (To be clear, this is your continued refusal to give opinion on causation and clarify collapse time. Options you have so far claimed: <12, 12-13, 15 and 22).
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
You can count to ten ****ing thousand for all I care, I told you, I'll answer your questions when you answer mine. I asked first.
You should believe your eyes when watching the video. Then you will see the towers disintegrating into dust. You can see huge chunks of metal quite literally becoming fumes of dust before they hit the ground. Watch again, carefully.
What you will not be able to do is measure a collapse time for a building that did not collapse.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I saw the videos that literally showed towers collapsing. And I don't recall you giving a coherent critique of that video. If I somehow missed your thoughtful critique of those videos, please link it so I can read it. Thanks a bunch, honeybunch!
Notably absent from any video of the collapse:
Any metal turning to dust. You do see a bunch of dust from concrete and drywall (and other normal things) being crushed and turned into clouds of dust, but nowhere do you see metal turning to dust.
Very conspicuous in every video of the collapses:
The collapses
I see billy learned a new word "deflection". Doesn't quite live up to "ad hom", but it's pretty good.
Can we all pause for a second to appreciate the genius of Billy's argument that the plain English phrase "within12 seconds" does not, in fact, include the range 11.5-12 seconds. That one is going in the "proof by (mis)definition" hall of fame, next to Billy's definitions of science, physics and gravity that prove the Earth has no curvature.
Did billy ever explain whether he believes magnetic poles exist, and if so, where he believes they are located?
billy doesn't explain. billy tells.
You corrected me on the significant figure error, remember. I didn't object to your correction.Regardless, if the uncertainty is half a second, it goes in both directions. You can't say "within 12 seconds" means "no more than 11.5 seconds" without also conceding that it could mean "no more than 12.5 seconds". Why don't you just go with the plain reading of the words and go with
That is the correct interpretation. Within 12 seconds is < 12 seconds. Hence 11.5 seconds. Which coincides with the upper bound for their 11 s claim in the faqs. It is reasonable to expect the nist report to reflect the faqs and vice versa. And lo, it does.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
That is the correct interpretation. Within 12 seconds is < 12 seconds. Hence 11.5 seconds. Which coincides with the upper bound for their 11 s claim in the faqs. It is reasonable to expect the nist report to reflect the faqs and vice versa. And lo, it does.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So what would they say if they wanted to use the "within x seconds" construct but their number was 11.8 seconds. Would they then say "within 13 seconds"?
No, we would not expect the report to match the FAQs because the FAQs refer to times for exterior panels and the report refers to a time for total collapse. This has now been explained to you 946,435 times but you are unable to get it through your thick skull because you are very stupid.
Can everyone just pause for a second to appreciate the genius of the statement "within 12 seconds means less than 12 seconds, hence 11.5 seconds". Apparently for some unknown reason, we can only measure time in half-second intervals now.
Is half a second the Planck time on your planet, Billy?
Billy, this is an important theoretical point. Do times between half seconds and whole seconds exist? Is it possible to have a time of, say, 1.7 seconds?
Can we all pause for a second to appreciate the genius of Billy's argument that the plain English phrase "within12 seconds" does not, in fact, include the range 11.5-12 seconds. That one is going in the "proof by (mis)definition" hall of fame, next to Billy's definitions of science, physics and gravity that prove the Earth has no curvature.
Correct, within 12 seconds does not include 12 seconds. It does include say 11.9 seconds but since nist quote to 2 sf, the upper bound is 11.5 s.
Oh look, they also say in their faqs that the collapse occurred in 9 s and 11 s. The upper bound of 11 s is 11.5 s. Consistent with the figure in their own report. As if by magic, within 12 s also includes their 9 s claim. And shock horror, 9 s and within 10 s are the figures quoted by independent experts.
But wait, 2p2 says otherwise. They say the figures are for an exterior panel. We see that 2p2 is wrong. The buildings collapsed in 9 and 11 s. That is the nist claim.
And that leaves progressive collapse in the... dust.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So what would they say if they wanted to use the "within x seconds" construct but their number was 11.8 seconds. Would they then say "within 13 seconds"?No, we would not expect the report to match the FAQs because the FAQs refer to times for exterior panels and the report refers to a time for total collapse. This has now been explained to you 946,435 times but you are unable to
Oh dear.
Significant figure error.
Learn how to report measurements. Then we'll talk.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Billy, this is an important theoretical point. Do times between half seconds and whole seconds exist? Is it possible to have a time of, say, 1.7 seconds?
Where did you school again? I dont mean college etc. This is year 7. How to take a measurement and record it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Good lord you are a complete ****ing moron.
Where did you school again? I dont mean college etc. This is year 7. How to take a measurement and record it.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I went to school somewhere where 1.7 seconds is considered "within 2 seconds". You? It's a trick question, it's pretty obvious you didn't go to school.
