[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Billy what do you make of this live view?

https://www.youtube.com/live/m3kR2KK8TEs...

As of right now there is the earth in the rear view mirror.

Californication.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

No chance he confronts this. It will be handwaved away just like that every time.

It's a defense mechanism.

Avoiding the hard questions as usual, I see, Billy.

Oh, apropos of nothing in particular - when reading the other forum you linked, I noticed that the conspiratards there also seem to struggle with the meaning of "ad hominem", just like Billy. Must be a common broke brain thing.

Conspiritards who deny measurements from NIST for instance. NIST deniers, perhaps.

Also ad hom noted.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Billy, are you employed? What do you do for work?

No one denies the measurement done by nist, liar. Everyone here agrees that nist measured the time from collapse initiation until the first exterior panels to hit the ground using seismic data.

We just underrated that's not the total time of the collapse. You're demonstrably too stupid to understand that and here we are 3 weeks later with you prancing around on the chessboard you **** all over like you won.

Good heavens no. Imagine. Work.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Nope. I didn't say I am right BECAUSE everyone here agrees. That would make it a fallacy. I said everyone here is laughing at you because I want you to stop embarrassing yourself. This has nothing to do with the validity of any claim I make. Therefore it is not a fallacy. You are just as bad at understanding basic logic as every other thing you do.

How did they measure that? Give the exact citation with page number so we can read about how they measured it. (good luck)

Would you call anyone that finds an error or misstatement in a nist report a nist-denier? I don't find it an appropriate name for someone that finds an error or misstatement in a report, but I fully agree that I disagree with any statement that claims the collapse was over in 12 seconds. You should, too, since it's blatantly obvious visually.

So, given that it is visually obvious that the collapse was not finished in 12 seconds, why do you NOT disagree with nist? You should actually answer that question.

Yeah, I heard they're not too big on working up there north of the M25. Where do you get money to waste on Judy Wood books then? My taxes?

For all the reasons, I hope that billy is nowhere near a classroom.

Ah yes sweet free universal credits. All the sweeter knowing you have grafted for it.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Why is 2+2 eating half of my punctuation suddenly? That's really weird.

Here is the link to the 302 page NIST report.

Pay particular attention to the comments

"Essentially in free fall"

And

"Within 12 seconds".

https://www.nist.gov/el/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

NIST

Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Is that a reproducible observation, or?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

by 1&onlybillyshears m

Here is the link to the 302 page NIST report.

Pay particular attention to the comments

"Essentially in free fall"

And

"Within 12 seconds".

https://www.nist.gov/el/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

NIST

Final Reports from the NIST World Trade Center Disaster Investigation

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I know how to find the nist report you idiot. I told you to give the exact citation. Do you not understand any of the words in that request?

It's been reproduced many times, so obviously yes.

Let me guess, you have a mental health disability so you get that free layabout money for life?

To be fair, in your case it's actually probably true.

Billy's idea of inadmissible evidence - things everyone can see with their own eyes in pictures and videos, experts who don't say what he wants to hear, and anything he doesn't like, no matter how bulletproof, so he calls it "not reproducible".

Billy' idea of dispositive evidence - things only Billy and his conspiratard chums claim to be able to see in pictures and videos, experts who say what he wants to hear, and anything he does like, no matter how tenuous, so he calls it "scientific".

Now, now, I know it is a long report, probably longer than anything you have read before. Take your time.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Not quite what reproducibility means but never mind! Keep trying!

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Billy, what was your diagnosis for being signed off work? Did they find you so stupid and pig-headed and insufferable that they figured you'd be a net negative in the workforce?

So you can't provide the exact citation for your quote? Cool. Your claim is dismissed as unsupported and my point stands. Thanks for trying.