[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Consult the map I have repeatedly posted and assess the photographic evidence alongside that. It is not possible.

Note the plan view of the damage to wtc5 shows vertical holes. Further images from inside the damaged tower further prove the holes are vertical. Feel free to consult that also. I have included wtc6 damage for reference although note the below refers to Wtc5. No problem, all holes are photographed totally vertically. Therefore no laterally ejected object from WTC1 (and obviously not from wtc2) can have caused the holes.

Note the distance from wtc1 to wtc5 on the map. Let us say 60 m conservatively. Recall that the objects massive enough to have a hope of causing the hole damage to wtc5 must be low down the tower, let's say the 55th floor, around 200 m.

For an object ejected horizontally (by what? Air pressure? An object massive enough to crush 8 floors? Whatevs) its final vertical velocity is around 60 m/s. Time of descent around 6 s. Horizontal velocity around 10 m/s. Its angle of incidence to wtc5 would be about 80 degrees.

Prediction: 80 degrees.
Observation: 90 degrees.

Falling debris is once more disproven to have caused the holes in wtc5.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I reject that your quibbling about inconsistencies in the data goes over my head or that you have disproven anything with your steelman logic. My argument is relatively simple: two planes striking the two towers had enough force to weaken the structures. The destructive force of the resultant fires further weaken the structures and then the combination of the two led to the structure breaking apart and then gravity and falling mass took over.

You can try your best with pictures or incorrect formulas and argue about meteors and lasers but you have provided nothing after all your posts that even credibility disproves the above.

Tons of things sail over my head, none of your bullshit does. You are just an attention seeking whore, you have no ability to explain the mechanics of this collapse.

Lmao, you think with all these massive approximations you are making you are precise enough to identify a difference of 10%? Just lmao, you are probably within a 50% error if you're lucky. And also hearty lol at being able to identify an attack angle of exactly 90 degrees by looking at that picture of a hole. More clownery from you.

Also, just to again point out your massive hypocrisy - apparently when it suits you, we can accurately assess debris volumes and attack angles by looking at pictures, but when it doesn't, we can't even approximately time how long it takes a building to collapse by watching a video. Complete and utter intellectual dishonesty from you yet again.

That depends on whether you have the required acumen to understand it.

You asked why the steel did not just vapourise instead of dustifying. Tell me what you understand by that. Recall that ambient temperatures are proven to have not been high.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Guys, look at the pictures! That is the only evidence I have, just look at them! Oh and the map! That proves everything!

"Largely vertical". 80 degrees is "largely vertical" lol.

Anyway, I'm not really interested in your proofs by claiming to accurately assess attack angles of falling projectiles and debris volumes from looking at pictures. Are you going to explain how things get turned to dust or what?

Vertical. 90 degrees.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

"Dont tell me facts".

"Tell me speculation".

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I thought we had arrived at the truth, Sherlock. What happened to:

Yes.

Yes, large parts of it fell laterally and downwards. All of it fell downwards.

Yep, and you would realize it if you weren't striking dumb.

Since one of the main characteristics of laser beams is that they are extremely narrow and concentrated, I wouldn't think they were very effective as huge-massive-building dustifiers. I mean there's various reasons, but that's one.

Especially since BillytheBoob has repeatedly told us not to believe easily manipulated pictures (e.g. photos of Earth from outer space) and rather trust the experts. (Except,of course, when the experts disagree with BillytheBoob, in which case we trust the easily-manipulated pictures.)

Do you believe this photo has been doctored to make it look like a 90 degree impact when it was in fact 80 degrees? Was this done by Dr Judy Wood, in order to discredit progressive collapse and promote DEW for the purpose of selling a book? She has somehow manipulated every photo online to make all the holes look vertical?

So what purpose would manipulation serve and by whom? It is nonsense. 9/11 was a hugely documented event. All of the images and video and eye witness testimony verifying the exact same phenomena. To manipulate the record would require conspiritarding on an impossible scale.

So we are in agreeement then, the data from 9/11 can be trusted. Or are you a sneaky closet conspiritard? Hmm?

On the contrary, NASA personnel admit that their images are composite "because they have to be". Sure there are a few claimed full Earth images, and the Artemis tomfoolery but that is just a small porky they are telling. And who will find out? Nobody. Who will care? Nobody. The cult will sustain itself forever and ever because useful fools will lap it up. Fools who cannot even distinguish between fact and fiction. Your average American is so stupid they believe you already have space stations set up on the Moon and Mars and the entire solar system has been colonised. They cannot differentiate between movies and news. That is the level of dumbfeckery your people are at.

Qui bono from all this fakery? NASA itself ofc and all the billions of dollars of funding to keep the gravy train rolling.

So we see your point is an idiotic one.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Can you perhaps enlighten us why the Earth being round benefits NASA? What would be the reasoning behind cutting their funding if it came out that the Earth were flat, or toroidal?

Also, I guess you have forgotten yet again about all the non-composite pictures of Earth you were shown. Or, more likely, you're just lying again because your tiny broken brain is incapable of onboarding any information that contradicts your deeply held ****tarded beliefs.

No, I think the photo is legit.

You're the one who believes in a 9/11 conspiracy, dude. Remember??

What is the motive for NASA, every government in the world, and every university in the world to lie about the shape of the Earth?

I don't personally think BillyBeanBag is lying. I'm going with the Broken Brain Theory. Which apparently manifests itself by way of Selective Memory Syndrome.

Interesting showing a video post-collapse and implying all of the damage came from the impact only. When I say interesting I mean typically intellectually dishonest.

The conspiracy theory is the plane hijacking. That's you. A silly conspiritard. The actual conspiracy is the PFANAC using resources at their disposal, i.e. intel and military, to organise mass murder of 3000 new yorkers. They also went on to kill a million Iraqis using 9/11 to garner political support etc etc.

Qui bono. That is what you need to ask yourself.

Universities? Are you on speed brother thinking they are "lying" or "telling the truth"? They *think* Earth is a ball because of all the "proofs". There was an amazing interview where a flat earther cornered a professor of astrophysics. The prof was like "yeah well we have day and night". That is the standard of proof they need. They just assume it. See, this question is of no interest to researchers in most fields, even astronomy, the one subject you might think it is relevant. It is not. It makes no difference to how observations are done. Which is by elevation angles etc. Angles. Angles between straight lines. You need a flat earth to even take measurements of earth and the night sky.

They are not lying about it. Even the astro-nots probably still think it's a ball. They have not been high enough (altitude-wise not the crack the artemis team are doing to pass the time) to tell. That bit is the scam. And that is explained by large amounts of money that otherwise would not be available if there were no "Space" to "explore".

Do you know that large numbers of pilots think Earth is flat, and more of them think Earth is not flat? Go figure what that means.

Do you think "governments" made up of people mostly as thick as the people they rule over would have any idea about... anything?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

He can’t explain anything. He can only discredit based on insignificant details that are irrelevant. He is king of the strawmen.

Cicero's famous phrase is actually 'Cui bono?', 'cui' being the dative singular of 'qui' (i.e. 'to whom').

That would seem to be a sufficient reason.

Obviously not.

It means there are more sane pilots than crazy pilots, which is a good thing.

I am not entirely convinced that you are the supremely exceptional master intellect that you appear to think you are.

Billy, did something really traumatic happen in your life to cause you to have a complete psychotic break with reality, or have you just been an abject moron since you can remember? I ask because am torn between having some sympathy for you but also thinking that it should probably be criminal to be this ****ing stupid, ignorant, pig-headed, and obnoxiously intellectually dishonest.

So, you don't believe planes hit the towers, you don't believe the Earth is ball-shaped, and you don't believe that anyone has been to the moon.

And I'M the Conspirtar*?

Add 'Conspiracy Theorist' to the ever-growing list of terms that BillyGoat doesn't know the definition of.