[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

I am stringent on defining terms.

The progressive collapse scenario is thoroughly debunked. That most of the towers turned to dust is but one of the reasons.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I did not see anything you posted that outwardly looked like a picture of a solid metal structure turning into dust.

You're not very good at this are you? It clearly isn't, because that's what you're attempting to prove right now. You are trying to persuade us it is debunked, remember? You seem to have this recurring problem of assuming the thing you're trying to prove. It almost makes me think that your claim of being a member of the scientific community might not be 100% true.

You do not see.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Show me where I said I was surprised it was not brought down in less than 9 seconds. I dare you.

Add liar to the list of your gross characteristics.

I'm not clicking view on all of those posts. Is this dmbfck posting pictures weeks into cleanup and asking where the debris is?

jfc

And I also saw the "spire turned to dust claim" in that mess. No idiot, the spire collapsed and left the dust that was clinging to it suspended in the air behind it.

It's tough to read this kind of stupidity and not experience pain TWENTY FIVE YEARS LATER.

There's video of this "spire" (it's part of the central core columns that the floors were stripped from) that stood a few seconds after collapse. The video clearly shows it collapsing and leaving dust suspended in the air behind it. This dmbfck saw a compressed 180p video where the compression artifacts make it look like (if you squint and read that someone tells you it's video of the spire getting "dustified) it turns into a dust cloud.

The clear video shows it collapsing unambiguously and this dishpit has never bothered to look at it. Or he has and he's just lying by showing you grainy photographs instead of the video.

One really clear example is at the end of this video:

You can clearly still see the central core columns standing and when the camera pans back up, you see it drop to the ground, leaving dust behind. It's clearly falling down and not being turned to dust.

Do you double dare tho?

You said you were surprised the towers did not fall at a rate faster than g. I hope you don't mind me adding the implication of this. I.e. less than 9 seconds.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Incredible. If you are seeing a building collapse then ok.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

We see multiple pieces of solid steel turned to dust in less than 10 s.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Watch this video. Ask yourself what this is, what is happening?

Is this "inward buckling"? "Progressive collapse"?

Observe the pieces of steel as they fall. The trajectory of the dust clouds.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yes.

I 100% did not. Again, show me where I said that. You won't because you can't.

Because you are a liar.

Thank you for demonstrating you are not being serious.

How else have you proven it?

I haven't provided anything because I'm not trying to prove anything.

I see a spire engulfed by dust. I don't see a spire turning into dust.

In any case, if your statement is "watch the video, the buildings unequivocally turn to dust" then that's your whole case. We don't need to discuss collapse times, since your collapse time calculations are a priori predicated on the buildings turning to dust - you know, the whole assuming the thing you're trying to prove thing.

If your whole case is that this footage shows the buildings turning to dust, I find your case unpersuasive. You got anything else or is that it?

Man posts pictures of huge pile of rubble and then says, 'Where's the rubble?' (There were 1.8 million tons of it and it took eight months to shift.) But, for a disciple of Simon Shack, one of those people who think rockets can't work in space without air to 'push against', that's not surprising.

Though it does raise the issue of how the dustifying space lasers ever got into Earth orbit.

I don't think this meme has ever been more appropriate.

Billy, it'd be more fun if you list some of the other things you believe, since your 9/11 theories seem to have been a swing and a miss. We know about the flat Earth stuff. Do you also believe rockets don't work in space as 57's post suggests?

Is this true, Billy? Have you been lying about the rubble pictures? Son, I am disappoint. You know what is turning to dust? My faith in you, that's what.

I believe 57's claim that there were 1.8 million tons of rubble. That seems like a lot of mass to trigger a progressive collapse. Do you have any evidence that this figure is inaccurate?

The NIST collapse times are impossible on the assumption there was inward buckling causing progressive collapse. This I have proven without reference to dustification but purely on the basis of the law of inertia. I do not need to provide anything further in order to disprove NIST.

But, if their story is false then we might ask what did happen. This starts with assessing the evidence. Which we are now doing.

The idea you would be publicly persuaded by anything that is not the official narrative is absurd. Every post you make spews hubris. Privately though, that cognitive dissonance... Embrace it.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Where? I have not seen this proof. Before you post it, you might want to review it to ensure it's not assuming the thing it's trying to prove.

Stop with this Deuces psychobabble bullshit. I'll be persuaded by something if it's persuasive. Nothing I've seen from you so far is.

Wow that was painful looking through gorgo's rage posts.

Here.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

He said "didn't fall faster", not "didn't fall faster than g". You understand that those are different claims, don't you, Billy?

Now we are beginning to look at hard evidence, you switch to open ad hom attack and suddenly want to move on? Interesting.

My advice is to steer clear of his posts given his slur implying I am anti-semitic.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk