[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
Well you totally misquoted him last time so your credibility in that regard is completely shot. And it's quickly becoming completely shot in every other regard too, considering the evidence you keep promising to post is still conspicuous by its absence.
Quick shower... and here.
Here we have gorgo expressly denying inward collapse. Inward collapse is precisely the NIST claim. Cannot both be right. I am on team gorgo, weirdly.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Judy Wood is a kook. As rickroll pointed out in another thread, there are tens of millions of people worldwide with comparable qualifications and, by the law of large numbers, a few of them are going to be kooks. Or she's a grifter, coining it in from gullible saps like you.So, are we to understand that you are not in fact going to post any more evidence? Ok, that brings the su
Ah well if a guy calling himself rickroll says it then we definitely should dismiss assertions from qualified professionals.
But ofc, we ought not to appeal to authority in any case. We should assess the merits of the evidence. I don't see why at least the website cannot be viewed, it's free!
https://www.doctorjudywood.com/wp/
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
1. Gave detailed reasons why nist report is impossible.
2. Presented photographic evidence to support point 1 and suggest what did happen to the towers.
3. Gave further reading and reference material to explore.
Greater than zero.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ah well if a guy calling himself rickroll says it then we definitely should dismiss assertions from qualified professionals.
But ofc, we ought not to appeal to authority in any case. We should assess the merits of the evidence. I don't see why at least the website cannot be viewed, it's free!
https://www.doctorjudywood.com/wp/
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Had a quick look at the "Dustification" section. I see a lot in the way of pictures (that you've already posted) and claims being made, and nothing in the way of evidence for any of these claims.
1. Gave detailed reasons why nist report is impossible.
2. Presented photographic evidence to support point 1 and suggest what did happen to the towers.
3. Gave further reading and reference material to explore.
Greater than zero.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
1. No, you didn't. If you did (other than "dustification"), I haven't seen them.
2. No, you didn't. Nobody else sees what you claim to see.
3. Not evidence without specific links. "Go read this book" is not evidence.
Billy, I'm really beginning to suspect that you don't understand what "evidence" is. Showing a picture of lots of dust is not evidence that a building turned to dust.
Had a quick look at the "Dustification" section. I see a lot in the way of pictures (that you've already posted) and claims being made, and nothing in the way of evidence for any of these claims.
So this is the first time you have even looked at the website (which is just a fraction of the total evidence she has given in the book and in many interviews) yet you see fit to misrepresent with this space laser nonsense.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
So this is the first time you have even looked at the website (which is just a fraction of the total evidence she has given in the book and in many interviews) yet you see fit to misrepresent with this space laser nonsense.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Where else would the lasers have been fired from? I have provided exactly as much evidence for my space laser theory as you have for your "dustification" theory - my own speculation.
Oh, wait, no, you showed us some pictures of dust. Ok, here is a picture of a space laser firing at WTC1 on 9/11:
Billy, I'm really beginning to suspect that you don't understand what "evidence" is. Showing a picture of lots of dust is not evidence that a building turned to dust.
It is part of the evidence, a starting point. Totally rejecting the idea is absurd based on the quantity of dust and the way the metal is seen to be disintegrating as it falls. I'd say the video is a better source of evidence in fact.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Well I don't believe in crazy things. Maybe that is your problem, you cannot apply scientific and logical principles so you end up believing mad conspiracy theories like the towers collapsed or were demolished conventionally.
Tell me one of your other crazy beliefs and I will try and convert you from that too.
Note well I put 'crazy' in quotation marks. Some of my views (such as my advocacy for Young Earth Creationism and my belief in a literal Adam and Eve) are considered not worthy of serious consideration by many.
I am putting this out there for the sake of posterity and, to be honest, it is kind of amusing to witness a bunch of dunning-krugers hopelessly grapple with the scientific method while attempting to use it to prove their conspiracy theories.
Here, see this website.
Thanks for the link. I'll for sure give it a look.
Better still, buy a copy of the full work, get much more information, and support Judy who has put her career and livelihood on the line so that lazy people like you can know what happened.
Poor Judy. I hope her great personal sacrifice on behalf of us lazy folks will not be in vain.
/s
Note well I put 'crazy' in quotation marks. Some of my views (such as my advocacy for Young Earth Creationism and my belief in a literal Adam and Eve) are considered not worthy of serious consideration by many.
I suspect that if your creation "model" advocated for a flat earth, Billy would be a lot more receptive. As it is, you're just another flavour of roundie.
Where else would the lasers have been fired from? I have provided exactly as much evidence for my space laser theory as you have for your "dustification" theory - my own speculation.Oh, wait, no, you showed us some pictures of dust. Ok, here is a picture of a space laser firing at WTC1 on 9/11:
Maybe it's late where you are.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Note well I put 'crazy' in quotation marks. Some of my views (such as my advocacy for Young Earth Creationism and my belief in a literal Adam and Eve) are considered not worthy of serious consideration by many.
Thanks for the link. I'll for sure give it a look.
Poor Judy. I hope her great personal sacrifice on behalf of us lazy folks will not be in vain.
/s
They're hard materialists, disinterest in such things does not surprise me.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Quick shower... and here.Here we have gorgo expressly denying inward collapse. Inward collapse is precisely the NIST claim. Cannot both be right. I am on team gorgo, weirdly.Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
See if you can spot the difference between what I said and what you claim I said:
Inward BUCKLING obviously happened. Inward collapse (as in exclusively inward) is obviously not present in that photo. Parts of the building fell in all directions, but the BUCKLING OF THE COLUMNS WAS INWARD DMFK
That's twice you've attempted to quote me, changed my words to mean something entirely different from what I said, and then doubled down on it after I told you you were wrong. I've demonstrated that you've done this twice now. You are either illiterate or lying, again. How many times do we have to do this?
0 for 2, Billy, not a great record.
Billy was fun for awhile, now, he's just sad.
The magic is your ideas about how two steel frame skyscrapers engineered to withstand the impact of jet planes both come down the way they did along with another 47 story building producing molten steel that persisted for months burning under the rubble.
I may have found the evidence that deuces was relying on for his molten steel rivers in the debris. I’m sure LB must have some pictures somewhere.
The two steel framed skyscrapers did withstand the impact of jet planes. They did not withstand the fire and resulting structural damage, but they did exactly what they were designed to do.
There is no evidence of molten steel anywhere at the site.
Luckbox is just as gullible to the lies as the others, apparently.
See if you can spot the difference between what I said and what you claim I said: Inward BUCKLING obviously happened. Inward collapse (as in exclusively inward) is obviously not present in that photo. Parts of the building fell in all directions, but the BUCKLING OF THE COLUMNS WAS INWARD DMFKThat's twice you've attempted to quote me, changed my words to mean something entirel
So, inward buckling and outward collapse. Collapse means down. And in all directions. That correct?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
