• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Airplanes can bury themselves completely in the ground.

I would have though that if BS had a video that blew this whole thing wide open he'd show it. I would. Straight away..... I wouldn't dance around it's existance....

It's like a kid i was at school with who'd make outrageous claims about his family and answered every question with either "Na-er" whilst laughing to himself he was fooling everyone into thinking his family consisted of millionaire SAS space-heros.....

Seriously BS if you have a claim, try to back it up. Be the bigger man.....
 
You know....even if I couldn't show the videos the sheer evasiveness concerned citizens have seen here tonight tells it's own story .
 
He/she has no 'live' video. He/she has nothing. Never will. He/she is a complete failure. Bill Smith fails at failure.

Hmmm...not to be too picky..but if you fail at failure..technically that makes you a success. :) might want to change that wording a little there.

What I don't understand, is what's wrong with the pictures that have already been presented? Anybody else see wing impressions? I do.
 
You know....even if I couldn't show the videos the sheer evasiveness concerned citizens have seen here tonight tells it's own story .

Who's being evasive Bill, some guy who makes a claim there are videos showing no wing marks? Or the concerned citizens who ask that guy to show them the videos?

Once again Bill, as somebody who is desperately trying to take you seriously, show us the videos, so we can comment on them.
 
Hmmm...not to be too picky..but if you fail at failure..technically that makes you a success. :) might want to change that wording a little there.

What I don't understand, is what's wrong with the pictures that have already been presented? Anybody else see wing impressions? I do.

Shhhhh...
 
You know....even if I couldn't show the videos the sheer evasiveness concerned citizens have seen here tonight tells it's own story .

In other words you have no video and you think that the fact people won't comment on the meaning of a video that doesn't even exist tells you something...

Wow. You'll read whatever you want into anything won't you?
 
Looks like it's my bedtime in this here time zone. G'night Boys...

1FAIL.jpg
 
Looks like it's my bedtime in this here time zone. G'night Boys...

So, claims something, fails to back it up, dodges loads of questions and runs away.

Another "BS Win"....

I like to give people a chance but BS is pushing it... however i suspect that's all he's here for.....
 
I was waiting for his idea on what the answer is he wants. What answer is he looking for to match his moronic delusions?

Flight 93 impacted at 600 mph the impact makes a ground impression. Not exactly the same as flight 11 and 175; but you get an idea with these impacts what you would expect in a high speed impact.

wtc1impact.jpg

wing marks in steel and Al, would wings leave marks in dirt... yes they can
wtc2impact-1.jpg

Both WTC towers wing marks are present.

What was the question?
Impact KE of 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT at the WTC towers. What was the KE of 93's impact? 1600 pounds of TNT; which is relative to the damage done to the ground and aircraft.


You know....even if I couldn't show the videos the sheer evasiveness concerned citizens have seen here tonight tells it's own story .
It tells everyone you have no evidence, you can't find evidence, and you never will be able to rationally explain your moronic delusions on 911.
 
Last edited:
So, claims something, fails to back it up, dodges loads of questions and runs away.

Another "BS Win"....

I like to give people a chance but BS is pushing it... however i suspect that's all he's here for.....

Doesn't this thread remind you a little of this:

From wiki:

The Argument Sketch (or Argument, Argument Clinic, or Six More Minutes of Monty Python's Flying Circus when including the non-argument sections) is a sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus. It appeared in the show's 29th episode, following the ending credits. It featured the absurd humour favoured by Monty Python and showcased the special chemistry between Michael Palin and John Cleese. In addition to Cleese and Palin, supporting roles were provided by Rita Davies, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle, and Terry Jones. It is among the most popular and famous Monty Python sketches.

The sketch's premise involves a service that exposes customers to unpleasant experiences for a fee. For example, one can pay to be verbally abused (by Chapman) or to be hit on the head (by Jones).

Palin pays to have an argument. The receptionist directs him to Chapman's room, but Chapman's job is simply to shout abuse at Palin. After Chapman realises the mistake, he directs Palin to Cleese's room. Initially, Cleese simply contradicts everything that Palin says. This frustrates Palin, who asserts that "an argument's not the same as contradiction" until he realises that Cleese is engaging him in a sort of meta-argument about what constitutes an argument. He gets into it, briefly, but ultimately is unsatisfied with the argument and goes to complain – only to find that the complaints department (staffed by Eric Idle) is where customers go to listen to a professional complainer. Finally, he stumbles into a room where he is struck on the head with a mallet by Terry Jones, who gives being-hit-on-the-head-lessons (which apparently is done properly by clutching one's head and exclaiming "Whaaah!"), which Palin proclaims to be a "stupid concept".

In typical Python fashion, the sketch ends when Palin and Jones are arrested by Inspector Fox (Graham Chapman) for violating the Strange Sketch Act, before the entire show is arrested by Inspector Thompson's Gazelle (Eric Idle) for violating both the Not-in-Front-of-the-Children Act and the Getting-Out-of-Sketches-Without-Using-a-Proper-Punch-Line Act, viz. "simply ending every bleeding sketch by just having a policeman come in" (this had been a running joke throughout the whole episode). His character then appears to realize that he is himself an accessory to the violation, saying "Wait a moment..." Right on cue, another inspector (Cleese) appears and puts his hand on Thompson's Gazelle's shoulder, who says "It's a fair cop!" Cleese's inspector has an unidentified inspector's arm put on him as well, and the sketch and episode end abruptly.

The sketch is performed slightly differently in Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl. In this version, the sketch ends abruptly while Cleese and Palin are mid-argument, by the entrance of Terry Gilliam, on wires, singing 'I've Got Two Legs'.
 
No, it doesn't...... :D



Who asks questions like

What if i had a video that showed the opposite of what you say?

I can't show it but tell me what if?

No but what IF?

Well you've not explained what if so...

No but WHAT if?

etc etc
 
No, it doesn't...... :D



Who asks questions like

What if i had a video that showed the opposite of what you say?

I can't show it but tell me what if?

No but what IF?

Well you've not explained what if so...

No but WHAT if?

etc etc

Your right...the Monty Python sketch makes much more sense. :)

We should start a poll...Troll who gets off on making people angry pretending to be a truther...or someone so delusional that they refuse to accept anything that contradicts their paranoid delusions....or all of the above.
 
No, it doesn't...... :D



Who asks questions like

What if i had a video that showed the opposite of what you say?

I can't show it but tell me what if?

No but what IF?

Well you've not explained what if so...

No but WHAT if?

etc etc

sad thing is bill will be back tomorrow like it never happened
since i know its not a joke
i find it kinda disturbing
 
He's not EVEN a joke, because a joke would at least be funny. And I just don't have any pathos left for him, either.

i love this version of this song
and some parts are quite fitting here i feel


edit - also the last verse could be applied to the entire "truth" movements ideas
 
Last edited:
Looks like it's my bedtime in this here time zone. G'night Boys...


Like i said McGyver- Bill Smith fails at failure. Couldnt even hang around to fail.

Yep, he will be back tomorrow as if nothing happened. The two videos he has tried to dangle infront of us will be quickly forgotten or he will eventually BS us some more and link us to two irrelevent videos that are not live and do not show what he stated them too show.

Predictble Bill .

He poses the question/conundrum,

He then pauses for awhile..............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz................

He then fails. Time and time again. Night night Bill. Same BS tomorrow then.
 
Everyone please keep one thing in mind before you decide to respond to red or bill. Combined, they have over 5,000 posts of utter drivel, mixed with zero evidence, stirred with nonsense, and topped off with delusions. Type up your responses accordingly (Or, not at all if you can find the strength to "Just say NO to twoofers"). I found the strength not too long ago and have been twoofer free for a few months now. With the help of my fellow members, I hope to go a full year without responding to the older twoofers. Oh and you don't have to tell me, I already know. I am very brave.

Now, if a new one rolls along, I will give him a few chances to accept evidence. If he fails to accept after numerous chances, then it is time to ignore him. Keep in mind though, these new twoofers can be addicting. It's like taking just one more drag off of a cigarrete after you have quit smoking. After you take that "last" drag, you want just one more. And then another, and so on. In this case, the twoofer is the cigarrete and the smoke you inhale is the nonsense he spews. The little high you get off of the cigarette is like the feeling of a good debunking. While the cigarette high may feel good, it actually builds up tar in your lungs and can lead to lung cancer. Then in the end, the cigarrete leaves you with nothing, except the addiction of wanting more.

The same is with the twoofer. The debunking feels great, but once that twoofer responds, ignoring every single point you made in your 1000 word post, it leaves you feeling frustrated, angry, and there is probably some physical harm caused to your brain from excess intake of stupidity (Someone should do a study on that one). Then finally in the end, nothing is accomplished.

So the next time you feel like engaging a twoofer in discourse, think of your health, and more importantly, your family. Because if you can't say no to twoofers, do you really want to die from a brain aneurysm caused by twoofers? What will your family think? I for one am not going to let that happen. I hope you all can find it within yourselves to do the same.

Just say NO to twoofers.
 

Back
Top Bottom