Victims' Families Want To Air New 9/11 Truth Ad

[eots]

business and the ol gin joint ?

 

[Gamolon]

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.

Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".

Why is that?

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.

Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".

Why is that?

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.

I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.

 

[Mr. Jones]

business and the ol gin joint ?

LOL!!

 

[SFC Ollie]

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.

Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".

Why is that?

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.

I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.

Really? They never explained anything? I think you have a lot of reading to do. You can start here.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1.pdf

 

[Gamolon]

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.

Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".

Why is that?

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.

I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.

I figured as much.

The whole point, which is CLEARLY evident by your above post, is that you are a hypocrite. You bitch and moan about the mistakes in the NIST report, but won't discuss the mistakes made by the supposed "valid point makers" that try and refute NIST. I showed you three major mistakes and you just handwaved them away.

Whatever.

As I have said all along you people don't care about the truth. It doesn't matter one bit anyone is wrong or right, you support them as long as they are against anything that supports the government's "official story". Isn't that right Mr. Jones? Is it wasn't you'd be saying that same garbage about your man Gage that you do about the NIST research.

It's pathetic really.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".

Why is that?

I have responded to you. I explained the insignificance of 400,000 tons to 500,000 tons, and where this came from or who is saying different does not matter, when the entire NIST report and what happened in reality are so different.

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.

His claims are hardly "fraught with mistakes" and saying so is stretching the truth or an out right lie by you. Tell us why such an insignificant difference in calculation concerning the amount of concrete, would in any way explain the fact that NIST hasn't bothered to explain the important and crucial events of the actual collapse?
I have no idea how you can consider such BS, in using it to discredit the whole of the A&E observations, calculations, and theory.
We don't know anything about you said he said in any detail, we can only assume the man rounded out some numbers. And if you think this small discrepancy, if it even is one somehow absolves NIST or provides any concrete proof they are remotely accurate, you are sadly mistaken.

I haven't bothered to check his calculations do to time constraints, on the amount of concrete and the other things you asked about, it is irrelevant anyway IMO, and I have no idea how or where he got those figures. Perhaps he was rounding them out as many people tend to do. However,
It doesn't make the NIST farce any more valid, as their report has so many glaring fuck ups in it.
If Mr. Gage says 400,000 tons, half a million tons of concrete, what difference does that make really? NIST didn't They didn't even bother to quantify any of their BS, or even try to explain how they arrived at their conclusions, about many things.
Again, trying to disparage Gages qualifications, does not in any way explain or advance the NIST report or explain away the comminution of the concrete.

I figured as much.

I stand by my statement.

The whole point, which is CLEARLY evident by your above post, is that you are a hypocrite. You bitch and moan about the mistakes in the NIST report, but won't discuss the mistakes made by the supposed "valid point makers" that try and refute NIST. I showed you three major mistakes and you just handwaved them away.

Whatever.

Go ahead and list them again, and I'll take a look at them when I have time to filter your BS claims out, but like I said above, it is a reach on your part, and another attempt by you to try to show NIST in a better light by nitpicking insignificant small details about others, all the while not responding to my assertions that NIST investigation is bogus, and flawed.
You have yet to tell us what indisputable evidence NIST has given about their theory, nor showed how they explained how the buildings fell "essentially at free fall", or explain why they displayed only "minimal resistance"
What you do is try to avoid answering these very important subjects by attacking minuscule and irrelevant things that Gage may have said, or the context they were delivered in

As I have said all along you people don't care about the truth. It doesn't matter one bit anyone is wrong or right, you support them as long as they are against anything that supports the government's "official story". Isn't that right Mr. Jones? Is it wasn't you'd be saying that same garbage about your man Gage that you do about the NIST research.

Why don't you try to answer what has been asked of you? You go around it by pointing out what amounts to insignificant figures, that may or not be accurate, in a weal attempt to show Gage might or might not have an error in a calculation, that even if it is wrong, does not show his arguments about the NIST are anywhere near wrong!!
Now that IS pathetic!

Have you bothered to look at all the "miscalculations" NIST made? The "corrections" they did? Or the vast other points made by others against NIST and their flawed report? Just so you know, Gage isn't the only person who has spoken out about NIST and gone on record to publish their valid points about their "report" or it's "investigation"!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Can you tell me how Gage got 400,000 cubic yards of concrete? Tell you what. You tell me how many cubic yards of concrete were contained above ground between both towers. See if you come up with 400,000 cubic yards.

A cursory check and you would have found this-
World Trade Center Stats

* 200,000 tons of steel
* 425,000 cubic yards of concrete
* 43,600 windows
* 12,000 miles of electric cables
* Had its own zip code, 10048
Read more: World Trade Center History — Infoplease.com World Trade Center History — Infoplease.com
There were originally 110 floors – each of them one acre in size. What explains the disappearance of 220 acres of four-inch thick concrete and steel decking, a good estimation when writing about the tower/s!

2.Another quote from Gage.

220 acres of 4" thick concrete and steel decking? Really? Was he aware the the core of the towers had elevators in them? The core of each tower was 87' x 133'. That makes each floor about .7275 acres, which gives us 160 acres, not 220. How did he mess up by 60 acres in his calculation?

Again another estimation used to make a point on just how insane the NIST report actually is..So what!! Does this somehow absolve NIST? DOES IT MAKE THE NIST REPORT ANY MORE CREDIBLE?!! You're reaching about this is pathetic man, really it is.
Did NIST ever respond to these questions and calculations, in the letter that was sent to Congressman Robert Wexler, did he even ask NIST about any of these concerns regarding the discrepancies Gage and co. found??
BTW,...How could NIST put out a so called "comprehensive" and full report when they DO NOT address any of these important points?
Even if we are to assume a 60 acre error....Does it answer the NIST flaws any better??
No in the least!!

3. Gage says that WTC7's facade came down in 6.6 seconds. Can you explain how he came up with that time frame? What video did he use to come up with this since there is no video showing the facade AFTER it disappeared behind the building. Compare Gage's 6.6 seconds for complete collapse to Chandler's video. Interesting isn't it? Chandler kind of makes Gag'es time frame a little impossible?

And ???? NIST left out the fact WTC7 experienced free fall, altogether they even said it would be impossible because the buildings would provide resistance, until they were forced to because it was so apparent to intellectuals studying the collapse and their report!
Then they say they came down "essentially at free fall" with "minimal resistance" Kind of makes NISTs claims impossible to believe?? Are you starting to understand a little better now as to why a new investigation and re-evaluation is needed?

No answer yet?

Answered

Richard Gage's 5 minute presentation is a very strong argument based on credible facts.
You try to make a lot out of nothing, while not being able to destroy A&E's strong evidence, against NIST.
NIST has finally acknowledged that there were no diesel fuel fires in the area of the initiating event.
Inherent in their 12-18-07 report is an acknowledgment that the debris damage did not have a significant effect on the initiating event that led to the implosion of WTC7.
That leaves office fires heating columns weighing over many tons per floor to 1,000° F. And the independent researchers have shown us how this would be next to impossible, while NIST the "official" investigating agency, leaves plausible explanations out!

 

[SFC Ollie]

When are you dicks going to stop being so dishonest?

WTC7 was never in free fall. The north facade was for 2.25 seconds.

That is not the building, it is a part of the building.

Everytime you say it you are lying and you know it, hell the entire intelligent world knows it.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You insist on disparaging the researchers, and that is your what you try to use to dismiss their work.

Is that why I posted some of Richard Gage's "research" and asked you why he makes large mistakes with his "research"?

You still have yet to address what I posted about his "work".

Why is that?

You want to claim he he valid criticism about NIST's work, yet his claims are fraught with mistakes. Mistakes you obviously don;t want to address.

Do you remember all the experts going on TV immediately following the disaster, and in some cases during it. Remember how many stated the fires "melted" the steel?

Do you remember when Donald Rumsfeld made a comment that a "missile" hit the Pentagon?
That hasn't been proven, but does that mean major points on the 9-11 attacks are not to be believed?
Remember how many times the peddlers of the OCT have been proven wrong, and the many times they flat out fucking lied, even on national TV? And now you want to use BS piddly dick shit to somehow use to out weigh the massive fraud and BS that IS the OCT?? Fucking hilarious, and weak at the same time

So in summary, the NIST investigation is flawed-
The flaws are pointed out, proven, and documented-
Not by me, mind you, but by credible people in the various fields on the subject-
You people seem to intentionally "misunderstand" that the PTB use their power and influence to squelch the information contrary to the OCT, by using various methods, including the judicial system-
Then say the alternative research and theories developed because of the research is not valid, because the PTB say so!

When so much political power is involved, there's going to be a series of false reports, disinformation and lies put forth to obscure the real story, red herrings to throw off the dogs, and all available resources will be used to spread their version, while squashing anything to the contrary, including sstatements like "you're either with us, or your with the terrorists"-GWB
And if you protest civil liberty losses and laws that infringe on them, or complain about shit like what the TSA does, it is being ingrained in the stupid minds of the public, that you must be with the terrorists!

All the while providing no proof or evidence to back up the PTB in the defense of the OCT, THAT IS INDISPUTABLE!!
Is it possible to be anymore close minded and biased then that??

Are you a 9-11 CONSPIRACY THEORISTS? It is frequently difficult to know if you're communicating with a CT, or someone who is sincerely interested in filling in the 9-11 accuracy gaps with information gained from actual investigation.
You seem to belong to the 9-11 conspiracy theory movement. This movement should not be confused with the 9-11 truth movement, they are very different movements.
The 9-11 truth movement is vastly more patriotic as the majority of the participants want the restoration of the rule of law, and honesty and integrity back in the American government.
While the 9-11 conspiracy movement are seemingly against these things, and in the process are knowingly, or not, supporting a different form of American government that is exactly what the founders of the nation feared, and were against, and more closely resembles Fascism.
America has been infiltrated and turned into a vastly different place, and was allowed to by/of the blind ignorance, willful or not, of its people, among many other reasons, not the least of by infiltration by those who have the interests and are loyal to outside states and entities.

 

[JackDan]

Would anyone like to take bets on Mr jones's Iq level?

Over or under 105?

I would have to say under. There is no way it surpasses 110.

and no, online tests don't count.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Would anyone like to take bets on Mr jones's Iq level?

Over or under 105?

I would have to say under. There is no way it surpasses 110.

and no, online tests don't count.

I think it may actually drop a bit every time he posts that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

 

[Mr. Jones]

When are you dicks going to stop being so dishonest?

You may be able to fool yourself Ollie, but some of us, while not having an engineers or physics degree, at least have the common sense to realize how fucking impossible it is to believe the BS you do.

WTC7 was never in free fall. The north facade was for 2.25 seconds.
That is not the building, it is a part of the building.

The entire building collapsed, with the first 8 stories resistance removed so fast, that it achieved a 2.25 second free fall. THESE ARE FACTS.

Do you think that the outer part was NOT connected to the internals at all!?? That such a collapse
would not involve or include the outer parts in any way, shape, or form?? Are you blind? I don't see only a "part" of the building collapse! You are insane! I can clearly see all 4 corners falling at the same time, not just the northern part!
Holy shit..I can't believe you actually brainwash yourself to letting yourself think such utter and total BS.. Watch the videos.
Do you only see a part of the building falling down? Seriously?
Like I said, you are only fooling yourself. How very sad, you embarrass yourself to this level. You really out did yourself with this nonsense.

Everytime you say it you are lying and you know it, hell the entire intelligent world knows it.

Every time you say this, or even allude to it, you are lying to yourself and to everybody else! And no Ollie, there are many people in the world who have the common sense and the intelligence to know the NIST explanation for WTC7 demise is utterly full of shit, and defies the laws of science and probability.
Just like their BS and totally unproven theory about the twins.
They basically say "here.. this is what happened" without providing enough detail or evidence to put together a convincing story.
"Here, watch our computer animation that looks nothing like what you saw" but because "we're NIST" we're indisputably right? BS.

So tell us old wise one, how did WTC7 collapse again?
Did the massive building take the time to collapse internally, or all of a sudden (like we all, for the most part saw?), or... one beam and column at a time? Many connections giving up at the same time to allow a 2.25 sec. free fall time??....?

I know how hard this may be to except but, try to understand, that buildings never have nor are they supposed to fall at near free fall speed by accidental fire without some help from explosives or something else intended to make them fall that way.

Keep in mind that the fires were not indisputably proven to have been started by WTC tower debris..It is assumed..Where's the proof?
Did the falling debris of the twins hit the column 80 or 79?? Did the fires even start there?

Has arson in WTC7 ever been ruled out?


Have you noticed that in the NIST computer simulation, they have the "facade" twisting and deforming? And there was no evidence of that in what we actually saw?
Does the computer translate the data, and then generate a simulation based on what data is entered into it?
So it is supposed to show what should have occurred?
If so, it clearly does not animate what we saw does it?

Keep in mind that the NIST computer model, or any computer model, would give you results according to what data is put into it.
Try to take into consideration, that the secret collapse sequence software program that provided the computer simulation (that NIST is not allowing access to, no source code, no public access) shows that heat from fires caused the "new type of building collapse"
NOT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL OR VIDEO EVIDENCE!

Are you saying all of the chaotic and unpredictable events, all the connection failures, leading up to global collapse could have happened within a second or less of each other? Perhaps even at the same time?

Have another look to refresh your perspective.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=PL3D30132C75A35683]YouTube - ‪9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS‬‏[/ame]

A mostly unpredictable destructive force (fire) causes such a level and symmetrical collapse

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Atbrn4k55lA&feature=related]YouTube - ‪9/11: WTC Building 7 "Collapse" video compilation‬‏[/ame]

And that during the time all the chaotic and unpredictable events were occurring, that NOT A SINGLE ONE piece of the collapsing parts could have or should have been connected to the outer part/s of the buildings 47 STORY "facade", thus explaining why NO VISIBLE DEFORMITY WAS NOTICED ON THE LOWER OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING?? And the only deformity we see is ON THE TOP? The penthouse??
Not even a column , beam or other falling piece finding its way through a lower floor window at least?
That was connected to columns 79 or 80?

From what I am gathering about what you're saying...You're of the opinion that this huge massive internal collapse happens...involving many many connections of columns, beams, floor connections, etc.. in a huge chain reaction on the lower 8 floors....

A huge chain reaction.. that by the time it showed any signs of collapsing...involved many connections, where one connection is tied to another connection and to another and so on etc. etc.. all of these connection failures are happening, as a result of fire alone, which is unpredictable in its own right, as far as temperature, location, and intensity is concerned...

without showing any signs to the outside parts of the building.... UNTIL ...the penthouse falls into the building... but almost immediately followed by the ENTIRE REST OF THE BUILDING.. that we see with our own eyes falling down in symmetrical fashion! (as witnessed on the many videos available) and we see the 4 corners of the structure fall down AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME!
Videos show that the roof stayed level and shows that the building was in free fall across the entire width of it.

You don't think we can all see that this happens within seconds?
The removal/displacement of TONS of support simply just gone so fast, that free fall occurs for the first 8 stories?

Do you really think everyone believes it is possible for all of these connections that supported the building to simply give way in just seconds? At the same time?
Wouldn't it make more sense, for the thing to collapse a little here, or a little there, where the fires are the hottest and more intense?


Or were these "smart fires" that knew just precisely where to go and how hot they needed to be?
Perhaps we're expecting to see it lean towards the weakest and more heavily damaged portion?
Nope according to you, all this is perfectly normal and within bounds, with nothing to back this up, other then highly dubious NIST science? LOL!

Or do you think that even despite the massive reinforcements done to the building throughout its history, ONE single COLUMN being "displaced" would allow this massive building to fall straight down, all 4 corners falling at the same time, so damn near perfect?

Let me ask you...Have you seen or has anyone come forward and said they SAW huge amounts of dust shooting out of the lower lobby or floors right before the onset of collapse?
and/or debris accumulating in the lobby or lower floors of the building, due to this mystical internal collapse of yours occurring FIRST as you always say, while the "facade" waited patiently for its turn to fall?
How long did this internal collapse take to happen again?

Do you understand that no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise in your mind..... that this collapse happens in only a few seconds?..
How can you try to say that first all these columns and beams, and floor assembly's gave way followed by the floor structures, then followed by everything else giving way...then when ALL THAT finished, it was the facade that remained standing and ONLY THEN did the NORTH SIDE "FACADE" collapse while experiencing a 2.25 sec. free fall time?!

Where did all the massive supporting internals that supported the buildings huge weight go to at the same time?
The only thing keeping a building from falling at free fall speed is it being slowed down by the underlying structure.
You say that the underlying /internal structure collapsed BEFORE the facade. So how long did this internal structure take to collapse again?
How long was the time between the internal collapse and the "facade" collapse do you estimate? What does NIST estimate this difference in time to be again?

According to you they had collapsed down somewhere conveniently out of the way...and the "facade" decided to just wait until ALL OF THAT WAS DONE AND FINISHED, before it remembered it had NO SUPPORTING STRUCTURE TO HOLD ITSELF UP WITH ANY LONGER, and then AND ONLY then felt the need to COLLAPSE?!

You are nutz, and the videos of the WTC7 collapse prove you wrong.
They do not show the "north side facade" falling first!

 

[eots]

would anyone like to take bets on mr jones's iq level?

Over or under 105?

I would have to say under. There is no way it surpasses 110.

And no, online tests don't count.

110 is an above average IQ bone head....you fail

 

[SFC Ollie]

7 seconds in between the fall of the east penthouse and the first movement of the facade. Who knows what was going on inside that structure before the penthouse fell into it?

But the building fell at free fall speed? No it did not. As we can all see on the video.

 

[slackjawed]

The best explanation to date from;

UnNews:911 conspiracies explained by a sandwich - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

"911 conspiracies explained by a sandwich
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This article is part of UnNews, your source for up-to-the-microsecond misinformation.

6 April 2011
"This sandwich tells us everything we need to know about 911" according to James Harvey Witchhunt, founder of the website 911IsYOU!.com

NEW YORK, New York -- Crowing to the world at a crowded press conference at The Plaza Hotel in New York that he's finally come up with an easy way to explain the quirks, goof-ups, and lollygagging in the official 911 Commission Report, conspiracy expert James Harvey Witchhunt unveiled a two-and-a-half foot sandwich. He then whipped out his laser pen. "

 

[Mr. Jones]

7 seconds in between the fall of the east penthouse and the first movement of the facade. Who knows what was going on inside that structure before the penthouse fell into it?

But the building fell at free fall speed? No it did not. As we can all see on the video.

Ollie I am only trying to appeal to your sense of reason.
We see what happens in the video! How on Earth can you say otherwise? You should be questioning NIST, and not abandon your own eyes, and the common sense God gave you to help guide you through this life.

This NIST report and computer simulation fits that analogy.
Do you realize the improbabilities involved we are talking about here? Do you also realize that NIST has finally admitted free fall for this building? After telling us how impossible it would be, because the building "would definitely provide resistance"?

There comes a point when the BS overload factor comes into play for most folks, and this WTC7 fiasco is it for many people.
A careful side by side discernment of what NIST says, and what actually happened is the only way to cut through the BS fog.

"The point is there is only so much GPE stored in any stationary object, such as a building. The only way an object can fall to the ground, at free fall acceleration, is if all of its gravitational potential energy is converted to KINETIC energy.

If some of the GPE (gravitational potential energy) is used to do other work, such as crushing steel, (or concrete) then the object can not drop at free fall acceleration.
CDs are one way a building can drop at free fall acceleration for a short time, if segments of supporting beams are removed by explosives ( or exotics?) the building will drop at free fall acceleration until the undamaged floors hit the ground, then it will no longer accelerate as quickly, or perhaps not at all, because it is doing WORK crushing the undamaged floors."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOGmUo9O2Y]YouTube - ‪NIST Lies: Final Report on World Trade Center Building Seven‬‏[/ame]

 

[SFC Ollie]

We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.

But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.

You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.

But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.

 

[Mr. Jones]

You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.

No I question things that don't make sense, and when I am admonished for questioning those things, I question THAT and the motive behind it, and study into the reasons why.

It is you that seems to be ignoring the details here.
All the small ones that add up to bigger discrepencies.
I admit the entire 9-11 boondoggle is a difficult matter to sort through, but they were counting on the complexity of it to turn people away and go on blind faith that they are honest and correct, anybody you has spent time on planet Earth, and in America should know better then to do that.
After studying what NIST says and doesn't say, and what the problems are with their report and investigation, and how they came to their conclusions, only someone disinterested in the truth, or finds things too difficult to understand, would say they have made their case beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[eots]

We see nothing that says the internal building fell? this is what your video says.

But if you look at the videos, the penthouse disappears into the interior of the building. And if you look close enough you can see daylight through the top row of windows. Because there is nothing behind them.

You ignore anything that doesn't fit into your world.

But that's OK, you've got the right to be wrong.

if Ollie cant see the flaws in the simulation or refuses to acknowledged them then ,we are clearly dealing with pure denial