9/11 Proof: Basic Physics. Can you handle it?

[Rat in the Hat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

cognitive dissonance.

Why don't you respond to these facts first?

This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.[/B]

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation.

I usually just ignore you, but this is just TOO easy to pass up.

You mean THIS model? lol @ your cognitive dissonance.

Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:

This is the type of 'evidence' you use to rebuttal the FACTS. Gross.

2.25 seconds of freefall proves controlled demolition. Wake up.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

WTC 7 NIST MODEL VS. REALITY
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You can't handle the facts. you instead cite sources that are fallacies. Disgusting use of intellect. You deserve no responses, but this time I made an exception because of how blatantly ignorant I was able to make you look for citing the Fake NIST model as your rebuttal to the fact that 2.25 seconds of free fall PROVES controlled demolition.

Why did you misquote me?

 

[Patriot911]

MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition. not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything. You just run.

Perfectly? Try not at all you fucking liar. Not a bang. Not even a little one. YOU NEED TO HAVE EXPLOSIONS! Instead you post liars who pretend they heard explosions so they can get attention. How pathetic! The proof is there on tape. NO EXPLOSION, yet you can clearly hear the collapse. Who gives a shit that a no name piece of shit like you claims 2.5 seconds of freefall HAS to prove explosives. The FACTS show your "proof" is nothing but the wishful thinking of a retard with an inferiority complex.

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect. You are disgusting.

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts. You cannot handle the physics truth. you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition. Period.

I've done my research. Free fall doesn't prove controlled demolition and it doesn't disprove controlled demolition. Free fall simply means there wasn't enough resistance to measure given the disparity between the remaining structures and the now dynamic load of the rest of the building. The FACT there is NO EVIDENCE of explosives including conclusive audio tapes simply shows you are more than willing to overlook any and all evidence that come between you and the theories you so desperately cling to.

PATHETIC! Funny how you claim others can't handle the truth when you run like a little bitch from the truth time and time again. I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related

cognitive dissonance.

Why don't you respond to these facts first?

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation.

I usually just ignore you, but this is just TOO easy to pass up.

You mean THIS model? lol @ your cognitive dissonance.

Despite adjusting its inputs to achieve the desired result, the NIST model does not come close to reproducing the observed collapse:

This is the type of 'evidence' you use to rebuttal the FACTS. Gross.

2.25 seconds of freefall proves controlled demolition. Wake up.

This is also apparent by watching the two video animations of NIST’s collapse model and comparing them to video footage of the observed collapse.

WTC 7 NIST MODEL VS. REALITY
“NIST claims their computer model can account for the observed phenomena, so let’s look at NIST’s model – except we can’t. The software they used to do the modeling is available, but their model actually consists of all the numbers and measurements and assumptions together with any tweaks to the system they might have used to get it to come out the way they wanted. If that information were released, their results could be checked by anyone with the appropriate skills and software tools. But NIST has not released the numbers. All we have been shown are some of the selected animated outputs they were able to get their model to produce… The very fact that NIST has not released their model strongly suggests they don’t want their results checked. In other words, their results are intended to be taken strictly on faith.”
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

You can't handle the facts. you instead cite sources that are fallacies. Disgusting use of intellect. You deserve no responses, but this time I made an exception because of how blatantly ignorant I was able to make you look for citing the Fake NIST model as your rebuttal to the fact that 2.25 seconds of free fall PROVES controlled demolition.

By the way, dishonest quote modifier, why do your videos always start after the east penthouse has already collapsed? Are you trying to modify the timeline of the collapse sequence to fit your looney truther theory?

And as you'll notice, I put my quote back. No matter how much you hate it for blowing your stupid claims out of the water, you cannot erase the facts of the NIST report.

I really hate people from Santa Barbara. They seem to be completely disassociated from the truth, evidence, and logic.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition. not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything. You just run.

Perfectly? Try not at all you fucking liar. Not a bang. Not even a little one. YOU NEED TO HAVE EXPLOSIONS! Instead you post liars who pretend they heard explosions so they can get attention. How pathetic! The proof is there on tape. NO EXPLOSION, yet you can clearly hear the collapse. Who gives a shit that a no name piece of shit like you claims 2.5 seconds of freefall HAS to prove explosives. The FACTS show your "proof" is nothing but the wishful thinking of a retard with an inferiority complex.

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect. You are disgusting.

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts. You cannot handle the physics truth. you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition. Period.

I've done my research. Free fall doesn't prove controlled demolition and it doesn't disprove controlled demolition. Free fall simply means there wasn't enough resistance to measure given the disparity between the remaining structures and the now dynamic load of the rest of the building. The FACT there is NO EVIDENCE of explosives including conclusive audio tapes simply shows you are more than willing to overlook any and all evidence that come between you and the theories you so desperately cling to.

PATHETIC! Funny how you claim others can't handle the truth when you run like a little bitch from the truth time and time again. I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid.

And as further evidence that he can't handle the truth, when you do post it for him, he modifies your post to suit his false truther theory.

It's a well known truther gambit. When you're losing, try to change history to fit your needs.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

I've posted this several times, and I have yet to see a single truther try to dispute any of it's truths. I wonder why???

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYzIbOYaSy8[/ame]

If there was anything to their claims, surely they could refute this YouTube video.

 

[candycorn]

MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition. not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything. You just run.

Perfectly? Try not at all you fucking liar. Not a bang. Not even a little one. YOU NEED TO HAVE EXPLOSIONS! Instead you post liars who pretend they heard explosions so they can get attention. How pathetic! The proof is there on tape. NO EXPLOSION, yet you can clearly hear the collapse. Who gives a shit that a no name piece of shit like you claims 2.5 seconds of freefall HAS to prove explosives. The FACTS show your "proof" is nothing but the wishful thinking of a retard with an inferiority complex.

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect. You are disgusting.

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts. You cannot handle the physics truth. you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition. Period.

I've done my research. Free fall doesn't prove controlled demolition and it doesn't disprove controlled demolition. Free fall simply means there wasn't enough resistance to measure given the disparity between the remaining structures and the now dynamic load of the rest of the building. The FACT there is NO EVIDENCE of explosives including conclusive audio tapes simply shows you are more than willing to overlook any and all evidence that come between you and the theories you so desperately cling to.

PATHETIC! Funny how you claim others can't handle the truth when you run like a little bitch from the truth time and time again. I bet you got beat up a lot as a kid.

PE/CD reminds me of a quote I heard recently:

"The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion."

— John Lawton

 

[Liability]

I'll say it over and over again until you guys accept the FACTS.
FREEFALL for 2.25 seconds in WTC7 IS ONLY POSSIBLE with explosives. YOU CANNOT have a natural collapse with FREEFALL. it is NOT possible

You wonder why I post this over and over, ITS BECAUSE YOU IGNORE IT.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.
AND THEN
PHYSICS TELL US THAT


Why do you avoid these facts?

Let me see if I can dumb this down low enough for you, asshole. We know you post the same shit over and over because we READ THE WORDS. That's how we know it's the SAME SHIT.

PissExcrement, you are a hopeless fucking basket case. Get help, bitch.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw&feature=related[/ame]

cognitive dissonance.

Chandler may assert whatever he wishes, but the facts remain. Nobody can actually measure the time frame of the alleged "free fall" for those 8 stories.

If I suspend an iron anvil exactly 8 stories above a two by four plank stretched between some supports on the bottom floor, and let the iron anvil drop to the floor, when it falls it will have to travel through the plank to hit the floor. And the plank doesn't stand a chance. It will splinter on impact like a bullet through tissue paper.

Now, just like the tiniest marble actually pulls on the massive planet it might be orbiting by the physical laws of gravity, even if that pull is virtually unnoticeable, so too the plank will provide some imperceptible resistance to the falling anvil before it hits the floor. So, sure, you COULD say that the anvil didn't fall at free fall (for there was some technical resistance), but it would certainly appear to have fallen at free fall.

Now compound that. Add smoke and distance between the building and your vantage point, and you can't even tell for sure when the collapse commenced. Buildings and smoke obscure your view to the extent that you cannot even tell, for sure, when the collapse came to an end. So, you use your best available evidence to compute when it started, when it finished and you come to your approximation for how long it took. Key word? APPROXIMATION.

The ridiculous nature of the proposition still gets evaded by the troofers, anyway. How many fucking people had to have been "in" on this plot? How on Earth could they have adequately wired the building in addition to placing the explosives ALL without being noticed by ANY of the guests, workers or personnel inside a 47 story tall big old boxy building? Fucking ridiculous.

 

[PhysicsExist]

What in the world are you talking about? WTC7 freefell for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by NIST, as forced by AE911truth.org. This Free fall PROVES it was a controlled demolition.

Why are you so ignorant?
Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

Way to go, ASSHOLE!!!! Just as I predicted, you're running away like a little bitch. No explosion = no explosives. Pure and simple. You've been duped. You've been hornswaggled. You've been hoodwinked! You've been shorn like a good little retarded sheeple who is too fucking stupid to pull his head out of his ass long enough to get a clean breath of air.

How does it feel to be such a tool? Come back when you can address explosives that don't go bang. Fucking loser.

MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition. not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything. You just run.

WTC7 Explosions
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8[/ame]

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect. You are disgusting.

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts. You cannot handle the physics truth. you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition. Period.

I'll post this until you actually watch the videos and admit that Physics Existed on 9/11. until you admit freefall proves demolition, you merit no response lol

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

cognitive dissonance

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Way to go, ASSHOLE!!!! Just as I predicted, you're running away like a little bitch. No explosion = no explosives. Pure and simple. You've been duped. You've been hornswaggled. You've been hoodwinked! You've been shorn like a good little retarded sheeple who is too fucking stupid to pull his head out of his ass long enough to get a clean breath of air.

How does it feel to be such a tool? Come back when you can address explosives that don't go bang. Fucking loser.

MUSLIM MEN WITH BOXCUTTERS CANNOT SUSPEND THE LAWS OF PHYSICS! freefall for 2.25 seconds on video, admitted by nist, and forced by AE911truth PROVES controlled demolition. not having explosions on camera perfectly does not prove anything. You just run.

WTC7 Explosions
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2lp4d1GjzE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIIF6P8zBG8[/ame]

Maybe if you did your own research before disrespecting the facts, you would actually get some respect. You are disgusting.

I bet you'll ignore the videos and facts. You cannot handle the physics truth. you cannot handle it. you just cant.

Free fall proves controlled demolition. Period.

I'll post this until you actually watch the videos and admit that Physics Existed on 9/11. until you admit freefall proves demolition, you merit no response lol

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

cognitive dissonance

 

[DiveCon]

I'll post this until you actually watch the videos and admit that Physics Existed on 9/11

dipshit, prove no one has ever watched hose videos?
now, address my question

do you or do you not support the concrete core hoax as perpetrated by Goof-o-phera

 

[SFC Ollie]

Wash, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, And repeat.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Anyone believe him yet?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Anyone believe him yet?

The only ones who believe him are the voices in his head.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Anyone believe him yet?

The only ones who believe him are the voices in his head.

Wanna bet he repeats again?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Anyone believe him yet?

The only ones who believe him are the voices in his head.

Wanna bet he repeats again?

I never bet against a sure thing.

 

[candycorn]

Anyone believe him yet?