Conspiracy theories: Tipico Casino worst RTP ever? (Page 4)

Dbac79 wrote on 06/24/2019 8:01 PM

god told me,

This post has been translated automatically

upola wrote on 06/24/2019 10:26 PM

What should I have said.

This post has been translated automatically

Bone wrote on 06/24/2019 1:08 PM
It is completely impossible that no RTP exists. The RTP is simply the percentage of the bet that is returned to the player. How could this value not exist? Whether the RTP is now at 95% or at 5% or at 100000%, it exists 100%


To the World Trade Center Spinner is said: Approximately 30 amateur recordings from different angles and several 1000 eyewitnesses prove quite well that there were aircraft.

This post has been translated automatically

Unbeliver wrote on 06/25/2019 9:51 PM
Oh there someone knows 911. So that means you can say with certainty that planes with a thin aluminum skin can penetrate through 10cm thick steel beams like if they were made of butter?
FYI, a modern tank has a 5cm thick steel skin and it takes tungsten or uranium bullets, because much much harder than steel, to penetrate that skin. Each of the towers had over 200 of these steel beams and were designed to withstand multiple aircraft impacts, so why didn't they survive one? With burning kerosene you can not get a steel beam, especially not several of this caliber, so soft and yet here a small amount was enough to bring over 200 of them to collapse, explain this so purely physical...
To the statics then also an explanation would be due, how can penetrate thus an airplane from thin aluminum by such steel girders although the aluminum is much softer, this contradicts each static computation and already strangely that an association from the 500 most respected architects and structural engineers in the USA, this case not only doubts but even for impossible holds
Have you ever studied metallurgy and the impossibility of a metal so much softer penetrating a metal so much harder?
Why haven't they found any airplane parts that match the alleged airplanes?
How can the free fall of the collapsing towers be explained, although similar cases, such as blasting, give a much slower collapse?
Why was everything pulverized?
Have you ever dealt with W7, i.e. Building 7? This went down in the evening, 12 hours later, in a similar way in free fall. This is a key to the story and who has not dealt with W7 can not say much about 911 anyway, as maybe just all the dirt that the media have chewed/served us!
Why do the world's most respected experts in architecture and statics doubt the case with the fleugzeugen, all no idea, just stupid cranks?
I have dealt for years with 911 and one thing is clear, it did not take place there what was served to us. How purely coincidentally alleged amateur videos with airplanes on it appeared, of which there are at least 2 also without airplane...already funny what? ... is to be questioned.
It is not meant badly but before you dismiss someone as a crank, deal in depth with the matter and then argue accordingly. Only to say The WTC Spinner, also if the one spun perhaps with another topic nevertheless more than really meaningful to supply, is simply too little!
That does not fit so at all to you and your otherwise very well-founded contributions.

Greeting Unbeliver

This post has been translated automatically

Bones wrote on 06/25/2019 at 10:13 pm
I only read the first few sentences of your essay and am only responding to that. I am not at all saying that it is impossible that the buildings were blown up or anything else. Certainly neither of us knows. But that was not the point at all. It's about whether planes flew into the towers AT ALL. There the evidence is very good. Whether or not jet fuel burns hot enough to melt steel beams. Whether the towers were blown up or not. Airplanes flew into them

People who feel smart when they think contrary to conventional wisdom are slowly becoming a problem thanks to the Internet. In the past, the wackos were the ones who thought the World Trade Center was blown up. Today, this opinion is socially accepted, especially on the Internet. Too accepted for the people who just want to be against it all the time. So now they just think that there were no planes at all, ignoring all the evidence videos and thousands of eyewitnesses who report exactly that. Easily half of the AFD voters come from this camp. The only thing missing is the claim that there was no Jew in the World Trade Center on September 11, then all the Internet intellectuals are served


Edit: I don't want to start a discussion about the World Trade Center here, please. No matter if it was a bombing or a blast: condolences to the poor souls who lost their friends, children or parents on that day.

This post has been translated automatically

Unbeliver wrote on 06/25/2019 10:35 PM
As I said it was actually not meant in a bad way.
It now in the AFD corner or anti-Semitic department to push, am 10000% not from the camp, is inappropriate...exaggerated and there I also do not let me purely push!
Again, but deal with the subject, especially W7, there are so many good reports that have nothing to do with conspiracy, but with scientific and serious analyses of absolute experts. But if you are content to dismiss the people who deal with it as a crank or a problem, who want to reverse the social and from your point of view correct opinion, then you have a problem yourself. A little differentiation has never hurt anyone but before you go into depth, you push the people who also look at the other side of the coin rather in the right corner or does it immediately as a crank, this is system-conform blind thinking and also not really purposeful. However, this is also not new, the topic is uncomfortable, changes the truth that one has made up and is therefore rejected...nothing new and also not only with this topic.
Since there are strangely no proven witness statements, certainly not from thousands of people who can really confirm to have seen planes, this argument has very little probative value. Also that the videos are partly, even one of the BBC, without aircraft in it should give pause for thought...if one wants that then.

This post has been translated automatically

Bone wrote on 06/25/2019 at 10:44 pm
Believe me, I've been looking into this too. And I too have seen the documentaries with the experts assuming demolition. I too know what happened to building 7. But I'm not willing to deny the eyewitness testimony of thousands of people just because this theory is circulating on the Internet. Because it does exist. The World Trade Center was in New York City and it was the tallest building. There is an incredible amount of testimony, right after the disaster, days after, to this day, many different people are commenting on what they saw. And again, neither of us can know what happened there. If I had to make a guess based on everything I think I know, I would say that planes definitely flew into the building and that I cannot rule out the possibility that a blast did take place. Unfortunately, it is hardly possible to prove that. Unlike the eyewitnesses who saw the planes, there are no witnesses who would have seen kilograms of explosives being carried into the buildings. No camera recordings of it. Not even a single fuse or any residue was found in the rubble. However, that is actually the case with any blasting of buildings. So if it was blown up, it was done very cleverly. And so skillfully that it would not be a problem to have airplanes fly into the buildings in addition to the blasting. Because in a city like New York City, it would have been quite noticeable if the two tallest buildings collapsed as if from nowhere. There is simply no evidence for or against a blast and for me this topic is over here. It has absolutely nothing to do with the content of this thread.

This post has been translated automatically

Unbeliver wrote on 06/25/2019 9:51 PM
Oh there someone knows 911. So that means you can say with certainty that planes with a thin aluminum skin can penetrate through 10cm thick steel beams like if they were made of butter?
FYI, a modern tank has a 5cm thick steel skin and it takes tungsten or uranium bullets, because much much harder than steel, to penetrate that skin. Each of the towers had over 200 of these steel beams and were designed to withstand multiple aircraft impacts, so why didn't they survive one? With burning kerosene you can not get a steel beam, especially not several of this caliber, so soft and yet here a small amount was enough to bring over 200 of them to collapse, explain this so purely physical...
To the statics then also an explanation would be due, how can penetrate thus an airplane from thin aluminum by such steel girders although the aluminum is much softer, this contradicts each static computation and already strangely that an association from the 500 most respected architects and structural engineers in the USA, this case not only doubts but even for impossible holds
Have you ever studied metallurgy and the impossibility of a metal so much softer penetrating a metal so much harder?
Why haven't they found any airplane parts that match the alleged airplanes?
How can the free fall of the collapsing towers be explained, although similar cases, such as blasting, give a much slower collapse?
Why was everything pulverized?
Have you ever dealt with W7, i.e. Building 7? This went down in the evening, 12 hours later, in a similar way in free fall. This is a key to the story and who has not dealt with W7 can not say much about 911 anyway, as maybe just all the dirt that the media have chewed/served us!
Why do the world's most respected experts in architecture and statics doubt the case with the fleugzeugen, all no idea, just stupid cranks?
I have dealt with 911 for years and one thing is clear, it did not take place there what was served to us. How purely coincidentally alleged amateur videos with airplanes on it emerged, of which there are at least 2 also without airplane...already funny what? ... is to be questioned.
It is not meant badly but before you dismiss someone as a crank, deal in depth with the matter and then argue accordingly. Only to say The WTC Spinner, also if the one spun perhaps with another topic nevertheless more than really meaningful to supply, is simply too little!
That does not fit so at all to you and your otherwise very well-founded contributions.

Greeting Unbeliver

This post has been translated automatically

Dbac79 wrote on 06/25/2019 23:49 PM

For info, a modern tank has a 5cm steel skin?? the tiger 1 from WW2 already had 15 cm hull armor and it's certainly not modern anymore and that's just a heavy tank not a TD

This post has been translated automatically

This post has been translated automatically