[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
I know it shows some steel. The question was, with ALL THE STEEL that was used in both towers, which was NEVER TOUCHED by any fire or flames, where's the rest of it? I'm talking literally about 170 floors of steel from both towers.
The steel in the picture above is a tiny fraction of what the pile should of looked like in a collapsed steel building of that size.
Are you really sure that there wasnt enough steel in the pics thay you saw to justify some of your theories your presenting? In good faith, this is incredibly tough to read from you.
Each floor had a weight capacity limit. There isnt anything questionable about any of this, - but an imagination can accomplish a lot. I think you can do better, my friend.
But again, its the reason why the second tower to get hit fell first. I guess the demo crew knew about that too.
I'm going to need to see a comparison of how much steel was in the towers (with citations) vs. how much steel was found at ground zero (with citations). Just simply claiming it was the wrong amount is not an argument.
I know it shows some steel. The question was, with ALL THE STEEL that was used in both towers, which was NEVER TOUCHED by any fire or flames, where's the rest of it? I'm talking literally about 170 floors of steel from both towers.
The steel in the picture above is a tiny fraction of what the pile should of looked like in a collapsed steel building of that size.
200k+ tons were used in construction. 200k+ were recovered. So what exactly is the problem?
The flubbed note at 10 secs kills the whole vid for me. The guy who did that video has gone off the reservation pretty far at times but I'm not seeing anything there I can immediately contradict. The SEC did destroy documents though that is disputed now and some of the resources citing it have seemed to have been wiped from access by a simple Google search. But if you've read the passage in the commission report saying that it doesn't matter who financed the attacks (I believe I posted that a few times) and still believe the official story then I don't think there is anything that can possibly shake your belief. In that case yours is more like a religious belief and not falsifiable.
Here's a sentence- anyone who thinks 9/11 was an inside job and not done by a bunch of religious fundaloons, belongs in a room with soft walls, soothing muzak and burly orderlies on hand to subdue your ranty ravey ass, should any psychotic episodes arise.
I don't claim to know who did 9/11, don't know about their religiosity. I think it was a group from "the West" obviously but they also threatened U.S. lawmakers and the president so calling them "inside" is misleading.
I don't claim to know who did 9/11, don't know about their religiosity. I think it was a group from "the West" obviously but they also threatened U.S. lawmakers and the president so calling them "inside" is misleading.
I think a bunch of addled Islamic Jihadists did 9/11. Guess we'll just have to disagree.
I don't claim to know who did 9/11, don't know about their religiosity. I think it was a group from "the West" obviously but they also threatened U.S. lawmakers and the president so calling them "inside" is misleading.
We know their names, nationalities and religious affiliation. They weren't from 'the West', even though some of them temporarily rented accommodation in Germany.
Are you gen Z you speak in memes and clips? I'm a geriatric millennial, probably more like whatever is in between gen X and millennial. I take in words, preferably in something like sentences.
I'm between an X'er and a Millennial too but I do think we were kind of in the prime years to get into the 9-11 shenanigans with how we experienced it.
Now you obviously have a very anti west starting point which could certainly teeter you to one side of the conclusion but it's not like anyone is really going to be swayed on anything from this point, 25 years after the fact.
It's easy to assume a different story when there is so much historical mistrust, when we see a rapid US military response, (I definitely know how fast that was) WTC just collapsing without a plane hitting and so on.
I'm obviously biased so some degree on the other side but I really did try to look into wtc 7 and I really can't formulate a realistic scenario of that building being blown up. There is just too many errors there. But this is all all news we don't need to litigate ...or a plane not hitting the Pentagon.
Anyone with half a brain knows the official story of 9/11 is hogwash. I mean just the ludicrous intact passport on the street alone tells you it was nonsense. Never mind all the other ridiculous BS such as the plane flying at ground level with pin-point accuracy into the Pentagon etc, etc.
I think a bunch of addled Islamic Jihadists did 9/11. Guess we'll just have to disagree.
If that was true they would be able to have a speedy trial and execute the man they say planned the whole thing. Instead they gave him a plea deal. That and about a thousand others things are extremely damning to your opinion. But you won't engage on those things because your opinion isn't based on evidence it's based on what authority figures have told you to believe. And as I've said before I don't think people are morons for believing authority blindly. It's an efficient way to live as it's going to be mostly true most of the time. Furthermore, if authorities were lying to you and you knew it there isn't much you can actually do about it. And ultimately you don't want to challenge authority because it's dangerous. But I don't call you a coward either.
In turn, you don't have to call me an insane idiot for actually looking at evidence and explaining why it doesn't support the conclusions of the authorities - especially when the overwhelming majority of subject matter experts who have published on this topic are in agreement with me.
We know their names, nationalities and religious affiliation. They weren't from 'the West', even though some of them temporarily rented accommodation in Germany.
If you know so much about them can you tell me the story of how they got out of Saudi Arabia and into the U.S.? It's not as easy as hopping on a plane.
Deuces, do you think an airliner hit the Pentagon? - even if it was empty and controlled by remote. Just preferably be straight up with your opinions instead of the nutnut style of ... I worry about human life due to the climate crises so I think we should kill of some folks so we don't make things worse type ****.
If you guys read back in this thread a bit you'll see that it's impossible to get a straight answer out of Dunces about anything, and he does ******ed **** like ask for physicists to chip in, and when they do, tell them they don't know what they're talking about or dismiss a like 5,000 word Wikipedia article out of hand because he saw some book he didn't like in the 120+ footnotes of reference material.
But the icing on the cake has to be when he started explaining to as that in chess tournaments, the player with the white pieces has an inherent advantage and therefore the playing field is made level through "scheduling". We never did get to the bottom of what that entailed, unfortunately, but I like to think that maybe black has an hour head start or something.
Deuces, do you think an airliner hit the Pentagon? - even if it was empty and controlled by remote. Just preferably be straight up with your opinions instead of the nutnut style of ... I worry about human life due to the climate crises so I think we should kill of some folks so we don't make things worse type ****.
Yeah I think an airliner hit the Pentagon. There is evidence for that even without the videos they won't show us. They craziest thing which I think could be possible is that the airliner had been modified into effectively being a drone.
If you guys read back in this thread a bit you'll see that it's impossible to get a straight answer out of Dunces about anything, and he does ******ed **** like ask for physicists to chip in, and when they do, tell them they don't know what they're talking about or dismiss a like 5,000 word Wikipedia article out of hand because he saw some book he didn't like in the 120+ footno
We should be able to debate this topic without citing stuff behind paywalls. Use government or government funded sources and there shouldn't be an issue. I think you linked to like a graphic novel for young military academy recruits or something.
We should be able to debate this topic without citing stuff behind paywalls. Use government or government funded sources and there shouldn't be an issue. I think you linked to like a graphic novel for young military academy recruits or something.
I linked Wikipedia you ****ing space cadet, which is what I said in the very post to which you just replied. I did not link to any graphic novels, nor can I even imagine how a novel would serve as any sort of source for information about the 9/11 attacks.
You were the idiot saying you wouldn't accept any government sources because ldo the government are the masterminds behind the cover up.
Yeah I think an airliner hit the Pentagon. There is evidence for that even without the videos they won't show us. They craziest thing which I think could be possible is that the airliner had been modified into effectively being a drone.
Okay but it would be hard pressed to believe that a legitimate occupied airliner, had been hijacked and flown into the pentagon, but also have building 7 wired for explosives in some coordinated demolition in this hybrid, partial attack, partial planned extravaganza. That's just too much for me.
It would actually make more sense that a bunch of empty airliners flown into both WTCs and the pentagon than some mixture of both scenarios. I assume you'd heavily favor towards empty planes hitting the WTC?
I linked Wikipedia you ****ing space cadet, which is what I said in the very post to which you just replied. I did not link to any graphic novels, nor can I even imagine how a novel would serve as any sort of source for information about the 9/11 attacks.
It's hyperbole, moron. But it wasn't a legit source.
You were the idiot saying you wouldn't accept any government sources because ldo the government are the masterminds behind the cover up.
That's a lie and if you are so righteous you shouldn't feel the need to make things up.
wIkIpEdIa iS nOt a lEgIt sOuRcE bEcAuSe 1 oUt oF 120 fOotNoTeS pUt sAnD iN mY vAgInA.
That's a lie and if you are so righteous you shouldn't feel the need to make things up.
I'm pretty sure you did this but I'd rather hack my balls off with a dull knife than wade through oceans of your verbal diarrhea to prove it.
Why don't you just shut the **** up about 9/11 and entertain us all with your theories on chess tournament game scheduling instead?
Okay but it would be hard pressed to believe that a legitimate occupied airliner, had been hijacked and flown into the pentagon, but also have building 7 wired for explosives in some coordinated demolition in this hybrid, partial attack, partial planned extravaganza. That's just too much for me. It would actually make more sense that a bunch of empty airliners flown into both
I don't know the mechanism of the demolitions. I do think it involved thermite and I do believe the Chemistry and Physics professors who published a paper demonstrating the presence of thermitic materials in the debris. Not only is their research peer reviewed and replicated but their results could account for a lot of observations that find no explanation in the official story if valid.
I don't see the contradiction between the WTC towers being stuffed with thermite and the Pentagon not. No one could never do that to the Pentagon. The consistency is the emphasis on symbols. AQ were terrorists but they weren't sophisticated like that. It's possible the downed plane was supposed to hit WTC7. Or maybe another flight was supposed to get hijacked but it didn't happen.
It is mind boggling to think about what would need to happen to pull this off but that's true no matter who you think did it. I don't AQ was remotely possible of pulling it off and the evidence they did is not even enough even to convict the supposed mastermind. Of course the implication is more than just there is insufficient evidence. It's that there is massively exculpatory evidence clearing AQ totally that would surface in a trial of KSM.
Not reading all that, but oh yeah, I almost forgot about the guy with the stacked cardboard boxes representing the towers. I think he was one of the esteemed professors who accurately modeled the conditions leading to the collapse, by "flying" a toy plane into them like he was feeding a baby or something. That was a persuasive demonstration to Dunces, but Wikipedia is unreliable, yo.
