[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

The person who said the wrong thing that you failed to correct was you. It was also the only concrete claim about physics you have made ITT, how odd that you've forgotten. I'm not going to quote the whole discussion but you can follow that post.

Lol Dunces, always and forever.

All I've been saying is it couldn't have went down how we were told it did. I've answered plenty directly on that topic, but I've always said we don't know how it actually went down.

Essentially I've been trying to get other people to stop being nutty conspiracy theorists. Just because the government puts out a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it can't be totally nutty and falsifiable from 360 degrees. And the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory, the one you foolishly believe, is exactly that.

Yes. You claim errors in the NIST report are high school level yet when someone actually made a high school legal mistake you were too dumb to point it out. You’ll also notice how easy it is to point out legit high school level mistakes. A concise quote of the erroneous statement and simple proof of how it’s wrong. No unhinged ranting about zionists or anything other than basic physics.

You keep referencing this and I don't know what you are talking about. I think maybe someone said some wrong thing, I didn't comment on it, and you are saying that my not commenting on it is me not understanding something. Is that correct?

There are logical and methodological layers underneath the technical layer. of a paper. You don't have to be a technical expert to evaluate these layers. The NIST report is rife with astounding errors in logic and methodology that require no engineering background to understand, but there are people with such a technical background who have explained them. This is why certain categories of government funded research require biostatisticians to supervise research, because people who know the mechanics of some subject, be it biology or engineering or whatever, have proven thoroughly that they don't necessarily have a clue when it comes to research methodology or how to evaluate their results or how to do experiments.

But you don't even have to be an expert in research methodology to criticize the NIST reports because their violations are so simple and brazen. They make up super high temperatures with no empirical basis in order to get their model to work. That's one thing they did which is demonstrable. They also completely omitted any consideration of the flow of heat from the impact zone to the rest of the building through the beam lattice structure. The paper is a complete joke and you just don't want to face that fact because, at the end of the day, most researchers do have at least one sacred cow in themselves and they will not sacrifice themselves for truth. On the other hand, come on this is an anonymous forum why not be a real scientist here?

Looking back I see the poster FatherTime said something about the buildings falling faster than freefall. I never made that claim and I don't know what he was talking about. You got into it with him but I just skipped over whatever he said because I didn't know what he was talking about. You've misremembered who said what there, you know that you did, and that's why you're not going to quote where I made some errant claim - because I didn't.

Over a decade ago there was a lengthy discussion about "virtual free fall" not being "free fall". I think one poster, not me, said free fall speed instead of acceleration and the pro oligarch posters had a field day with that.

The acceleration of the buildings down, in each instance, is consistent with controlled demolition. I guess we can't quite say the acceleration is inconsistent with whatever mechanism my opposition thinks brought down the buildings because that mechanism has never been observed or explained in the history of buildings.

So what did you mean by this?

Wait, one poster said something about buildings falling faster than freefall, you chipped in to say that anyone who has taken a "Newtonian, calculus based physics course" would understand the significance of the rate of fall, and you are now claiming that it's completely unrelated and you were talking about some completely different and completely unspecified thing related to the rate of fall?

It's exactly stuff like this that makes you a lying little scumbag. Lol Dunces, always and forever.

Wait, what's going on with the rate of fall here?

Cool, a positive claim!

Prove it.

1) What "acceleration of the buildings down" is consistent with controlled demolition, and how did you arrive at that number?
2) What would be typical for a collapsing building that was not a controlled demolition, and how did you arrive at that number?

This should be fun!

And yeah, df, freefall isn't a speed, it's an acceleration. The point of calling that out is that anyone commenting on structural physics should have what is literally basic knowledge of the applicable physics - and not knowing that freefall isn't a speed is a sure indicator that they don't.

I get that part but about 80% of the world today isn't communist. You aren't talking about killing the CEO of a major corporation but eliminating majority of the world due to ideological reasons.

Then you pivot to apocalyptic fantasies where corporations somehow morph into a Terminator‑style force that will enslave everyone, and your response is to rush into restructuring society using the very surveillance and control mechanisms you claim to fear. Yeah, I don't think you're being very honest here.

You're simply condemning irrational authoritarian tools to proposing literally insane, and far more authoritarian behavior to justify that fear. I can guarantee you that that fear isn't going away once you take out Palantir and these other ghosts that you're seeing. You're also sharing nearly identical similarities with Nut Nut or Stalin with the same talk about executing or imprisoning anyone who opposes or deviates from your communist doctrine and are using the most far-fetched excuses imaginable.

...like you really just said that I won't be able to buy a gun if I am on Santa's naughty list. I think that is a sign of being more spoiled and fearful than 99% of the world - and you now want to murder most of them as a result of it.

He's been asked this before, he has no clue.

His next post, er book, will probably be “the sheeple in you and your need to believe your overseers” and totally unrelated to anything in his last post. He is a verbose Luckbox.

He's much worse than Luckbox. Luckbox doesn't lie about what he's said and what others have said. And Luckbox doesn't cover you in verbal diarrhea every time he posts.

This!!

I think this was covered in jj's 'verbose' clause.

There could be multiple reasons, but in terms of maximizing terror, buildings coming down and killing thousands is a much greater spectacle than just planes hitting buildings and making a fireball that kills a few hundred. If this was a false flag the goal would presumably be the massive military mobilization and the suspension of civil rights domestically, both of which were achieved. ICE agents executing people in the streets is an outgrowth of that, an outgrowth of the surveillance state.

By contrast, what would AQ hope to achieve? Suicide? They were supposed to get the Arab world on their side by killing people going to work? Take off the Hollywood glasses for a second. In reality Muslim Arabs are people like you and me who don't think it is ever cool to kill innocent people (well ok I guess we have to modify that premise a little in our new pro genocide world but still). AQ's attack, pre and post 9/11, were always on Americans in what they see as Muslim lands. Would AQ be so stupid as to invoke the response they got? predictably being more Americans all over the M.E. and them being hunted down and killed? the Muslim population feeling sympathy for Americans and cooperating with them?

Who benefitted and to what degree? Who was popping Champagne on 9/12? Who got richer and got to fulfill their every diabolical desire?

Honestly, as of late, I'm starting to take the deep state approach to this and say it doesn't even matter who did it. The fact that it happened means we need a whole new leadership regime and a whole new security regime, whether they let it happen, made it happen, or anything in between. If the deep state and oligarchy is going to twist every event into something they can use then so should we. The majority should be ready to use these events to eject elites from their positions of power and reclaim that power.

You didn't actually answer the question.

Some other questions he's avoiding.

1) What "acceleration of the buildings down" is consistent with controlled demolition, and how did you arrive at that number?
2) What would be typical for a collapsing building that was not a controlled demolition, and how did you arrive at that number?

And also he needs to prove that the collapse of all 3 buildings is consistent with the rate described by question #1.

You can totally tell Deuces is just narrating a train of thought here. Muslims are like us, they don't kill people! Except we do kill people! But still!

Deuces, collect your thoughts first. Organize them. You won't embarrass yourself so much.

You missed these two:

Are you claiming all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolitions? If so, why would someone do a controlled demolition on the two buildings struck by the planes?

I did not ask about how to maximize the effect of a false flag operation or about AQ motives. Try to stay on subject.

Sure I did. I'm saying all 3 were demolished in controlled demolitions. I can only speculate as to why. I've been consistent on that as well as on not knowing the mechanism of controlled demolition.

I've been sitting here telling you that I think it is highly likely the planes were remote controlled. I think that is the craziest thing I can sign off on. Is that not crazy enough for you? I feel like you are trying to bait me into saying something that sounds crazy but I'm voluntarily giving that to you. Am I trying to bait you by pointing this out? Maybe.

I'm just trying to keep it simple for you Trolly, just trying to talk to people on their level, as requested. The Muslim world expressed total sympathy for the U.S. on 9/11. On our mainstream news there was video shown depicting the reaction of Muslims showing Muslims celebrating the attacks. Those reactions later turned out to be various reactions to various soccer matches. That's how dumb your manipulators think you are. They manipulate you while I try to talk to you in good faith at your level and look at the thanks I get.

Were there Zionists making those editing decisions to misrepresent Muslims as celebrating American deaths when they actually were expressing sympathy? It wouldn't be antisemitic to think so.

So your thesis is that the planes were remote controlled, but the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires was insufficient to cause the buildings to collapse, correct?

Who had the planes under remote control? AO or the government operatives? Did they same group of people have control of both the demolitions and the planes or were there two groups of terrorists attacking the building at the same time?

You can try to bait me all you want as I will answer questions as directly as possible,

Bro, Trolly is just a lost cause, he's too dumb to even understand that you're talking to him on his own level. I, on the other hand, am immeasurably grateful that you have deigned to spend your very valuable time explaining this all to us. Now, could you maybe answer these questions, preferably using short words, so I don't get too confused?

Many thanks, brosef. Much obliged.

More of a hypothesis but yeah. That is a possibility that fits with the observations. The impact from the planes and the effects of the temperatures couldn't have caused collapse let alone the complete pulverization of the buildings we saw, let alone 100 other unexplained observations.