[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

I'm not the one relying on billion-to-one outcomes; off course if someone remote controlled the planes they also demolished the buildings.

For the 47398747th time I don't know who did it.

You keep telling us this, yet you won't give any concrete examples of these observations when pressed. The only one you have given so far is apparently something to do with the rate of fall, but you have suspiciously completely ignored all the follow up questions requesting actual details. A more cynical man than I might start to suspect that your whole argument is... a little hand-wavy.

You actually tapdanced around without saying this, but I appreciate you being more clear now.

The obvious question is why in hell you'd bomb a building you've going to fly a plane into, making the conspiracy exponentially harder to cover up. Why not just plant a bomb and blame AQ? Or just fly a plane into the WTC? What would possibly be the point of carefully arranging for both to happen at the same time?

Decues, think about this. If people are this easy to fool, why go to the extreme length of staging an immensely complicated bombing/plane crash? All it took to convince America to go to war was Colin Powell saying some nonsense about yellowcake uranium and aluminum tubes.

Stop it dude nobody said that. Most people in the world just want to raise their families in peace and aren't actually deeply ideologically invested in any one political or economic philosophy. I'm talking about the psychopaths who just go around murdering people to make money. People like you, believe it or not, would just go along with whatever prevailing authority there was including me or someone like me. That's why you will vote for people who commit genocide even though you yourself (I assume) are appalled by it. You just don't know any better. You just need better leadership to passively submit, a leadership which can follow a path to something resembling sustainability and peace.

I'm thinking they might just kill us instead of enslave us actually. If a smallish elite could use machines to provide their every desire, why would they want the unwashed, soon-to-be-bug-eating masses around burning stuff and making so much pollution? causing them fear? outbreeding them? threatening them. I figure they figure they have to kill us before the anticipation that they will do so reaches so far down as, for example, you.

As far as using the mechanisms of the oppressors against them yeah I think it is necessary. Notice I'm saying against the oppressors. They have it planted in your mind that communism is total authoritarianism. And, really, in their minds, they do feel like disallowing them from exploiting you is torturous enslavement. What freedom means to Elon Musk is being unencumbered as he tries to squeeze everything he can out of you. What freedom means to you, though you don't know it, is protection from the Elon Musks in this world.

Oh look another concrete positive claim. Let's see proof of this claim. I expect math.

You also need to prove your previous claim.

Why haven't you?

THIS!!!

Just blow up the buildings, say 'AQ done did it', and you got your War on Terror (TM Pending).

What is the billion-to-one outcomes i am relying on?

You think the someone that remote controlled the planes also demolished the building, got it. What is the purpose of doing both at the same time?

Nobody ignores it, it's just you don't accept the simple explanation for it. You were given the explanation literally a decade ago.

It's hilarious that your pea-brain thinks stuff being ejected horizontally during a building collapse is evidence of anything other than the building is collapsing, but that's the quality of bs you are still bringing to the table.

As you were told over a decade ago, BECAUSE IT WAS BURNING. It was heavily insulated by the collapsed building's debris on top of it and that traps the heat. It was oxygen starved but had a steady stream of fuel from the debris pile (including diesel from the generators) and it burned for months as a result. The debris pile had collapsed into the basement area under the building and was basically a huge heat sink so it took forever to cool down.

Let's pretend that this hasn't been explained to you over and over again now!

From what I remember, all of the World Trade Center buildings share the substructure and the construction of the WTC with multiple building was constructed as originally planned. I remember a subway stop at the WTC and tunnel access to all of the buildings. When the first two buildings fell, all of that burning material collapsed into the substructure. I would expect the force of the collapsing buildings would force debris throughout the substructure undermining the stability of building seven, along with the substantial energy from the np urning buildings in such close proximity.

But let’s turn your question around to you - what controlled demolition can you point to that had any on going fire or heat disbursement for months after? I have never seen a controlled demolition that results in fire or heat destruction.

Knocking down 3 buildings with 2 planes in ways never conceived of before 9/11 using people dumb enough to commit suicide in that manner who have never even flown commercial jets before. We're poker players, right? We understand the concept of distinguishing outcomes from skill.

I'll ask you the question Trolly is too pussy to answer. If you were tasked with bringing down just the twin towers and making it look like a terrorist attack, how would you do it? Say you had practically infinite resources. You couldn't rig the building in some conventional way and then have a truck bomb pull up because the rigging would be noticed (as an aside, the whole plan probably started when someone discovered a way to bring buildings down with thermite and the attacks conceived of and planned from that starting point) and the truck bomb isn't enough bomb. You can't really give AQ enough technical expertise to bring them down, or the opportunity. Would you get the patsies to try to fly into the buildings and knock them down in some way that had has never been shown to work? Or would you rig the buildings to come down in some novel way and create a pretext under which people would believe they would fall?

But you will say AQ did it. If they did it they weren't intent on bringing the buildings down because they would know or estimate that that was impossible to do with a plane. In that case AQ brought down 3 buildings by accident and I'm sorry but that can't happen. What do you think the chances of that are? Think of everything that has to go right for them over so much time. If they were such great planners and executers then why would they even think they could get visas with their bs applications and approach? They were let into the country over the objections of officials actually doing their jobs. They can't convincingly fill out a visa application but they are going to sustain a multi-year infiltration campaign culminating in commercially lying stunts in aircraft they've never flown before? One category of people who can believe this could happen has to be people who have never overseen any project in their lives.

To represent causality, one basis of which we understand as correlation in time. They wanted people to believe this causal mechanism because how else could a ragtag group of fundamentalists create such a large terrorist spectacle of the magnitude needed to sacrifice our own sons and give up rights we've won over centuries? What do movie producers always say - 'it's gotta be BIG'.

It's funny because the only one not answering questions is you.

Give me the relevant links and clearly explain what they demonstrate, and I'll definitely take a look. All we've had for over a year of this thread is you bloviating and zero links or actual evidence such as you describe above.

But instead, I suspect you'll just keep making excuses like "if I give you the evidence, you won't look at it" as above, because you're making **** up and don't have any of the evidence you claim to have.

Dude literally thinks it's surprising that a building that caught fire and burned for hours and then collapsed might be hot.

I don’t believe anyone set out to destroy three buildings with two planes. From the terrorist point of view the third building was simply a bonus. The collapse of the Towers was probably not the expected result either. What evidence do you have that terrorists planned to take down three buildings with two planes? What makes you think they expected the building to collapse? Your belief that they planned for the actual result is ridiculous. They wanted big glorious explosions in buildings represent8ng the power in the USA.

The terrorists made an attack in the symbol of America - two very tall commercial buildings. Just like they had attempted to do two times earlier . Each attack grander in scale than the last.

Do you deny Bin Laden attacked the WTC prior to 911 and claimed responsibility/credit for the attacks? Then 911?

Hell, 7 separate WTC buildings were destroyed as a result of the attack (WTC 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all damaged so badly they had to be demolished).

Deuces sees a runout where a player was stayed in the pot with a pair and the ace of hearts on a flop of 3 hearts and hits runner runner quads and assumes he was drawing to quads.

Okay now you're starting to piss me off. I don't have a problem with what you're saying. If NN was a little more observant, he would have realized that I didn't bicker at him when he said something that I thought was idiotic, I gave him heat when he started back peddling away from things that he claimed he never said for argumentative purposes - or just realized how dumb it was.

It never required a high level on intellect to realize when some right ringer hoped in and started "just asking questions" but others seem to think that they have some sort of protective buffer where they won't get noticed about what they say. In short, I think you should post more as if people know what you're thinking - just like you can tell with others.

But to the bolded, I agree with this, and I wouldn't want to kill them or ask them to kill themselves for several reasons - because most of them aren't communists. I'm interested in hearing your reasonings on why you disagree.

It was burning because it was burning. Nice.

Fuel from the debris pile? Like all the fire ******ant chairs and staplers and whatnot made up for the lack of oxygen? Into November and December? And I'm seeing now, 2000 degrees f? No. Story does not check out. There were rivers of molten steel down there. Not only did we see it pouring out of the building before the collapse, not only did we see sustained unreal temperatures at all 3 sites, but the ground zero workers have said they saw a "foundry" underground. Some perfect storm of enclosure and diesel fuel (which I'm not even saying would do it) at all 3 sites? That's preposterous and there is no evidence of it I know of so maybe you can provide some.

Did you ever think maybe all these unexplained observations, like explosions, the complete pulverization of the buildings and it's contents, the laterally ejecting materials, the molten steel which cannot be produced in normal office fires, the insane heat blooms at the collapse sites - wouldn't it be simpler if they were all related? When buildings collapse "naturally" they don't have to explode. They don't have to turn into dust. They doesn't have to be spheres of iron in the dust everywhere. There doesn't have to be intense heat from unknown sources burning for months on end. Look at some known natural collapses. The floors are still there. The contents of the building still exist. There is no 2000 degree mystery heat raging on for months.

Yes, you absolute df. It had been burning since an enormous skyscraper collapsed into it. You have to be pretending to be this stupid.

1) you should probably read my post again, you illiterate jackwad. I said DIESEL FUEL FROM THE GENERATORS IN THE BASEMENT right in the post. And is it your ignorant contention that everything in the building was fire resistant? This is why you've been a failure for decades.

Your personal incredulity is irrelevant. And all you have. Prove the temperatures could not have happened as described, and then prove the temperatures existed. You've made a positive claim here that you can demonstrate with science. Do it or stfu. You've had DECADES.

Oh goody, ANOTHER positive claim. Prove it. And take special care to note that "molten metal" is not the same phrase as "molten steel."

No you didn't.

"Unreal" by what standard? Fire is hot you absolute nincompoop.

So they say a debris pile burning where a burning building collapsed. ALERT THE PRESS.

Yes, diesel fuel is just the perfect storm to fuel a fire. Good lord, you should just read your own posts back to yourself. Maybe that would do it.

You've referenced several very good pieces of evidence in this post, you doorstop.

Not a SINGLE observation is unexplained. You just choose to do all sorts of mental gymnastics to not believe them. Consider for a second that you tried to imply that the building debris pile could not burn because it contained fire resistant chairs. THERE ARE PHOTOS OF THE BUILDING ENGULFED IN FLAMES BEFORE IT COLLAPSED. DO YOU THINK THE AIR WAS ON FIRE??

Transformers and other electrical components in a fire cause explosive sounds.

Contradicted by the very visible debris piles.

Nothing unusual about laterally ejecting materials during a collapse. It's a chaotic event. Snap a toothpick and tell me if any of it moves laterally.

unproven claim

This wasn't a "normal office fire."

Not unexpected.

They are. They are related to planes crashing into buildings, catching on fire, burning uncontrolled for an hour to many hours and eventually collapsing. And your stubborn ignorance and paranoid delusions.

Abject stupidity.

And just in case anyone is uncertain of what Deuces is doing, he's had this stuff pointed out to him hundreds of times over the last decade. He KNOWS reports of "molten steel" are done with no way of distinguishing between steel and other metals. He knows the flow of glowing liquid seen in a video is from the same place in the building that UPS battery bank was located and there is absolutely nothing to distinguish it as steel from other potentially melted metals or other materials.

He knows none of the buildings were completely pulverized. He knows how stupid that claim is when everyone can see the debris piles. He knows when electrical transformers catch on fire they can explode. He knows any number of expected events in a burning building can cause explosive sounds.

HE KNOWS ALL OF THIS.

What he doesn't seem to know is how explosions that are purported to be a sign of controlled demolition could occur a half hour or more before the building starts to collapse.

He doesn't know how a single flow of molten steel seen flowing from a window nowhere near where or when the collapse initiated could even potentially support a controlled demolition theory.

HE DOESN'T KNOW ANY OF THAT.

He's had DECADES.

Keep that in mind when you read this bullst.

You mean he's lying? Well, knock me down with a feather, never had him pegged as a fibber. Deuces, son, I am disappoint.

He wouldn't see it as lying, of course. He just rejects refutations to his claims in order to keep believing what he believes. He wrote a whole book after all. If he gave in now, it would be admitting he was a total failure.

You see it in plain sight when you read his posts. He literally tried to make himself believe that the debris pile couldn't burn because there were fire resistant chairs in it.

There was an electrical substation and a parking garage full of cars under the building, but the office chairs would've put out the fire.

Did he really write a book? I thought he was using that as a metaphor the amount he'd bloviated in this thread and generally over the years.

On a related note, in these days of self-publishing, some people seem to have become confused between "a book's worth of words" and "a book".

Honestly, that's a good point. I don't know why I didn't even consider that he might have meant that, but I don't care enough to go back and see if I obviously just misread it. I usually just skim his diarhetic outpourings.