[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Victor, after finding a thread where someone mentioned joos:

Depends on what?

Please offer a plausible scenario in which it would be okee dokee to shut down ALL synagogues in the U.S.A.

Shalom!

Take your victor **** posting, chess duels and religious crap to their appropriate threads. Thanks.

Deuces needs the room for all the proof he in bringing us.

but thats not the discussion. the discussion is if his statement was "antisemitic" as if that means anything anyway. context matters. nuance matters. and hyperbole exists.

so, as usual, I disagree with your framing.

Shalom!

Repeating several times that one guy who didnt retract his opinion died 10 years later in a "suspicious" car incident is stretching things little thin, deuces. I dont think Brian J would take it that far and he was an actual Nazi.

You still post like Wookie is running the place. Ffs, post the **** you want to say instead of this horseshit. I honestly thought you were a little more courageous than this. You made one good post and now you wont even elaborate on it.

If there was compelling evidence of molten steel would it change your mind at all? I honestly think that nothing would ever change your minds or get you to admit that you believed things on total faith, things which were obviously not true. If some group came forward with evidence of some stateless collaboration, not AQ, committed the attacks the first post you would make would say that you knew it all along and were just trying to wind me up. What fascinates me is, in that scenario, do you actually believe what you are saying? Like do you really believe there is no evidence against KSM strong enough to convict him but there was evidence enough to reorganize our society and launch a trillion dollar military mobilization and wars? No can be that dumb and, like have a job more responsible than ticket taker. But doctors believe that ****. I'm thinking this is an entire sub field of psychology which is yet unrecognized.

You really are screwing the pooch bringing up Danny again, Holmes. One random contractor hitting a tree 10 years after the fact isn't very useful for you, but more importantly, is also something that you don't actually believe.

Can we get back to things that you do actually believe that caused you to spend this much time regurgitating a 25-year-old incident that has only led too this mess?

Stop being such a disingenuous little ****. I didn't say anything about the book. I linked you to a Wikipedia article, you complained that it referenced a book you didn't like, and I pointed out that that was in one out of 160 footnotes. I couldn't even tell you the title of the book, I just thought your position that the whole Wikipedia article was bullshit because it referenced one book you didn't like for some reason in one of the footnotes was laughable. How the **** is that me claiming anything about the book?

If this is how your mind warps things that actually happened less than a year ago and are fully documented in this thread, no wonder you are so ****ing delusional about everything else.

It would change my mind that you have absolutely no evidence of anything you've claimed here, yes. As things currently stand, I fully believe that everything you've said here is either a figment of your imagination or sourced from some conspiracy blog (so a figment of some other nutjob's imagination). So yes, showing that at least one of your claims has some grounding in reality would go a long way. But I suspect if you could do that, you wouldn't have ignored the request to do it countless times.

They can't convict KSM. But you are saying jihadists planned it. Do you not see a contradiction there? You are the one with the labyrinthian conspiracy. You just don't realize the government can allege conspiracies. And you don't realize there are white terrorists in this world - they aren't all Middle Eastern.

Can you answer my question? Can anyone answer? If you had to run it again, like reshuffling the deck and spreading another flop turn and river, what do you think the chance is that, with those people are those same constraints, you knock down the 3 biggest buildings in the WTC complex with 2 planes? What is the chance that you go for one act of terrorism that would take a ton of luck, from getting into the country, to not being foiled, to having the guts to do it, to executing it under those conditions - what is the chance that then the inadvertent cherry on top is an even bigger and even more impossible success than you even planned in 3 massive skyscrapers going down?

You don't try to make hamburgers and, oh my word, look at that, I made a perfect beef wellington. That's not how the world works. You are the flat earther not me. You are saying something that we know would take months of preparation and expertise happened on accident in the course of a smaller scale attack. It's not like they rammed the jets into the buildings and some other unpredictable thing that had nothing to do with terrorism happened. No, you are saying the accidental thing was the grand finale of all terrorism for all time. You are saying some magician tried to make a rabbit disappear and somehow made the theatre disappear instead of other unintended consequences like killing the rabbit or getting bit by it or whatever else exists in the universe of unpredictable events. No, you are saying that from the universe of unpredictable events randomly comes an enhancement to the terror attacks which is multiple times greater in terror and difficulty than the intended attacks.

His plea deal was voided by the government, you pea brain. You'd think if they just wanted to brush it all under the carpet, they would have gone with the plea deal and avoided a trial.

It's curiosity about the relationship between what people believe, what they say they believe, and what they do. I've mentioned that if I had my life to live over again I would study public opinion and social psychology.

The actual truth of what happened is out of our grasp as a society, out of history's grasp forever. I've accepted that. But the actual truth value is not what I'm really on about. What I am interested in is why people believe things on faith which are falsifiable or blatantly untrue. On a certain level, I don't really care who did 9/11. Once you remove the ability to ever know for sure, it doesn't really matter. What should have happened is we should have had a real investigation and, no matter the conclusions, everyone who failed to prevent the attacks should have been fired. There should have been a complete changing of the guard. We should have torn down the defense complex and started over. The people of this country should have exploited the event instead of allowing the elites to exploit it against them.

AQ did it? Great. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz pack up your **** you are lucky we are letting you live. DEfense budget gets a complete overhaul. The CIA is uprooted and reorganized and everyone in charge is fired. Every person in the FBI or the state department who let these people in the country should be put on trial for their lives.

AQ didn't do it? Same result.

What actually happened is we gave them even more money and all the clowns who let this happen were promoted then joined the private sector to collect their bribes via jobs issuing new bribes. ICE is out there executing people and putting together a database on everyone who isn't a Nazi because of 9/11, because we didn't have the guts to hold our elites responsible when they failed.

The plea deal was made. Then it was voided for political reasons. They are just going to wait for him to die most likely.

The ultimate ugly mean mugging hairy backed fat slob Arab terrorist who killed thousands of rich white people is still alive breathing air 25 years later and there is only one important conclusion to be drawn from that. I hope one day you find the guts to admit it, but I won't be holding my breath.

Why don't you tell me the conclusion, I'm a bit lost.

So all that typing and still no evidence? Have I got that right?

Deuces clearly thinks we're all pea brains like him and if he bloviates about irrelevant **** for long enough we'll just forget what it was he was supposed to cite/prove and he can go back to claiming it with no evidence again. That certainly seems to have been the pattern of his posting in this thread.

Just for the record, every time you post without evidence, Deuces, I will be ignoring everything you have typed and just repeat that you have not provided a shred of evidence for any of your claims. I would hate for anyone reading this thread to be mislead into thinking you had even a partial leg to stand on for any of your claims.

You have to compare the stupidity, by which you really mean smallness of likelihood, with that of the alternatives.

Believe it or not, buildings can be controlled down. It happens all the time and there is ample documentation that the military and intelligence has developed sophisticated methods of achieving this. There are many ways to do it. They all involve the systematic removal of supports. Starting an office fire, whether or not you sprinkle on some jet fuel (and none in building 7), is not a way to do it, at least before or since 9/11. You want to talk about Occom's razor? It favors the demolition hypothesis. Large steel framed buildings come down all the time and it is never by fire. It is always by demolition. I don't know how often such buildings are demolished, but if you (and we can exclude our case of interest) stack up all those cases against other mechanisms you can't even define it because you are dividing by ZERO. Something which has happened ZERO times, you are saying, happened 3 times in one day. You are saying this even though a whole cadre of professionals are telling you it didn't happen that way. So I'm not going to call you an idiot for believing the government or, really, the people who control our government. But I am saying you are the one going out on a limb here with some improbable bullshit, not me.

There is the very unlikely scenario where some group of people rigs these buildings to come down. But then there is the even more unlikely scenario where they come straight down without someone rigging them. This is hard to wrap your head around because these are both unlikely and the authorities are telling you it was one and not the other. But if you think about it a little, you can probably make it to the conclusion that one was significantly more unlikely than the other. And when you think about that, keep in mind that building 7 was the 3rd largest building in the complex, so it coming down in that fashion had the maximal terrorist impact. And it wasn't right next to the twin towers. There were a few buffer buildings in between. And for them to all come down to such completion and for them to all exhibit the same unexplained phenomena such as the underground temperatures, further makes it unlikely that their coming down was all through their own mechanisms as oppose to all being brought down by the same mechanism which is what you would expect under controlled demolition.

So what about this video of rivers of molten steel?

That's really neat Deuces, but you still haven't shown anyone any evidence of your claims.

One part of this saga that is hysterical to me is how important he insisted it was that you agree that there was molten steel all over the place. So important it was like the key piece of evidence for his whole theory.

I suppose then since he doesn't have any evidence of this molten steel that it just didn't exist. Meaning his whole theory (that hinged on that bit of evidence apparently) is just not true.

Case closed, right Deuces?

Apparently it's impossible to bring down a building by crashing a commercial airliner into it because it had never happened before. Dunces McDuncecap, our resident logician and probabilist, has confirmed this by thinking about it.

Dunces, you know what else had never happened before? Everything, before the first time it happened.

Deuces supporting a claim with evidence.