[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
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
Well I'll give you credit that this is an improvement over mentioning that Danny the Contractor crashed his car 10 years after 911.
My point is, which you're kind of eluded to, is that it doesn't matter at all for you what happened on 911 and that your desire for punishment is not on any contingency of guilt. Can you at least at admit that?
I really don't know why some of you guys are so protective yet so damn determined to spend a lifetime massaging some horse **** line that gets you nowhere. Be more like vic, i guess.
I'm saying that 911 has been your moral cover for years and that you should step up a bit and ditch it.
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.
No plane hit building 7. Why do you guys keep hitting your heads on building 7? You should watch where you're going. You need to protect what little you have left up there.
Suppose you just post a link to this video.
What was pouring out of the south tower? Show us.
But there is video of piecemeal molten steel at the ground zeros. You can google it.
We have googled it and found no videos showing molten steel at ground zero. Show us.
This is your key evidence, right? Let's see it!
What then? Then it's not molten steel it's aluminum. There is evidence of molten steel all over even FEMA published something on it, maybe not coordinating the fraud well enough across agencies. I post all this stuff in the other thread.
But if you don't think the metal pouring out of the South Tower was molten steel then you aren't going to be convinced by anything. The video is doctored, you'll say. The scientists are secret anarchists. The substance isn't steel. The small difference between free fall and the observed collapse rate is what an intact building can provide, you say. We've kinda gone over the physical evidence. You think things like because the rate of fall isn't the same as an object falling in a vacuum of air that it's not free fall and from there you conclude not absolute free fall = no systematic removal of support. Actually, near free fall means something significant. And you know it does. I honestly don't think you even believe the government story anymore Trolly. I think you hate me for spoiling it for you.
But if you don't think the metal pouring out of the South Tower was molten steel then you aren't going to be convinced by anything.
What convinced YOU it was molten steel?
Did you know that 911 truthers ROUTINELY alter videos? Did you know the most commonly referenced video on the collapse of WTC7 only showed the end of the collapse and was sped up by 40% (the exact percentage difference between the final collapse and the time if it fell in freefall)?
How can you tell if it is or isn't?
Here's a fun challenge: the total collapse time for WTC7 is 17.5 seconds. Show us the math for that height of a building in freefall and compare the difference.
You think things like because the rate of fall isn't the same as an object falling in a vacuum of air that it's not free fall and from there you conclude not absolute free fall
Do you think the rate of collapse not being the same as freefall means it's not freefall is...controversial?
What is meant by "systematic removal of support?" Purposeful demolition? Of course. There is absolutely no evidence for that. It's pretty obvious how and why the buildings collapsed.
Actually, near free fall means something significant. And you know it does. I honestly don't think you even believe the government story anymore Trolly. I think you hate me for spoiling it for you.
It means gravity is alive and well on planet earth. But it's not really anywhere near freefall.
You are blithering idiot and you STILL have not provided evidence. But at least you are starting to realize you don't fing have any.
What then? Then it's not molten steel it's aluminum. There is evidence of molten steel all over even FEMA published something on it, maybe not coordinating the fraud well enough across agencies. I post all this stuff in the other thread.
Decues, the more you avoid posing the video, the more everyone will assume you're full of shit. I know you think we're all morons, but we're smart enough to figure out that you're stalling.
I'm almost to the point where I might have to consider the very real possibility that DK doesn't actually have any real evidence. Almost.
No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.
Can anyone guess who said this? Hint: they were talking about the WTC towers.
Not sure why controlled demolition with explosives would produce rivers of molten steel. That's not how it works. It just causes structural failure at key points and gravity does the rest. It involves a great deal of preparatory work on the building which would be difficult to do while the building was in use without everybody noticing.
Can we please stop feeding this gobshite? I can forgive his batshit nuts conspiralunacy but not his persistent bad faith/semi trolling bollocks.
Not sure why controlled demolition with explosives would produce rivers of molten steel. That's not how it works. It just causes structural failure at key points and gravity does the rest. It involves a great deal of preparatory work on the building which would be difficult to do while the building was in use without everybody noticing.
Right. The explosive charges were a second layer of misdirection, after the commercial airliners, to distract us from the supernanothermite and the space lasers.
Not sure why controlled demolition with explosives would produce rivers of molten steel. That's not how it works. It just causes structural failure at key points and gravity does the rest. It involves a great deal of preparatory work on the building which would be difficult to do while the building was in use without everybody noticing.
I don't think any of the intelligent skeptics of the official story claim to know exactly how it happened. There is physical evidence of thermite - tons of it. There were 200k tons of steel in the twin towers alone. Thermite as an incendiary would produce the temperatures required to melt steel. It might also explain the persistent high temperatures observed at all of the collapse sites.
There are different ways to bring buildings down. Techniques to do that are something in which the military and intelligence have had a longstanding interest, for obvious reasons. So there is no reason to think the demolition mechanism is restricted to conventional civilian techniques which have been designed to optimize impact on surroundings, cost, and safety. There could be different ways which require different rigging. We still can't get information on the maintenance logs leading up to the attacks. Why is that a secret? Why is the funding of the alleged hijackers a secret? Why is every bit of information which would potentially falsify that it was other than AQ who did this surrounded with impenetrable walls of secrecy?
And yes, bringing down giant buildings is hard. That has been one of my main points. That's why you don't do it 3 times in a day by accident in at least 2 very different ways (giving you that the twins went down the same way and then building 7 through an entirely different mechanism).
