[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
In this thread we learn an idiot thinks that squatters illegal electrical systems and trash in elevator shafts can cause a fire to destroy a high rise building but two 150;000 kg plans hitting high rises traveling @ 450 mph loaded with jet fuel and the subsequent explosions and fires can not because, er reasons and psychological mumbo jumbo.
This has become pathetic.
Yeah, I'm well past done here. I think every few years he needs his pants pulled down in front of everyone so no one starts to think he's packing anything more than he is. I think that's more than been accomplished now. Back on ignore these clowns go for me.
Again with the lying accusations. You are a child. That's how toddlers talk, something they don't like or agree with is a lie. I said IIRC.
So if you can show me where NIST simulated an entire collapse you will be the first person since Kerowo all these years ago to even say anything challenging. And I'm not saying such an animation doesn't exist. It might. But when I was balls deep in the NIST reports I recall that they, with all their imaginary self serving data, still couldn't produce more than showing like 5% of the collapse, and even then the animation didn't look anything like what we observed. This is obviously because the assumptions under which NIST is working, where they assume their conclusion instead of seeking the truth, are wrong. I don't think they can get any of their models to bring down any of the buildings.
But again, you've called me a liar, and now you can prove at least that I was wrong. Get an animation done by NIST showing the complete collapse of either of the 3 massive skyscrapers that completely collapsed that day.
Your entire game is to handwave everything away for stupid made up reasons and then pretend nothing exists. It's beyond old.
Pointing out fundamental gaps in evidence and fundamentally flawed logic in the official story is what I'm doing.
This is kind of like the Epstein murder, which I bring up because it is a much simpler case but it follows a similar structure. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Epstein was murdered. The evidence that he killed himself is severely deficient. For example, no noose was found. Now we find out that his death notice was written the day before he died. There are questions about every aspect of his death. The scenario where nothing checks out and there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence the other way always means that, at the very least, the null hypothesis (the official story) is false.
Yet, I would wager that almost everyone in this thread who believes the official 9/11 story also believes Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. What about you, Gorgo? Did Epstein kill himself, was he murdered, or do you not have an opinion? Has your opinion changed recently?
Two opportunities, twice failed.For posterity, significant errors thus far ITT not acknowledged:1. Surprise things fall at a rate of mere g.2. Claiming "actual physics".3. Failure to define physics adequately yet claiming its laws to prove some conspiracy theory.Physics is the establishment of successful hypotheses, i.e. theories, describing and explaining phenomena in the natu
I think you have provided an excellent definition for physics!
Similar to what was once called Natural Philosophy.
Go TeamBilly!
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
There is supposed to be skepticism in a functioning democracy. But itÂ’s hard to interpret information in a way that doesnÂ’t just reinforce what the person already believes.
In the 9/11 commission report, the justification for not pursuing the theory that those making huge, totally anomalous bets against the airline and associated industries had foreknowledge of the attacks was that those placing the bets were not AQ. I swear to you that is right in the report and I've cited it multiple times in the other thread. Would this be an example of not interpreting information in a way that doesn't reinforce a predetermined conclusion?
Maybe you can amend your observation to that it's hard to interpret information in a way that does just reinforce what the person already believes, especially when they are getting paid to not interpret information in a way that doesn't reinforce institutional beliefs.
How do you reconcile such naked undermining of the 9/11 commission report? Or what about the same commission saying it the identity of those funding the operation is irrelevant? I've posted the quote multiple times. Can you just tell me what you think of these published assertions which objectively undermine the pursuit of the perpetrators of 9/11? Do you think the investigators got really dumb somehow right at the moment when it would be possible to contradict the official story?
In the 9/11 commission report, the justification for not pursuing the theory that those making huge, totally anomalous bets against the airline and associated industries had foreknowledge of the attacks was that those placing the bets were not AQ. I swear to you that is right in the report and I've cited it multiple times in the other thread. Would this be an example of not int
You'd be arguing with the wrong person if you thought that I believed that there wasn't any foreknowledge leading up to the attack or that that knowledge was leaked and used in part by big money to make money off of it via put options and some other things that I don't believe I've seen you mention.
I could send you up the wall some crony trading conspiracies that I do believe have happened that fall in line with 911. But my argument with you, amongst other things, is that building 7 was wired and demolished. The insider trading doesn't mean the latter must have had happened.
I could send you up the wall some crony trading conspiracies that I do believe have happened that fall in line with 911. But my argument with you, amongst other things, is that building 7 was wired and demolished. The insider trading doesn't mean the latter must have had happened.
Foreknowledge among people whose identity is being actively protected by the state does have implications to the official story. It totally nullifies the official story. That total nullification does not necessarily include that building 7 was controlled down, but it makes it a ton more likely because it largely expands the scope of participation to include domestic operators in powerful positions.
There was an academic, peer reviewed paper from UC I've cited which claims the circumstantial evidence of foreknowledge by traders is highly likely. And this was not just observed in the U.S. but in markets all over the world.
So for the crime of doubting the official story, for not believing in total the government's conspiracy theory, you are now a conspiracy theorist. You are saying that there is a conspiracy to hold up the official conspiracy. Congratulations - you've joined the other side. Stay on an even keel true to first principles and you can see more, just don't let your imagination fly too high.
You'd be arguing with the wrong person if you thought that I believed that there wasn't any foreknowledge leading up to the attack or that that knowledge was leaked and used in part by big money to make money off of it via put options and some other things that I don't believe I've seen you mention.I could send you up the wall some crony trading conspiracies that I do believe
Lots of truthers pull this little maneuver. The two theories are called LIHOP and MIHOP (let it happen on purpose and make it happen on purpose). They switch between them when it's convenient. JiggsCasey was the worlds worst at that here in these forums. As soon as someone (usually Deuces) was getting their ass handed to them on facts, he would rush in and start talking about LIHOP crap.
It gets really old.
Once "what" is established (total delusion from most here negates this opportunity) the who and why can be investigated.
Many so-called progressives jump to the who and why without addressing what happened. Chomsky for instance. Once the discussion moves beyond a criminal investigation and becomes political, the perpetrators are off the hook. The islamic terror (recall that it was and is the British and later the CIA who developed jihadi networks to undermine sovereign governments) narrative was proposed ahead of any evidence to suggest it. Because of course there never was a criminal investigation. (As an aside, iron man 3 is a hilarious take on the bin laden theatre!) This ofc was part of the PFANAC which Chomsky et al supposedly rail against. So what are these people but controlled opposition puppets. Why do "progressives" not go after the psychopaths and help get them in jail to rot where they belong? Because of course they would be destroyed.
Anyhow that is all getting political and historical, distracting from the naked criminality of 9/11.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Foreknowledge among people whose identity is being actively protected by the state does have implications to the official story. It totally nullifies the official story.
The nullification of the original story - not a shock at all given that governments often withhold or spin information about major attacks, does not logically lead to believing Building 7 was deliberately detonated. They are completely separate issues, and I think this is where a perfectly reasonable point gets stretched into a redic leap with the assumption that one thing automatically implies the other. Same with flat earth. Do you want to argue here that the earth is flat because some folks wanted 911 to happen? What about a few tiers down on the moon landing. That **** looks fake as hell and we'd absolutely fake during that time.
Also, if Disneyland knew that their parks had faulty wiring and wasn't addressed, it doesn't mean that they intentionally burned the place down. But it will allow for folks to short DIS if they think it's a credible threat.
Another trope of the 911 truther is railing against "the official story" as if anyone gives a rip what that is. It's really a desperate straw man because no one here or anyone else is claiming that whatever the "official story" is is 100% accurate. Here you see the idea, though. If you just poke a hole in this straw man argument, you can then just claim that magically makes his story the likely one. Of course, that's utter nonsense, but it's absolutely one of their main tactics.
You will see their arguments littered with these absolutely ludicrous terms. "Official story." "Normal office fires." "Government narrative." This is why he says wants a model produced by the government to argue against and not models produced by professional engineers. He's not interested in what actually happened, only in poking holes in something "official."
No one is running around claiming the government is telling the truth 100% of the time. I frankly couldn't give a sht what the government says happened on 911.
You will also see them complain about what the 9/11 commission says about the collapse or the physics, ignoring that the 9/11 commission wasn't tasked with anything to do with the physics of the collapse and was made up entirely of politicians. Just another "official" thing to try to poke holes in.
Pathetic tricks that are completely disinterested in what the real truth is.
Another trope of the 911 truther is railing against "the official story" as if anyone gives a rip what that is. It's really a desperate straw man because no one here or anyone else is claiming that whatever the "official story" is is 100% accurate. Here you see the idea, though. If you just poke a hole in this straw man argument, you can then just claim that magically makes his
What is "real truth?"
Trying to take your question in good faith here, but the only response I can really muster is "which of the two words is giving you trouble?"
the real truth is that the people who lied to you about weapons of mass destruction and killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan were fully truthful about 9/11. "progressives" like Gorg will always side with fascist genocidal Republicans rather than question the government or oppose mass murder of whoever is deemed subhuman.
the real truth is that the people who lied to you about weapons of mass destruction and killed millions in Iraq and Afghanistan were fully truthful about 9/11. "progressives" like Gorg will always side with fascist genocidal Republicans rather than question the government or oppose mass murder of whoever is deemed subhuman.
You're being ridiculous.
It's a serious question.
What's the distinction (if any) between "truth" and "real truth?"
None, real is just to distinguish from the fake nonsense that Deuces is after (aka the "9/11 truth movement").
Another trope of the 911 truther is railing against "the official story" as if anyone gives a rip what that is. It's really a desperate straw man because no one here or anyone else is claiming that whatever the "official story" is is 100% accurate. Here you see the idea, though. If you just poke a hole in this straw man argument, you can then just claim that magically makes his
Physics? What's that?
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The nullification of the original story - not a shock at all given that governments often withhold or spin information about major attacks, does not logically lead to believing Building 7 was deliberately detonated. They are completely separate issues, and I think this is where a perfectly reasonable point gets stretched into a redic leap with the assumption that one thing auto
Conspiracy bingo with Formula72! Moon landing fake. Earth globe. 9/11 bin laden (also government lying). Wtc7 natural causes.
The world is a stage - Francis Bacon.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I have no idea why you're asking me, I didn't use the term (that I recall). If I had to venture a guess, it means that all you conspiracydonks keep talking about physics this and physics that without showing a shred of working or a single calculation.
