[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
If the supposed lie makes more sense and has less contradictions than the “true story”, then I will say the supposed lie is more likely.Also there was a congressional investigation on 9/11 so it’s not like we have to take Bush’s say so on this. I don’t think there was ever an equivalent investigation into WMDs.And as with many things conspiracy related, I’m more likely to belie
oh I dont know if it was controlled demolition, or space lasers, or mirrors, or whatever. but I think the simplest explanation is that CIA and Mossad did it.
I love it. The buildings didn't fall downward enough, but one of the things these idiots cry about is that it fell straight down instead of tipping over. It's just an unbelievably dumb argument. The collapse mechanism is clear (inward buckling, separation from the exterior columns and panels), the collapse itself is a chaotic event and debris goes every direction, but generally downwards. When the supports are pulled inward away from the exterior panels and they separate, it should not be surprising that some fall away (outward) instead of inward. At least to anyone with a degree of intellectual honesty.
I can't believe these people know how to tie their own shoes.
I didn’t thin’ it could become more moronic than Deuces “we are too scared to learn the truth” theory. But Billy boy with his proof via the “collapse/no collapse paradox may be a lifetime achievement winner.
Now this thread is drawing flies, like Victor and Luckybox…
I love it. The buildings didn't fall downward enough, but one of the things these idiots cry about is that it fell straight down instead of tipping over. It's just an unbelievably dumb argument. The collapse mechanism is clear (inward buckling, separation from the exterior columns and panels), the collapse itself is a chaotic event and debris goes every direction, but generally
I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance. Interesting.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'm sensing some cognitive dissonance. Interesting.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Dude, how many pictures of Earth have you seen and you still insist it's flat? And yet you want everyone to look at your pictures and agree that the building turned to dust. Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
Dude, how many pictures of Earth have you seen and you still insist it's flat? And yet you want everyone to look at your pictures and agree that the building turned to dust. Seems a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
I even had a globe night light as a kid.
I don't want or need you to agree. Some do not see.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I didn’t thin’ it could become more moronic than Deuces “we are too scared to learn the truth” theory. But Billy boy with his proof via the “collapse/no collapse paradox may be a lifetime achievement winner.
Now this thread is drawing flies, like Victor and Luckybox…
That is a disproof of nist's claim.
That there was no collapse is my claim. The buildings mostly disintegrated into dust. Dust does not collapse at a freefall rate. Jfc some parts did fall and disintegrated on descent, and others not fully disintegrated ofc. This is also evidenced, crumpled, twisted and bent steel impossible with nist model.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Ok that is obvious but we are talking about material being ejected outward and upward, and only downward over a longer period of time, larger pieces disintegrating while they fall. This is in the video gorgo was referring to. With the outward collapse claim. We are not talking about buckling under weight which can obviously go either way. Collapse goes down, not out.Sent from m
Well we already established that the outward part isn’t a problem, as we know why some portion of material can go outward. So the issue is with the upward. Is there evidence of significant amounts of material going upward?
oh I dont know if it was controlled demolition, or space lasers, or mirrors, or whatever. but I think the simplest explanation is that CIA and Mossad did it.
It’s not the simplest explanation because we have good reasons to believe Al Qaeda and OBL did it. So we need to have some kind of explanatory power that is furnished by positing the CIA and Mossad’s involvement, which I don’t know what that would be.
If we can eliminate each of those alternate explanations one by one and be left with planes and hijackers, the intuition pumping of the alternate explanations goes away (because if the alternate explanation is true, then some kind of intelligence op becomes more likely).
It’s not the simplest explanation because we have good reasons to believe Al Qaeda and OBL did it. So we need to have some kind of explanatory power that is furnished by positing the CIA and Mossad’s involvement, which I don’t know what that would be.If we can eliminate each of those alternate explanations one by one and be left with planes and hijackers, the intuition pumping
Al Qaeda has always worked for the USA and Israel.
So you agree that the official story about Al Qaeda hijacking planes and flying them into key targets on 9/11 is the most likely, you just disagree about why they did it?
Prior to that the muslim brotherhood, then back to the days of Lawrence of Arabia etc. Give us brits some credit.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I don’t think Victor would agree with that since he supports Hamas, which is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Yo Billy, daily progress check-in, how's that evidence of buildings disintegrating into dust coming along? You got some more pictures of dust for us?
