[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 think that AQ did 9/11 you should be in adult day care.
Like I say, if you have a theory, put it forward with evidence. Otherwise all you're doing is saying "well, I have some fee fees that some mischief might be afoot".
Al Qaeda appears to have been a pretty well funded and organised group, so I don't know why you're saying it was a handful of people with no funding.
theory is, it's highly likely events happened as described (it was the planes to bring down the towers, pentagon and PA happened as per narrative), although addition NYC building collapsing wasn't ever clear to me (but I don't intend to study structural engineering for that so I give up and I accept the narrative) , while it's highly UNLIKELY that we have been told everything about which actual group(s) were behind the physical perpetrators.
the single strongest possibility is that it was a rogue group of elite Saudis linked to the royal family but as I said, rogue, which was pissed off with the American alliance, and the Bush admin actually pretty quickly learnt that was the case yet covered it because they decided the KSA alliance was too important to compromise.
there is a trail of (ex post) events that can let us suggest high level Saudi involvement has been covered up (again I am not even assuming monolithical Saudi involvement: just a rogue portion of the ever-warring domestic Saudi elites).
but it could be something else, or more complicated including some Saudis but not exclusively.
still I consider it highly likely that very important international actors helped 9 11 unfold, the American government knew about that soon enough, and kept it as a secret from us.
at least, I consider that more likely than 50%.
I don't think I need HARD evidence until I want to name specific names.
I think logic and the fact that things don't add up completely are enough to suggest a covering up of actual powerful groups behind the attack
theory is, it's highly likely events happened as described (it was the planes to bring down the towers, pentagon and PA happened as per narrative), although addition NYC building collapsing wasn't ever clear to me (but I don't intend to study structural engineering for that so I give up and I accept the narrative) , while it's highly UNLIKELY that we have been told everything about which actual group(s) were behind the physical perpetrators
I mean sure, I'm a lot more open to theories about the people behind it than I am to what this thread has been about so far, which is controlled demolitions, thermite and space lasers basically. Your man Deuces has been telling us that simple high school physics makes it impossible for the towers to have collapsed due to being struck by airplanes, doused in jet fuel and set on fire, but he cunningly refuses to tell us what that physics is. And Playbig waded in not too long ago with the "directed energy weapon" (space laser) angle, which is at least much more fun.
I mean sure, I'm a lot more open to theories about the people behind it than I am to what this thread has been about so far, which is controlled demolitions, thermite and space lasers basically.
but the essence is not believing the narrative.
I can actually understand more someone who goes crazy about thermite (which I don't know much about) because of some YouTube video, than someone who believes the whole narrative a to z to the letter.
but the essence is not believing the narrative.
I can actually understand more someone who goes crazy about thermite (which I don't know much about) because of some YouTube video, than someone who believes the whole narrative a to z to the letter.
Lol no, now you sound like Deuces. "Not believing the narrative" can mean a lot of different things, depending on which parts you don't believe. Disbelieving some parts might be reasonable, disbelieving other parts makes you batshit insane. You're not talking to anyone ITT who believes something just because the government said it, so you can drop that bullshit if you want to have a discussion rather than getting trolled like the rest of them.
Lol no, now you sound like Deuces. "Not believing the narrative" can mean a lot of different things, depending on which parts you don't believe. Disbelieving some parts might be reasonable, disbelieving other parts makes you batshit insane. You're not talking to anyone ITT who believes something just because the government said it, so you can drop that bullshit if you want to have a discussion rather than getting trolled like the rest of th
I know it can mean different things.
my claim is that not believing a single word is better than believing the whole thing. society would be better if people simply completely disregarded the official narrative than if they slavishly follow it to the letter.
there is enough lying that an heuristic of "the government always lies" is more pragmatic, efficient, and useful for society if generalized, than "the government never lies".
You are NOT insane if you think everything the government does is to control and rape and abuse the people. ofc not all of it isz but just because they can't get away with it not for lack of intent or will...
the conspicuous parts of truth government gives you are there to cover and hide the rest, not because there is any inherent will of giving you any truth ever.
they are ****ing evil and they kill you and they feed on your corpse and they spit you and laugh.
the government is not there to help you, it's not your friend, it's your main enemy and the cause of most of society problems.
I know it can mean different things.
my claim is that not believing a single word is better than believing the whole thing. society would be better if people simply completely disregarded the official narrative than if they slavishly follow it to the letter.
there is enough lying that an heuristic of "the government always lies" is more pragmatic, efficient, and useful for society if generalized, than "the government never lies".
You are NOT i
Jesus that's some dumb ****.
I haven't seen anyone like that here. You do understand that there is a difference between "believing something the government says" and "believing something because the government said it", don't you? Because I'm not convinced that you do.
do you believe that at least half the population can't understand the difference?
given it's your field, are you familiar with Poteshman (2006) accounting of trading activity in options pre 9/11 for puts specifically in airlines, which finds conclusive evidence of unusual volumes and open interest?
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/503...
and if we agree trading activity was unusual pre attack and it can't have been the suicidal terrorists themselves, aren't you curious who the **** he was and why the american go
Was it really unusual though? Stocks had been trending down all year(and really since ~'00) and Sept is generally a bad month. It's one of those things that can sound interesting minus any other context--but even a tiny bit(and probably pretty easy to fill in a bunch more) starts to chip away at the idea being short at the time, even airline specific, was some wildly unusual play. But maybe it was too--you'd probably need to put it next to some more context.
I just think it's a good idea to try to ask some obv questions/fill in some other info around the thing--before allowing yourself to get taken for a ride. Because it's very easy to do with those kinda isolated factoids.
There's nothing particularly interesting about conspiracy theorists. They are typically either a) people who suffer from paranoia and/or psychotic delusions or b) people who are trying to make up for their intellectual inferiority by one-upping those more intelligent and/or educated via this one secret shortcut. You are quite obviously b) and quite possibly both.
Conspiracy theorists are the main generators of modern history. If you are interested in history then you are therefore interested in conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. This is one of those unique insights coming, as far as a I know, from me and only me.
I haven't seen anyone like that here. You do understand that there is a difference between "believing something the government says" and "believing something because the government said it", don't you? Because I'm not convinced that you do.
You're asking me to parse the difference between "says" and "said it"?
Yeah I will actually need that explained to me.
Was it really unusual though? Stocks had been trending down all year(and really since ~'00) and Sept is generally a bad month. It's one of those things that can sound interesting minus any other context--but even a tiny bit(and probably pretty easy to fill in a bunch more) starts to chip away at the idea being short at the time, even airline specific, was some wildly unusual play. But maybe it was too--you'd probably need to put it next to
check the paper
You're asking me to parse the difference between "says" and "said it"?
Yeah I will actually need that explained to me.
I get that there is tense involved and that "said it" is the past tense form of the verb "say" and that it contains a direct object whereas "says" is in the present tense and the direct object is silent (it's still there implicitly because it's not an intransitive verb)-- what I don't get is the semantic difference that D2 is trying to point out
I get that there is tense involved and that "said it" is the past tense form of the verb "say" and that it contains a direct object whereas "says" is in the present tense and the direct object is silent (it's still there implicitly because it's not an intransitive verb)-- what I don't get is the semantic difference that D2 is trying to point out
Lordy. No. What I am saying that believing something X said doesn't mean you believe it because X said it. I guess you really don't understand the difference.
Conspiracy theorists are the main generators of modern history. If you are interested in history then you are therefore interested in conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists. This is one of those unique insights coming, as far as a I know, from me and only me.
You're going to have to explain what "conspiracy theorists are the main generators of modern history" means if you want some sort of points for your unique insight.
Lordy. No. What I am saying that believing something X said doesn't mean you believe it because X said it. I guess you really don't understand the difference.
No I understand that perfectly and now I'm only confused why you wouldn't just phrase it that way the first time.
In this case though there are going to be plenty of the latter types and you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.
