[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

If 9/11 wasn’t some sort of govt conspiracy then the govt would’ve released all the documents.

Instead the FBI won’t release everything cause KSA might get mad

Was gulf of Tonkin a govt conspiracy?

Arguments from physics are some of the strongest arguments there are in favor of 9/11 conspiracy ideas. And I assume astrophysicists are still well versed in the regular sorts of Newtonian mechanics at play on earth.

Guys, be nice to him. Everyone needs a hobby.

Spending all their time on the internet researching black helicopters and government conspiracies to take down skyscrapers keeps them occupied.

Imagine if Facebook existed while Ted Kaczynski was sitting there bored in his workshop.

"I could build this bomb, or I can spend another 18 hours arguing with this stranger on the internet. Do I even know where my caulk gun is? ..." *furious typing noises*

Fun collection of data on this subject

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

What’s that have to do with the govt covering up for the Saudis?

Ohhhh, you!

Since this used to be my favorite politics thread like 10 years ago I've forgotten all of the angles so I'm going to start with a simple question that someone can answer that everyone can understand.

What was the reason that building 7 was brought down?

I don't think anyone has the exact answer there. Larry Silverstein would be the person to ask.

Misdirection, obviously. When everyone turned around to look at that, the alien demolition crew made good their getaway in their flying saucer.

Isn't he the guy that owned it? What would be his motivation to demo building 7? This is all so foggy since it was so long ago that I thought that. Jogging my memory also brings back there were some super secret government documents the government wanted destroyed?

This is the problem with modern conspiracy guys, they never offer a competing explanation. Why shouldn't I believe the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE if you have no alternative?

well maybe this time maybe they are telling the truth!

Insurance money and to destroy financial records. Records like where the pentagons missing 1000 billion dollars went.

Those are two very compelling explanations. Let me give you two more, Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me give you a third reason, a thousand billion dollars. Multiple thousand billion dollars of money spent on war.

Now tell me why the govt needed to lie to invade Iraq AND Afghanistan, and tell me why the govt wont release 28 pages of the 9/11 report?

You should try thinking this through logically.

If you mean Tyson he is really more of a public intellectual than merely an astrophysicist. He is known as a very good communicator (personally I think that is well deserved). He talks about a range of scientific and technical issues affecting public policy. He was actually in New York and witnessed the immediate impacts of the planes striking the buildings. You really can't get more in someone's wheelhouse than Tyson and 9/11 controversy. Like if a huge asteroid was charting a path directly towards earth that would be more in his wheelhouse, but that's about it.

It's not just him not having a take. It's the reactions of scientists when asked about it. They almost all shut down the conversation with something like "it was a tragic terrorist attack and that's what we know". No one seems to want to sign off on this bizarre theory of mere mild fires collapsing 3 huge skyscrapers. This also seems to go for engineers. The most cited work in favor of the official theory is still a paper by Bazant which was produced a few days after the attacks and ignores building 7. This guy had no data or anything, just sketching out how it happened via pure thought in a paper which is not peer reviewed. The U of Alaska research took years and gathered a lot of data. Bazant just said here whiff my farts and that is still the main support for the official story as far as I know (I don't pretend to know it all).

We live in an age of "I bet you thought that but haha it's really this". On other controversial topics there is ample technical and scientific research constantly presented and the standard of a way of gaining knowledge. Climate change is a good example. But we have reacted to 9/11 more consequentially than we have to climate change. Where is that gold standard of so called Western civilization to demonstrate the truth of this highly consequential claim? I think the absence is significant.

Insurance companies have a thing in their clause about blowing up your place to collect money.

Also, it doesn't take much effort to think of other ways to destroy documents than blowing up buildings.

Gotta love these guys who are not even disputing that a ****ing commercial airliner flew directly into a skyscraper but claim that it was "obviously" and "logically" something else that caused it to collapse half an hour later.

I have two competing explanations: one which seems to offer a convincing explanation of why the towers fell, and yours which explains absolutely nothing. Logically, the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE gets the W here.

For anyone who remembers "Loose Change", this was great:

What needs to be explained here? A big-ass airplane laden with jet fuel smashed into a building and caused enough structural damage to bring it down. A toddler can understand this.

What's your alternative theory? What is your remedial explanation of how these buildings came down?

I could offer an explanation of what "remedial" means if it helps?

Or I could offer a piece of friendly advice: Deuces, put down the thesaurus, it makes you sound even dumber than you otherwise would.

Deuces, did the penthouse on wtc 7 fall from some sort of heat damage to the building or was it controlled?

Isn't the main conspiracy that a Jet didn't hit the tower and it was just a controlled demo?

Is it your view that fires in the basement melted enough of the steel support columns to cause a 47 story building to collapse?