[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.
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.
What would you say if I told you that your narrative violates the laws of physics?
Insurance money and to destroy financial records. Records like where the pentagons missing 1000 billion dollars went.
For the former, I'm sure the insurance company was happy to write that check without doing any sort if investigation. For the latter, what year was it, 1901? If the financial information was electronic, it was in multiple places, even back then. If on paper, they could have destroyed it much easier and less publicly than bringing down a whole building.
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.
Seems the risk/reward wouldn't be worth it since there are many much simpler ways to accomplish the tasks.
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?
No idea what you're talking about. Can you summarize what you're talking about with the 28 pages of the 9/11 report?
On the lying to get us into the Middle East, what did that have to do with a controlled demolition of building 7?
Is it your view that fires in the basement melted enough of the steel support columns to cause a 47 story building to collapse?
It's my view that the 3 columns that were on the side of the building that was actually on fire, faced the wtcs and received damage from those buildings collapsing lead to those columns to fail first leading to the penthouse to fall first. Which is what we see. Then when a building loses 3 columns + an incredibly heavy amount of the building to fall, the transfer trusses that support the remain columns are put under quite a load at that point which leads the the remaining columns breaking leading the rest of the building falling down. Which is also what we see.
We see the penthouse fall first and about 3 secs the entire building fall. That makes pretty clear sense that aligns with the damage to the building. If it was detonated, it aligned perfectly both the timing and locations of the detonation in relation to the damage taken to the building.
For the former, I'm sure the insurance company was happy to write that check without doing any sort if investigation. For the latter, what year was it, 1901? If the financial information was electronic, it was in multiple places, even back then. If on paper, they could have destroyed it much easier and less publicly than bringing down a whole building.
Seems the risk/reward wouldn't be worth it since there are many much simpler ways to
Guess they released the info. Why would the Saudi Govt want to bomb the twin towers? Could it have been to start a war that would benefit Bush, Cheney and KSA?
"In 2016, following a declassification review, the Obama administration approved the declassification of the partially redacted 28 pages, the joint inquiry's only wholly classified section. The document was then sent to congressional leadership and on July 15, 2016, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence approved publication of the newly declassified section.[29][30]
This declassification followed years of lobbying by families of those killed in the September 11 attacks, insurance companies and others. One influential figure in this effort was Bob Graham, who was a member of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 as a senator from Florida. Among other things, he said, "the F.B.I. has gone beyond just covering up ... into what I call aggressive deception."[31]
In addition to the events documented in "the 28 pages", US federal government agencies seem to have had three other apparently independent sources of advance warning of the September 11 attacks that were not reported to the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. One was a Saudi family in Sarasota, Florida, which was known by the FBI to have had multiple contacts with the hijackers-to-be training nearby, until the family fled just before the attacks.[31] Another was the Able Danger data mining operation, which reportedly identified two of the three terrorist cells, who subsequently executed the September 11 attacks. A third was an Iranian expatriate, who had warned the FBI multiple times of the impending September 11 attacks. Sibel Edmonds was reportedly fired for insisting that the evidence they had not be suppressed as she says it was."
Can someone save me going through tens of thousands of words from the thesaurus thumper and the chronic copier and tell me what the prevailing theory is ITT?
For the former, I'm sure the insurance company was happy to write that check without doing any sort if investigation. For the latter, what year was it, 1901? If the financial information was electronic, it was in multiple places, even back then. If on paper, they could have destroyed it much easier and less publicly than bringing down a whole building.
Seems the risk/reward wouldn't be worth it since there are many much simpler ways to
Are you arguing that because you can't figure out a motive for building 7 that it probably came down naturally?
the realistic theory is that the govt let this happen so that we could be drawn into middle eastern wars.
Some people think the govt shot down one of the planes full of people over Pennsylvania. This was alluded to in the opening scene of the movie Vice.
there is also a theory that there were explosives inside the building as well, because it looks like a building that has been detonated to a layperson
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?
You should believe what the evidence and reason support. Right now that is near total agnosticism. There has never been a legitimate investigation of the acts themselves.
If you want me to claim a conspiracy theory I can say the effort to frame AQ and to not actually investigate the money trail or the collapses* is itself a conspiracy separate from the violence. When the head of NIST denies the existence of pools of molten steel and then later says immense, unexplained heat blooms at all 3 collapse sites are not important, he knows he is lying. Does he know the truth? No way. Does he understand that he is supposed to lie and suppress information? Obviously he does. Is he therefore a criminal conspirator? I don't know. I'm inclined to think he isn't. The conspiracy is with whoever told everyone on the news the day after to proclaim it an "act of war". The conspiracy is with whoever sent out that highly weaponized anthrax and whoever called into secret, secure lines and told the secret service "Angel is next".
Who did that? I certainly don't know. Some deep state cabal. But once that cabal convinces well meaning people, which I assume includes even you Trolly, that AQ did it etc. then a lot of it takes care of itself so to speak. I think you literally believe that AQ could commit this crime without any written planning that we've found. I think you honestly thought when they went through Bin Laden's papers and hard drive, which had a LOT of material on it, that we would find the plans for 9/11.
I knew for certain that they would not, just like I knew Trump was not colluding with Russia years before Mueller said so, just like I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq long before the invasion. Why is my knowledge so much more predictive than yours? Because I actually follow the methods prescribed in our intellectual tradition on how to know things. I think you know what those are like I do, but for some reason you have a psychological block on applying those principles here.
And actually the 9/11 truth movement has branched out to some degree from the buildings, planes, and criminal investigatory issues to trying to study the psychology of those who believe the governments assertions when they are so provably wrong. You are looking at a black rock and saying it's yellow because someone in authority told you to say it's yellow. That is truly fascinating to me.
*hand waving assertions piled up by compartmentalized operatives is not really an investigation it's a smokescreen.
Cliffs?
Maybe don't start your paragraph of (probably) nonsense with a dumb lie if you want people to read your (probably) paragraph full of nonsense
https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/91...
I demand a point by point rebuttal of this 600 page report by the end of the weekend or you literally have zero credability
You should believe what the evidence and reason support. Right now that is near total agnosticism. There has never been a legitimate investigation of the acts themselves.
lol
We have one explanation that at least passes the smell test. Maybe there are fine details I can't fully explain, fair. But planes crashing into a building and destroying it is a plausible explanation.
On the other hand we have... absolutely nothing. Two decades of crackpot 9/11 scholarship and you've got no alternative whatsoever.
You should believe what the evidence and reason support. Right now that is near total agnosticism. There has never been a legitimate investigation of the acts themselves.
If you want me to claim a conspiracy theory I can say the effort to frame AQ and to not actually investigate the money trail or the collapses* is itself a conspiracy separate from the violence. When the head of NIST denies the existence of pools of molten steel and then la
I used to be a guy who said it was yellow. not sure why or how that changed.
but to piggyback on your larger point and agree with you, if one just assumes the media and gov is lying then they will almost never be wrong. in fact, I cant even think of a major example.
https://indi.ca/opposites-day/
Honestly, I think a lot of things can change that ... fear, hatred, anger, depression - it's all connected together. Since things like covid, global conflict + endless avenues of confirmation bias more people will migrate to that way of thought for all kinds of reasons. It's part of human behavior and it's comforting.
This entire thread has one piece of real content supporting the conspiracy and its a 50,000 word exercise in self indulgence
I was told that the conspiracy is so accepted as truth that the research has moved on to studying the normies who don't believe it yet you guys can't even produce low effort links to support your claims
Do you agree that the Saudis helped these terrorists out?
I think its possible to simultaneously hold an opinion that terrorists were assisted in a certain manor by certain forces while also acknowledging that a particular building may not have been detonated to rubble for insurance money. One doesn't need to lead to another.
If I've failed to follow the discussion then you can easily point me to where the broken physics are explained, right?
That is not the point. Trolly is arguing that in the absence of a competing narrative, then any complete narrative should be taken as truth-- which is a ridiculous assertion. I am asking him if this should be the case even when the complete narrative is absurd.
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.
Meh. Whoever made the decision is probably a progressive who doesn't support the death penalty at all. If you went through their entire record, they probably dont ever go for the death penalty. If you showed me the person(s) who made this call have a pattern of seeking the death penalty, and didn't in this case; then mayyyybe there is something there.
