[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Google tells me the charges that would take the death penalty off the table are part of a plea deal that would expedite the case by years if not decades (and literally save the country millions in lawyer fees); and Google further tells me that Lloyd Austin has already nuked the plea deal, which he feels is too lenient (presumably by not seeking the death penalty). So kind of blows the entire theory this thread is premised on out of the water.

FWIW I read the bio of the woman who made the deal (Susan Escallier) and there really isn't anything there one way or another, other than she graduated from Berkeley.

Definitely seems like a nothing burger to me.

Were they ever going to put him to death anyway?

I am not even a progressive, and even I could accept a plea deal for life w/o parole as opposed to decades and millions litigating just to get the death penalty. But if it is a big deal to others to seek the death penalty, it wouldn't be a hill I would be willing to die on. Seems this could be the logic Biden (or whoever is making decisions for him) and Austin came to.

No, Trolly said that a narrative that "seems to offer a convincing explanation", vs one that explains nothing then the convincing explanation gets the W - the fact that it's offers a convincing explanation of events is a kind of important part of that, i.e it's not just "any complete narrative". Sure if the convincing explanation turned out to violate the laws of physics then that would change things but there is absolutely nothing about the official narrative regarding 9/11 that violates the laws of physics so it's a pretty pointless hypothetical.

3000 architects and engineers bought the...

Since 9/11, however, independent researchers around the world have assembled a large body of evidence that overwhelmingly refutes the notion that airplane impacts and fires caused the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. This body of evidence, most of which FEMA and NIST omitted from their reports, instead supports the troubling conclusion that all three skyscrapers were destroyed in a process known as “controlled demolition,” where explosives and/or other devices are used to bring down a building.

KEY EVIDENCE

• 1. Rapid onset of destruction,
  
• 2. Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
  
• 3. Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
  
• 4. Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
  
• 5. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
  
• 6. Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
  
• 7. Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
  
• 8. Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
  
• 9. Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
  
• 10. Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
  

But what could their motivation have been?

I really hope iron microspheres are a thing

So you're saying the physics does actually matter? That's all I'm trying to get out of this from Trolly.

What I'm saying is there are better ways to carry out those objectives without somehow wiring a building for controlled demolition without anyone knowing. The logistics of preparing for that in an empty building in downtown Manhattan would be extremely complex never mind having to do it while occupied and have absolutely no one know about it or if they did, keep them quiet.

Same thing goes for the twin towers. This post isn't a discussion on who carried out 9/11, but to think it was controlled demolition is completely insane. I think flying two planes into the towers had the intended effect and it was just a bonus that they both fell and 7 with it.

Well I'm pretty sure anything that violates the law of physics would not qualify as a "convincing explanation" so I would guess that it matters to him but he can answer for himself if he wants.

is there anyway they could've quickly done it using people on the inside of the building that were there the same day?

Thanks for posting. They have an updated link here: https://www.ae911truth.org/

I'll do some viewing and come back later with some thoughts

I've already made my point abundantly clear, as you've pointed out earlier and I'm not going to repeat myself ad nauseam. If Lucky wants to continue embarrassing himself by dishonestly pretending he can't understand basic English instead of giving a substantive response, that's on him.

You realize though that this is logically backwards and that you're putting ideas and theories ahead of facts?

Does this suggest that most of the building was effectively vaporized by the demolition explosions, or that the twin towers were functionally dismantled from the inside in the weeks/months leading up to 9/11 and smuggled out through secret tunnels in the basement?

Should it matter?

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Do you think we could possibly explain "acre missing" by the "large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds"?

Did anyone consider that a billion pounds of material could potentially cause a large force?

Again, I'm using the prescribed, establishment lauded methods of how to know things. I'm debunking the government's criminal conspiracy theory. I'm not saying I know who did 9/11 or how because I don't. There has been no proper investigation of the attacks as a crime and I certainly don't have the resources or access to do it. I'm just pointing out that what the government is saying is obviously false. And not just a false thing here or there, a few loose ends or some outcomes not fully explained, but an enormous container of demonstrable lies.

As far as speculation as to who did it, I don't think it was a U.S. government operation. I think there would have been a few people inside our government involved, but it certainly was not in the style of, say, operation Northwoods. Northwoods was a plan worked on by a lot of people and proposed up the chain to the president who was like "F no what the heck are you thinking?". These would have had to be outside foreign forces working with a few key insiders who wanted the results they got.

If you want to call me a conspiracy theorist we can go into other areas. If the government knowingly engaged in illegal activities with ill intentions I will not downplay it just because I don't want to be known as a conspiracy theorist. You can try to bludgeon me with that club all you want. You are just going to exhaust yourself because, despite the best intentions of some in power, information is proliferating. Ted Kaczynski was a victim of MK Ultra. It is right in Wikipedia. Did that contribute to his decision to commit his crimes? I think it is a very plausible inference. 200 hours of "purposefully brutalizing" psychological experimentation might leave a mark. What Wikipedia leaves out is that MK Ultra was attempting to craft super soldiers, people who commit lethal violence after having moral objections engineered out of their minds. MK Ultra was aiming at producing lethal aggression subject to commands. There are alleged connections, made by legitimate investigative journalists, between MK Ultra and Charles Manson as well as Sirhan Sirhan. Some speculate that, to a significant extent, the whole serial killer phenomenon from 1970 to 2000 was fueled by MK Ultra and its spinoff projects. It would make sense with the timeline. Once they figured out they couldn't make the super soldier with those means they shut it down.

So go ahead call me crazy. I think the government, doing highly illegal things i.e. a criminal conspiracy, influenced Ted Kaczynski probably resulting in his bombing people. But maybe you won't. Liberals have this tendency to admit to any number of government conspiracies and atrocities that happened in the past, but cannot admit, no matter the quality of evidence, to any ongoing offenses or offenses contained within an extended propaganda framework. It's like you have to have permission from authority to believe your lying eyes.

idk what to tell you man, cases are hard to prosecute when you get caught torturing the suspect and collecting evidence via illegal methods.

it's accepted fact on all sides that two enormous planes crashed into the towers. using that a starting point, one should not be completely agnostic on whether it was the knock-on effects from the crashes that caused their collapse or nanothermite. the burden of proof is on you, and that burden is quite high

that said, everything about the building 7 story is massively weird. i was not comforted watching the NIST analysis video, which opens with an engineer explaining "we discovered a new kind of fire!"

I concede anything that is transparently true, including that most 9/11 truthers are complete idiots. They are not that bright, are highly suggestible, and their thoughts on 9/11 will be part of a cluster of dumb ideas.

But the biggest freaks, by far, are those who actually ingest the propaganda materials as if they are produced in good faith and have anything other than a symbolic function. You are not supposed to consume anything in that link, and I suspect you haven't. You're not supposed to read the NIST report. You're not supposed to read the 9/11 commission report. You're supposed to just know they are there, that our institutions, some people somewhere holding the full faith of the U.S. government, went through the motions of miming some kind of evidence based support for the official findings. 9/11 truthers are fun people at parties. The people who don't have the social awareness to understand the point of the link above are the insufferable ones, the ones who like wear their pants even with the belly button and walk around with their ass clinched who you will find disciplining your dog without your permission.

I think some patterns are emerging involving intellect and belief now where the dumbest people doubt official findings for dumb reasons. Then the smart people believe all official findings, probably just playing the percentages and being more worried about accumulating stuff for themselves and their families. But then there is a more intelligent tier who might, for whatever reasons, be preoccupied with truth. These people might often doubt or deny the official, establishment opinion but for valid reasons. We saw this play out with the covid vaccines. The smart people gobbled them up, just leaving the risk/reward calculation to those in authority. The dumb people thought it was a plot to decrease the population or institute "globo ****". But the scientific/intellectual class avoided the vaccines because they understand what good science is and had reservations about the vaccines based on that understanding.

It seems like it would be a lot cheaper and efficient to buy a couple paper shredders and pay a couple reliable CIA guys to get rid of them the old-fashioned way.

A complete strawman, of course. Of course the government lies about things! The whole Iraq War was predicated on lies! This *is* the mainstream view! None of this explains why the towers fell.

What is this hyperbolic rhetoric even supposed to mean here? NIST is a public agency, their reports can be read. The 9/11 commission report can be found on Amazon FFS, who says you're not "supposed" to read it? What will happen to you if you read it?

You remember that time that god told Lot's wife not to look?

Why CIA? Arthur Andersen were the premier provider of those services around that time.