[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.
Wow. I kind of grunched the thread. I didn't even realize OP was arguing Al Qaida didn't fly planes into the towers. I assumed he was making some argument Jews or the US govt was involved somehow, and the US govt was trying to cover it up.
LOL this thread.
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?
govt lies about the biggest things. but this time they are truthful.
I'm not reading all of this crap, but please tell me there aren't people besides the standard conspiracy potatoes believing the AE911truth crap? I just need to know that so I can do something else.
run away gorgo, there is nothing for you here
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!"
Its almost like there arent interested in saying the right things to comfort a certain group who thinks the buildings were wired for an insurance payment.
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?
It was brought down to generate exploitable fear and panic. Some people say it was because some other people don't like our blue jeans, don't like the fact that we have the freedom to wear them or something. That never made sense to me but many ITT believe it to this day.
The fact that WTC 7 looks so much like a controlled demolition proves that it wasn't a controlled demolition.
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.
Once again for the slow ponies...building 7 was not hit by a plane.
There are a lot more observations available than just the planes hitting the buildings. There are aspects of the collapses caught by many cameras. There are sounds captured on video indicating explosive charges were used in some capacity. There is video allowing us to see the rate at which they fell and other evidence of systematic removal of support. But if you haven't had a decent Newtonian, calculus based physics course I could see how you just wouldn't understand the significance of the rate of fall.
The planes hitting the buildings made a spectacular image burned into the public mind. They also told a simple story of causality- plane hit building then building go down (except for building 7 which, again, was never hit by a plane). It's perfect. You've got a few guys in a plane who blew up so what is there to investigate as we all saw it? Whoever did this correctly anticipated that the imagery and the apparent cause would be overwhelmingly compelling together. Had the buildings just been demolished it would not have had nearly the spectacle and there would be all kinds of investigations into who had access to the buildings etc. (still can't that though a thousand FOIAS have tried).
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.
Where is this convincing explanation? No matter what you believe, we should be able to agree on the objective fact that the NIST report hand waves away the collapse mechanism.
Trolly is doing it right. He's not actually demanding proof from authority. He just thinks the proof has to be be out there somewhere or else what does that say about him? No one wants to confront the possibility that people in control are lying psychopaths and that they are just, essentially, a function of the mind of a sinister entity. It's horrifying to people. I think the reason I am not afraid of that is just how I was raised. But, again, the truth movement has begun to focus on the psychology of obedience and thought control. Maybe it will give us some answers.
Deuces, did the penthouse on wtc 7 fall from some sort of heat damage to the building or was it controlled?
The building was controlled down. Whether some other phenomena was caused by the controlled demolition or not is a anyone's guess.
These were not jinga towers. These were virtual honeycombs of steel. There is no magic beam in there the absence of which causes free fall collapse to completion.
This isn't Star Wars. There was no secret vulnerability built into these buildings like in the Death Star. In the real world when buildings collapse "naturally" the floors pancake and fall. They loose integrity but there are still recognizable as floors. They aren't obliterated into dust. You can Google pictures of this. There has never been observed anything like what we saw on 9/11 outside of controlled demolition. No collapse of a steel framed building due to fire. not ever. Then 3 in one day? I mean, you would think of all places where tales of outrageously unlikely events were told that a gambling forum would be one of the least welcoming.
Where is the skepticism? Where is the consideration of probability? Where is the curiosity? Even if you cannot shake the idea that some cave dwelling religious fundamentalists pulled this off, don't you want to know where all that office equipment went? They hardly found any of it? Do you think that when buildings collapse that the contents somehow magically vanish? The buildings were filled with (fire ******ant) objects which were nowhere to be found. Or what about the massive molten metal runoff before the collapse of the South tower? The fires cannot get hot enough to melt steel. There are so many bizarre observations from the event which were caught on video and it's like you establishment loyalists have not a care at all about them.
But if you haven't had a decent Newtonian, calculus based physics course I could see how you just wouldn't understand the significance of the rate of fall.
I have had a decent "Newtonian, calculus based physics course" (I assume you mean "studied Newtonian mechanics as part of a degree level physics curriculum"). Please explain to me, complete with the relevant equations, your calculation of the rate of fall and its significance.
Gravity = 9.8 m/s^2
Rate of fall > Gravity.
F = ma
a = m/F
in this case 'a' > 9.89m/s^2
Pedantic point, but let's keep things precise. Gravity is not 9.81 m/s^2, acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s^2. Gravity is a force whose strength on Earth is 9.81 N/kg.
1. Where is your evidence that the rate of fall exceeded acceleration due to gravity?
2. Is the suggestion that in a controlled demolition the rate of fall exceeds acceleration due to gravity? Where does the additional downward force come from? Can you show me a diagram showing how a controlled demolition (or whatever you claim caused the building to collapse) generates net downward force?
The claim is the buildings fall at or above the acceleration of gravity which is the maximum speed of "free fall" on Earth without added inputs.
The claim is the buildings fall at or above the acceleration of gravity which is the maximum speed of "free fall" on Earth without added inputs.
It doesn't fall at anywhere near that rate. The interior of the building collapsed for quite a while before basically the exterior skeleton, which you saw, even began to fall. Even the timings of that alone are not close as they stop the timer when it disappears from view rather than when it reaches the ground.
This entire premise is horribly flawed. The building was visibly leaning for HOURS before its inevitable collapse.
.
Where is the skepticism? Where is the consideration of probability? Where is the curiosity? Even if you cannot shake the idea that some cave dwelling religious fundamentalists pulled this off, don't you want to know where all that office equipment went? They hardly found any of it? Do you think that when buildings collapse that the contents somehow magically vanish? The buildings were filled with (fire ******ant) objects which were nowhere
You have to understand that you're not dealing with logical people who think logically, you're dealing with worldviews and egos-- and those don't change easily.
You have to understand that you're not dealing with logical people who think logically, you're dealing with worldviews and egos-- and those don't change easily.
Except you haven't made any concrete, verifiable claims, only, as always, vague statements from which we're supposed to make inferences as to what you're actually claim.
Provide your claims, with evidence, in a bullet point list (not some stream of consciousness nonsense peppered with ad hominems and hyperbole), and we might do more than point and laugh.
Except you haven't made any concrete, verifiable claims, only, as always, vague statements from which we're supposed to make inferences as to what you're actually claim.
Provide your claims, with evidence, in a bullet point list (not some stream of consciousness nonsense peppered with ad hominems and hyperbole), and we might do more than point and laugh.
Someone upthread did exactly that. I myself am here for my own entertainment and that certainly doesn't involve arguing with a bunch of people whose responses are along the lines of "because it looks so much like a conspiracy we know it can't be a conspiracy".
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 might be a little difficult but, come on, this is the guy who we have captured alive who is, supposedly, most directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Obviously torture spoils any direct confessions so obtained. But they would have also got information from any number of these suspects about where to find the proof of planning, about the people in the network who actually functioned as go betweens, pointers to paper trails etc. They could get that from a lot of suspects if AQ did it. You get a pointer to the evidence, get the evidence, and then say you got it by some other means and there is no way for anyone to be the wiser and, honestly, no one wants to be the wiser.
But that shouldn't even be necessary. They captured so many fighters and they raided the homes and camps of the principals but they still don't have anything.
Consider the modus operandi of AQ which, despite my saying they didn't do this crime, I still acknowledge as a terrorist organization which has carried out deadly attacks against the U.S. They always used the tactic of putting explosives next to a structure, on land foreign to Americans but containing Americans, and detonated it. And after 9/11 they did the same thing. The 9/11 attacks committed by these people is like a pick pocket doing a bunch of pick pocketing, then leaping into stealing the crown jewels, then going back to pick pocketing. Do you have any ability to apply some common sense here? Just like what you know about human nature? I mean we know people with particular leaks in their poker game will most likely have those same leaks 5 years from now. People and groups of people don't just break out of their M.O. to an extremely elevated level and then return back down. Or, if I am wrong, show me where this ever happens?
Someone upthread did exactly that. I myself am here for my own entertainment and that certainly doesn't involve arguing with a bunch of people whose responses are along the lines of "because it looks so much like a conspiracy we know it can't be a conspiracy".
If it was Deuces, he will need to put his claims in a digestible format, preferably a list. Reading through reams of his stream of consciousness, stylistically awful drivel is not my idea of a good time. And ultimately, that's what I'm here for.
Except you haven't made any concrete, verifiable claims, only, as always, vague statements from which we're supposed to make inferences as to what you're actually claim.
Provide your claims, with evidence, in a bullet point list (not some stream of consciousness nonsense peppered with ad hominems and hyperbole), and we might do more than point and laugh.
This is the slowest pony I've ever seen.
Government narrative support: NIST report, Bazant paper. Nothing peer reviewed to offer. NIST report is a ridiculous pile of assertions which still needs to make extremely unrealistic assumptions in its hand waving. The Bazant paper was scribbled down in the first days after the attacks and is totally unsupported by data, proper investigation, or peer review. Nothing the official narrative cites takes into account significant, anomalous observations like the severe, months-long heat blooms at all 3 collapse sites.
Truth movement: wide array of highly credentialed engineers, architects, and scientists who have made many presentations at various levels of technical detail debunking almost every conclusion of the government narrative. Several of these efforts have been peer reviewed. Their cards and their credentials are on the table.
That is, objectively, the state of things. Whether or not your mind changes I know you will never do anything other than point and laugh. That is the only reason you are here. If you were on Krypton as it exploded you would be pointing and laughing at Jor-EL while being engulfed in flames.
This is the slowest pony I've ever seen.
Government narrative support: NIST report, Bazant paper. Nothing peer reviewed to offer. NIST report is a ridiculous pile of assertions which still needs to make extremely unrealistic assumptions in its hand waving. The Bazant paper was scribbled down in the first days after the attacks and is totally unsupported by data, proper investigation, or peer review. Nothing the official narrative cites takes
So in order to understand what it is that you, or this "truth movement", are claiming, I need to do what exactly? Maybe it got lost in your paragraphs upon paragraphs of irrelevant nonsense.
Can you summarise what is being claimed with concrete points like I'm 5? Not these vague allusions to point-by-point refutations that would have me scurrying off to spend the rest of my day reading reams and reams of reports and whatnot.
ETA: I'm going to tell you now, for any future posts you address to me, I'm not reading beyond the first paragraph. You're more than capable of providing a reasonable length synopsis of what it is you want to say, so stop wasting both of our time with your insufferable essays.
