[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

There's not enough money on the planet.

a lot of people are well versed in history and the crimes of the US Empire. thus they are skeptical of any claims from such a duplicitous entity.

on the other hand, a lot of people love authority and will take whatever the USA says at face value.

Gorgonian was a subscriber to the previous thread. You were nothing then and you are nothing now Gorgonian. Keep it up and you will never be anything other than a function of some weapon maker's mind.

There wasn't a single adversary in the previous thread who could even make a cogent point other than Kerowo. I concede that even tho he was one of the more disrespectful posters (unlike many of you my self esteem is not up for grabs in online forums). Nobody else there challenged me at all and I'm getting similar vibes here. I've put it out there how we know the pancake theory is absolutely wrong. I don't recall seeing a reply.

So you agree with me now? Actually you are really agreeing with Newtonian reality (perhaps not the most real reality these days but it's an ok approximation).

jk. I know for you bootlicking authority >>>>>>> congruency with reality.

I have to disagree about conspiracy theorists sounding like carbon copies. With 9/11 most people who believe the government reference an extremely over simplified narrative of what happened. They are the group sounding the same one note forever. Once the value proposition of "pretend to believe this untrue thing and you will get social credit" is no longer taken, all kinds of crazy things occur to people. You got the "those weren't planes" people. There is a group of people who believe some kind of novel energy weapon was used on the towers and 7. You've got MIHOP, LIHOP, and blends. Some people are fixated on Israeli involvement, some the Saudis. Some people think a ton of gold was stolen from building 7 or something.

I hope one day you realize the absurdity of the conspiracy theory you believe, that cave dwellers invaded our country undetected from overseas, took a few lessons on how to fly single engine planes, and then flew Boeing jets so amazingly, while knowing they were about to die, that they knocked down 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes, all without leaving a trace of evidence. Oh and flew into DC airspace and corkscrewed into the Pentagon without being challenged.

Thanks. NIST never shared the inputs into their models. Therefore nothing like peer review took place no matter how you want to stretch the term. It's the review part, Trolly, the 2nd term in the phrase "peer review", which I think might be giving you trouble. NIST published their own paper. Do you understand the implications of that? Most of the time those who are writing the paper do not also publish their own work in their own journal. They submit it to a journal that they do not control and, pending a peer review process, they are published or not. In that process they have to divulge their process and their results. Since NIST did not do this, they did not pass peer review.

I don't think I've ever seen a poster so passionately in love with the sound of his own voice. Just think, Deuces - if you weren't such a pretentious little jackass, you could have been a professional and a millionaire like your friends instead of getting your validation from performing autofellatio in front of strangers on the internet.

Haven't followed this thread. Did you guys already cover the magic passport? That was a pretty neat trick.

Nope. Nobody mentioned that yet

For a truth seeker you write a lot of false stuff. Yes, I remember what happened I was in my truck listening to Stern on the way to one of my grows 😀

There was a ton of evidence ffs. And the dudes weren't cavemen lol the pilots were moderately well-educated from what I can tell. Apparently some were cut for not doing well. Learning to fly planes is not some impossible task--tons of people do it. The basic stages of learning to fly can be completed in a pretty short time frame.

I've been around the conspiracy thing for ~40yrs and have done pretty wide reading on the whole thing--and ya there are some smaller details(rarely things they came up with on their own fwiw) that can vary from fruit to nut but the overwhelming majority are largely singing the same tune.

How am I pretentious? I'm the only person, probably in the history of this forum, to ever admit a mistake and admitted it to you who has been nothing but rude and disrespectful to me. You said I misused some word IIRC and I admitted as much. That doesn't happen here. But now I guess I'm bragging about how objective and humble I am right?

You don't know anything about me. You think I live on the streets or something. or you pretend to think so. I think you are projecting your fears about what will happen to you if you stray from the propaganda framework. I can't promise you that you wouldn't be disciplined if you were to think for yourself. We've seen it happen and with severe consequences to people. The news commentator Van Jones used to be a radical. But he was an effective enough communicator that the system opted to bring him into the fold. When it was discovered that he had signed an online petition calling for an investigation into 9/11 his career was waylaid. He lost an appointment Obama had given him because of that signature. He had to renounce his 9/11 takes thoroughly and he slowly rehabilitated his image.

Recently Van Jones was brought to tears on national television at the demise of Joe Biden's political viability.

Maybe you do have a point about me. I'm not a homeless vagrant. But it is true that I would rather be a homeless vagrant than a Van Jones, than be nothing but a function of some oligarch's mind.

Gorgo, you should take this guy off ignore, you're missing some solid gold here.

Deuces, without going into the more comical aspects of your post, I will say this - I did try to engage you in something resembling good faith and dig a bit deeper into your claims, but you are completely incapable of engaging with anyone on any topic in a constructive manner. Your responses are predictable and formulaic, and you just keep banging the same drum and go on for paragraphs upon paragraphs about how you are the only objective, logical truth-seer and everyone else are gullible sheep, without addressing questions, requests for sources, or objections.

Dude, you're just another stubborn tit who likes to argue on the internet. You're no better, smarter, or more logical than most of us here. You're just massively less self aware. Get the **** over yourself.

When KSM was offered a plea deal all claims about evidence of AQ doing 9/11 are dead. If you don't realize that then it just reflects poorly on you.

It would appear you haven't learned much in those 40 years. You certainly haven't learned how to learn. I just gave you a lot of counter examples of wildly different theories on 9/11. And you can see that in the threads in this forum. The pandemic was another lint trap for conspiracy theories. Those who weren't begging for triple doses of experimental injections from big pharma came to a lot of varied conspiracy theories about the virus and the vaccines. Some thought the virus was a weapon China was wielding against us. Some thought Faucci leaked the virus so he could benefit financially. Some thought Bill Gates had foreknowledge of the pandemic and positioned himself to benefit financially from investments in vaccine producers, that the vaccines were his way of getting humans "Microsoft updates" in the form of vaccines from which he would get paid. Some people thought the lock downs were phase one of a total authoritarian shutdown of society. Some thought the vaccines would make you gay in order to reduce the population. Of course you had those who think vaccines cause autism open their perspectives to incorporate the MRNA vaccines. You had people saying it was all a hoax by big business to force out small businesses and consolidate monopolies and cartels. You even had some extreme social engineering theories saying that the vaccines will change your DNA and turn you into a more submissive subject. I didn't even check up on the QAnon crowd and see what they were saying, but I'm sure it's something different.

I'm always acting in goof faith. I respond to other poster's specific points even tho they typically only respond to those of my posts they think are vulnerable. You seem not to understand that I can't really prove that NIST has, nowhere, given additional justifications for assuming loss of all fireproofing other than from the results of their shooting fireproofing on a beam section with a gun and the fireproofing falling off. All I can do is cite the entire report, assert that nowhere does it say such, and then it is still on you to verify the claim by scanning the entire report.

But I'm happy to just leave it with just you agreeing that such an experiment did take place and was used as a justification, then you making a determination in support of that or not. If you say that the experiment is valid I'm happy to say you're an idiot. You seem fixated on whether or not there are other justifications for that aspect of the model and I just don't care about that. If you care about that then you need to find where they otherwise justified it and defend that. But why would they try such a desperate stunt if that had solid reasons to assume the loss of all fireproofing?

You are pretending that I am in your way of taking a stand on the validity of their gun experiment. I'm not. You just don't want to either defend NIST here or make any concession. Don't blame me for your intellectual cowardice.

TLDR, but I didn't ask you for this:

"I can't really prove that NIST has, nowhere, given additional justifications for assuming loss of all fireproofing other than from the results of their shooting fireproofing on a beam section with a gun and the fireproofing falling off."

I asked you to link the part of the report which dealt with the experiment so I could read it for myself, and in response you wrote a bunch of essays how you posted it in some other thread 10 years ago and how logical and thruth-seey you are and how gullible and intellectually dishonest I am. Now it turns out that, in another stellar display of your reading comprehension abilities, you don't even know (or are pretending to not know) wtf I was asking for.

Are you referring to the passport of one of the alleged hijackers being found on the ground near the towers? That's actually easily explained. Circa 1999 the major airlines began a practice of scotch taping passports to the wings of the planes in order to cater to those customers who were worried about their remains being unidentifiable in the event of a crash. Say you are in a fireball explosion and your passport is in your jacket pocket. Good luck to your relatives attempting to recover any compensation from the airlines - prove they were even on the flight or GTFO. But it turns out scotch tape has the perfect amount of stickiness to retain the passport on the body of the plane while not enough to keep it there in the event of a crash. Plus the kids can see all the passports blowing in the wind during the flight and gives them a distraction from fears of flying.

The magic passports I'm more interested in are the ones that got these people from wherever they were in the world, across an ocean, and into the country hassle free. It's not an easy trick to be some worthless dude in SA and jump on a flight into the U.S. It's a magic trick.

I actually don't doubt that.

Seriously, though, I'm quite content with my decision.

You're never any fun

Why didn't they ever think to also scotch tape the black boxes to the wings?

You haven't even seen me juggle.

This is wrong on many levels. First off, there would be nothing unusual about say the American Mathematical Society reviewing a paper by a member and publishing it in their own journal.

But more importantly,your description on the NIST report is not even accurate. You can see in this section Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the Wo... where 6 of the authors do not work for NIST. They are fully independent subject matter experts. This took like 5 minutes to check and is the basic research skills you'd expect a freshman to already have in their first semester of college. Not surprising a truther wouldn't be able to do and understand a cursory literature search, but illustrative of the level of people we're talking about.

Ed'a is such a truth hater.

Deuces, now that you've had a full day to consider, are you prepared to admit that the NIST report was actually peer reviewed?

Let's add legal scholar to the list 😀

And plenty of people probably believe some parts of a number of those things. That doesn't change the main point--during some new big event like covid the bs info is flying around like crazy and some sliver grabs onto all kinds of things going around as things are happening. Now that more time has passed by there's been more cohesion around generally the same story. Pointing out some outliers doesn't change the fact that the vast majority are hitting most of the same notes.