[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

[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.

01 August 2024 at 05:08 PM
Reply...

1342 Replies

i
a

by d2_e4 P

Excellent line of argument - the company that built Titanic took shortcuts with certain safety measures due to economic considerations and hubris (thinking the ship was unsinkable) therefore something something something NIST is in on the 9/11 conspiracy.

This professor who told you that you were good at logic, is he in the room with us now?


Douglas Adams addressed this in his treaties on the difference between things that can go wrong and things that can't go wrong.

The conclusion was the only difference being that when the things that can't go wrong do go wrong then you're really ****ed


by Trolly McTrollson P

OK sheeple person, keep beveling whatever the government tells you about the titanic "disaster."

The government usually gives permission for people like you to believe the truth, but only after so much time has passed that the truth is inconsequential. I doubt that in your lifetime you will be psychically allowed to think logically about 9/11. But you can now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag.

If only you could put together all the lies which you've been allowed to see were lies into a pattern and realize that it could happen again.


by Deuces McKracken P

Scientists rebelling from those with power are usually proven correct, like in the Galileo example. He did relent but he was initially a rebel.

Early on with the controversy over the origin of the SARS virus there were a few credentialed scientists who stepped up to make the case for the lab leak theory in spite of powerful people pushing the bat soup or whatever origin theory. Once you see that pattern you can almost blindly follow the rebe

I'm not just talking about current conspiracies. You just default to everything that cohort says is true now?


by Deuces McKracken P

The government usually gives permission for people like you to believe the truth, but only after so much time has passed that the truth is inconsequential. I doubt that in your lifetime you will be psychically allowed to think logically about 9/11. But you can now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag.

If only you could put together all the lies which you've been allowed to see were lies into a pattern and realize that it co

So you still think it was the iceberg, in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, which I've now posted several times? Jeez, you're a sheeple beyond help.


by Deuces McKracken P

The government usually gives permission for people like you to believe the truth, but only after so much time has passed that the truth is inconsequential. I doubt that in your lifetime you will be psychically allowed to think logically about 9/11. But you can now know that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a false flag.

If only you could put together all the lies which you've been allowed to see were lies into a pattern and realize that it co

Big talk for someone who thinks a ship would "accidentally" sail right into an iceberg the size of a mountain. I guess you just believe whatever your history teacher told you.


by Deuces McKracken P

Scientists rebelling from those with power are usually proven correct, like in the Galileo example. He did relent but he was initially a rebel.

Early on with the controversy over the origin of the SARS virus there were a few credentialed scientists who stepped up to make the case for the lab leak theory in spite of powerful people pushing the bat soup or whatever origin theory. Once you see that pattern you can almost blindly follow the rebe

Seems like you learned nothing from poker about probability.


by d2_e4 P

Deuces is just flat out ignoring the obvious fact that metal is stronger than ice, because to admit it would turn his whole world on its head.

You are putting us noncorresponding sides of your analogy.

We've seen ships go down after hitting an iceberg. We've never seen a steel framed skyscraper collapse due to fire until the day we supposedly saw 3 in one day, none since.

Your side is basically saying you saw a flock of birds land on the railing, birds trained by the Germans, and is was the weight of those birds that sunk the Titanic so let's go tot war with Germany. I'm the one saying no it was obviously an iceberg that sunk because of measurements and common sense.


by d2_e4 P

His boss will fire him and he will end up smoking crack out of a chicken bone in a tent on skid row.

Apologies for my amateur psychology but amateurs can do some things. I think it's pretty safe to say you are projecting what you think will happen to you if you think for yourself and challenge the establishment. And, again, I'm not saying it wouldn't happen to you. I doubt it would but who knows? If you don't want to know certain categories of knowledge that's probably not a bad survival strategy. But you don't need to resent me for doing what you can't.


by jjjou812 P

Seems like you learned nothing from poker about probability.

That true. I learned probability before I got into poker.


McCrackhead, I see you have distanced yourself from that moronic analogy you made earlier and are not following up on that. Good choice.


Believing in conspiracies isn't challenging the establishment--it's completely passive in nature. No one cares what you believe. In all reality most are actually helping them lol Which is essentially what they're --doing-- when they run around reinforcing the idea that a handful of people completely control the whole world by telling people that all of the time. That's called advertising πŸ˜€ And the primary effect it has is to demoralize people into believing they have no hope/promotes apathy and doesn't really do anything to empower them. It's a total waste of time and distracts from what the actual goal should be.


by Deuces McKracken P

You are putting us noncorresponding sides of your analogy.

We've seen ships go down after hitting an iceberg. We've never seen a steel framed skyscraper collapse due to fire until the day we supposedly saw 3 in one day, none since.

Ah, so the difference is precedent. I see. Have we seen a commercial airliner fly into a steel framed skyscraper before or since?


Derpy derpy doo, time for my big first day as captain of the USS Titanic! No need to bother watching where I'm sailing!


by wet work P

Believing in conspiracies isn't challenging the establishment--it's completely passive in nature. No one cares what you believe. In all reality most are actually helping them lol Which is essentially what they're --doing-- when they run around reinforcing the idea that a handful of people completely control the whole world by telling people that all of the time. That's called advertising πŸ˜€ And the primary effect it has is to demoralize peo

Of course that doesn't make them not true.


by Trolly McTrollson P

Big talk for someone who thinks a ship would "accidentally" sail right into an iceberg the size of a mountain. I guess you just believe whatever your history teacher told you.

The establishment is usually truthful. But you have to be careful when it comes to casus belli. You're trying to get masses of people who have no genuine argument with each other to savagely butcher the other in unspeakably horrific ways so that a few rich people can get richer. That's hard to do without massive deception and manipulation.


by Deuces McKracken P

That true. I learned probability before I got into poker.

So 3 guys out of a 1000 experts agree, that means it’s 89% they are correct according to your understanding of probability.


by Trolly McTrollson P

Derpy derpy doo, time for my big first day as captain of the USS Titanic! No need to bother watching where I'm sailing!

Actually to the contrary you've been routed through Iceberg Alley so you better watch your ass! And why were you routed through the dangerous waters? Did you as captain choose? Nope. The financers chose this "faster" route because they had to gin up excitement over the Titanic by making it faster than The Olympic, another ship in the series which had crossed earlier. That ship needing replacement parts took away from the Titanic schedule (you couldn't just order a propeller with a 20 ft. span off Amazon back then so the Titanic was raided for parts) and to recoup the money they decided speed would be the draw.

In their haste, the 3 systems designed to warn of dangerous icebergs were inadequately equipped or utilized. The systems woulda coulda worked but priority was placed on speed and getting money as quickly as possible.

This was all over 100 years ago, before we even had solid project management principles. Those came later through the government, they are very manipulatable towards whatever outcome those in power want, and no egghead like you is going to even think about getting in the way.


by d2_e4 P

Who says they "crush through the remainder with no resistance"? As the tower falls, the falling portion gains mass, even if massive amounts of material are being laterally ejected. If anything, this additional mass will crush the floors below it quicker, not slower, assuming each floor offers the same amount of resistance. So, basically, what Gorgonian said.

What in the actual **** are you talking about, you lunatic? If you are trying to mak

Hey Deuces, you missed this (or maybe you were planning on responding to it next week, after you responded to a couple of dozen of later posts, who knows).


I don’t think it was as fake as I previously thought due to this thread. Ty. It mostly happened as reported


by Luckbox Inc P

Of course that doesn't make them not true.

Fair enough. In some ways the truth part of it doesn't even matter.

I've noticed over many years people don't often turn that critical eye back on the sources. Or even spend much time thinking about that other side of it or what their goals might be.


by d2_e4 P

Who says they "crush through the remainder with no resistance"? As the tower falls, the falling portion gains mass, even if massive amounts of material are being laterally ejected. If anything, this additional mass will crush the floors below it quicker, not slower, assuming each floor offers the same amount of resistance. So, basically, what Gorgonian said.

What in the actual **** are you talking about, you lunatic? If you are trying to mak

When two cars of the same model collide head on it's never just one car that takes damage. Would you agree this is self evident?


by Deuces McKracken P

When two cars of the same model collide head on it's never just one car that takes damage. Would you agree this is self evident?

Yes.


by d2_e4 P

Ah, so the difference is precedent. I see. Have we seen a commercial airliner fly into a steel framed skyscraper before or since?

You guys keep running into this and I have to give you the establishment justification (because you never knew it because you are just parroting conclusions from master) which is, for the 15th time, that is was the fire that caused the collapse. We've seen plenty of steel framed buildings on fire and none of them collapsed.


by PointlessWords P

I don’t think it was as fake as I previously thought due to this thread. Ty. It mostly happened as reported

If you had to pick one on the likelihood of it happening between the titanic sinking and killing people and a commercial airliner crashing with people crashing into the pentagon, which one would you pick?


by Deuces McKracken P

You guys keep running into this and I have to give you the establishment justification (because you never knew it because you are just parroting conclusions from master) which is, for the 15th time, that is was the fire that caused the collapse. We've seen plenty of steel framed buildings on fire and none of them collapsed.

I see. And these steel buildings, did they have a commercial airliner fly into them before they were set on fire? Because, you know, i imagine that might cause some structural damage. Also, was jet fuel similarly used as an accelerant in the other fires?


Once you are done with those questions, can you find me an example of another skyscraper that had a fire similar in scale to the one on 9/11 and remained standing please? I'm sure one exists btw, I just haven't researched this and I assume you have.


Reply...