[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.
1342 Replies
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
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.
I'm not just talking about current conspiracies. You just default to everything that cohort says is true now?
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.
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.
Seems like you learned nothing from poker about probability.
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.
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.
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 π 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.
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!
Of course that doesn't make them not true.
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.
So 3 guys out of a 1000 experts agree, that means itβs 89% they are correct according to your understanding of probability.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.