[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Deuces and Luckbox process information the same way:

1. Take a contrarian position
2. Based upon some “knowledge” shared by a YouTuber (usually an ear pic comparison)
3. Ignore all other reasonable interpretation
4. Create a governmental conspiracy as motive
5. Insist everyone else is sheeple

The MO when their claims are debunked is also strikingly similar.

1. Claim that there is no evidence of x.
2. When someone presents evidence of x, act like it didn't happen.
3. If someone asks why you're ignoring evidence of x, lie, deflect, or ignore.
3. Wait a little while, assuming that everyone will just forget.
4. Start claiming that there is no evidence of x again.

FYI there is evidence of molten METAL, but that is not the same thing as molten STEEL. Truthers think they mean the same thing. Further, even evidence of molten steel would not disprove anything about the collapse theory. Even further, molten steel does not support either an explosives nor thermite theory, so it's way beyond a red herring.

There is video of firefighters talking about molten steel weeks after 9/11.

Want to put some money into escrow on this?

Is the bet that firefighters where talking about molten steel or that someone found evidence of the steel beams of the building structure become molten due to the fire?

accurately describes deuce's MO here

90% of posts lacked any arguments/facts

90% of any arguments/facts produced were lifted verbatim from Loose Change

Are these firefighters experts on identifying molten metals by sight? If not, I could not care less what they said.

You should also be aware that what we are seeking here is the truth, not gotcha games, so save your threats of money-wagering for the more gullible among us.

Also you forgot to answer this:

What precisely was magical about "the way they did?" Be specific.

I watched maybe 5 minutes of Loose Change. You've heard me bash it before so you are trolling. I write my own arguments and none of you except Kerowo has ever made a valid challenge to any of them, although I have to consider the new person who just came into the thread. One post and I can tell he's the better of all of you so I will have to see what he's about.

I appreciate the serious nature of your response. I just lost a longer post that I will retype later.

I would still like you to explain your theory on what happened and why, rather than just point out inconsistencies. I don’t expect perfect information to be available in such a disaster, so I expect inconsistencies. But I see no logic in how you attempt to weave the inconsistencies together into a credible counterpoint.

Deuces, you have stated a number of times that you only ever post in good faith. Would you consider falsely claiming that a Wikipedia article didn't contain the information that it did, then after multiple posts over multiple days pointing out that it did finally responding asking for the information to be pasted, then completely ignoring the information when it was pasted for you and completely ignoring follow-up posts on the matter to be "posting in good faith"?

This is complete and utter bullshit, Deuces. You've been avoiding the Wikipedia article discussion like the plague because it's inconvenient to your narrative. Trying to get you to respond to anything that shows you're full of **** is like pulling teeth and takes half a dozen posts like this one, basically pestering and shaming you into responding. Stop lying.

LMAO, now you're ignoring arguments that debunk your claims because they're not challenging enough? Pathetic. If you were really on a search for truth and not here to suck your own dick and indulge your delusions of grandeur, you'd engage in good faith argumentation and address it when your claims are debunked. Saying that the debunking is "not challenging" enough, or "a gotcha" (whatever that means) is desperate and pathetic.

The world trade center towers were designed strong enough to withstand a hit from a commercial airliner. But at that time, Leslie calculated a 707 hitting it and not a 767.

But the towers did withstand the impact of a 767 and my very first post in this thread stated that the towers would still be standing if the planes hit but didn't continue to burn it literally down. I honestly don't think there is anything peculiar about what happened there.

I did take another gander at wtc 7 and all that I additionally learned was how much of a mess that building really was.

Honestly, I am not really sure what the confusing there is other than another building not collapsing from a fire which seems to fall pretty flat under those specific circumstances which also never have happened.

Also, the steel beams talk is really just another language because those particular beams are only as strong as a lot of their counterparts which actually do lend support to the important ****.

Also, what caused the penthouse, which rested on horizontal floor joists, being held by vertical columns that were again supported by horizonal trusses fall on its own?

Was the building detonated in one specific location first with a 5 second pause that coincidentally had another detonation that aligned fluidly with the collapse of the building?

Other than that the buildings were demolished I don't know what happened.

Why is this so hard to understand? You can know what didn't happen and still not know what did happen. I don't make claims without sufficient support. I don't talk about Marvin Bush, little brother of W, being on the board of the company handling security for the WTC complex, Dulles and United. Creating suspicion from mere associations is not my thing. Marvin Bush isn't sneaking into the Twin Towers pouring thermite down the shafts. A tragic event like 9/11 deserves a thorough, good faith investigation and it was never given that.

I'm trying to get you to explain to me how a massive chunk of building slams into a standing portion of building without slowing down. You're supposed to know that if you say you know what happened. I'm trying to see you explain the massive heat blooms at all 3 collapse sites. You know that there isn't that kind of spontaneous heat just generating from nothing. I'd like to know where all the objects from the office went. I'd like to know where the 9/11 plans were since they were in the possession of anyone we say did it. You guys claim to know what happened but you've never read anything on it and you there is a whole series of observations which counter your story and you won't address them.

A massive chunk of the building didnt slam into a standing portion of the building that the building could support, Deuces.

When the fires deteriorate the support structure of a particular floor causing the load capacity to drop, that floor will no longer support its load and buckle. When the floors buckle, the weight continues to increase past the floors load capacity causing an obv chain reaction with the rest of the floors now being under a heavier load that already exceeded the prior floors capacity. It isn't going to hit the next floor and miraculously pause for a sec.

As a result, if it was detonated on the bottom floor or fell as it did ... its going to collapse in a similar fashion because all the floors below are already rendered insufficient to hold the weight above.

More of that legendary good faith posting from Deuces, completely ignoring getting called out on being a liar and a hack I see.

Still clinging desperately to the missing jolt theory without acknowledge that the debunking of that was trivial and instant when it was proposed (the resolution of the video used to proclaim there was no jolt was not sufficient to determine whether there was any change in velocity/acceleration).

I saw two planes, fully loaded with jet fuel, crash into the WTC towers with enough force that the walls opposite the point of entry blew out. Then I watched the towers burn for hours before finally collapsing from the extent of damage from the impacts and fires.

Afterwards, I went to the site and saw extensive damage to the surrounding building from both the heat and debris.

I understand that architecturally the structures relied on a more advanced internal superstructure that allowed the building to be one of the world’s tallest.

So what is it about my opinion that is so confusing? I think the cause of the buildings destruction was the destructive forces I saw applied to them. You want to talk thermite and Bush. You probably think the fact that I know the Silversteins make me some type of shill. I also was personally denied access to our hangar at the Venice Airport for weeks due to the FBI investigating the flight school.

I've been busy. I see that the article is citing some book "The Looming Tower", some commercial venture and not a government source. I'm not going to buy the guy's book just to find out he is twisting a bunch of stuff KSM said under torture.

Yes, that's right, everything KSM said under torture is no good. I'd be surprised if anything else puts these hijackers in AQ.

You will accuse me of wriggling out of it but this is the crime of the century and the event that reorganized our society around a fear. Please tell me you have something other than some propaganda novel to back up the story. But I've already shown you what the government said about the money trail. They said they couldn't find anything but it didn't matter. I don't know what to tell you.

I will try to dig into it a little but (and I shouldn't need to explain this) you need documents of some kind to establish these things. We saw pictures of OJ's bloody footprints matching his Bruno Mali shoes. That's one reason we know OJ did it. These guys were members of the most effective terrorist outfit outside of Langley and infiltrated the country for years to pull off this miracle. Where are the plans? Where are the pictures of these guys with known AQ members? We've got all OBL's documents he had in his compound- hard drives, thumb drives, notebooks, pictures everything. Who would OBL be hiding evidence from? He knew he wasn't getting a trial- zero incentive for him to destroy evidence. Yet nothing? Nothing in the hijackers apartments or computers? Story does not check out.

Who says?

I'm happy to consider AQ's reputation. They did one thing and did it pretty well. They put an explosive next to a structure and caused damage and death. That's all the ever did before 9/11. And if you look at their record after 911...you guessed it- that's all they every did after 9/11. Just a pickpocket who raids Fort Knox then goes right back to pickpocketing. Happens all the time.

Trolly when you sit there and make a multi-year infiltration that starts overseas and ends with successful hijacking and then, most fantastically, felling 3 massive skyscrapers with 2 planes...when you turn that into "fly a plane into a building" do you really thing anyone is so stupid as to find that compelling?

We couldn't even find this guy, a 6 ft. 5 guy on dialysis whose face is seared into the mind of every person with with a TV, for 10 years. And really longer than that because he was pulling off bombings. If you were trying to sneak in Saudis from overseas into this country would you even know where to start? That's not easy. None of what they supposedly did was easy. When have you heard of anything like this working out so well?

Unless you think people can somehow divine the methods simply from watching the buildings fall so fast I don't see your point here. I see now that I gave you way too much credit.

This is why I gave you too much credit. 38 pages in and finally one person makes a legitimate point for the official story. The idea that the buildings were unique and would require customized demolition plans, and that this would be a challenge to those demolishing the buildings, is definitely a valid argument. How much of a challenge? It would take an expert to say. Maybe they overdid it to be on the safe side and that's why there was so much heat for so long which, officially, is totally and utterly unexplained. Overdoing it might also account for the obliteration of all the contents of the buildings. I feel like some of these observations, the heat blooms and the totality of the destruction, are facts that we all know are facts but some of us don't want to face. I mean, the heat had to come from some source. The energy to destroy everything had to come from somewhere. Something was ejecting the material from the building laterally at high speeds ahead of the impact zone.

At some point you people have to admit, at least to yourselves, that there is some missing element to the official story. Some experts say it was thermite and they spell out their reasoning. I know of no other theories that explain the observations. That doesn't mean there aren't any. But I think we should agree that the explanation has to account for the observations.

Did your search include the word "patent"?

Happy 9/11, Deuces.

I wonder how the conspiraloons celebrate their special day. Fireworks seem a little tasteless.