[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

It's hard to believe these people are serious. I didn't believe it for a long time, but I've been dealing with them for almost 2 decades now. I had to come to terms with it.

I'm going to give you one guess. Take your time. You can do it.

A+ work gentlemen.

Aren't there easier ways to start forest fires than super powerful weapons that are so secret only the enlightened people know about them?

Unless I personally agree with their methods, meaning they are subject to examination and follow the consensus use of knowledge building tools.

But yes we never want to put too much faith in expertise itself when we don't know the methods by which they arrived at their claimed knowledge. Experts get their stripes by conforming, not just to orthodoxy but on how to behave as an expert. I wanted to be a musician (just didn't have the talent to be super successful not going to lie) but didn't make it but I ended up having quite a few friends in the music business. Many of them got advanced degrees and it was like I could see their creativity regressing in real time as they became "experts". And we seen many trailblazing people have a story of not quite fitting into college and dropping out to pursue their projects. Bill Gates might have lifted all his tech from other people but you have to give him credit as a business man. He could have been a professor of business if he wanted to and simply regurgitated orthodoxies, but then we wouldn't have the Microsoft business model to study.

There is a tension between being an expert and being an curious inquirer open to discovery. We've seen that tension exacerbated by capitalism's need to reduce risk. If Einstein were born later he would probably just be making half a mill a year on Wall Street.

I see. I guess it's just pure coincidence that the "experts" whose methods you approve of (methods like, for example, using a stack of cardboard boxes to model the collapse of a skyscraper) are also those "experts" who arrive at conclusions that are in agreement with your theories. What serendipity!

Because the plane is traveling about 700ft/s.

Pb, how big does the white cylinder object look at the 5 sec mark in the video? They dont fire missles the size of airplanes at things.

Yeah, it might be worth mentioning that the cruising speed of a commercial airliner is not that much slower than the muzzle velocity of the average handgun.

Imagine a handgun bringing down an entire building. Deuces is right, it defies all physics.

Experts are silent on this issue and the vocal ones are the ones challenging the government's conclusions. I know that you have this belief that there are mountains of experts out there propping up the official story with something more substantial than rhetoric, but there are not. Again, you've got the Bazant paper and the NIST report which are the pillars of the official story and they are both straight garbage- non peer reviewed hand waves. There might be some other serious attempt to shore up the official story that I don't know of, but if so it was never cited by any of my opponents.

I would welcome experts writing papers on the collapse mechanisms. U of Alaska team said NIST was wrong but you accuse them of bias because of their funding source. I don't see that as a concern as it's not like AE911Truth is like an agribusiness conglomerate which is going to fund an academic department decades into the future. I think that U of Alaska researchers would have loved to have been the ones to put the building 7 questions to bed once and for all. But they, acting in good faith, couldn't.

Credentialed experts don't comment much on 9/11 because they know the truth could get them cancelled if it was one way, and not gain them anything if it was the way the government says. The only incentive is bringing truth to light and we have seen that it is the rare individual who will sacrifice anything for that. They will school flat earthers all day because they get to perform their favorite function of owing stupid people and they have complete certainty that the Earth is round. They don't know how those buildings collapsed.

Imagine a few drums of fuel bringing down an entire building skyscraper. That's you think happened. But actually you don't even have your own thoughts. You think that whatever the CIA says happened happened, even though you don't know exactly what they said happened, and so it had to be explained to you what you believe by those you oppose (who do know what the CIA says happened and disagree).

All I know is that from my experience with you and the Wikipedia article, is if you say that there is an absence of information on or evidence of something, then that's a pretty good indication that there is a plethora of it. As I have said before, I'm not wasting time looking stuff up just for you to dismiss it for one of your dogshit reasons like "it's not challenging enough," "it's from a commercial book" (when exactly none of it was actually sourced from that book!), or "that's a gotcha."

The correct approach to dealing with intellectually dishonest bad faith tits like you is mockery and trolling, so you shouldn't be surprised when you get exactly what you campaigned for.

Wait, did he say the experts are silent on this topic? hahaha

No. They unanimously agree on what happened that day.

Well, not unanimously. We had the cardboard box guy - the brave lone voice of dissent, the last bastion of integrity, the final hope for humanity to break free from the shackles of conformity and perennial sheepledom.

See, Dunces, I too am a man of rhetorical flourishes.

as i understand it there were countless witnesses to a plane flying over the highway and knocking over the lightpost on its way into the pentagon?

i know nothing of U Alaska but this seems generous reasoning. my default assumption would be AE911T shopped their funding around to uni programs that -- in exchange for cash -- would be amenable to make certain findings granting academic legitimacy to the funders' interests. not unlike what agri and pharma businesses do

TIL that >400 is "a few".

idiot, the space laser vaporized most of the fuel, of course you left that part out

Idiot, what part of the fuel do you think burns? I'll give you a clue, it's not the liquid.

Hydrazine ftw

I don't know how big it was, I'm not an expert in that type of analysis but I'm an expert in flying an airplane and all I'm saying is it's extremely unlikely the plane flew in the trajectory that's shown in the video. You can't get that low to the ground an continue flying on the ground (whether he geared in or if the gear was extended it doesn't matter). The object in the video clearly came from the ground, not the air. A plane would of already been disabled, wrecked and destroyed into a pile of debris when it made impact with the ground, and it would of came down on a glide slope or at a steeper angle, it wouldn't be moving parallel to the ground at that AGL and speed (and look at the exhaust trail of smoke behind it like a rocket). So that was the best video, out of all the videos in their possession they could release to the peasants to put the conspiracy theorists (the people asking the right questions) to rest?

Hey Dunces, this is the type of expert analysis you find convincing, right? I mean, he has told us that he is an expert in flying an airplane, and that the plane couldn't have taken that "tradectory", as it would "of" already been wrecked into a pile of "debri". Seems legit to me.

how is it that planes land then?

Also, PB, do we know why they used the space laser on the towers, but decided to fire a missile at the pentagon? Did the space laser run out of ammo?

I didn't fix them because you pointed it out, but thanks for looking out. You should ask more important questions though like how come when you pause the video right after impact when the initial smoke cleared, where's the airplane?

Why were the reporters who were the first ones to arrive such as this guy from CNN on 9/11 say “But from my close-up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual site of the building that’s crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you could pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, a fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around.”

You didn't answer the question as to why you put the edit reason as "profanity".

As for the answer to your questions, it is that all those things you are assuming are facts are in fact figments of your imagination, which is also I assume why "this guy from CNN" seems to refer to a non-existent video clip as though it's linked in your post. Glad I could help.