[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

We are saying you are the loon.

I will take Steve Perry’s advice over your advice.

Cliffs?

Douches, I assume that was more bloviating about how you are the real truthseer. Look, I was willing to entertain a discussion with you until it became clear that you are either unwilling or incapable of having a good faith discussion on this (or, probably any) topic. You are a bad faith, lying clown who maintains his delusional world view by completely refusing to onboard and process any information that runs contrary to it.

If you spent anywhere near as much energy on trying to have a reasoned discussion on this subject as you do on lying and ignoring facts to maintain your fantasies and delusions of grandeur, you would have realised that everything you believe is total horseshit before you reached the rubicon of investing your whole identity in it. As things stand, yes, you are a total loon and an irritating tit to boot.

There is no formula relating terrorist spectacle to societal response. The people who did this wanted to reorganize our society including trillions in transfers, regression of civil rights, and enhanced power for the executive branch. Kinda a big ask.

More truth than most. That's why I'm good at gambling.

There is actual physical evidence for demolition. This is discussed in peer reviewed papers. I linked to them ITT. I don't expect you or most people to understand such papers, even though they are not advanced. But, as it turns out, it is extremely easy to see how the papers (not peer reviewed) supporting the official story are utterly fraudulent. They didn't do a good job, at all, covering up the truth probably because the truth is so obvious and unavoidable. This fraudulence shouldn't be controversial, no matter your opinion on the overall issue. You aren't even schooled in the detailed contours of this debate. You are just taking all this on the authority of a security state whose utter corruption should also be uncontroversial.

I don't know how to work a mass spectrometer, or even if that's the kind of spectrometer needed. Luckily there are those who do and who also were gracious enough to risk their careers to do so. You should appreciate these people. They are your allies. The people who you believe are your enemies, your class enemies who would send you or your children off to die in a war of profit without paying it a second thought. But I know it's too much to ask people to stop betraying themselves when they are old and know no other way.

There are no papers that passed proper peer-review published in any legitimate publications that support your demolition theory. Stop lying about that. It's already been clearly demonstrated that the NIST report was peer-reviewed.

Still laugh out loud when I think about the effort it would have taken to prep the buildings for demolition without anyone knowing while still fully occupied.

I enjoy that and the thought that planting bombs or thermite would cause WTC7 to start leaning before they were detonated.

The thermite paper passed peer review before politics were involved, after which there was some kerfuffle. The authors of the paper have plenty of peer reviewed research under their belts. They are legit scientists who got their paper through peer review. Their work on this matter has never been successfully challenged in a peer reviewed paper of which I am aware.

In no sense whatsoever was the NIST report peer reviewed. We've been over that. It seemed like even a few of my haters had to make some subtle concessions on that point. Of course you, being you, being the most pigheaded of all the loyalists, will keep believing what you believe to the bitter end no matter what because you are chalk full of fear. You can't just say well the NIST report wasn't peer reviewed but it makes sense to me. Just like the elites who have to maintain that their wars are of humanitarian motivation, you have to keep asserting that the steaming pile of crap sometimes referred to as the NIST report is valid. It's a fact that it makes up data out of whole cloth. It's a fact that it doesn't account for major significant factors and observations. It's a fact that is doesn't disclose its model in puts. It's a fact that it handwaves away the actual collapse mechanism. And it's a fact that it's conclusions have found to be incorrect by academic researchers who studied it for several years. The NIST report is a total fraud.

The only concession I saw was people giving up trying to discuss anything with you because you are a bad faith actor who can't process logical arguments and can't maintain the thread of a discussion and stay on topic without going off on a million different tangents. I'm sure you see this as some sort of victory.

It depends on how it was done. It's a legit challenge you pose, but we are looking at all the other boxes of demolition being checked. The only hangup is what prep was necessary and how could it have been accomplished undetected. Could thermite have been used in some way in which the prep involved simply piling it up through easily accessible areas with minimal charges or fuses. I don't have any insight into that, but I would rather be left with that problem than the problem of defying physics.

According to analysis and reports by professional in physics, structural engineering and science, they concluded:

https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public...

"A global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every collum in the building"

If there were explosives planted in the buildings, why didn't the self-trained explosive dogs find them?

The source was added two seconds after the initial post, and one second before yours but as always, thanks for looking out!!!

You can literally see puffs of smoke coming out on the right side and in the front on the right side at 11 seconds.

Yes, I saw. As always, your sources go back to other cranks/conspiracy nuts who are almost as loony as you are. Anyway, bro, clearly physics really isn't your thing, I think you should focus on your field of expertise which is obviously ear print identification.

Also, besides the puffs of smoke, you can clearly see white flashes near them around the 11 second mark. Loop it, and you can easily see that.

Playbig, is there any current or historical event you don't think is a conspiracy?

I think you think we give this way more energy and time than any of us do in reality. I don't hate you but I certainly don't respect your arguments or logical reasoning skills. I am not a loyalist to any official version of the events other than I believe saw enough destructive forces upon the buildings to bring them down. Finally, other than fearing people like you are allowed to operate vehicles, I certainly have no fear from 911. I spoke out regularly against the authorities for passing the Patriot Act and it's renewal years later.

No, it didn't. Stop lying about it. It was "reviewed" by a fellow 9/11 conspiracist, a geologist with no relevant experience or expertise. He was cherry-picked to review the paper, which is not how peer-review works. Standard peer-review is to send to three independent labs. There is no sense where this is even remotely close to a proper peer-review.

The Editor in Chief of the publisher was so angered by that sham "paper" being published she quit in disgust. Calling that paper peer-reviewed is a joke.

Lol, is the Dunces McLyingClown who claims that the standard for NIST paper peer review was insufficient perchance the same Dunces McLyingClown who considers the above process a thorough and proper peer review? Say it ain't so!

Douches, this you?

That's the University of Alaska paper. It's written by engineering PhDs. What reason to you have to call them truthers? Because they did scientific research which doesn't contradict the scientific research of those who disagree with the official story? D2 exemplifies the true character of the state bootlicker. He gains nothing from the state's corrupt actions yet he defends them tirelessly, fueled by contempt for those opting not to be functions of oligarchic greed.

I don't respect your arguments or logical reasoning either, or that of any loyalist. But I try not to think of you as idiots. Talking with you about 9/11 is like telling a Christian that the bible is not the word of God. There are smart people who really believe in God. Do you ever wonder why you can't talk them out of their beliefs?

In all this discussions going back to the other thread there were, in total, 2 intelligent challengers

1) Kerowo
2) Masqe d' something

Kerowo was extremely rude at every opportunity. But I don't let that bias me. And it's not like he was consistently challenging, but every now and again he would have a valid point. I don't think I've heard anything even slightly cogent and factual from any of you. Most of you are very assertive while knowing less than nothing.

Just can't stop lying, can you DunceFace?

[quote=Wikipedia]
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) Professor of Civil Engineering J. Leroy Hulsey subsequently led a 4-year (2015-2019) investigation funded by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth titled "A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7"
[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad...

In case you didn't know, wikipedia is heavily controlled and they will say anything they want on it to influence whatever they want people to believe. Are people really still that dumb to automatically believe anything and everything they read on wikipedia as fact?

There are flashes of white light clearly seen at the 12 second mark in the video below coming from a building with no electricity. I'm not saying these are explosives, but it sure doesn't rule them out unless someone who's qualified can give an explanation as to what they are.

Look in this spot and keep looping the video around 12 seconds. What is it?

Are you claiming that the study was not funded by A&E for 9/11 truth? Bold strategy, Cotton.