Caporegime
Your explanation is bob on. IAAEngineer
Hacker group releases '9/11 Papers', says future leaks will 'burn down' US deep state
- Thread starter Minusorange
- Start date
Your explanation is bob on. IAAEngineer
I'm not arguing with the NIST report I don't buy into the "it was a controlled demolition" line of thinking. It was more the "of course it fell straight down it was designed to approach", while that is true for structural failure it is not always true for catastrophic failure. (MIDE Demolition Engineer)
Man of Honour
I didn't say he was lying about the report. He's completely wrong about the report and is making untrue statements about it, but I don't know that he's lying.
I said he was lying about what I had said. Which he is. He has read me saying the opposite of what he claimed I said. He has read that repeatedly. It is a very simple statement. If he was unable to comprehend it he would be functionally illiterate in English and he isn't. Therefore he is lying about that. Not about the report. He might or might not be lying about that. I suspect he just hasn't read it and is repeating something someone else wrote.
Man of Honour
Not completely in all circumstances, no. Hence my statement earlier, particularly the parts I emphasised in bold:
"as much as possible", "probably".
EDIT: I see that you're an expert in controlled demolition. That's the "make certain" part. People with your knowledge are needed because "probably" isn't good enough if there's any choice.
The example that came to my mind was building a new canal. It ran alongside an existing canal and it was necessary to keep the existing canal open while the new one was being constructed. In places there was a lot of earth in the way of the route of the new canal, including a fairly large hill at one point. They could have just had a guess at the right way to blow the hill up and it probably wouldn't have slid down and blocked the existing canal, but getting it wrong would have cost a fortune. So they hired experts lead by an expert to make certain that the demolition of the hill would result in the removal of the hill without the filling in on the existing canal. They shifted many tonnes of dirt to within a metre of so of where they wanted it.
My point in this context is that a building collapsing downwards is not proof (or even evidence) that it was collapsed by controlled demolition.
Last edited:
Heavy weight CT'er wise, Ron Unz and Paul Craig Roberts come to mind (both were involved in US politics in the 80s/90s, though both have a massive scope well beyond the events of 9/11).
Interesting stuff, and none are more eloquent than those two for what ails western society from what I've read.
Interesting stuff, and none are more eloquent than those two for what ails western society from what I've read.
Caporegime
Has the deep state burned down yet?
Or is deuse the only one who's has a **** fit?
Or is deuse the only one who's has a **** fit?
Soldato
We're on page 20, and 'not yet' appears to be the current status. In fact, it would be more accurate to say that so far the deep state is not only not burning down, but is not smouldering and hasn't actually been seen yet.
Starting to wander if my mention of Paul Craig Roberts and Ron Unz took out the momentum of the anti-CT malice (and therefore this thread). Afterall, it's difficult to claim that CT'ers are mentally ill, groping in the dark, 'dopamine hit-only' loonz when those of the credentials of Unz and Roberts say a 9/11 conspiracy more than might well be so. Roberts analysis of Obamacare and Unz analysis of Ivy League admission practices is hugely detailed and persuasive, and that's about a 1000th of their scope.
And if ever considering these are basement dwelling neckbeards, then nope, they've been involved in government office before, especially Roberts in the Raegan administration and as a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
And if ever considering these are basement dwelling neckbeards, then nope, they've been involved in government office before, especially Roberts in the Raegan administration and as a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal.
Commissario
Or Vexr, maybe the thread died because to no one's surprise nothing has come of it, the normally criminal hackers, fraudsters and extortionists leet evidence gathering crew have produced nothing.
Not this time, but I'm happy to see this topic stay alive, despite being fairly neutral/doubtful about the alternative explanations of 9/11, simply because of the utterly tactless stance against those of the CT perspective on here. Name calling and effectively bullying has been demonstrable. The 9/11 CT-aligned themselves have been far more tactful in this general discussion than their antagonists from what I've read, and that in itself is something to read in to.
Soldato
But you’re keeping the topic alive by literally posting nothing new...
The conspiracy theories are mainly laughable which is why those promoting them are shown bias and contempt. There has been almost zero new evidence presented in the last 10 years to support a conspiracy, the official story has only got stronger in this time. However as a former CT believer I refer you to my posts in this thread.
Unless something more happens with the release of this hacker group or someone has new evidence to present there is no reason this threat should keep being revived.
I never claimed CT'ers were mentally ill they do seem to be a bit odd at times though I guess.
I asked some questions of a CT type in this thread a few times re: the claims he was making, he didn't answer the questions.
I've noted that quite a few CT types, when questioned, seem unable to discuss or defend their views but instead seem to rely on dumping in some video or website and expecting others to waste time reading/watching something that perhaps doesn't even address the specific point being raised. Not that people shouldn't cite things or perhaps quote things from external sources here, that is fine, but at least do so as part of an argument.
If you do indeed believe there was some conspiracy re: 9/11 could you perhaps just explain what it is that you believe or what it is that you can show to be false re: the established account of the attacks, which generally involves a group of (mostly Saudi) terrorists hijacking and flying two planes into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and an additional plane crash landing.
Who cares, it isn't going to be particularly interesting if they did - at most it will be something mundane relating to some insurance dispute etc...
The only people getting excited about it are either people with delusions about 9/11 some strange views on how the world works that allows them to both believe that there was some massive conspiracy/coverup involving hundreds of people and also that elements of this could be hidden away in the files of some private companies seemingly accessible otherwise to insurance company employees or lawyers and/or IT professionals working for those firms.
The only people getting excited about it are either people with delusions about 9/11 some strange views on how the world works that allows them to both believe that there was some massive conspiracy/coverup involving hundreds of people and also that elements of this could be hidden away in the files of some private companies seemingly accessible otherwise to insurance company employees or lawyers and/or IT professionals working for those firms.
Soldato
Not even close. As with most CT threads a ton of evidence is given and ignored.
So all it comes down to is you can’t argue with stupid.
Permabanned
Their was reports of the missing $2.3 trillion of pentagon spending that couldn’t be accounted for. But before you bite my head off and or label me, I’m not saying that is the reason but was quite convenient due to getting very little publicity due to 9/11.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-war-on-waste/
Partly. Though a CT only happens when the full facts aren't made public, for whatever reason.
The point I was making is that its ok to ask questions, and people shouldnt be shamed and shut down for asking them.
The problem these days is that the news outlets are mostly based on opinions so its very easy to steer people away from facts because people are naturally lazy and won't read the full documents.
It always makes me laugh that politcians are known to be mostly untrustworthy yet when certain incidents happens everyone believes them.