9/11, gullible conspiracy morons, and......

tanstaafl72555

This Member's Account Has Been Permanently Banned
Life Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2017
Messages
7,184
Location
Spring Hope NC
Rating - 100%
10   0   0
this: https://www.mintpressnews.com/americans-questioning-official-september-11-new-wtc-7-evidence/261744/

WARNING: to those whose sensibilities have an inverse relationship to your ability to read anything more than one liners and comic books, I have taken the liberty to "TLDR" this for you. You are welcome ! :)

Sometimes, it is the cynical establishment narrative whore who is really a gullible moron.

I have rolled my eyes (at least inside) for years at folks whose mental processes seem to mirror that guy in "A Beautiful Mind." That is, they "see" the "connections" in ordinary events and their brains seem prewired to shoehorn in all the data (usually highly selective use of the word "all") into their narrative. The ability of computers to track, correlate, and discern "like" datasets has spawned an entire subculture of this stuff. Lots of the "Q" followers, for example, have extremely bizarre theories about family/bloodlines, HAARP and the weather, coming indictments of the entire Democrat power elite (that ain't gonna happen, folks), and Trump's master plan to save America. They truly remind me of the witch doctor in the Amazonian tribe where I worked a bit as a kid. EVERY event saw the witch doctor claim "I did this!" and then recall some obscure parable he told that "foretold" events. Not to stomp on the Q folks. This is a mindset that spreads across all sorts of interests and subgroups. It is amusing when it spawns a smug "insider" mentality which looks down on all the uninitiated as rubes.

HOWEVER, there is the opposite type of moron. That person never bothers to look at anything but the official narrative from "their" group, whether it is something as difficult to swallow as the 9/11 events, "global warming," the role of a shadowy group of central bankers and financial titans in geopolitical affairs, the ghastly trade of children for sex (and worse) among the rich and powerful, the abuse of "drugs for everything" by big pharma and the ghastly results of some of the vaccine overloads.... I could go on but I won't.

Just like the gullible "insider" thinks he has the picture, so the imbecile who swallows the establishment narrative thinks him/herself snootily immune from fringe nonsense by dint of vomiting out some of the most ridiculous propaganda and self contradictory nonsense...., just because some group of "experts" tells him it is so.

I have come to the conclusion that almost everyone lies, or at least gives only selective parts of truth. If you pick a "team" to tell you the truth, and then just repeat the narrative, mostly because you are too damned lazy to check out what is being said, then you will- frankly -continue to be a moron. If you trumpet your ignorance (especially in the form of a sneer), expect to get slapped down and shown to be a fool..... you can ask me how I learned that if you wish ;) .

I have long thought something did not "smell right" about 9/11. I am not claiming I know what (I have read most of the theories). However, it is becoming more and more obvious that the official version of 9/11 is an impossible and self contradictory skein which simply does not make sense. You should read this.... Things are not as they appear, on this issue or almost anything else. Again, here is the link for the second time.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/americans-questioning-official-september-11-new-wtc-7-evidence/261744/
 
Last edited:
Rumor has it Bush personally paid my BIL to pack semtex around the WTC7 columns.

Was WTC7 empty when it went down?
Do gubmnt alphabet groups have buildings built with a self destruct mode for when they need to hide something?
 
That's compelling evidence - the results of a poll conducted for a group that might -just might- have a biased opinion.
Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites “uncontrolled building fires” as leading to the building’s destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new poll conducted by YouGov on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and released on Monday.
Maybe someone will eventually find the sound stage where the 9-11 attacks and Apollo 11 lunar landing were filmed (note the recurring use of the number 11).
 
The president couldn't even keep his BJ's in the white house a secret, but yet they pulled off a complex event in secret? Mmm kay.
A certain percentage of people are very impressionable. They believe all sorts of make believe stuff with no proof whatsoever. I had a buddy a while back that was intelligent and educated and firmly believed that we didn't land on the moon. His main proof was that the moon crust was super fluffy by all the meteor impacts and that if you stepped on it you would sink. "Everyone should knows this its just common sense and science!" He would go off the rails about it.

I think its easier for some minds to think things happen for a reason. There is a grand plan and some super smart people are running it all. Their minds can't wrap around the fact that we live in a extremely complex and chaotic world and your control is very limited. They need order to feel secure, so they find order where there is none. It helps them make sense of it all. It also feeds the Ego, which says" I know something you don't". "I am smarter/better than you." There is a whole 'nother group who are Ego driven. I think we will find out at some point in the future that our brains are almost like business meeting. It is full of different needs/wants/influences that culminate into our working mind. Some people are more ruled by one group or the other. Science may, at some point, be able to even these out or make whatever is considered the "optimal" influence be more dominate. Our brains are are the same one that was smashing people in the heads with rocks or listening for Sabertooths 15000 years ago. We have not evolved, we are just better educated and societally influenced.

V
 
Rumor has it Bush personally paid my BIL to pack semtex around the WTC7 columns.

Was WTC7 empty when it went down?
Do gubmnt alphabet groups have buildings built with a self destruct mode for when they need to hide something?

The big thing I take away from this is that my set of "that is too preposterous to POSSIBLY be true!" has shrunk to almost zero. I find the depths of depravity of those in power, and their deceitfulness, is matched by naivete and credulity of the public.
 
That's compelling evidence - the results of a poll conducted for a group that might -just might- have a biased opinion.

Read the article, or pull out one sentence and sneer at it, misrepresenting it as the tone of the article.

Free speech is a wonderful thing!
 
Based on my own observations while watching the Trade Towers fall on 9/11/01, I know that the official story is not complete. Why do we pay for professional demolition, when all we have to do is burn the top floors? The answer is, we don't, because burning them doesn't bring them down. They can only come straight down like that via professional demolition.

That was the first time in history that a steel building collapsed from fire. None before have toppled nor come straight down from fire. There have been many steel buildings burned to a crisp, one in NYC during 2001, but none have ever supposedly collapsed from fire until the Trade Towers. That's the reason we build them with steel. That's why the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are so vocal.
 
Last edited:
Read the article, or pull out one sentence and sneer at it, misrepresenting it as the tone of the article.

Free speech is a wonderful thing!

I read the entire article (and thank you for posting a link to a mercifully brief article) and found nothing new or compelling.

One thing struck me when reading the many, many discussions following 9-11: I could not remember previously reading about a tall building that burned and fell down by tipping over and falling to the side.

And free speech is a wonderful thing; I am not compelled to slavishly agree with what you say.
 
Last edited:
Our government is not above using false flags to force public opinion where they want it in order to justify acts of war. And usually to expand the coffers of certain groups of elite.

They have claimed boats were sunk by enemy vessels on numerous occasions to force our hands. These have been proven to be false but people refuse to think it could happen again.

I don’t know exactly what happened on 9/11 but I do know there are things that don’t add up. The towers were hit by planes. What happened after that doesn’t make a lot of sense.
 
WTC 7 thing is just weird AF. They way it pancaked. The whole thing straight down. Been a building designer and worked in architecture over 30 years and it just doesn't smell right.


And, as far as secrets, big big secrets have been kept by very large groups of people for many many years. The F117 comes to mind.
 
Our government is not above using false flags to force public opinion where they want it in order to justify acts of war. And usually to expand the coffers of certain groups of elite.

They have claimed boats were sunk by enemy vessels on numerous occasions to force our hands. These have been proven to be false but people refuse to think it could happen again.

I don’t know exactly what happened on 9/11 but I do know there are things that don’t add up. The towers were hit by planes. What happened after that doesn’t make a lot of sense.

Indeed, Gulf of Tonkin, etc.
Reading about things like Operation Northwoods will make you go hmmmmmm.
 
The president couldn't even keep his BJ's in the white house a secret, but yet they pulled off a complex event in secret? Mmm kay.
A certain percentage of people are very impressionable. They believe all sorts of make believe stuff with no proof whatsoever. I had a buddy a while back that was intelligent and educated and firmly believed that we didn't land on the moon. His main proof was that the moon crust was super fluffy by all the meteor impacts and that if you stepped on it you would sink. "Everyone should knows this its just common sense and science!" He would go off the rails about it.

Actually, this was not so bizarre an objection. NASA scientists were puzzled by unmanned probes to the moon over precisely this (though not for this reason). The calcs said that if you have x gravitational pull (by the moon), and the universe is 4.5 billion years old, then the layer of cosmic dust on the moon would be approximately 22 feet deep, swallowing up any attempts to land, since there is no erosion or displacement of dust (no significant wind), it was a big problem. No one knows why this is the case, although the YEC crowd went "AHA AHA!!!!" that it was evidence for a younger solar system. I don't buy that necessarily, but I do have no answer for why it is not the case (neither does NASA, by the way).

I think its easier for some minds to think things happen for a reason.

Are you assuming that things happen utterly randomly? Then why are you using logic and reason at all? I am not sure you are prepared to think that one through to its conclusion.

There is a grand plan and some super smart people are running it all.

I suppose I fit into that group, although the "people" (person, actually)running the show does not divulge the details of the plan to us. It is the lust to know such things that creates a lot of this weirdness, which I will agree is bizarre, sometimes.

Their minds can't wrap around the fact that we live in a extremely complex and chaotic world and your control is very limited. They need order to feel secure, so they find order where there is none. It helps them make sense of it all. It also feeds the Ego, which says" I know something you don't". "I am smarter/better than you." There is a whole 'nother group who are Ego driven. I think we will find out at some point in the future that our brains are almost like business meeting. It is full of different needs/wants/influences that culminate into our working mind.
I agree with a lot of this. It begs the question of "why?" one would feel better that there is a plan. If things are simply chaotic and disordered, then there would be on sense of comfort in assuming the opposite.
Some people are more ruled by one group or the other. Science may, at some point, be able to even these out or make whatever is considered the "optimal" influence be more dominate.



One must assume there is an "optimum" to begin with, which is impossible in a universe with no plan.

Our brains are are the same one that was smashing people in the heads with rocks or listening for Sabertooths 15000 years ago. We have not evolved, we are just better educated and societally influenced.

Evolved" implies a goal, progress, and standards by which one may measure such metrics. Random bits of protoplasm which once ate each other and now use digital equipment to measure and calculate give no such metrics. We cannot have randomness as the driving force of the universe and then assume silly ideas like "progress." Steve Gould was very good on this, if you have read him.

At any rate, thanks for the interaction
 
Last edited:
could not remember previously reading about a tall building that burned and fell down by tipping over and falling to the side.
That's because it has never happened. Not ever. Tall buildings are built with steel. They do not burn and fall.
 
That's because it has never happened. Not ever. Tall buildings are built with steel. They do not burn and fall.
Despite your claims of never and not ever, this discussion is based on the fact that 3 tall buildings built with steel did burn (the fires are observable) and fall (although we can argue over why they fell).
 
Last edited:
Despite your claims of never and not ever, the fact is we are discussing 3 tall buildings built with steel that did burn (the fires are observable) and fall (although we can argue over why they fell).

Yes, they did burn. Jet fuel, combustibles on the plane and in the towers. But why the fall and straight down. The same on 3 buildings.
 
I read the entire article ...... and found nothing new or compelling.

That objection is tantamout to simply saying "I don't agree." OK. Go with that

One thing struck me when reading the many, many discussions following 9-11: I could not remember previously reading about a tall building that burned and fell down by tipping over and falling to the side.

Actually you have done a good halfway job, there. No records of steel and concrete buildings burning to the point of collapse has ever been recorded. Good job on that. On the other hand, all such buildings which DID collapse (none due to fire) that we have records of, did not collapse pancake style. Congrats on conflating those two "arguments" into a bizarre response that looks like a rebuttal.

And free speech is a wonderful thing; I am not compelled to slavishly agree with what you say.

No, you are not. Nor are you compelled to give rational responses. It is a good thing, apparently
 
I've long thought there's more to the story than what we've been told by the mainstream media. The oddity of the buildings falling straight down after a few hours of kerosene fire, WTC 7 falling flat without an impact, and the incident that happened at the pentagon, that just happened to destroy all the financial records that were only days away from being examined that would have shown the billions of dollars that Rumsfeld had "lost".

The man who owned the buildings had only months ago got terrorism insurance, and he made out like a bandit.

I do believe that planes were flown into the towers. I do not think the planes alone are responsible for the collapse of the buildings. I do not think the terrorists acted alone, and I think that some of the power players in our govt and financial institutions knew this was going to happen. I think at best, they allowed it to happen, and at worst, they had a hand in it. Based on photos of the pentagon I've seen after its crash, I'm not convinced it was a plane that it it.
 
Just thank God that the only camera that was on the Pentagon was able to catch a small glimpse of what may have been a plane crash into it.
 
The problem with all this is that when the establishment narratives collapse, then all bets are off. Every bizarre, crazy and wackadoodle idea on the books demands equal time. I have no idea what happened back there, and I think I am about as well read on this stuff as anyone you will find.

I know what I DON'T believe, and I have my suspicions, but no evidence at all.

That is the problem. Rebuttal of the establishment narrative is all the "evidence" some of the more weird folks demand. It creates lots of confusion.
 
We all know that commercial airliners are filled with mind controlling chemicals that they release in their chemtrails to force Americans to become more docile and easy to control. That's why most major US cities are going more and more liberal, more airplanes releasing stuff over Chicago than over Iowa. So the real question we don't know is how hot >these< chemicals burn. So it wasn't just jet fuel burning, it was jet fuel AND a cargo load of chemicals of shich we do not know the origin.
 
That was the first time in history that a steel building collapsed from fire.

It's also the first time one has been hit by a plane and burned with jet fuel. And why didn't they topple? Gravity pulls straight down, not side-to-side. I don't mean to be short but it really is that simple.

My takeaway from Tan's post is: We're all gullible morons one way or another. How many of us are willing to shrug it off and say 'There's no way I'll ever know the whole truth about that" and move on with life?

I expect reality is that there's truth and lies in all of these narratives but I'll never sort it out. Nor will I believe anyone who thinks they did.
 
Last edited:
Just thank God that the only camera that was on the Pentagon was able to catch a small glimpse of what may have been a plane crash into it.
Trying to cast doubt on facts is so helpful. I don't need to watch videos for this because one of my long-time friends was driving in front of the Pentagon on 9-11 and watched the plane fly over their car and hit the Pentagon.
 
The problem with all this is that when the establishment narratives collapse, then all bets are off. Every bizarre, crazy and wackadoodle idea on the books demands equal time. I have no idea what happened back there, and I think I am about as well read on this stuff as anyone you will find.

I know what I DON'T believe, and I have my suspicions, but no evidence at all.

That is the problem. Rebuttal of the establishment narrative is all the "evidence" some of the more weird folks demand. It creates lots of confusion.

No, all of the myriad of explanations are not equal. The fact that no single explanation is totally convincing or without unanswered questions does not mean that some crackpot's idea about alien involvement is as valid as any other possible explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NKD
Trying to cast doubt on facts is so helpful. I don't need to watch videos for this because one of my long-time friends was driving in front of the Pentagon on 9-11 and watched the plane fly over their car and hit the Pentagon.

Not trying to cast doubts. Just point out that the friggin PENTAGON of all places can not provide video evidence of the plane crash, other then some still image camera footage. I would think there would be a shit ton of cameras around that place.
 
Trying to cast doubt on facts is so helpful. I don't need to watch videos for this because one of my long-time friends was driving in front of the Pentagon on 9-11 and watched the plane fly over their car and hit the Pentagon.

Not having camera shots from the Pentagon never bothered me. They are a military instillation, one of the most important in the nation. The fact that they don't toss around footage on the internet is encouraging.
 
Not having camera shots from the Pentagon never bothered me. They are a military instillation, one of the most important in the nation. The fact that they don't toss around footage on the internet is encouraging.

And I get that. I would just think that there is more footage that could be released without compromising national security and lay to rest the plane strike.
 
And I get that. I would just think that there is more footage that could be released without compromising national security and lay to rest the plane strike.

Or it could be the people who were like "Yeah, a plane flying 500mph 10 feet off the ground is hard to catch on film, but here are XX number of eye witnesses.
 
Let's not forget that the surveillance state was born of this disaster. Digital cameras were not ubiquitous in 2001.

And wouldn't security cameras be pointed outward? So it's plausible that - whateveritwas - destroyed any camera that filmed it's flight inbound?
 
It's also the first time one has been hit by a plane and burned with jet fuel. And why didn't they topple? Gravity pulls straight down, not side-to-side. I don't mean to be short but it really is that simple.
Well, maybe it is that simple.

But the Trade Towers were designed to withstand being struck by airplanes. Also, what's special about jet fuel? All of it was burned up quickly, being the most volatile of everything on those floors. Jet fuel started the fire, but if that was all that burned, the fire would have extinguished itself quickly. "Offices" are what burned over time. Nothing about that fire was outside of the design criteria of modern steel buildings. And if gravity could pull down the building that stood underneath the fire on 9/11, why did it not pull the building down before 9/11? Pancaking, you say? For that to happen, all of the columns that failed and started the pancaking had to fail simultaneously, and all of the subsequent columns that failed had to fail simultaneously on each floor. Otherwise, the pancake would have fallen off to the side. Maybe it is not that simple, after all.

However, being hit by airplanes and burning jet fuel, appears to be all you need to hoodwink the world.
 
Or it could be the people who were like "Yeah, a plane flying 500mph 10 feet off the ground is hard to catch on film, but here are XX number of eye witnesses.
But there was a video of an airliner flying low over Arlington, across the Potomac, taken from D.C. It was aired on 9/11, and I saw it with my own eyes. Try finding that video now. I started looking for it two days later, and it could not be found.
 
all of the columns that failed and started the pancaking had to fail simultaneously
Yes, that's true. I studied structures just enough to believe that's exactly what happened. Or closely enough in time to look simultaneous to an observer. "Designed to withstand the impact" they definitely accomplished. But perhaps those engineers didn't think the problem all the way through to it's conclusion.
 
Yes, that's true. I studied structures just enough to believe that's exactly what happened.
Of course, that is exactly what happened. That it could happen 80 times, over and over, all the way to the ground, without assistance from demolition explosives, is a ridiculous implausibility.

"Designed to withstand the impact" they definitely accomplished. But perhaps those engineers didn't think the problem all the way through to it's conclusion.
Sure. Perhaps that's what happened. Engineers are notorious for that. :rolleyes:
 
But there was a video of an airliner flying low over Arlington, across the Potomac, taken from D.C. It was aired on 9/11, and I saw it with my own eyes. Try finding that video now. I started looking for it two days later, and it could not be found.
Likely the chemicals in the chemtrail mixture degraded the footage.
 
Of course, that is exactly what happened. That it could happen 80 times, over and over, all the way to the ground, without assistance from demolition explosives, is a ridiculous implausibility.

But is it impossible? Because if it's not impossible, then it is possible, regardless of how implausible.
 
Does anyone really think the Pentagon wasn't hit by an AC? After reading some of the comments here I am confused.
Lotsa folks think it was hit by a missile. A french website published photos that were available online on 9/11 and it showed damage consistent with a missile, and inconsistent with an airliner.
 
But is it impossible? Because if it's not impossible, then it is possible, regardless of how implausible.
Thus, because it is not impossible that it was professionally demolished, due to clear evidence of such, and because that is more plausible than the official narrative, folks have doubt about the official narrative.

That's all one can conclude. No one knows what really happened.
 
The two trade buildings collapsed from the top down after being hit by fuel laden aircraft., like stomping an aluminum can.
WTC7 wasn't on fire, hadn't been impacted and went down like a planned demolition starting from the bottom. WTC7's collapse makes no sense. Then Mueller covered it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom