AE911T reaches inflationary limit and names "The General Population" as guilty party

[Georgio]

I think the big mac getting smaller is more depressing.

Nah, just order two. Can't do anything about the milkshakes, though... (mind you, I did make that up).

 

[TJM]

I think the big mac getting smaller is more depressing.

On the contrary. In yet another McHebrew plot, it's getting bigger. The larger size is designed to keep us fat and complacent while sucking more money from our wallets. Soon we'll see lines of super-sized people waddling into the FEMA camps, their fate sealed.

Mazel tov!

 

[cjnewson88]

Well, occasionally someone sees the highlighted bit and concludes I must be a closet Jew, and they grace me with the title "shill", "traitor", "vermin" or somesuch.

I believe the new age name for it is "gem" now, so as to seem not so blatantly racist...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Does that FB page delete dissenting views? I left a message there thanking the General Populace for stopping the 9/11 movement . I wonder for how long it's going to stay.

Also left a few questions and sarcastic remarks. I'll go prepare some popcorn and await replies.


Edit: oh, and it feels so weird and good to be posting here again. I wish people would go back to posting on forums more instead of Face and Instagram. Imagine that, a web site that isn't driven by greed, and which doesn't siphon facts about you, learn everything about you by means of algorithm, and sell all of it off to greedy corporations. You get to post on forums without having to hook it up to Google, or sell your entire life, or have it manipulate you into staying there for as long as possible. What a strange idea.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Couldn't help but notice they said fire could not have brought down the Twin Towers when no one is claiming that just fire brought down the Twin Towers.

16+ years and they still can't get the fundamentals correct.

Boy I sure am late to this party....
Anyhow... the conspiracists have always treated the plane impacts as a non-factor in their "theories". I.E. They grossly underestimate/completely remove from consideration that the impacts contributed to weakening the safety measures that would have otherwise protected the building from the fires, and vice versa.

The field and specialty knowledge deficiencies are too many to count with these claims - as always

I see the discussions have died down quite alot as of late

 

[heymatto70]

Boy I sure am late to this party....
Anyhow... the conspiracists have always treated the plane impacts as a non-factor in their "theories". I.E. They grossly underestimate/completely remove from consideration that the impacts contributed to weakening the safety measures that would have otherwise protected the building from the fires, and vice versa.

The field and specialty knowledge deficiencies are too many to count with these claims - as always

I see the discussions have died down quite alot as of late

The Towers were designed to survive an airplane impact though!

I mean, not the much larger planes that were used in 2001. Nor at upwards of 500 MPH. Loaded with 10k+ gallons of fuel. But they should have survived anyways!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The Towers were designed to survive an airplane impact though!

I mean, not the much larger planes that were used in 2001. Nor at upwards of 500 MPH. Loaded with 10k+ gallons of fuel. But they should have survived anyways!

And they did initially survive proving those theoretical calculations valid. If the damage from the impacts hadn't compromised the passive and active fire protection systems or sparked a large enough fire in concert they might would have avoided an outright collapse. That's a sentiment most that are active here I think share.

But thats' my point you have the collapses that already took place. There are valid reasons to explain the "why and how" question that is seldom considered by people that jump to a controlled demolition as their only rational answer

 

[Dave Rogers]

And they did initially survive proving those theoretical calculations valid. If the damage from the impacts hadn't compromised the passive and active fire protection systems or sparked a large enough fire in concert they might would have avoided an outright collapse. That's a sentiment most that are active here I think share.

Yeah, it's always been the truther position that the airliner impacts alone couldn't have caused the collapses, and the fires alone couldn't have caused the collapses, so something else must have caused the collapses; the idea that two causes of damage can result in more damage together than one of them separately doesn't seem plausible to them, even though I'd expect an averagely intelligent five-year-old to understand it. I think the gradual realisation that airliner impact plus fire creates more damage than airliner impact alone or fire alone was part of the cultural shift towards treating WTC7 as the real smoking gun; it was too obvious that none of the other smoking things were actually guns.

Dave

 

[heymatto70]

And they did initially survive proving those theoretical calculations valid. If the damage from the impacts hadn't compromised the passive and active fire protection systems or sparked a large enough fire in concert they might would have avoided an outright collapse. That's a sentiment most that are active here I think share.

But thats' my point you have the collapses that already took place. There are valid reasons to explain the "why and how" question that is seldom considered by people that jump to a controlled demolition as their only rational answer

It amazes me to this day the thought that if the fires were controllable and didn't destroy the safety measures in place, the towers probably survive with maybe partial collapse in some localized areas.

Truthers aren't interested in the real reasons, only ways to question what they view as the official explanation because they want to feel like they are smarter than everyone and they proved impossible happened.

 

[Spektator]

Talk about hitting bottom and still digging. The clown car that is 9/11 Truth just doesn't know when to quit - the tires are flat, its out of gas, gears are grinding, smoke pouring out, the passengers just sit there with their whoopie cushions and palm buzzers and squirting flowers and yet they think they're getting somewhere. Funny as hell.

I think the inside of a clown car is a lot more crowded than the truther movement is.

 

[ozeco41]

... I think the gradual realisation that airliner impact plus fire creates more damage than airliner impact alone or fire alone was part of the cultural shift towards treating WTC7 as the real smoking gun; it was too obvious that none of the other smoking things were actually guns.

Dave

Agreed it is part of the reason for the shift to WTC7 focus.

however I think there is a more fundamental reason. There is no doubt the strategic focus shifted to WTC7 - whether explicit strategic decision or simply a natural drift is hard to tell. I think it just happend but...this is what I've been asserting as the reason - whether explicit or implicitly intended.

The focus had been on CD at the twin towers - so that is the technical topic. But there has never been a valid pro-CD hypothesis that survived the first rounds of debate. Most focus on anomalous issues which truthers did not understand. Out of context. No coherent argument.

And "debunkers" (it started before that term and the truther debunker two sides only polarisation but I'll stay with those terms.) - so "debunkers" had adopted the practice of explaining the anomalies and to do so had to address the issue itself PLUS the challenge to define what the truthers could not define and putting it into a context.

In doing so "we" were accepting de-facto burden of proof. I've said it many times - I doubt there is a significant truther claim that does not rely on "Reversed Burden of DISproof" - sorry for the double negative framing.

Along came WTC7 - all the details hidden - harder for debunkers to DISprove CD - what the truthers still couldn't prove but harder for "us" to disprove. Esp to a bunch of conspiracy obsessed lay persons.

If we overlook the inherently dubious logic of "cannot prove a negative" there was more than sufficient visual evidence for the "Twins" to DISprove CD. Or if I'm in a good mood and being scientific method rigorous - to prove "CD assistance was not needed"

And "CD not needed" can be demonstrated to an honest layperson for the "Twins". It needs engineering/physics understanding to analyse the mechanisms hidden inside WTC 7. >>> "You cannot prove us wrong" trumpet the truthers. And - IMO far to often - "we" forget to open our response by saying "We don't have to....it's your BoP...but..."

Truthers had effectively lost the battle for CD with the Twins. Along came WTC7 - the evidence mostly hidden - a gift from the Gods for truthers since debunkers had long been accepting "Reversed Burden of DISproof". So arguably it is "our" fault. Shame on us.

 

[JSanderO]

The core of the truther position was simply that what they witnessed was simply not possible without some sort of intentional effort to take the buildings down... Building that are standing and strong do not and cannot drop to the ground in a few seconds from puny local fires. The planes did knock them down either. These collapses in the minds of the truthers were simply not possible from "natural"... ie fire related causes with some structural damage high up in the twins. How can a small section destroy by crushing something 7 or 8 times its size! When looked at in this mickey mouse manner... extremely naive... the WTC looks like 3 CDs or man made engineered destruction.

Other observations deemed impossible was very novice pilots hitting the targets.

It's disbelief informed by technical ignorance... observations with the mind of a child. No need to make an affirmative case. It wasn't natural and so it had to be man caused.

The other side explained the observations as consistent with technical and engineering explanations. These drilled into the structure, physics and civil engineering... all of which was way way over the head of 99.999% of the truthers. the 0.001% who were capable of understanding simply ignored the engineered or looked from some minor nit to pick undermining the explanation which was 99.99% credible.

You can neither argue nor educate a truther. The former requires that they be technically up to speed and honest. And the latter is years of technical training... engineering and physics. Not happening... waste of time.

Idiots can and will be fooled. But many truthers are smart... just not about engineering and physics. The few who are willfully dishonest for some unexplained reason.