The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

Telltale Tom said:
As well put together as all your others. These guys are really intrigued amused by you. However I am pretty sure that they will ever convince you to change your mind.

It is far better than logical debate. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

ftfy
 
chipmunk stew said:
There's no 9/11 inside job scenario that has more than a vanishingly small probability (essentially zero) of both being pulled off without a trace of hard evidence and leaving behind a solid cover story that elegantly fits all the available evidence and is simple enough to withstand Occam's Razor.

Maybe you'll be the first to pull it all together into something coherent.
Click to expand...

I did invite him to post his theory,but answer came there none.
 
tempesta29 said:
It's as if you didn't read my first post, hence why you made no rebuttal to it. Your paper trail business is just laughable. 100%. Laughable. One-hundred-percent. 50% X 2 = 100% + laughable = 100% laughable.
Click to expand...

Hey, he can do math! As long as it doesn't involve any variables...
 
tempesta29 said:
I'm beginning to think you just don't have the capacity to engage in reasonable discussion. Is this not a thread about "possibility"? I never made the claim that these men were under mind control. It's possible they were. It's possible they've simply kept the secret under threat of death. It's possible they're all dead. What isn't possible is that this operation was impossible.
Click to expand...

Oh no. They were most definately under mind control and brainwashing.

They were under the control of individuals who hate the US government, who have subverted the words of the Prophet Mohammad and have a desire to kill others (which is expressly forbidden in Islam). They were brainwashed to believe that by killing upwards of 50,000 people on 9/11 would get them into heaven.

that is most definately brainwashing. If you want to see other exmaples look at homicide bombers, cults and CT's.
 
Last edited:
JimBenArm said:
Hey, he can do math! As long as it doesn't involve any variables...
Click to expand...
Not really...
"50% X 2 = 100% + laughable = 100% laughable"

Where did that "+ laughable" come from? It doesn't follow from the 50% X 2. And 100% of what plus laughable, anyway? It makes no sense. Then all of a sudden it's 100% laughable. You can't just change the operator to get the answer you want.

This is actually a good illustration of the Truther model of logic. Start at the end with the answer you want, put some cherry-picked dots to connect at the front, and connect the two through a string of operations that has the superficial appearance of logic but in fact contains embarrassing, glaring errors.










:D
 
Telltale Tom said:
Mind control is proven by ae911truth. How do you think I was converted?

Every time Richard Gage speaks to an audience he is able to convince over 95% that the towers fell as a result of controlled demolition. It's true. The Truth is on our web site.

If only Richard would speak to 3 more Professional Engineers in New York State he would double our support. The take an engineer to lunch campaign is clearly waiting for a big lunch.
Click to expand...

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not...
 
tempesta29 said:
I'm beginning to think you just don't have the capacity to engage in reasonable discussion. Is this not a thread about "possibility"? I never made the claim that these men were under mind control. It's possible they were. It's possible they've simply kept the secret under threat of death. It's possible they're all dead. What isn't possible is that this operation was impossible.
Click to expand...

If you want to put apples next to apples...these men terrorists were under a form of mind control...

They believed that, upon their death, they were going to be martyred, become historic heroes, get 75 virgins, $35 American dollars, and a lifetime supply of pantyhose.
(OK, maybe not that last two)

They commited murder/suicide because some imaginary religious idol told them to. If that isn't mind control, I don't know what is.
 
What I find funny is the only MIHOP version of 911 that would be remotely possible is someone from say the CIA infiltrating Al Quida and planting the idea of crashing planes into buildings. Once they have the idea the rest would be and was fairly simple.

However if that was true then all the other truther theories would to be false and they are so attached to them that they can't let go of them. That indicates that its the very details that fascinate them not the conspiracy itself. Like Major Tom endlessly self abusing himself over the initiation event, the fixation on minutiae at the expense of grasping an overall view of events seems to be a symptom of their affliction.
 
tempesta29 said:
If someone is claiming it is impossible to do something that does not defy any natural law, then the burden of proof is on that individual.
Click to expand...

Like, for example, a multi-storey buckle causing a building facade to descend at an acceleration within measurement error of freefall after the plastic hinges have fractured? Or does that come under some special exception that only truthers are allowed to invoke?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Like, for example, a multi-storey buckle causing a building facade to descend at an acceleration within measurement error of freefall after the plastic hinges have fractured? Or does that come under some special exception that only truthers are allowed to invoke?

Dave
Click to expand...
Walked right into that one, didn't he?
 
tempesta29 said:
Now hypnotism isn't real? Is that your claim?
Click to expand...

That's a completely different issue.

Assuming hypnotism is real, how do you know what you saw on TV WAS hypnotism and was not faked?

Do you place the same standards of evidence on everything you see on TV as you do on the 9/11 attacks?
 
tempesta29 said:
The Wikipedia link was for the obvious laymen on the subject, but thanks for turning it into an attack on me. Don't worry: I've gotten used to that topic. If you think, after watching hypnotists on daytime television convince a man in an armchair he's driving a Ferrari, that the CIA can't do more or less the same, then there's not much more to discuss: you need to learn more about the subject.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point...

The point was that unless you have some real life first hand experience with the government...or intelligence agencies....or any of several other related topics....

DONT TALK LIKE YOU KNOW SOMETHING because you read crap on the internet or on forums....
 
Quiproquo said:
I would have to agree with you on this one. However what have you got to say about the multiple war simulations going on that day, including one scenario of a hijacked plane flying into a building? All those people working on these maneuvers could have been unwitting accomplices to the attack, no?

How far out can you pull the coincidence theory without making yourself look like a kook?
Click to expand...

Does it really need to be pointed out again that they don't actually hijack airplanes during training exercises? That there isn't actually an airplane in the air?
 
ImANiceGuy said:
Here at JREF, which you're probably well aware of at this point, the burden of proof is always on whoever they have labelled a Truther, even if they start assinine threads such as this.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but you've confused correlation with causation.

We label people as truthers if they make wild claims about hidden conspiracies with no evidence.

If someone makes wild claims about hidden conspiracies with no evidence, then the burden of proof is on them.

So, if someone makes wild claims about hidden conspiracies with no evidence, then the following is true:

1. They are labelled truthers.
2. The burden of proof is on them.

1 does not cause 2, and vice versa. See how that works?
 
It's sort of like me coming home one day and my parents spontaneously deciding "Hey, 1337m4n, we've decided to grant you legal ownership of every single penny and every single possession we own".

While not technically "impossible" in the sense that it doesn't defy any laws of physics, I'm not about to posit the probability as anything higher than 0%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom