The 100% Impossible 9/11 Inside Job

[twinstead]

No, that's what I'm doing since a long time. I guess I'm pretty good in it.

I hope you aren't trying to make a living doing it, because you're not very good at it.

You are an ideologue. Translate that word into your native tongue; they make TERRIBLE investigators.

 

[achimspok]

Those who grossly misinterpret history are doomed to repeat it.

Seems so.

Get it straight!

 

[achimspok]

I hope you aren't trying to make a living doing it, because you're not very good at it.

You are an ideologue. Translate that word into your native tongue; they make TERRIBLE investigators.

Yes, that's right. They immediatly "knew", right? They found parking lots in front of the wrong house. They found cars rented by the wrong guys. They found passports 2 years later in a suitcases of a guy who changed from brown long curly hair to black short cut during flight and from tie to no tie between ticket counter and security check. A similar passport bouced back from a wall that wasn't there anymore and escaped the hell without a scratch but nonsensical correction fluid. They have two different timestamps per frame in a video that isn't mentioned in the investigation. The mentioned videos were never shown to the public. They have cameras that can fade back to the overdubbed material. They release brand new material that partially was in a fiction movie a half year before. They translated words which no arabic expert could hear. They have suicide hijackers in the US who are in Germany at the same time. Those are interested in crop dusters before arrival and still 3 days before their planned vaporization. They have advices for the handling of their body in the baggage for that last trip. The paymaster swallows toast in the White House but the Commission decides that the money trail is of no practical use.
That's terrible and ideological instead of logical.

 

[twinstead]

Yes, that's right. They immediatly "knew", right? They found parking lots in front of the wrong house. The found cars rented by the wrong guys. They found passports 2 years later in a suitcases of a guy who changed from brown long curly hair to black short cut during flight and from tie to no tie between ticket counter and security check. A similar passport bouced back from a wall that wasn't there anymore and escaped the hell without a scratch but nonsensical correction fluid. They have two different timestamps per frame in a video that isn't mentioned in the investigation. The mentioned videos were never shown to the public. They have cameras that can fade back to the overdubbed material. They release brand new material that partially was in a fiction movie a half year before. They translated words which no arabic expert could hear. They have suicide hijackers in the US who are in Germany at the same time. Those are interested in crop dusters before arrival and still 3 days before their planned vaporization. They have advices for the handling of their body in the baggage for that last trip. The paymaster swallows toast in the White House but the Commission decides that the money trail is of no practical use.
That's terrible and ideological instead of logical.

This is an argument from incredulity. It's the worst kind of argument, one that my 5 year old would make. You don't have all the facts behind your evidence, you just read this stuff on conspiracy websites and accept them as true NO QUESTIONS ASKED. This is not evidence. It's you reading what you want into events. No real investigator does that, only ideologues who start with a predetermined conclusion and try to make data fit into it.

You are not fooling anybody, nor are your arguments particularly compelling. Your "evidence" wouldn't survive a week in a trial in a court of law.

 

[achimspok]

Wrong. That's not what I read on conspiracy websites. The facts are there.
Start with the sworn testimony of FBI special agent Lechner. Make any sense out of it.
It's an official document. That's what investigators do. Reading it.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Can you please elaborate on this doozy. What is the context you've seen this?

What? You want a steel framed high rise example or something? Is there some big difference in the steel used in large office buildings that somehow doesn't meet industry standards?
Do you somehow think that this:

source

in smaller buildings is a ludicrous concept in larger buildings?
If so, what does that make of the failures in the Windsor Building? What of WTC 5? What of others?

 

[twinstead]

It's a shame all those respected structural engineers around the world are cowering under the jackboots of the evil Red, White, and Blue Empire and won't admit that steel doesn't fail in fires, and the collapses of the WTC buildings were suspicious.

It would make the truthers' job SO much easier.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Wrong. That's not what I read on conspiracy websites. The facts are there.
Start with the sworn testimony of FBI special agent Lechner. Make any sense out of it.
It's an official document. That's what investigators do. Reading it.

You guys are stirring up a big pot of nothing. Congratulations.

I hope you realize that yours is an utterly thankless job...not to mention pointless.

 

[twinstead]

Wrong. That's not what I read on conspiracy websites. The facts are there.
Start with the sworn testimony of FBI special agent Lechner. Make any sense out of it.
It's an official document. That's what investigators do. Reading it.

I'm not saying it's not an official document. I'm saying it doesn't mean what you think it means. So it's the "make any sense out of it" where you are failing.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Is it 100% possible for there to exist a red Vespa scooter sitting outside a Starbucks located on the far side of the Moon right now? Yes or no.

Interesting question for which I am not sure of the point.

The answer is yes. It is possible. Now if you were to ask if it was 100% impossible, I would say no. Why are you asking this stupid question?

This is so simple. Maybe its deceptively too simple for the nitwit delusional duh-bunkers....who possess very little critical thinking abilities.

The point is to help provide illustration.

You are technically correct, it is possible for there to be a red Vespa sitting outside a lunar Stabucks. But we both know there isn't one. Of either.

There is no current reality in which, at great expense and effort, these items would be transported from Earth to the Moon, along with the support equipment, supplies, and manpower to operate and power the store. And all for what? How many people are swinging by on their way to Tranquillity Base for a double-tall latte?

Each one of the steps necessary for this possibility to take place are, again, complex and costly in the extreme. Who would okay such a plan? Why? Add enough of these high-difficulty steps together and the level of difficulty fast approaches total. And just as a sealed room containing three molecules of breathable oxygen could be regarded as not a 100% vacuum, to a person inside trying to breathe, it is a distinction without a difference.

You wish to wrangle over the issue of the thread title (though, interestingly, not so much the actual OP) in hopes of keeping that inside-job fantasy door open a crack. So you'll attempt to dismiss my argument on a technicality. The real world doesn't operate that way, sport. Don't you agree?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Wait, I've figured this retarded question out....

A "nice guy," eh?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Dave - your position is reasonable. How come you won't call out your idiot skeptic colleagues for proclaiming that it is 100% impossible.

How about this little brain-buster: Can you name something that is only 50% possible? Regnad asked me if some farfetched scenario was 100% possible.

How come you guys don't attack the idiot skeptics? Only the idiot truthers earn criticism?

Bolding mine.

A "nice guy," eh?

Oh, and for farfetched scenarios, please see: Inside Job, 9/11.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

But if a skeptic creates a ridiculous thread to procliam that an inside job is 100% impossible, all the debunkers are conveniently absent in telling him how stupid and unreasonable his proclaimation really is.

Perhaps that's because they read and understood the OP?

Never mind that he doesn't qualify what an "inside job" actually is, other than that it has to meet his predetermined criteria and that it is 100% impossible...

christallmighty....

Perhaps if you were to read and understand the OP?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh....I get it!

Because it is so highly improbable, then it is as good as impossible. So why don't we just do away with those pesky words and that ultra pesky probability theory?

Why don't we do away with conspiracy theories which are laughable on their face?

And you're welcome to show how probability theory takes interested (as opposed to disinterested) human actions into account.

Lastly, I might be a bit more aware of the precision of word usage than your average bear. Just sayin'.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The possibility of a coin coming up heads or tails is just that; possible. There are no varying degrees of possibility, only probability.

This is why proclaiming anything that has a probability, however remote, as 100% impossible, is redundant and absurd.

Nope.

The fact that skeptics, who are supposed to be capable of a high level of logic and reason, play along with this ridiculous thread, just proves that they(read: you) have completely lost their ability to view the 9/11 events with objectivity.

Still more words and still no content.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Wrong....so wrong.

Rational people understand there is a big difference between impossible and improbable. The ability for said event to occur being the major difference.

Is it that hard for you "rational bunch of people' to accept simple logic? Are you afraid that admitting an inside job has a probability might get you labelled as a truther? Smells like fear to me....

Three molecules of oxygen in a vacuum-sealed room smell like...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Translation:

We don't care what specific words mean. We just want to post drivel to satisfy our personal craving for making truthers look stupid. Mostly because we know no one will call us on bs threads that make no sense. As long as they serve our purpose...

Cue the "truthers dont need our help to look stupid" comments. So predictable.

Translation:

 

[Regnad Kcin]

According to jref (who represents rational society! huge laugh!), impossible is improbable. If it is "vanishingly improbable", thats as good as impossible.

By George, you've got it!

...so stupid.

Whoops, spoke too soon.

Iamaniceguy = done with this thread

Did you ever engage it to begin with?

 

[triforcharity]

Well then, please grace us with your own calculations or a link where you prove my assumption wrong (my assumption: I'm sure you've seen just as much scientific analysis on 9 ft of "sag" in 17 minutes as I have.)

http://fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk/Downloads/SC_Baltimore.pdf

Ten second to find. Granted, not my own, but very similar.

not until you can prove my assumption wrong

THe problem is you are leaving out the 80 minutes PRIOR to the 17 minutes.

My personal opinion is what I stated already. The fires weren't hot enough.

Says you?

Hydrocarbon fires can and will burn anywhere from 1000-2000 deg. F with ease. This is EASILY verifiable. Ask ANY firefighter who is worth a damn. Erik Lawyer and his merry band of morons, do not count.

like you have brought anything to the table.

Dude, you're barely in the same room, let alone at the table.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The difference between "improbable" and "impossible" is not a matter of semantics.

The word "semantics" itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language to denote a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation.

To dismiss my point as a matter of semantics is ignorant. Impossible implies certainty. "100% impossible" should have been my first clue that this thread was retarded. Its like saying "completely surrounded", or "past history".

Bolding mine.

A "nice guy," eh?