If only the rubble had been examined AT ground zero and without hauling it away, we would have seen the evidence that Cheney told everyone to stand down.

Ok guys, I know this doesn't quite jive with what I've said before on this subject, but I wasn't sure if you were ready to handle the truth. For decades, our government had been providing aliens with human test subjects as tribute in return for them not destroying us. When Bush took office and learned of this... well, he's not exactly the brightest cookie in the jar, and he flat out refused. Not only that, but in a secret meeting, he actually threw up on the alien ambassador. That seems to run in the family. Anyway, 9/11 was basically just warning shots by the aliens to knock a little sense into Bush and get the test subject program back under way. When the government tried to cover up the truth by blaming "terrorists," Al Qaeda was only too happy to jump in and take credit.

Two different arguments conflated in a trollish attempt at mockery.

So 5000 Americans got blown up and crushed under 110 stories of rubble and the best deuces can come up with is to leave everything in one place meanwhile he scopes around in a magnifying glass next to a severed head.

That right there is grounds for criminal negligence.

And lol at wtc 7 being controlled demolition. That's like going in and robbing the 7/11 next door right after you've just heisted the Mona Lisa.

Who the **** would ever do that if this was an inside job.

Jiggs, I'll hand it to you. Your thoughts on 9/11 are not as stupid as those of Deuces. You, in all your LIHOP nonsense, do, if I may suppose, believe that the towers were taken down by planes, that the buildings collapsed as NIST said they did, that there was definitely no controlled demolition, etc. Deuces here is now starting to sing your LIHOP tune, but that is long after he's railed against the fact that the NIST report can't be trusted, that there's reasonable grounds to suspect controlled demolition, and that we might have found an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers if only the rubble had not been hauled away prior to examination. This is completely incompatible with any self-consistent LIHOP theory. You're wrong, but at least your theory is self-consistent. Deuces doesn't even have that, so yes, we mock him for that.

Oh, cool. So the terrists just fooled us?

Please pay attention. There were no terrorists.

@Jiggs

seems like you responded to most posts but skipped over this one:

or does that not have to be explained because you're (roughly speaking) in the "Let It Happen" camp? and do LIHOPs accept as fact that al Qaeda was behind 9/11?

all the multi-quoted, point by point rebuttals of the intellectually inferior....and i still have no idea wtf you're arguing, other than "no one was fired for 9/11 and some1 SHOULD HAVE BEEN FIRED!" which comes up a lot.

what are you arguing? what do you think happened surrounding 9/11 that "coincitards (the hilarity of this word cannot be overlooked)" just don't see.

or (the likely scenario)

George Bush used to make me laugh with his curious george faces.

Dude, I saw it. If I had the time, I'd respond to every sideline troll that stepped up to the plate. But it appeared so irrelevant to anything I'm advocating, I didn't really need to waste the time.

You're asking how the leader of the Northern Alliance being murdered before 9/11 reconciles with my narrative? I dunno, what is your point? Maybe if you fleshed out the alleged conflict that you see (i.e., wrote better), I might have stopped and noticed you.

Build up some coincitard capital first, and I'll pay you more mind. I know a bit about Massoud, including his ability to hold off the Taliban when all others fell to them while the U.S. offered no help. He was no friend of the U.S. I don't really see how his murder in Afghanistan by AQ changes the idea that the Joint Chiefs lied, the FBI buried ongoing surveillance and the Kean Report was compromised.

Use your words.

jiggs, please late term abort yourself.

I've always been LIH. I've never been full LIHOP but it's a possibility. I've tried to distill down my position into the simple phrase of 9/11 agnosticism- the investigation was **** so we don't know ****. I have to assume you and Fly understand that and just try to strawman me because you don't like to argue against that. You don't have the stomach for uncertainty and it's easier for you to attribute conspiracy theorist labels to me, telling me what I believe and being very wrong.

I even argued against Jiggs on the Anthrax conspiracy, although, again, it is a possibility. After all, the FBI ended up paying the first target of that investigation 5 million in damages. The second target was harassed into killing himself while the experts say there is no proof he did it. Initially Daschle hurled all kinds of accusations at the FBI, such as they had irreparably compromised the investigation. Do you understand the concept of leaving open all possibilities in the absence of a valid investigation? Is that too much of a nuanced concept for you?

I'm thinking maybe it is. Both you and Fly scoff at the idea that the remains of the buildings should have even been examined. It's as if you don't have any fundamental concept of why investigations exist. When something happens that requires explanation, such as a crime like mass murder, it's not enough for authorities like Bush to get on a megaphone and make vague threats of revenge. Do you understand? Your boy George Bush impersonating a tough guy and talking about "the people who did this" is a public relations video clip, not an explanation. Do you understand? The process of explanation of crimes often involves forensically looking through the evidence in a unbiased, objective manner and purposefully not making the kind of assumptions that you have made here. Do you understand? Let me know the confusing part. I am confident that with continued effort we can achieve your understanding.

No, I don't think these things. Do you care to respond to any arguments other than the ones you make up?

Are you scared that you will be embarrassed like before with the NIST report? It happens to the best of us man. Don't be discouraged. Don't lower yourself to the level of making things up to argue against and attaching my name to them to boost your confidence. To get the confidence to actually take on my arguments your going to have to get some actual achievements. So I want you to get up on that horse, find you some racists, to tear 'em a new one! Giddy up Fly, giddy up!

When you reduce people to questioning the value of investigating crimes do you win the 9/11 blame game?

It's also a completely unnecessary degree of difficulty. If you assume for a second that you really did need a smoking gun to push forward your foreign policy agenda, you could easily attain it by blowing up three of four full 737's for instance. You need maybe 20 people in the loop to pull something like that off. No way you need to go as far as taking down the towers, specially since the amount of people involved almost surely means a conspirator knows a person in Manhattan and would jeopardize the plan by saying "hey don't be in New York today" or something similar.

Then on top of that, all the other stuff (Pentagon etc...) is TOTAL overkill, and just increases the likelihood that your conspiracy is blown out of the water. What, 2 planes into the towers + controlled demo is not enough to start a war?

Ridiculous.

The most I think any sane person could accept is coming across the info early, and not doing enough to stop it because a war was exactly what you were looking for. Sure, I'm prepared to buy that, specially given how flimsy the reasons for the incursion into Iraq were.

Given, I'm the one who had to force feed you actual data about the NIST report I should probably take one shot at explaining what it means.

If a car goes a distance of 50 miles from point A to point B in 1 hour, you wouldn't say that it travelled a speed of 100 miles/hour just because there was a small portion of the time it was travelling that speed. This is why you should take a physics course.

The NIST report clearly states that the building did NOT fall at "free fall" speeds except for during a portion of its collapse.

More importantly, they explain how this happens and how its really not surprising - since you know, gravity and all.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Deuces!

...

I like when he changes gears to sound rational and just embarrasses himself further.

So, Deuces, what information from the WTC 7 steel were you looking to find? If you don't think it was a controlled demolition anymore(but what about "pull it"??? lol truthers)...

I'm pretty sure there's no controversy that the building did, in fact, collapse. What investigatory steps did you want to happen that didn't happen? What theories would those steps debunk or confirm?

What do you think was on the videos you pretend the Pentagon is keeping secret? The Pentagon video theory is so much farther up the truther chain, it's even more extreme than WTC being a controlled demolition, that's bordering on "no-planeism"


Deuces,
Uh, what's the distinction here? It clearly happened. So believing that LIH, but not "on purpose" is what, incompetence and lack of oversight, poor coordination by various agencies, etc.? That's the official story! LOL Jiggs I think you turned Deuces into a sheeple. Good work, man, several threads by normals failed at that, but just a few dozen Jiggs posts and Deuces is back on board the S.S. Reality.

LOL at Jiggs' edit. You're so invested in disagree with your ****ing betters that you just endorsed MIHOP, moron. Learn to read.

And yes, I'm not sure what the sarcasm there is, yes. Terrorists do terrorist **** all the time. Jiggs, what other prominent Al Qaeda attacks do you believe occurred with the tacit consent of the government of the target country?

fmp

Jiggs, wtf r u arguing? what is your point? what do you think happened, that there was a cover-up? a cover-up of what?

Irony. No, I didn't endorse MIHOP, toolshed. I simply told the troll not to "suppose" anything for me, because he's shown a consistent incapacity to do so accurately. Sorta like you.

You were asked to flesh out your Massoud question, and I see you're unwilling to do so.