Bull****. I cite more sources than anyone AINEC. Do you have to just lie about anything not immediately disprovable?

Why would I make a citation for a claim I never made?

I have cited quotes from firefighters ITT. Someone's response was like "but they were only looking at the fire from one angle, they don't know what they are talking about!" lol it never ends. I have made several other citations on that point as well.

I have also cited the NIST report's finding that no piece of steel shows evidence of temperatures above a certain level too low to accomplish what they needed in their model. I have cited that at least 5 times ITT.

I have also got into discussions about the heat sink function of the core and how that was handled by NIST, another exchange that I won hands down. In that discussion I cited the NIST report.

You have been either very forgetful or very dishonest. Your whole camp, save for a few, has been very dishonest throughout this whole discussion. If you are right, why do you need to lie constantly?

It's just my opinion on that, an inherently speculative subject. I try to think, if I were a pilot, and I had some responsibility and command of that vessel, a potentially dangerous vessel, would I give it up for anything when I know damn well these guys are going to crash it? I mean, that is the only logical reason they would want control rather than to just tell me where to fly. Do you not think pilots would have gone over these scenarios in their minds at some point in their careers or training? Ex military pilots at that. It's like you give these pilots absolutely no credit.

That is the type of thing you need to cite. Why do think that?

I have cited the hijackers instructors and those who had to deny them permission to fly simpler prop planes. I have cited congressional testimony from pilots who remain baffled as to how they navigated so precisely.

What pilots can you cite who contradict that and say it was all so doable? Who are these pilots you keep referring to?

Some people think fuel considerations played a part in that decision. They wanted to have more fuel to do more damage to the structures. Some more ambitious conjecture is that they were aided by confederates working security at the airports they chose.

I would try to help by cautioning you against this. Proponents of the official conspiracy theory try to smear all questioning of 9/11 as "JAQing off". They might or might not understand that there are only certain types of questioning to which that characterization validly applies. The charge does validly apply when one is just making connections and speculations about various groups. That is police work which should be done by the FBI or, my preference, the U.N. or an international body. You have to have access to all the evidence and the ability to compel people to talk to you for that line of investigation to bear any fruit.

Consider, from a combinatorial perspective, how many connections are possible among elites who have some footprint in 9/11. It's staggering. There is no way to cut through all that noise without some real power and access. You wind up with a bunch of arrows pointing to Neil Bush or something crazy like that, if you want. There is just so much noise that you can hear anything and it's opposite.

Deuces in the pilot stuff can you explain two things:
1. Agree or disagree, the difficulty in hitting the towers is similar to landing a plane
2. The corkscrew at the pentagon, was the plane coming in at too high of an approach to hit it in a straight line?

---

About map, I mean I just want to know what kind of motives of other actors could be plausible. It can then "float" and sometimes you can find a new link where you weren't thinking before. Basically breathing deeply and expanding the scope to loosely consider lots of things, and keep silverstein or whatever in mind. But I will work on other stuff first then.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant

If you can't read them, we can hold your hand through it. It's not that hard.

The entire point, genius

Oof that was not a good start to "rebuttal."

LOL? What was "supposedly" about that?

LOL again. You tried to cite that some rando couldn't hit it in a simulator earlier as proof, which is absolute nonsense. Anyone can pretend they can't hit the building for a truther video, but you can't pretend you were able to THREE TIMES IN A ROW.

It certainly destroys the "it's too hard for someone with HH's training" idea.

It's only the opinion of the nutcases at PFT who are a total sham. Actual pilots who are being honest and understand what the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is (as shown in the video and countless other places) are on record as seeing it was among the easiest maneuvers for a pilot.

I said nothing about Jiggs talking about the planes. Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I said you have nobody fooled except Jiggs. Translated into moron english that means he's pretty much the only other one stupid enough to think you make sense.

Just reading along and laughing at the hubris and stupidity when I come across this one that made me cringe so hard my teeth hurt. This is another case of you either being too stupid to understand what people are saying or willfully confused. The response was the were describing one part of a fire on the very bottom floor of the set of floors that were on fire. It's not that they didn't know what they were talking about. They knew exactly what they were talking about. It's you precious belligerents that didn't know what they were talking about.

This one is so obvious when you actually look into it it should make you feel a little slimy for pretending not to understand or being too lazy to figure it out.

You know, whichever one it is.

This whole quote is just wow.

Where did Jiggs ever say that I make sense? Jiggs and I certainly agree on some points related to the Bush administration but he has never backed me up on anything technical here. He has expressed disapproval of the discussion veering into certain areas where I have participated.

There have been plenty of other posters who have argued similar points to mine ITT. Check the poll bitch.

I just read a "pilots for truth" "debunking" of the simulator video. It is almost as bad as Deuces post above. Citing irrelevant details that "would have made all the difference in the world" about hitting the side of a building and just spewing the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy all over the page. So painful. Please, idiots, before arguing about how hard it would be to duplicate his exact path and damage, try to at least form your little brains around the idea that he wasn't trying to duplicate anything. He was just turning, descending, and flying into a building. No one with sense thinks this is too hard. It's not.

It's like claiming someone couldn't have rolled a 6,2,4,4,1,5 when playing yahtzee because of how hard it is to do that again. It's a classic fallacy and absolutely shows ignorance of logic and/or plain dishonesty.

Jesus. Miss the point a little harder.

And definitely focus all your energy on the most throwaway thing I said all day yesterday. Why exactly would you even worry about that line?

lol

So, Deuces is saying that even Jiggs is not stupid enough to think he makes sense?

Tough call but definitely possible.

btw I just discovered that Jiggs has a peak oil thread in BFI. Someone should have said something here, a lot of his fans read this thread but not BFI.

hah

Actually, I think I get why the throwaway line must've hit him in the gut. His display in this thread is 100% ego. Saying pretty much nobody agrees with him must hit him hard. He immediately attacked that and went straight to a stupid joke of a poll to support that he's the smart one here. It makes sense with the way he prattles on about 'destroying everyone' and how 'AINEC' etc.

Sad.

There were no sounds of explosives proximate to the collapse of the towers. Sounds of explosives during the fire but prior to the collapse, far enough removed from the collapse that witnesses could still escape the towers and report on them, could not have been what brought the towers down. We've been over the lack of video evidence showing the sounds of explosions prior to the start of the collapse. "Brazen Lie" is bull****, there is still no evidence of explosions immediately prior to the collapse of the towers. There was also no evidence of explosives found in the red paint chip study. It is inconceivable that they didn't look for conventional explosives before trying to force their findings into "nano-thermite" bull****. This leaves us with cutting edge hush-a-bomb technology which is also bull****.

I think that is a difficult comparison that would require more knowledge than I have. I don't know that it is a worthwhile comparison. I would look to other comparisons to try to evaluate the motivating question of how hard was it.

A while back I cited a pilot who wrote a piece about what it takes to master a new maneuver, such as landing on an aircraft carrier or executing a certain dives or whatever. He talked about how much practice it takes to get it right, and how you never do it right the first time. The TTs were tall but, not much wider than the planes themselves. Ramming such a target, coming in at an angle at beyond max speed and accounting for the considerable winds that day, would seem to be such a novel, new maneuver. Given the inexperience, their impending demise and other environmental factors, I just don't see how they could have ever pulled it off as described in the official story.

And these were not nimble, maneuverable planes. These were double-decker tourist buses, not motorcycles, so to speak. I made a comparison earlier to Kami kaze pilots of WWII. They didn't break 20% success rate. There are other factors there, like they were being shot at etc. But they were also much more maneuverable, smaller planes flown by actual pilots who had experience.

Do you mean the hijacker chose to go in something of a circle instead of dive straight down, being too high? That could conceivably make sense, but it would place a lot of expertise on the hijacker. Why not just point and go? I mean, you are in the airspace above DC and trying to hit the belly of the beast. You know other planes have at least been known to have been hijacked. Why would you leisurely spin around in a giant circle instead of just point and go? Was he trying to hit a particular spot? That wouldn't make any sense under the official story.

It's interesting, no doubt. I mean take a guy like Paul Bremer. His offices were in Marsh & McLennan, in the TTs, were directly hit by one of the planes. He ends up being the "Governor of Iraq" and the person who executed, against all reason and advice, the immensely regressive strategy which resulted in the insurgency and, now, ISIS. Not only that, but he presided over billions of dollars which went missing in "reconstruction" efforts of the provisional authority in Iraq.

Is the connection significant? It's odd, but you just can't say much about it other than "gee, what a coincidence". What is very demonstrable, however, is that the investigation was a coverup, and that many people, in the run up to the attacks and afterward, were deliberately stymied in their efforts to prevent and investigate the attacks. So the way forward, as I see it, is to press for a new investigation as opposed to trying to carry out an investigation through mere open source material.

Which has stopped you when? Then blah blah blah you believe your experts but not anyone else's experts then pivot to something else and start over.

JFC, this is just common knowledge. Here ya go, bro. Took literally 5 seconds. The Germanwings Crash Raises Questions About Reinforced Cockpit Doors

It's a common belief, not common knowledge. It's a lot like the belief that the hijackers used box cutters. I have reviewed the evidence for that claim. It is weak beyond description. Yet, everyone "knows" the hijackers used box cutters. No, they actually don't know that. They just believe it. There are many such beliefs that simply serve to buttress other more fundamental beliefs about 9/11.

And it goes for the other side as well. For example, does the phrase "pull it" mean to demolition a building? The belief that it does buttresses what the so-called conspiracy theorists think, so they go with it. In reality, it is nearly impossible to verify that "pull it" means to demolish in demolition speak. So the idea that "pull it" means to demolish is a belief, not knowledge.

Do you have studies of cockpit accessibility in the period around 9/11? Do you have the existing protocols of the time of the attacks regarding handing over physical control of a plane to terrorists? If you do, that would mean something.

hahahahaha

And "pull it" does not mean to demolish a building. Literally nobody sensible thinks that. "Pulling it" is literally just a description of the act of attaching cables to a building and pulling it over. I mean, it's just two english words that could apply to anything. "Pull" is a verb and "it" is a pronoun that could reference a car or a turducken.

Jesus Christ, did you even read what he quoted? It was from the managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board.

I love that Deuces has devolved into now questioning basic facts about life in 2001.

HOW DO WE KNOW CELL TOWERS WORKED MORE THAN A FEW MILES???

HOW DO WE KNOW DOORS WEREN'T LOCKED????

HOW DO WE KNOW PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WITH HIJACKERS IN THE AIR?????

Soon he'll be pointing to Historians for 9/11 truth.

Never concede a point; keep pivoting to new and exciting things to disagree with. He's following the play book to absurd levels.

The door thing is pretty hilarious.

Most people (especially people like Deuces that supposedly care about 9/11 and its impact on the world) recognize that securing cockpit doors and changing the strategy for dealing with hijackers is far and away the most effective change to improving our security post-9/11.

It doesnt improve security in Deuces's world because it does nothing to stop remote-controlled planes and bananothermite explosions.

Alex, here's the problem with the way Deuces looks at this. IF the terrorists goal was to hit the TT (or Pentagon for that matter) specifically in the way they did - it WOULD have been really hard for them to pull off.

BUT, that wasn't their goal. Their goal was just to hit the TT. The fact that they did it using non-optimal maneuvers is precisely because of their inexperience. As they were approaching the TT there were many possible ways for them to hit their target. And the likelihood that given their experience they would hit the target through any one of those methods is quite high. Because again, it's really not that hard.

An analogy! Just for Deuces. At the start of a poker hand there are lots of ways for you to win. But once you win the hand, there is just one specific way that you won.

Deuces is pointing to the fact that they won the pot with a specific hand and board and saying "THIS IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE THAT THESE EXACT CARDS CAME OUT. THEY MUST HAVE BEEN CHEATING!!!".