There used to be a guy named "flipper". He would hustle at high stakes southern poker games. He would let u flip and he would guess, He won tens of thousands and no one ever figured it out.

Oh man. You weren't suppose to point out that it wasn't a study.

Maximizing entertainment here means letting Deuces have a little line to get all worked up about something (like the 100 million dollar study), make sure he brings it up 3-4 times, and THEN point out he's completely wrong. At that point he's committed to his position and comes up with new crazy things to say to defend his belief in an obviously completely wrong position.

I'm pretty sure by 2018 we can have Deuces advocating for aliens controlling the planes.

Or that powered flight is impossible...

What proof am I denying? Every time I ask you to show me you just make excuses. You are either trolling me or you actually, on some psychological level, really believe this proof exists somewhere. But you just talk, insult, make assertions, then puss out every single time.

You were trying to deduce, with 'logic', whether or not "pull it" means demolish in the parlance of demolition professionals and their associates. You are trying to sidestep any empirical basis and consider grammar and other aspects whose relevancy you have no basis to judge.

Your method reveals why you are so misguided. You just don't know how to think about things. And me trying to tell you probably doesn't help and probably hurts. You're so committed to the idea that I don't know what I am talking about that you attach a negation to whatever I say. It's like your already ignorant, and you're discussing things with me is making you even more ignorant due to your recalcitrance. You should probably just drop out and stop cluttering the thread with your blabbering because it might be doing you harm.

You are a total idiot. It's been posted right in front of your face countless times and you know it. This is fooling no one.

I am fully satisfied that what I have posted shows your ideas to be meritless. You are the one claiming that your ideas have merit. If you want people to think they have merit, you should reply (coherently) to where I (and others) have shown otherwise. Your inability to find/identify these posts is your own problem. I couldn't care less.

No I wasn't. There was no deduction going on. Those were statements of verifiable fact. I wasn't using logic and deduction in that post anymore than I am when I tell you the definition of the word "tree." You don't understand literally anything. Amazing.

The rest of your post is too stupid to even comment on. Not that the first part wasn't.

That was a misread on my part. I got it confused with something else I was reading around the same time.

You're turning into JJ lately. That's your business I guess but I had you ranked greater than him and I would hate to see that I was wrong.

I specifically said insufficiency of locks is speculative. It could very well be that the locks on the doors were fine and that pilots weren't in the habit of locking them and it was mere lack of vigilance that allowed the takeovers. In that case new pilot training would be all that is necessary. The fact that there was this huge upgrade in physical door security does not, in any way shape or form, confirm that cabin door locks were ever a problem any more than patrolling Muslim neighborhoods, as recently advocated by Cruz, means that Muslim neighborhoods are crawling with terrorists. To underscore the point, bullet and blast proof doors have been installed. No one says the hijackers had guns or shot their way in. It is pretty damn hard to sneak a gun on a plane. Why go so overkill? Could it be for politicians to spread around money to their real constituencies and to look like they are really doing something to the suckers who vote them in?

Whether or not the hijackers entering the cockpit is speculation is another matter. The main evidence used to place them there is the transponders being turned off. This might have been done remotely, however. I have linked previously experts (used in government inquiries) explaining the difficulty in turning off transponders manually and their bewilderment as to how the hijackers achieved that. In this context is where that flight 93's transponder came back on suddenly before it crashed becomes more than a throw away factoid and starts looking like a puzzle piece.

I'm not surprised that you didn't notice I have been arguing against attaching significance to the phrase "pull it".

But just to confuse you more, I will say that there was other evidence of foreknowledge of the collapse of building 7. That is one of the subjects most of you won't touch but that some have given some really stupid arguments in trying to shoehorn it into the official story.

There were firefighters giving warnings that the building is coming down and there was a news reporter who had reported it as having come down while live video behind showed that it was still standing. How do you explain that? You can't say there were any obvious signs it was coming down. The collapse was sudden onset, rapid (free fall for a large portion), and global. It supposedly occurred in a way that had never happened before. So the event was not predictable from non-demolition standpoint. Yet, it was predicted.

My only theory is that an insider realized there had been a security breach leading to the destruction of the TTs, put two and two together, and started warning people such as the fire department and news agencies. That person would have known that the same people who had access to the TTs had access to 7. Attempts to get information about exactly who had access to these buildings pre-9/11 have been blocked at all avenues.

You have got to be kidding. Right? This has been discussed AT LENGTH in this very thread, MULTIPLE TIMES. Won't touch it. Good grief.

Yes, it was obvious the building was coming down for hours. It was visibly LEANING. There was a transit put on it to measure the lean. It was so widely known to be failing that a news agency thought it already had and sent out a report by mistake thinking it had. This is all WELL KNOWN and was discussed in this very thread.

Talk about head buried in the sand.

Your description of the collapse also contains several blatant lies and misleading statements. So you've got that going for you, again, which is nice.

Here's a video putting that whole issue to rest:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZrlNw-31R8

Contained in this video - explanation of early report of the collapse, numerous accounts of people talking about how the building was inevitably going to fall down while looking right at the building, discussing the lean of the building while saying, with the building visible in frame, "see the way it's leaning like that?" "it's coming down, there's no way to stop it."

But right, nobody knew it was going to come down. It was totally unpredictable. The collapse was "sudden."

This video makes what you just posted look so stupid, I can only hope that it opens your eyes to how little you actually know about this event.

Yeah, right. No chance of that happening. Your ego involvement is way too high.

I'm sure later in the thread, you mysteriously won't be able to find this proof of you being FOS, either.

Isnt the idea that they killed the pilots with the box cutter immediately upon entering the cockpit?

Why would the pilots have to relinquish control after they were dead?

LOL

Here's a whole page of various accounts about the damage to wtc7, including lots of descriptions of the leaning, huge chunks of the building missing, collapse inevitability, etc.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7li...tsofwtc7damage

To say this collapse was unpredictable is just unbelievably ignorant of the facts. The whole reason the firefighting effort was called off was because it displayed every sign that it was about to collapse. It is literally just a stunning amount of ignorance about what was happening to claim that no one could know that building was going to collapse.

That's just a belief though, that being dead means you can't fight back.

To follow the bouncing ball of Deuces' theory:

Element #1: There were planes, but they were not taken over by Al Qaeda. We can see this because the flying was too good and also the pilots were Big Strong Ex-Military Heroes who wouldn't have let young dudes just take the plane.

Conclusion #1: The actual regular pilots did it. All of 'em. Al Qaeda put all that Saudi financing and all those sleeper cell flight simulator hours as a PLOY, the actual terrorists weren't the Al Qaeda agents in the passenger compartment, some UNKNOWN OTHER FORCE knew they couldn't trust cave dwelling chumps so they straight up recruited the pilots somehow. I guess, despite there not being a papertrail(this is important!), this UNKNOWN OTHER FORCE somehow figured out which planes they would need to recruit the pilots of? Boy would it have been embarrassing if they had guessed wrong.

I think this leads to the wonderful possibility, in the Deucesverse, that Flight 93 was crashed by an impromptu alliance between the passengers and Al Qaeda to take the plane back from the pilots.

Element #2: The buildings fall. It looked funny.

Conclusion #2: Whoever it is that recruited the pilots also rigged the buildings in New York to collapse. In an act of INCREDIBLE foresight, they didn't rig whatever building Flight 93 was going to hit, or maybe after Flight 93 crashed they snuck in real quick and removed the explosives.

It's entirely unclear why any of this would happen. If you wanted to just rig buildings to explode to BLAME it on Al Qaeda, why not just do that directly? Isn't that it wasn't a bombing what tipped Deuces off to the CONSPIRACY in the first place? Conversely, why bother with the rigging? Just the damage from the planes seems like enough of a false flag.


Element #3: And this is the big one. The NIST. They didn't, uh, make Loose Change. Instead they wrote a boring egghead science report. It was a coverup! A coverup that goes alllllll the way to the top.

Conclusion #3: The government was the secret agency that arranged #1 and #2. It's entirely unclear why they did so much extraneous stuff. Probably just to throw us off their trail. It's also unclear why the government got so much better at lying between the late 90s and 9/11, and then immediately after 9/11 completely lost their coverup ability. They may have used some sort of one-time buff, like they saved their MegaLixir for the final boss.

LMAO. If this was remotely true it would be easy to find evidence of these warnings in the call logs of whatever agencies or news departments the "insider" called.

I love the idea that that was his "only" theory. Like, the best he could come up with.

I bet Deuces really doesn't know why what he said was so funny.

I love Deuces.

lol deuces. You managed to misuse both "your" and "you're" in one single sentence devoted to calling someone ignorant.

cool... great stuff, as always

still wondering, though: so why wasn't the money trail followed at the time? ... you know, standard investigation fare. Has been for centuries.

Can you be more specific?

Regarding element #1: Has deuces actually accepted that there were planes involved? The thread is long, and I do recall some discussion of holograms. It's hard to believe that the hologram plane theory wouldn't hold some appeal for him.

If it was anyone who wasn't dickish you and seriously looking for an answer? Sure.

But, nope. It's you, and you can't be anything but a troll. So, I'll leave it there. Nevermind that it's been provided many times already.