The theory that the buildings were demolished is admittedly incomplete because the serious among those who hold the theory don't overstep their bounds and make things up, it doesn't hand wave in other words.

Look at what you are saying here Trolly. You are saying the reason no one with basic critical thinking skills every takes conspiracies seriously is because they hand wave and don't take into account observations which are obviously significant. But that's exactly what the official story does. You don't even seem to be disputing that it does that at this point.

There are various ways by which the heat blooms fit in with the thermite hypothesis btw. I don't like to engage in too much speculation, but the heat blooms are clearly an observation for which their needs to be an accounting, just from an energy standpoint. It took an incredible amount of energy to produce that much heat over almost 4 months. It took an incredible amount of energy to pulverize those enormous building and, like, all of their contents. Almost nothing was recovered.

I think one problem here is maybe your total inability to just abstractly imagine how things would play out if the government assertions were true. We don't have any examples of fire bringing down large steel framed buildings because it's never happened before. But we do know what building collapses, in the absence of demolitions, look like. It doesn't make all the contents disappear like magic, for one thing.

There was evidence of a plane. It had knocked down some light poles, damaged some trees, and damaged a power station on the way in. There was DNA from passengers known to have been on the plane recovered from the scene. That could be manipulated but there is no reason to assume it was. There is also tracking data from the flight data recorder showing a path which was (very loosely, given) corroborated by many eye witnesses.

While the hole punched out was curiously small and the public has never got to see the most of the physical evidence (which is zealously guarded by the FBI), I can't think of any motive for deception here as far as what struck the Pentagon. I see the motive for deception about who struck the Pentagon. No way do I think the alleged hijackers could fly Boeing Jets in the manner observed, for example. But it appears that a 757 did in fact strike the Pentagon that morning.

Did a plane crash in shanksville?

Was it shot down?

Very obviously yes

I'm not sure I want to ask, but what is this about?

While you're at it, Deuces, maybe you could find that section of the NIST report for me that you keep harping on about?

How hard is it to crash a Boeing 747 jet into a plane with lots of training?

How about with none?


Now do it twice

Did your brain finally break?

or you could answer the question

I imagine it's quite hard to crash a plane into another plane, since it's a moving target. Why are we talking about that?

prob easier to crash a 747 into another 747 but yes I misstyped

How hard was it to crash a Boeing 747 jet into an extremely tall building with lots of training?

How about with none?


Now do it twice

I imagine that it's no more or less difficult than piloting the plane in the first place (maybe slightly more difficult as it's lower than regular cruising altitude), but I'm not a pilot. I don't see why it would be more difficult than setting a course where the building is in the path of that course.

Is there any particular reason why you think this should be a very difficult maneuver?

The best pilot in the world would not be able to crash a 747 into an extremely tall building twice imo.

OK, but is that your theory? It was a controlled demolition? This is what I've been asking for several days now.

Trivial. Trivial to do it twice.

This took me a minute. I'm thinking of going home sick.

PW, you aware that the Al Qaida operatives who hijacked the planes are well documented as having taken the same training courses as regular pilots take, right?

I think the chances of it happening are like 10%. So the chances of it happening twice in a row are 1%, unless im mistaken ofc


tbh I do not know how difficult it is but lets explore it

Ok, but first let's just quickly take stock of where we are in our exploration so far. You know nothing about flying planes, nothing about how difficult they are to fly into buildings, nothing about the training the operatives received, nothing about how compound probability non-independent events is calculated, and quite frankly not much about anything else, and based on this extensive knowledge you are assigning a seemingly random percentage of success.

Hmm, now that I think of it, I think we've concluded our exploratory endeavours.

Oh no I’m citing people that say they have done the research. This isn’t my idea or anything


I know a lot more than nothing lmao

Do we need to get into the who is smarter contest again?

If this were true why even bother with the faux physics? Obviously from earlier itt you think pretty basic (but unexplained) physics and observations are incompatible with planes and firers collapsing the tower. You said people like Neil Degrasse Tyson, who has no training in materials science or civil engineering don't talk about this because they know fires and planes could not bring down the towers. If that is true, it has to be really basic, but nobody has provided that basic explanation.

That's exactly what I did. A clear claim was made that objects could not fall faster than free fall. That's not true and was concisely addressed; that is something basic that someone like NDT would agree with.

I never said that. I stuck to a simple, clear claim precisely because people like you would rather obfuscate than understand or address what has actually been said.

I don't think so. You don't need my involvement to show everyone how smart you are, you do a stellar job of that all by yourself.

Where? I didn't see you citing anyone. You just gave us some random success percentage, that by your own admission, you confirmed by thinking about it.

sup holmes. how u doing man?