21 years ago today

[Hacky McAxe]

Lean into education, and also into critical thought, the ability to extend perception and apply valid logic.

That's the other part. Education. People are more likely to believe that they know more than experts if they know nothing about the subject. The old Dunning-Kruger effect.

Or in meme form...

 

[The DoggFather]

Yep. Always good to look at it from a skeptical point of view. I always go with a skeptical and logical stance. Don't necessarily trust what you're told, but lean toward Occam's Razor. The story we're told isn't necessarily the truth, but if it seems more logical and more simple, then it's probably the truth.

Take WTC7 as an example. CTs like to say, "There's no way it could have collapsed, it wasn't hit". Simulations show large amounts of burning debris hitting it. Eye witness reports state that the building burned for 7 hours before it collapsed. Logic dictates that fires weakened the structure then it just buckled. That's the more logical explanation.

The alternative is that it was a controlled demolition, but they targeted the two main towers, and one of the smaller towers, and left the other towers alone knowing full well that it would raise questions. Just doesn't seem very logical.

What's your take with Silverstein and his "pull it" quote? How long would of taken to rig a building for an implosion?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

But wouldn't you agree that a lot of stuff is written off as a CT as it's easier to do that and more comfortable to do that than realise there are evil people in roles of power that lies and manipulate them?

Double edged sword the way I see it.

I think it's kind of a tribal conflict thing. You see this a lot around discussions of things like Covid and Climate Change. The opposition becomes loud, so the other side becomes extra loud. Anti-vaxxers became so loud that normal people started shutting them down no matter what they said. As soon as actual valid research is raised, it would get shut down if it slightly supported the anti-vaxxer side.

Same stuff happens with Climate Change. You get in a discussion with a climate activist and if you mention "nuclear energy" they will call you a shill, even though actual scientific research supports nuclear energy as a key solution to climate change. Even the IPCC (the lead authority on climate change) supports nuclear energy as part of the solution.

 

[The DoggFather]

I think it's kind of a tribal conflict thing. You see this a lot around discussions of things like Covid and Climate Change. The opposition becomes loud, so the other side becomes extra loud. Anti-vaxxers became so loud that normal people started shutting them down no matter what they said. As soon as actual valid research is raised, it would get shut down if it slightly supported the anti-vaxxer side.

Same stuff happens with Climate Change. You get in a discussion with a climate activist and if you mention "nuclear energy" they will call you a shill, even though actual scientific research supports nuclear energy as a key solution to climate change. Even the IPCC (the lead authority on climate change) supports nuclear energy as part of the solution.

Agree 100%. Especially with nuclear power.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

What's your take with Silverstein and his "pull it" quote? How long would of taken to rig a building for an implosion?

One of those misunderstanding things. In the interview his full statement was:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

CTs jumped to this meaning that he was demolishing the building. Seems more likely that he was telling the firey's to pull out and save themselves.

 

[DinkumDog]

What's your take with Silverstein and his "pull it" quote? How long would of taken to rig a building for an implosion?

I don’t think it means much.
Likely just ‘Pull everyone out who’s fighting the fires’. Strange word choice ‘it’ but no evidence he meant ‘pulling’ down the actual building.

It takes weeks if not months to rig buildings of that size to topple - so again it’s unlikely it was possible without someone seeing or saying something.

 

[Dogzof95]

 

[Dogzof95]

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/grenfell-tower-why-it-hasnt-collapsed/news-story/7c71ab28f57c4c073d4bcf78aa1e79db?amp

Building burns for 12 hours doesn’t collapse!!! Hmmmmm

 

[Hacky McAxe]

https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/grenfell-tower-why-it-hasnt-collapsed/news-story/7c71ab28f57c4c073d4bcf78aa1e79db?amp

Building burns for 12 hours doesn’t collapse!!! Hmmmmm

If only they covered that in the article....



"The apartment block was built in the early 1970s at a time when strict new building regulations had come into effect to ensure high rises would not fall down in the event of a blast or major fire. The regulations were introduced following a deadly gas explosion at the Ronan Point high-rise in East London. It marks the only time a block of flats in London has collapsed.

Emeritus professor of structural engineering at Newcastle University, Dr John Knapton, who advised insurers Lloyds of London in the wake of the Twin Towers terrorist attack, said:

“I don’t think this building will collapse because in 1968, a block of flats at Ronan Point in East London partly collapsed as a result of a gas explosion in a kitchen,” The Telegraph reported.

“As a result of that, the design of tower blocks in the UK changed from about 1971 onwards.” From then on, the design had to allow for an explosion or a fire to remove part of the supporting structure and for the building to remain standing"

 

[Mr Beast]

Still remember it like it was yesterday.

in 2014 I went to NYC at ground zero and it's the most surreal feeling standing there, where it all happened.

 

[Grunthos]

Conspiracy or not, WTC7 begs you to ask questions

That I believe have all been answered.

 

[Dogzof95]

If only they covered that in the article....



"The apartment block was built in the early 1970s at a time when strict new building regulations had come into effect to ensure high rises would not fall down in the event of a blast or major fire. The regulations were introduced following a deadly gas explosion at the Ronan Point high-rise in East London. It marks the only time a block of flats in London has collapsed.

Emeritus professor of structural engineering at Newcastle University, Dr John Knapton, who advised insurers Lloyds of London in the wake of the Twin Towers terrorist attack, said:

“I don’t think this building will collapse because in 1968, a block of flats at Ronan Point in East London partly collapsed as a result of a gas explosion in a kitchen,” The Telegraph reported.

“As a result of that, the design of tower blocks in the UK changed from about 1971 onwards.” From then on, the design had to allow for an explosion or a fire to remove part of the supporting structure and for the building to remain standing"

except the towers did not burn or were brought down by the explosion, watch the video I posted in the previous post!

 

[The DoggFather]

That I believe have all been answered.

Might of been, just lost interest over the last 20 years...

 

[The DoggFather]

I don’t think it means much.
Likely just ‘Pull everyone out who’s fighting the fires’. Strange word choice ‘it’ but no evidence he meant ‘pulling’ down the actual building.

It takes weeks if not months to rig buildings of that size to topple - so again it’s unlikely it was possible without someone seeing or saying something.

I guess they jumped on semantics... "pull it" sounds more sinister than "pull them out".

False flag or not, it was an evil act committed by evil men, whether they live in a cave or in the pentagon.

Only thing that is constant, Murika had its chance to control the 2 biggest, recession proof commodities in the world, oil and opium, and they took the chance not giving a flying fuck about all innocents involved.

 

[N4TE]

One of those misunderstanding things. In the interview his full statement was:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

CTs jumped to this meaning that he was demolishing the building. Seems more likely that he was telling the firey's to pull out and save themselves.

In our situation I would have got a call from your guys saying are you aware we are showing multiple alarms in your building. And I would have been like it’s only 10:00am in the morning fuck off. No I always do love the 7:30am call on a Sunday from your guys.

 

[DinkumDog]

I guess they jumped on semantics... "pull it" sounds more sinister than "pull them out".

False flag or not, it was an evil act committed by evil men, whether they live in a cave or in the pentagon.

Only thing that is constant, Murika had its chance to control the 2 biggest, recession proof commodities in the world, oil and opium, and they took the chance not giving a flying fuck about all innocents involved.

I don’t defend Murika wholesale, no question they’ve done some crook shit over the course of history, I just don’t think anyone can justify attacking civilian targets whether it’s New York, Baghdad or anywhere else.

 

[Mr 95%]

Agree 100%. Especially with nuclear power.

 

[The DoggFather]

I don’t defend Murika wholesale, no question they’ve done some crook shit over the course of history, I just don’t think anyone can justify attacking civilian targets whether it’s New York, Baghdad or anywhere else.

Evil people will find ways to justify profits and power.

 

[DinkumDog]

Evil people will find ways to justify profits and power.

Karmichaels.

 

[The DoggFather]

Karmichaels.

World's full of them sadly my bro....