No perceptible global warming.

It is plausible that the world has warmed very slightly – but in any one location, if we count the number of unusually cold events, anomalous snowfalls, and the like, and compare with the number of unusually warm events, we are just as likely to get more cold events and less warm events in recent times than the converse.

To detect global warming, you have to average over the entire world, and it is unclear and debateable how to make an apples to apples average over the entire world.

It is plausible that there has been a bit of warming over the past few decades for reasonable ways of doing the averaging. But polar bears are not only unlikely to go extinct, they are unlikely to notice.  Regions where sea levels have been falling are approximately equal to regions where sea levels have been rising.  To measure sea level rise, you run into the same problems as detecting global warming.  You have to average over the whole world, because the signal in any one area is swamped by various random things, and it is unclear how to do a valid average over the entire world.

And similarly, coral bleaching events. There have always been coral bleaching events. Coral grows till it gets too close to the surface, there is an unusually low tide, and the coral dies back, bleaching. I have seen a few coral bleaching events, and it always shallow water coral hit by an abnormally low tide. Similarly, glaciers are always calving, have always been calving, even though each time a big iceberg breaks off a glacier, it is announced as proof of global warming.

You may have heard that the North Pole is melting – though no one told you that the South Pole has grown, and is now vastly larger than it was a hundred years ago.

This arctic summer, the Northwest passage failed to open. A few days ago, at the time of year when arctic ice is least, an icebreaker cruise ship attempted to force passage, repeatedly ramming very thick ice. The ship broke, the ice did not break.

Well, Warmists will say, that is weather, not climate, and they are of course, correct. But the bottom line is that a hundred years ago, the Northwest Passage through the arctic sometimes opened in high summer and sometimes did not, and today the Northwest Passage sometimes opens in high summer, and sometimes does not.

Changes in the weather remain enormously larger than changes in the climate, making it very difficult to detect any change in the climate.

The climate is always changing. Climate Change is always true. But over the last hundred year or so, it has not changed enough for unaided human senses, or even human senses aided by ordinary and reasonably affordable instruments, to detect. Sometimes the climate does change dramatically, sometimes catastrophically, in a hundred years or so. But not this last hundred years or so.

So, why the high drama about global warming? Why the catastrophism? Why the demand for dramatic changes that somehow always result in our power system being looted and damaged?

The reason for the high drama is that science, technology, and industrialization was created by white male capitalists, an enormous achievement for which mankind should be eternally grateful. And people who hate whites, hate males, and hate capitalism want to destroy science, technology, and industrialization. Anyone who talks about Global Warming or Climate Change in ways that imply it is an important crusade hates you and intends you harm. Maybe he wants to lower your status. Maybe he wants to exterminate your race. But either way, he is your enemy. Whosoever talks catastrophic global warming hates you and is motivated by desire to harm you.

Whites, males, capitalists, and white male capitalists created all the good stuff, so they tend to have most of the good stuff, so people who want to take our stuff hate us. Hate whites, hate males, hate capitalists, and particularly hate white male capitalists.

581 Responses to “No perceptible global warming.”

  1. […] No perceptible global warming. […]

    • jim says:

      There is always significant cooling, just as there is always significant warming. In most centuries, most of the time, weather is enormously larger than climate change.

      • Mike says:

        You say that in order to measure global warming it requires “averaging the climate over the entire world” and that it is “unclear and debatable how to do this”.

        Except for that’s never what anyone said. The hysteria surrounding global warming mostly focuses on the fact that it inordinately affects certain parts of the world, not the planet as a whole. Every news story or online publication I have seen regarding climate change always talks about sinkholes opening up in Siberian permafrost, the Barents Sea becoming part of the Atlantic rather than the Arctic Ocean, and the Arctic in general warming up faster than any other part of the planet. They make no pretense of pretending that the climate in China or Europe or the continental United States is changing rapidly (other than trying to make hurricanes look like they are caused by global warming and flipping out whenever there is a heat-wave or a warm winter).

        • jim says:

          > on the fact that it inordinately affects certain parts of the world, not the planet as a whole

          No it does not. The number of places experiencing unusual weather events is about the same as it has always been, and the number of unusually hot weather events remains about equal to the number of unusually cold weather events.

          It is difficult to say if the arctic is warmer or colder than it has been in the recent past. The evidence is suggestive, but it is easy to be fooled by randomness. We just don’t have accurate ice data going back very far at all, and anecdotes from ships sailing the arctic suggest that in the past there was less ice, though this is likely to be biased by a preference among sailors to visit the place when conditions were favorable.

          • Mike says:

            I don’t really believe global warming other than what’s happening in the Arctic so don’t bring up extreme weather events and such, I think that’s just as bunk as you do. That being said, have you seen the maps of multi-year ice in the Arctic now compared to what it used to be? Its pathetic, almost all of it is gone. We don’t need satellite imagery of ice going back to the 1600s to know that it has retreated quite a lot since even the 1970s. I will give you the fact that some of the warming is due to the end of the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s, but that does not account for the rapidity of what has happened since roughly the 1970s-1980s.

            You say that the Northwest Passage was not passable this year. Big whoop, that is supposed to be the norm. We have had multiple years in the 21st century where it has been open, which almost never was the case before. Look, I don’t like climate hysteria anymore than you do, but I do have eyes. When stuff that is supposedly abnormal keeps happening more and more often, what am I supposed to think?

            • jim says:

              > That being said, have you seen the maps of multi-year ice in the Arctic now compared to what it used to be?

              Those maps are lies, because it is impossible to know what is multi year ice and what is single year ice, except you run an icebreaker into it, and the icebreaker breaks and the ice does not break. Which this year demonstrated a whole lot of multi year ice where there was supposed to be no multi year ice.

              There is actually no such thing as multi year ice, because the ice moves around, and ice piles up on top of ice, and then breaks up again. Even in the depths of winter, the arctic icecap is in continual motion, driven by wind, waves, and currents. “Multi year ice” is a meaningless nonsense concept that they pulled out of their hat when graphs of ice area failed to go their way. There is thick ice, and there is not so thick ice, and the damage taken by ships attempting to make the North West passage this year demonstrates a whole lot of very thick ice in the Northwest passage.

              How does anyone know what is multi year ice, and what is not, except he shows up in person, dives under water, and take a look at the ice. And even then, would be hard to tell. Most of the time, he still would be just guessing.

              • Mike says:

                Or you know, it just means ice that survived more than one year. Are you dense? You do realize that they can track the ice or take cores from it to see how old it is yes? Its not all about how thick it is. Although generally speaking, ice that is thicker can be assumed to be multi-year, simply because if the ice survived one whole summer, it then has more base ice for the winter to add off of. The other ice made in just one year has no base to build off of.

                If ice is driven together in a collision, you can probably tell, because it would form a pressure ridge.

                • jim says:

                  “Multi year ice” would only be a meaningful concept for ice resting on solid ground, ice that stayed put.

                  Ice in the arctic continually moves around, continually breaks up, and bits of ice continually slide on top of other bits of ice. How can you tell if a particular piece of ice is one year or two years old? How do you know how long any one particular fragment of ice has survived?

                  If you have a big area of ice, stationary ice that stays in one place, you can take cores from one part, and look at the lines left by summer melting and evaporation, and count the number of summers, but with sea ice, everything is jumbled up. There are no lines, and far too many lines, and even if you could figure out the history of any one fragment, you would need millions of cores and it still would not do you much good.

                • @jim I suppose if anyone really cared, statistics could come to the rescue, as in, take 1000 random core samples per year, surely some trends could be observed. My guess is that nobody wants to finance that, maybe they take two dozen samples per year and that is statistically worthless.

                  I agree with the random unusally hot events = random unusually cold events. Everything seems to balance out here in Central Europe: unusually cold July, unusually hot August, unusually snow-free winter last time, digging my car from under a meter of snow three years ago. Perhaps… there is more randomness these days, more random swings from sweaty hot one day and autumn cold another day. But I have no idea if some other points of the planet report maybe report the opposite, unusually stable, same temperature for weeks and weeks on kind of weather.

        • jim says:

          Whoever told you this is lying, probably with the aim of murdering all white people.

          There is no apparent trend to arctic sea ice:

          From 2007 to 2012,people extrapolated doomsday. In 2013, dooms day unsurprisingly failed to arrive, but everyone continues to speak and act as if the projections that they made in 2012 had come true.

          • Mike says:

            Oy vey Jim, I guess literally anything that doesn’t follow lockstep with your worldview must be wrong. Lets see is this website controlled by the progs and the jews? They acknowledge right in the first paragraph that the ice is 335,000 square miles above the 2012 ice year, and yet mysteriously the ice is still well below what the historical Arctic should look like. What a surprise.

            https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

            • jim says:

              No one knows what the historical arctic ice should look like.

              The further back in time, the more room to get creative with the data.

              What we do, however, know, is that arctic ice since 2000 shows no obvious trend. It fell suddenly in the period 2007-2012, and has not recovered, but neither has it continued to fall.

              “Historical” ice levels are guesses, with rather too much room to adjust the data.

              We know, however, that there was a lot of open water at the poles in the 1950s, and we know that historically there has always been lots of open water near the poles even in the depths of winter, whereas in recent winters, there has been no open water near the poles.

              Used to be impossible to dog sled to the north pole, because too much water, even in the middle of winter. These days, you can dog sled to the pole in the middle of winter.

              • Mike says:

                That’s the thing though, this is only based off of the 1981-2010 average. Supposedly during the Little Ice Age and such, there should have been more ice, not less, than we have on the 1981-2010 average. So the fact that our ice in the present day is so much lower than an average that already was lower than the ice coverage in the 1600, 1700s, and 1800s is troubling. Obviously some extrapolation there, but there is no doubting that there was way more ice in 1979 than there is now.

                • jim says:

                  We don’t actually have the 1981-2010 average. All our older data is pulled out of someone’s ass. As with “multi year ice” they just made it up retroactively. How can you tell “Multi year ice” from any other ice?

                • Mike says:

                  Yes, we don’t have the 1981 average, just like the Hubble Space Telescope doesn’t see galaxies. Those satellites up there just pulled all the thousands and thousands of images over multiple decades from their proverbial ass. Its so hard to tell what is going on in those clear color photographs documenting every day of the year, so many “gaps” in the data.

                • pdimov says:

                  Not only do we have the 1981 average, we have a number of 1981 averages, all different. The present doesn’t become warmer, so the past must become colder. And it does.

            • X says:

              Mike,

              Armstrong has the historical data going back to 1000s of years B.C.. He spent some $100 million (worth more than $billion by now) collecting data over the past decades. Your sources don’t have a supercomputer correlating all the data across all facets of human history. Also your sources are compromised by politics and fraud:

              https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/how-why-ice-ages-are-created/

              https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aarmstrongeconomics.com+Artic+ice

              • Mike says:

                Well yes, I did figure that the National Center for Snow and Ice probably is government controlled (it does have National in its name after all) but I would like to believe that not everything in the world is controlled by the Jews, and that some people are just writing what they see.

                Perhaps I am naive, although not so naive that I believe that these people are always truthful. We all know how they never will report on something that goes against their narrative, but always report on something that goes with it.

                • X says:

                  I would like to believe that not everything in the world is controlled by the Jews, and that some people are just writing what they see.

                  I agree with Jim that it’s not just Zionists in the “DEEP STATE” corruption. Our own Hajnal white elite defect on us too. Former Senator John McCain was born in Panama. Does he have Hajnal white ancestors?

                  Please c.f. my debate with @signal down-thread.

                • Yara says:

                  >I agree with Jim that it’s not just Zionists in the “DEEP STATE” corruption. Our own Hajnal white elite defect on us too.

                  Of course they do. The prototypical “DEEP STATE” corruption can be modeled as the Mueller-Rosenstein tag team, an Olde WASP and a Progressive Jew working hand in glove.

    • X says:

      The weather, volcanoes, and earthquakes are becoming more extreme because scientists have recently formulated a model of the sunspots which they have back-tested. This model confirms we’re entering a Maunder Minimum. Refer to the last section of the following linked blog and my comments below the blog for links to the pertinent data and charts.

      https://steemit.com/money/@anonymint/countries-vulnerable-to-economic-devastation-soon

      We are headed into another Mini Ice Age comparable to the 18th century which was the birth of the Industrial Age and the coincident When the rot set in as State enforced patriarchy fell over the precipice.

      I agree with Jim that AGW is a fraud perpetrated to bankrupt Western civilization.

  2. Pete says:

    The last study on climate change that I read showed a rise of (I think) 1.6 Celsius over the last hundred years or so. Of course are we really sure that temps were being measured accurately a hundred years ago?

    My pet theory is that clearing forests and paving/blacktopping has indeed raised the temperature slightly. Leftists don’t want to think about the implications of this though.

    If my theory is correct, then the USA isn’t going to contribute much more to global warming, because we’ve already paved over and blacktopped our whole damn country. We’ve already blacktopped everywhere we want to.

    If Leftists want to stop future global warming, then they need to force developing countries like China and India to hold off paving their land masses. Leftists don’t have the balls to go after non-white countries and force them to do anything, plus China and India would just laugh at them.

    Not only that, but the thought would never even occur to Leftists, because they see everything through a lens of “white men are the problem,” so the idea that non-whites might be contributing to global warming is literally unthinkable.

    • peppermint says:

      Paving is intrinsically local, meaning there isn’t an externality for bureaucrats to adjudicate, meaning no new jobs for junior bureaucrats, meaning senior bureaucrats don’t get promotions, meaning normies in corporate jobs have higher status than quango faggots like Carlylean Restorationist imagines himself being.

      Carlylean Restorationist demands that there be some externality for him to adjudicate to normie family man behavior so he can plausibly assert higher status than the normalfag.

      The latest permutation of how to oppress normalfags raised here is sumptuary laws, as if they don’t already look ridiculous enough.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        I’m not here any more sorry Minty. I wish all you NRxers all the best. You’re doing great work. The areas we diverge on aren’t all that important, since 99% of our goals are basically the same.
        Heck if it boils down to a monarchy in which people protest against nationalisation, or for it, well then everyone’s already a winner, so it’s not worth causing waves.

        As for the climate stuff, I’m pretty much with Jim. I just have more mitigated time preference and would quite like to ramp down our use of fossil fuels and any other natural resources, not because of wacky pseudo-scientific nonsense but simply because they’re finite and the uses they’re being put to aren’t beneficial to civilisation as a whole, just to selfish individuals who oftentimes don’t even enjoy their lifestyle in any case.

        If you guys take a 90% identical position but insist on the freeeeeeedommmmmm of people to jet around the world to see a different version of Starbuck’s, it’s not worth arguing back and forth when we all agree the warmists are a scourge that has to be ended.

        • peppermint says:

          Conspicuous consumption on swimming pools is good.

          …built by illegal Mexicans, bad.

          Teslas, good.

          Foreign imported luxury goods, well, thats what import duties are for, right?

          Should we tax everything bought overseas on vacation and plane tickets on foreign airlines? Sure.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Your Trumpian protectionism is a huge step up from pure Bob Murphy laissez-faire but you need to ask yourself what it is precisely that’s stopping you going a little tiny bit further and saying to people “no it’s not acceptable for you to take a large part of your annual salary overseas to make foreigners richer while withholding it from your own people: holiday at home”.

            My working thesis has been that it’s the residue of past libertarianism but I could easily be wrong.

            Either way, Trumpism’s perfectly acceptable as a superior alternative to laissez-faire.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Information is a scare resource; so to mean, where contexts be that information becomes increasingly costly, increasingly finer attempts to look over peoples shoulders and micromanage become increasingly inappropriate; become increasingly apt to folly, failure, and woe, for want of felicitous information.

              For a great many people, on a great many matters in creation, the best decisions they could possibly make, in fact, is no decision; the *very attempt* to turn the mind to some such mater, so comported, inevitably can only produce a calumny, whither they turn it one way or another.

      • The Cominator says:

        “The latest permutation of how to oppress normalfags raised here is sumptuary laws, as if they don’t already look ridiculous enough.”

        CR’s Stalinism has no place in a restoration (barring total war) but I think sumptuary laws do.

        I think we all agree that in particular we need to lower the status of single women both relative to men and to married women. Certainly a law that no single woman may display any jewelry in public would do much good and no harm.

        • peppermint says:

          Problem: women think single mother is a legitimate vocation
          Solution: end subsidies, abort all bastards
          Non-solution: pass a stupid law that makes everyone angry, because everyone except bitter old hags likes it when young women are pretty, but doesn’t change the fact thay unmarried women, being young and available, have greater SMV than married women

          • jim says:

            Victorians tried market forces and no subsidies for single motherhood, got the problems depicted in “Oliver Twist” and “Les Miserables”. Too many women giving birth in muddy alleys in the dark and rain.

            You have to apply prior restraint to women to stop them getting pregnant to bad boys in the first place. We have tried restraining female sexuality by market forces and it fails catastrophically. Applying market forces against female sexuality is like trying to restrain a volcano by pissing on it.

            Women will crawl nine miles over broken glass to get to their demon lover.

          • The Cominator says:

            Jewelry is something other women find pretty on women (immensely so) that men don’t care much about except that somewhere down the line they want some man to pay for it.

            But since women will bitterly HATE not being able to wear jewelry in public in the eyes of women this will IMMENSELY incentivize marriage for almost no harm to society or men.

            Jim from what I understand Victorian illegitimacy rates were pretty low (I’ve read between 2%-4%) both compared to modern times and even the 18th century (though they were also pretty low in the 18th century). So the Victorian legal approach of telling single mothers the state is not going to support you and we’re not going to make the guy you accuse of being the father support you either appears to actually have had good success?

            Where are you getting the stats that this approach failed immensely?

            • jim says:

              Not seeing accurate data on Victorian illegitimacy rates.

              Not trusting Victorians to admit to the problem even if we had supposedly accurate data.

              What I do know is is that bastardy created problems that Victorians found unbearable, with the result that they created the welfare state and began the destruction of marriage.

              • The Cominator says:

                The 18th century (back to Elizabethan times) had a much more limited welfare state that the Victorians scrapped in saying that all able bodied poor relief seekers need to report to a workhouse.

                From what I understand is that they tried the Jim approach of pitiless severity to bastards and the outrage came when they found some of the “baby farmers” were basically just killing the bastard children and this led to outrage which caused a more generous welfare state then the 18th century had in response. I’ve yet to find anything that said that the amount of illegitimate children spiked immensely though under the Victorian era laws of no poor relief and no help for single mothers laws.

            • peppermint says:

              You can’t control women with market forces.

              You certainly can’t control women with baubles.

              What you can do is help me be dangerous and empowering and harmless when I put a necklace on the girl you want.

              You can also piss off every father and mother who want their little daughter to wear their grandma’s necklace and earrings, and piss off every little girl who reads about how in the before time girls made friendship bracelets for each other.

              To control women, fathers must control their daughters, also, all bastards should be aborted, and if a girl can’t find a husband, sure, she can be a whore, or she can be an egg donor, or she can be a surrogate mother, but not a whore and surrogate mother for the same man, and no one wants to use eggs from a woman who couldn’t get married.

              • peppermint says:

                Who should Taylor marry?

                An actor? A politician? A tech CEO? An anonymous programmer? A random soldier?

                In a perfect world, she would marry an up and coming army officer and would have done it no later than 22, instead of singing that song about trying to be happy going to parties trying to meet a boy who will stick to her.

              • The Cominator says:

                They can wear their grandma’s necklace AT HOME and outside a week before and after Halloween.

          • X says:

            Solution: end subsidies, abort all bastards

            Useless bravado. How about an actually viable plan of action?

            The way decadence plays out is it strangles itself to death.

            You have to just roll with it, or defect. Everybody else is defecting so why the heck do you think any majority or even super minority would agree to be organized around meritocracy?

            That is why Bitcoin (John Nash’s Ideal Money) and the NWO is coming as it will enforce a meritocracy. We must align ourselves with the path that is not negentropic.

            Just let them riff-raff destroy themselves. They’re quite competent at accomplishing that and we don’t need to waste our breath and energy banging our heads into a granite mountain of inertia that can’t be turned.

        • peppermint says:

          Listen to Taylor Swift to find out how much women want to get married.

          Then ask yourself why they want to get married even though the world offers them so much if they “keep their options open”.

          This is the kind of thing I’d expect to hear from 20th century scifi authors. Bribing White women to seek marriage, how autistic can you get.

          Maybe have a law that only married people are allowed to wear a ring on their left ring finger. Also there should be a law that only christians are allowed to wear a rosary necklace, only soldiers and police are allowed to wear soldier and police uniforms, only winners of decorations are allowed to wear them, etc.

          • Yara says:

            If women wanted to be married, they would get married.

            Tay-tay at 29 is still the hottest jewess on the planet. If she had wanted to get married, she could have done so by now.

            She hasn’t, because she’s a fucking woman.

            • signal says:

              Taylor Swift is not Jewish, and those 5 Israelis were neither dancing nor Mossad agents.

              • X says:

                5 Israelis were neither dancing nor Mossad agents.

                You have some studying to do:

                https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-israel-s-mossad-did-9-11-20180215t144806663z

                (click to the main blog of the prior link after reading about the Las Vegas false-flag evidence)

                https://steemit.com/psychology/@anonymint/you-can-t-handle-the-truth

                • signal says:

                  You’re proving my point. The evidence for Israel doing 9/11 is as compelling as the evidence for Vegas being a false flag: not compelling. And it’s not surprising that the person who falls for “5 dancing Israelis” (and for “Vegas was a false flag”) would also believe that Taylor Swift is Jewish.

                  Those who can’t distinguish between nonsense and reality should not be trusted.

                • X says:

                  You’re proving my point, because there’s no way in hell that you dug into the intricate details of evidence that I linked for you that required on the order of 3 weeks of continuous study on my part.

                  I say this with no disdain or disrespect because I really don’t care anymore. I have to go my own way. And I don’t dislike you as a person or a personal level. You spout off about something you’re ostensibly ignorant of. A cursory review of Internet diarrhea is not forensic fact finding. So AFAICT you committed the same error that you’re accusing the other person of.

                  If you really dig and dig and dig with an open-mind, you will discover what you don’t want to discover. Which is why you’re never going to do that.

                  Because Hajnal whites would be lost and rudderless if they believed that a State will always be inherently corrupt to the core. Jim’s fantasies of a nirvana white State would be broken.

                  Please refer to my comments about Hajnal whites on the prior blog: And another one bites the dust.

                  The Las Vegas evidence is not as compelling as the evidence on 9/11 but I presume you did not even study the gaping inconsistencies that implicate a false-flag. I linked the information for you, but obviously you did not even click the link. The evidence on 9/11 is extremely compelling. The evidence that the plane flew over the Pentagon is irrefutable. You must study my blogs because I assimilated it.

                  I won’t waste more time here. Good luck.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There is more evidence that Vegas is a false flag then any other attack because of two things.

                  1. The official story is that Paddock professionally played video poker when that is mathematically impossible. Video poker can only be used to wash money. Most likely he was an arms dealer but he had to have some other probably criminal profession that for some reason the official story won’t give.

                  2. There is apparently no footage of him moving stuff up to his hotel room in a f***ing casino, this is also impossible.

                  I don’t know what exactly they are hiding about the case but it stinks to high heaven.

                  The inconsistencies with the 9/11 story otoh don’t so much point to it being a false flag as the DC FBI/Justice Department allowing it to happen.

                • Yara says:

                  @TheCom,

                  Don’t forget Paddock’s FBI GF.

                • signal says:

                  > There is apparently no footage of him moving stuff up to his hotel room in a f***ing casino, this is also impossible.

                  One lie, all lies.

                  https://youtube.com/watch?v=CZkkzLw7kSQ

                • The Cominator says:

                  Signal are you accusing me of lying or the official story?

                  At the time the story broke there was no footage of the dude apparently. And this footage doesn’t show him moving up the freaking arsenal he apparently had in his hotel room.

                  And not even you can dispute the fact that NOBODY can make a living at video poker but that the official narrative won’t verify what his REAL profession was (most likely arms dealer). I don’t see why they would need to lie about it but apparently they think they do.

                  I’m not making any hypothesis about what the real truth is, I’m just saying the official story is bullshit.

                • signal says:

                  The footage shows Paddock bringing into the casino, carrying himself, moving up the elevator, and handing over to the casino staff plenty of bulky suitcases containing his arsenal.

                  Whether or not he was an arms dealer is a moot point when the argument is “The Deep State orchestrated the Vegas PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATION because… something something ebil gobimint.”

                  As far as I’m concerned, Paddock was a shady sociopath who went cray-cray on Troofism and murdered scores of Americans. If there was any false flag involved, it was exactly the one intended by Paddock: that people would accuse the intelligence apparatuses of the American government of murdering innocent Americans to achieve undoubtedly nefarious purposes. A false flag attack *by* a clever madman *against* his own government.

                  Funny enough, something about Stephen Paddock kind of reminds me of Jim Donald, but maybe that’s just me.

                • X says:

                  There is more evidence that Vegas is a false flag then any other attack because of two things.

                  Disagree. Please study my detailed explanation of the 9/11 false-flag (towards the end of the following linked blog):

                  https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

                  (note all of the links in my blog have to be clicked and the videos watched in order to gain a detailed grasp of what I summarize therein)

                  The above blog contains for example my detailed logic on why the Pentagon bombing was irrefutably staged.

                  I don’t know what exactly they are hiding about the case but it stinks to high heaven.

                  There’s more evidence of a cover-up than you summarized. Please again review the details linked from the following comment post of mine:

                  https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-israel-s-mossad-did-9-11-20180215t144806663z

                  The footage shows Paddock bringing into the casino, carrying himself, moving up the elevator, and handing over to the casino staff plenty of bulky suitcases containing his arsenal.

                  You use the same disingenuous argumentation methods I see of every person who wants to disbelieve that they live in a totalitarian West already.

                  You did not click my link above and click every link in that post of mine and study. You just spout off ignorantly without studying the detailed evidence.

                  Charles Boyd commented:

                  If this guy got all those guns into the rooms, where are the suitcases at when the crime scene photos were taken & leaked? Has there been any forensic reports showing which guns / tools he used? Assuming they all would have his finger prints & DNA all on everything. Has there been anything new that has come to light that proves he acted alone? Where is the security footage from the hallway where he shot the security guard? Where is the footage showing him taking these to his room on the floor he was booked?

                  Then read the Rense article I linked from my linked blog comment above. That Rense article points out the crime scene is staged and gives compelling evidence that it is staged. And then read the linked archive.org Medium posts analyzing Campos the shot security guard (who appears to be complicit in the cover-up). Those Medium posts have been deleted. You can only find them on the archives I made!

                  As far as I’m concerned, Paddock was a shady sociopath who went cray-cray on Troofism and murdered scores of Americans.

                  Your opinions are like everyone’s assholes. You are ignoring the evidence! You are being as irrational as the people you are accusing of being irrational.

                  The inconsistencies with the 9/11 story otoh don’t so much point to it being a false flag as the DC FBI/Justice Department allowing it to happen.

                  Bullshit! Study the evidence fool. The proof is irrefutable that our government was complicit with Mossad and they these attacks were premeditated by those two entities.

                • X says:

                  There is more evidence that Vegas is a false flag then any other attack because of two things.

                  Disagree. Please study my detailed explanation of the 9/11 false-flag (towards the end of the following linked blog):

                  https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

                  (note all of the links in my blog have to be clicked and the videos watched in order to gain a detailed grasp of what I summarize therein)

                  The above blog contains for example my detailed logic on why the Pentagon bombing was irrefutably staged.

                  I don’t know what exactly they are hiding about the case but it stinks to high heaven.

                  There’s more evidence of a cover-up than you summarized. Please again review the details linked from the following comment post of mine:

                  (find the first link I posted in a prior post up-thread that has the word mossad in the link)

                  The footage shows Paddock bringing into the casino, carrying himself, moving up the elevator, and handing over to the casino staff plenty of bulky suitcases containing his arsenal.

                  You use the same disingenuous argumentation methods I see of every person who wants to disbelieve that they live in a totalitarian West already.

                  You did not click my link above and click every link in that post of mine and study. You just spout off ignorantly without studying the detailed evidence.

                  Charles Boyd commented:

                  If this guy got all those guns into the rooms, where are the suitcases at when the crime scene photos were taken & leaked? Has there been any forensic reports showing which guns / tools he used? Assuming they all would have his finger prints & DNA all on everything. Has there been anything new that has come to light that proves he acted alone? Where is the security footage from the hallway where he shot the security guard? Where is the footage showing him taking these to his room on the floor he was booked?

                  Then read the Rense article I linked from my linked blog comment above. That Rense article points out the crime scene is staged and gives compelling evidence that it is staged. And then read the linked archive.org Medium posts analyzing Campos the shot security guard (who appears to be complicit in the cover-up). Those Medium posts have been deleted. You can only find them on the archives I made!

                  As far as I’m concerned, Paddock was a shady sociopath who went cray-cray on Troofism and murdered scores of Americans.

                  Your opinions are like everyone’s assholes. You are ignoring the evidence! You are being as irrational as the people you are accusing of being irrational.

                  The inconsistencies with the 9/11 story otoh don’t so much point to it being a false flag as the DC FBI/Justice Department allowing it to happen.

                  BS! Study the evidence. The proof is irrefutable that our government was complicit with Mossad and they these attacks were premeditated by those two entities.

                • X says:

                  There is more evidence that Vegas is a false flag then any other attack because of two things.

                  Disagree. Please study my detailed explanation of the 9/11 false-flag (towards the end of the following linked blog):

                  https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

                  (note all of the links in my blog have to be clicked and the videos watched in order to gain a detailed grasp of what I summarize therein)

                  The above blog contains for example my detailed logic on why the Pentagon bombing was irrefutably staged.

                  I don’t know what exactly they are hiding about the case but it stinks to high heaven.

                  There’s more evidence of a cover-up than you summarized. Please again review the details linked from the following comment post of mine:

                  (find the first link I posted in a prior post up-thread that has the word mossad in the link)

                • X says:

                  There is more evidence that Vegas is a false flag then any other attack because of two things.

                  Disagree. Please study my detailed explanation of the 9/11 false-flag (towards the end of the following linked blog):

                  https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

                  (note all of the links in my blog have to be clicked and the videos watched in order to gain a detailed grasp of what I summarize therein)

                  The above blog contains for example my detailed logic on why the Pentagon bombing was irrefutably staged.

                  I don’t know what exactly they are hiding about the case but it stinks to high heaven.

                  There’s more evidence of a cover-up than you summarized. Please again review the details linked from the following comment post of mine:

                  (find the first link I posted in a prior post up-thread that contains the word ‘mossad’ in the link and click that link)

                • X says:

                  I’m trying to refute @signal, but Jim’s WordPress filter is censoring my post. I can’t seem to make a post with a link to the specific refutation details. Jim what’s up with that?

                • X says:

                  There is more evidence that Vegas is a false flag then any other attack because of two things.

                  Disagree. Please study my detailed explanation of the 9/11 false-flag (towards the end of the following linked blog):

                  [linked redacted because Jim’s blog filter won’t allow it]

                  (note all of the links in my above linked blog have to be clicked and the videos watched in order to gain a detailed grasp of what I summarize therein)

                  The above linked blog contains for example my detailed logic on why the Pentagon bombing was irrefutably staged.

                  I don’t know what exactly they are hiding about the case but it stinks to high heaven.

                  There’s more evidence of a cover-up than you summarized. Please again review the details linked from the following comment post of mine:

                  (find the first link I posted in a prior post up-thread that has the word mossad in the link)

                  The footage shows Paddock bringing into the casino, carrying himself, moving up the elevator, and handing over to the casino staff plenty of bulky suitcases containing his arsenal.

                  You use the same disingenuous argumentation methods I see of every person who wants to disbelieve that they live in a totalitarian West already.

                  You did not click my link above and click every link in that post of mine and study. You just spout off ignorantly without studying the detailed evidence.

                  Charles Boyd commented:

                  If this guy got all those guns into the rooms, where are the suitcases at when the crime scene photos were taken & leaked? Has there been any forensic reports showing which guns / tools he used? Assuming they all would have his finger prints & DNA all on everything. Has there been anything new that has come to light that proves he acted alone? Where is the security footage from the hallway where he shot the security guard? Where is the footage showing him taking these to his room on the floor he was booked?

                  Then read the Rense article I linked from my linked blog comment above. That Rense article points out the crime scene is staged and gives compelling evidence that it is staged. And then read the linked archive.org Medium posts analyzing Campos the shot security guard (who appears to be complicit in the cover-up). Those Medium posts have been deleted. You can only find them on the archives I made!

                  As far as I’m concerned, Paddock was a shady sociopath who went cray-cray on Troofism and murdered scores of Americans.

                  Your opinions are as factual as everyone’s arse holes. You are ignoring the evidence. You thus as irrational as the people you are accusing of being irrational.

                  The inconsistencies with the 9/11 story otoh don’t so much point to it being a false flag as the DC FBI/Justice Department allowing it to happen.

                  BS! Study the evidence. The proof is irrefutable that our government was complicit with M0ss@d and these attacks were premeditated by those two entities.

                • jim says:

                  I have studied the evidence.

                  All troofer evidence is flat outright barefaced in your face lies.

                  If I respond to a troofer by proving the falsity of one of his claims, he will, without retracting the original claim, issue ten more claims, equally false, which response indicates consciousness of guilt, that the troofer knew his original claim was a lie.

                  Which behavior pattern (conscious and knowing lies coming from multiple supposedly independent sources) indicates a coordinated centralized program of lies, which is characteristic of quasi governmental and government backed left wing conspiracies.

                • X says:

                  The redacted link that WordPress does not want you all to read can be located by going to my Steemit blog list and scrolling down until you find the one title:

                  In Theft and Massacres We Trust

                  My Steemit blogs are here:

                  https://steemit.com/@anonymint

                • X says:

                  The redacted link that WordPress does not want you all to read can be located by going to my Steemit blog list and scrolling down until you find the one title:

                  In Theft and Massacres We Trust

                  I tried to insert a link to my Steemit blog and apparently WordPress will not allow me to post any more links.

                  So go to Steemit.com and find my username which is @anonymint.

                • X says:

                  The redacted link that WordPress does not want you all to read can be located by going to my blogging account and scrolling down until you find the one entitled:

                  In Theft and Massacres We Trust

                  I tried to insert a link to my blogging account and apparently WordPress will not allow me to post any more links.

                • jim says:

                  All troofers are lying. All troofers know that they are lying. All troofer lies have the effect of supporting a left wing program of affirmative action for Muslims. All troofer lies attribute misconduct to a secret right wing deep state conspiracy, and deny the incompetence, failure, evil, and misconduct of the left wing deep state conspiracy.

                • X says:

                  If I respond to a troofer by proving the falsity of one of his claims, he will, without retracting the original claim, issue ten more claims, equally false, which response indicates consciousness of guilt, that the troofer knew his original claim was a lie.

                  Let the refutations begin then of my specific points in my blogs as linked.

                  Do you want to do this debate here or in different blog or forum?

                  I am not going to be disingenuous. Let the chips fall where the facts lay. Ball in your court now.

                • X says:

                  All troofers are lying. All troofers know that they are lying. All troofer lies have the effect of supporting a left wing program of affirmative action for Muslims.

                  I am not lying. You are lying about me. Begin your refutations. Back up your claims. I provided the detailed evidence already.

                • jim says:

                  I just rebutted one of your claims. Instead of defending or retracting that claim, you issued dozens of new claims. This pattern of behavior indicates you were already aware that the claim that I rebutted was false, indicating that you are not mistaken, but are consciously and intentionally lying.

                  This pattern of misconduct is displayed identically by each and every troofer, indicating that each and every supposedly independent troofer is sponsored by the same entity and organization, many loudspeakers, one microphone.

                  A troofer makes dozens or hundreds of claims, any one of which, if well founded, would be sufficient to prove his case. But refuses to defend any one of his claims.

                  No troofer, anywhere, ever, will stand by one claim and debate that one claim.

                  This pattern of behavior indicates consciousness of lying. The uniformity of this pattern of behavior indicates conscious conspiracy.

                • X says:

                  All troofer lies attribute misconduct to a secret right wing deep state conspiracy, and deny the incompetence, failure, evil, and misconduct of the left wing deep state conspiracy.

                  Your favorite scapegoat is your hammer for every nail.

                  Unfortunately for you, you would have to refute that the Pentagon was bombed precision timed as the plane flew over the building. It will be impossible for you to refute the forensic evidence.

                  You will lose this debate. I did my homework.

                  You have not studied all the evidence. You will soon realize this. Or you will go into denial.

                • jim says:

                  In every comment, you post yet another new lie, “the Pentagon was bombed precision timed as the plane flew over the building.” while neither retracting nor defending the lie already rebutted.

                  Since the original lie would, if true, have sufficed to prove your case, your response, or rather lack of response, to my rebuttal, indicates that you know you are lying. Since every troofer behaves identically, every troofer plays from the same playbook, all troofers are sponsored by the same entity.

                • jim says:

                  I have studied this. You lie, and you know you lie. If you imagined you were telling the truth, you would not keep shifting grounds, you would stick to one claim, and attempt to defend that claim, for any one claim would suffice to prove your case.

                • X says:

                  I just rebutted one of your claims.

                  Excuse me Jim. Where precisely is that said rebuttal? I am not finding it on this page so far.

                  A troofer makes dozens or hundreds of claims, any one of which, if well founded, would be sufficient to prove his case. But refuses to defend any one of his claims.

                  I will defend any claim that is crucial to defending the overall claim that the Pentagon was bombed and the plane flew over the Pentagon precisely timed to make it look like the plane hit the building. We have a wealth of evidence that can’t be explained any other way.

                • Roberto says:

                  >the Pentagon bombing was irrefutably staged

                  And all those dozens of witnesses who witnessed it are lying, right? Must be “crisis actors.”

                • pdimov says:

                  I have studied the evidence.

                  All troofer evidence is flat outright barefaced in your face lies.

                  OK I’ll play.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgve7yG7DG8

                  “At exactly 9:03:02, Flight 175 crashed nose-first into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center, at a speed of approximately 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s, or 513 knots)[22]” – Wikipedia

                  Truther claims:

                  “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”

                  “510 knots near sea level while retaining perfect flight control and no loss of structural integrity – represents an absolutely unprecedented airspeed for the entire history of modern aviation for that aircraft type (commercial airliner), before and after September 11, 2001, where even in the case of out of control, diving, spinning, plummeting aircraft, the south tower plane exceeded their equivalent airspeed by a full 85 knots as in the case of Egypt Air which failed at an EAS of 425knots/.99m at 22,000 ft. alt. and MORE in the case of China Air 006 which only just reached it’s Vmo/Mmo, or with TWA 841 never exceeding it’s Vd/Md limit, although in the case of ChinaAir0006 and TWA841, as seen on the graph, they suffered as much from excessive g-forces as they did excessive airspeed.”

                  Why are those lies?

                • X says:

                  And all those dozens of witnesses who witnessed it are lying, right? Must be “crisis actors.”

                  Very few eye witnesses are lying. The cab driver was lying and we have him on video admitting he lied. Most people just actually didn’t see the plane hit the building. This is covered in great detail in my blog. I go through every eye witness one-by-one. I am also significantly relying on the detective work done by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) but I also incorporate other information that I have assimilated.

                  You will really won’t understand until you read my blog and dig in.

                  You are not going to like what you will feel after you dig in. That is unless you prefer to remain in denial.

                • X says:

                  I just rebutted one of your claims.

                  Excuse me Jim. Where precisely is that said rebuttal? I am not finding it on this page so far.

                  Jim apparently you’re referring to your discussion with Yara. Those are not my claims. You have not yet refuted any of my claims.

                  I’m warning you. You will lose this debate. I did my very detailed homework.

                  I’m sorry but your fantasy of a leftist scapegoat is busted. Your entire life philosophy is busted.

                  And I am sympathetic to patriarchy. I am not leftist.

                • Roberto says:

                  If you can’t concisely sum up your argument in here, X, you probably have no real case to make. Linking 6 gorillion times to your blog is counterproductive to your purposes.

                  Rense is classic disinfo, btw. That you base your claims on anything written there is a strong indication that you’re here to deceive and/or disrupt. Troofers gonna Troof.

                • X says:

                  “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn’t do it and I’m absolutely positive they couldn’t do it.”

                  AFAIR (and remember I don’t have a great detailed long-term memory so I should probably recheck my prior analysis as written in my blogs), we can’t prove the planes were remotely guided, but we have significant corroborating evidence that they had to have been remotely guided. You are quoting some of those facts, but there is more corroborating evidence.

                  But the irrefutable physical evidence is w.r.t. to the demolitions. Refer to my blog for the information. I separate the false truther propaganda (which may be planted or may just be random nonsense) from the actual meat of the evidence.

                • jim says:

                  > But the irrefutable physical evidence is w.r.t. to the demolitions.

                  I already refuted that, and you failed to respond. Each of the buildings, particularly building seven, began its fall by tilting towards the fire and the damage before free fall collapse, before any of the supposed indications of demolition, indicating that the fire and the damage were causal, and the supposed indications of demolition were the result of collapse, not the cause of collapse.

                  Respond. Instead of presenting one hundred claims, any one of which would, if true, suffice to prove your case, let us discuss one claim, the early stages of the collapse of building seven.

                • X says:

                  If you can’t concisely sum up your argument in here, X, you probably have no real case to make. Linking 6 gorillion times to your blog is counterproductive to your purposes.

                  There is no way to summarize a very complex and detailed detective work. Either you are interested to learn or you are not. Your response is disingenuous. You haven’t actually refuted any of my specific claims nor addressed the vast details of the evidence.

                  If you expect a forensic investigation to be a soundbite then you are an immature person, who I should ignore.

                  Rense is classic disinfo, btw. That you base your claims on anything written there is a strong indication that you’re here to deceive and/or disrupt. Troofers gonna Troof.

                  Refute the specific Rense article I linked to instead of making general accusations about every author published by Rense. Your replies are disingenuous. You’re trying to appeal to authority and who can write the most convincing ad hominem. Instead I prefer actual details and detective work.

                • X says:

                  But the irrefutable physical evidence is w.r.t. to the demolitions.

                  I already refuted that, and you failed to respond.

                  I haven’t see that refutation yet. Perhaps it is in the discussion you are having with Yara. I was not participating in that fork of the discussion yet. I will read it and respond to it. I was first reading and responding to those replies in this fork of the discussion.

                  Each of the buildings, particularly building seven, began its fall by tilting towards the fire and the damage before free fall collapse, before any of the supposed indications of demolition, indicating that the fire and the damage were causal, and the supposed indications of demolition were the result of collapse, not the cause of collapse.

                  Non-sequitur. Any initial leaning of the buildings is inconclusive and no causal. A demolition can me made to do that. It is is not necessary for me to prove you are seeing an optical illusion, but that is also possible.

                  All that is necessary is for me to refer you to my blog where there is irrefutable evidence that the NIST models are absolutely impossible and are lies. And irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence of demolitions. That is very amateurish of you to refer to videos as causal. Each of us has different analysis of the videos. The actual irrefutable evidence is for example the specific characteristics of the nano thermite. And the other physics such as the pulverization. The evidences goes on and on and on. Only a disingenuous person could be in denial about it.

                  Sorry Jim.

                • jim says:

                  > > > But the irrefutable physical evidence is w.r.t. to the demolitions.

                  > > I already refuted that, and you failed to respond.

                  > I haven’t see that refutation yet.

                  Bulding seven began its collapse by tilting towards the fire and the damage, indicating that fire and damage were causal, thus indicating that Muslims were causal, thus indicating that political correctness that led to authorities refusing to see evil and suspicious Muslim conduct was causal. Part of the controlled demolition claim is that it fell straight down on its own footprint. It did not fall straight down on its own footprint. Another part of the claim is that the collapse began with immediate free fall. The collapse did not begin with immediate free fall, but with the building tilting over like a falling tree, and then it went into free fall collapse.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >Why are those lies?

                  I saw it happen with my own eyes as did thousands of others – got a call from a friend after the first plane hit the first tower and was watching the other tower burn.

                  This guy is claiming that what I and thousands of others saw happen is impossible – he’s lying or deluded.

                • X says:

                  I am doing my obligation to my white Hajnal race. I am honoring my ancestors by doing my homework. I disrespect those who slobber nonsense and disrespect all of us by spreading lies.

                  Damn it!

                • pdimov says:

                  >I saw it happen with my own eyes

                  Yes, that’s what’s on the video. The claim isn’t that it didn’t happen.

                • X says:

                  I saw it happen with my own eyes

                  Yes, that’s what’s on the video. The claim isn’t that it didn’t happen.

                  I’m not making that claim that the planes were never there. We actually have a video of a plane flying overhead on people in the street. In fact, I make no claims about the videos. I personally believe the planes were remote guided. What we do know is that the planes were not piloted by hijackers. We have ample evidence to support that the planes could not have been piloted by them and there is a lack of evidence that they even boarded the said planes. But all of that is neither here nor there. Rather the PHYSICAL evidence of the demolitions is irrefutable.

                • Simon says:

                  Say we grant that 9/11 was a false flag, what is the revelation we’re meant to take away from this fact?

                • X says:

                  This guy is claiming that what I and thousands of others saw happen is impossible – he’s lying or deluded.

                  Incorrect. The quoted text does not make the conclusion you allege it does. You’re conflating separate concerns.

                  The expert pilot is only stating that the hijackers could not have piloted a normal commercial airliners that way. Violates physics. Even an expert fighter pilot would have very improbable likelihood of making that maneuver with a normal commercial airliner. I studied that in detail (links are in my blog). It is very likely it was a remote guided military plane that is capable of making those maneuvers.

                  But again I reiterate, that regardless of what hit the WTC Twin Towers, all 3 buildings were demolished with nano thermite. That claim is irrefutable.

                  Note we’re talking about New York here, not the Pentagon. The Pentagon case is different in that we also need to use the eyewitness testimony for the irrefutable conclusion. The PHYSICAL evidence at the Pentagon is only supportive, not totally conclusive. Combined with a very detailed analysis of the eyewitnesses, we arrive at irrefutable.

                • jim says:

                  > But again I reiterate, that regardless of what hit the WTC Twin Towers, all 3 buildings were demolished with nano thermite. That claim is irrefutable.

                  You have failed to present any support for that claim, and in any case there is no such material as “nano thermite”.

                  Present one piece of compelling evidence that building seven was demolished with “nano thermite”, or any kind of thermite (I am not picky) and let us argue that case, that one piece of evidence and that one building.

                • X says:

                  Say we grant that 9/11 was a false flag, what is the revelation we’re meant to take away from this fact?

                  I would summarize the change in my life philosophy as, “I no longer salute the flag of the U.S.A.. I urinate on it.”

                  I will never fight a war for that corrupt shit.

                  I lost all respect for institutions of my nation. I left the U.S.A and moved the Philippines. My ancestor is Isaac Shelby (hence my first name Shelby, same as my father and grandfather) who was a Confederate war general. He won a key battle. So I have a heritage to uphold. But we’ve been co-opted by traitors. Off with their heads.

                  I turned all my computer science efforts towards trying to find a better solution. Then Bitcoin arrived and I am a happy person again. Engaged in something I believe might be worthwhile again.

                • Simon says:

                  I think you need to re-examine your reasoning mate, because none of the actions you’ve taken follow from your original premise.

                  And personally I’d rather be dead then live amongst the monkey people of south Asia.

                • X says:

                  I think you need to re-examine your reasoning mate, because none of the actions you’ve taken follow from your original premise.

                  Meanwhile you pay taxes to slave masters who own you and I don’t. You prefer being a blue-pilled slave as long as you have a little bit comfort of being among your other fellow slave mates. Enjoy that while it lasts. You have about 10 years or less before you’re in very bad situation there in the West.

                • X says:

                  You have failed to present any support for that claim, and in any case there is no such material as “nano thermite”.

                  Present one piece of compelling evidence that building seven was demolished with “nano thermite”, or any kind of thermite (I am not picky) and let us argue that case, that one piece of evidence and that one building.

                  I have not failed to do it. It’s all linked there from my blog. You have failed to read it and click the links. I am not going to spoon feed you so that can pull shit out-of-context. Read the blog and click all the links, or don’t. If you want to remain in delusion, that’s your prerogative.

                  The ratio of industrial grade nano thermite in innumerable samples of the dust proves beyond any doubt that it was employed in the demolition.

                  And the evidence for demolition goes much further than that. You will actually have to digest everything. Being lazy won’t help you here.

                  I did the work already. I am not going to redo it by spoon feeding you what you can go read at my blog.

                • X says:

                  Excuse me I made a typo. Not industrial grade. I meant to type military grade nano thermite.

                • jim says:

                  Whatever. Still waiting for one piece of compelling evidence that building seven was demolished by some kind of thermite.

                • Simon says:

                  You’ve conceded your current situation is based on a delusion.

                  I live in White Australia with family and friends surrounded by humans and you live in a jungle with monkey people. Good luck with your “life” and genetic lineage.

                • X says:

                  Whatever. Still waiting for one piece of compelling evidence that building seven was demolished by some kind of thermite.

                  Wow. The decadence. Westerners now even refuse to read. And use trolling instead of argumentation.

                  Stick a fork in it. The West is done. White men totally incapable of being rational and reacting to reality.

                  Instead employing trolling tactics to avoid dealing with the reality.

                • X says:

                  You’ve conceded your current situation is based on a delusion.

                  I live in White Australia with family and friends surrounded by humans and you live in a jungle with monkey people. Good luck with your “life” and genetic lineage.

                  This is a poignant example of why the West must collapse first before it could ever become organized again.

                  Because you’re not interested in truth. You’re only interested in your own comfort and bragging rights. So West of the Hajnal line whites will ride their defection State down until they’re trapped in it as it goes F.U.B.A.R.. There is no abort button. Because all you are is a defector taking what you can from it and not caring about any actual truth.

                  You can’t handle the truth, because you hate the truth. Much more convenient to blame your problems on a scapegoat while avoiding the truth.

                  I have been around Aussies. They sit around and talk this shit all day while drinking or around the barbie. Get nothing accomplished. It’s all about dopamine.

                  I am warrior. Try me.

                • Simon says:

                  I’m not interested in the truth of things that are ultimately not important.

                  You’ve failed to marry, have a family, have no relationship with your extended family and have no friends, or you would not even consider moving to live in the third world as a forty year old white man. Everything you think is important is simply a way for you to cope with your current situation.

                  You’ve failed. Accept it, and work on the religious solution.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  > Oh, but these are Schrodinger’s jets which either did or didn’t hit the buildings.

                  Exactly so.

                  When you attempt to argue with troofers, you find that they will not stick to any one story.

                  You will also find that when they confidently assert that evidence is to be readily found that proves such and such, it is not readily found, and if you insistently ask for it, you will be informed with equal confidence that evidence is readily found that proves something else.

                • X says:

                  You’ve failed. Accept it

                  Lol. I may have more offspring than Genghis Khan. I am turning the Philippines into a white country. A very good looking batch I must say.

                  I am only 53. Look like I am 35. Most of my male ancestors live to 90 to 95. I am still getting started.

                  Next to conquer is the West as it collapses. Pussy will be a dime a dozen.

                • X says:

                  I have studied the evidence.

                  I have studied this. You lie, and you know you lie.

                  Liar. See below. If you can lie once, you can’t be trusted anymore.

                  This pattern of misconduct is displayed identically by each and every troofer, indicating that each and every supposedly independent troofer is sponsored by the same entity and organization, many loudspeakers, one microphone.

                  Jim you’re delusional. You’re generalizing.C.f. below…

                  You have failed to present any support for that claim, and in any case there is no such material as “nano thermite”.

                  Present one piece of compelling evidence that building seven was demolished with “nano thermite”, or any kind of thermite (I am not picky) and let us argue that case, that one piece of evidence and that one building.

                  Military-grade nano-thermite:

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTOjccby-L4

                  These links are in my blog which I provided to you already.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Jim,

                  It appears that in the process of replying to my comment you shoah’ed it.

                  reposting it:

                  ————-

                  From your source:

                  “I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that’s alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don’t believe it’s possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it’s design limit speed by 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding — pulling G’s. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky.

                  Note the last sentence there “the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky”. They didn’t. The rest is an assertion about the piloting skill needed to turn an aircraft past its design limit speed (gee, maybe design limits are set with concern for the continued long-term use of the aircraft and not as a limit past which the aircraft just falls out of the sky) – so therefore the aircraft *must* have been remote piloted. Then he says that the aircraft itself couldn’t handle the maneuver – which it did.

                  Of course, you abandon the claim in that and go on to a different claim – they were remote piloted military jets. Not interested in the world’s stupidest conspiracy where they flew jets into office buildings then demolished them with pre-planted explosives *when those same buildings were the subject of a truck bomb attack* a few years prior. Why bother flying the jets? Oh, but these are Schrodinger’s jets which either did or didn’t hit the buildings.

                • pdimov says:

                  I really don’t see what’s proving so hard here.

                  The pilot’s claim is that the maneuver visible on the video, at the quoted speed, requires skill that exceeds his own. Therefore it’s highly improbable for the Arab hijacker allegedly flying the plane to have executed it.

                  This seems plausible to me. It does not look like a barefaced lie as Jim claimed.

                • Yara says:

                  >And all those dozens of witnesses who witnessed it are lying, right? Must be “crisis actors.”

                  Believe it or not, there really are dozens and dozens (and dozens… probably hundreds) of crisis actors, and they really are employed by government agencies for this reason or that. Hell, the intelligence agencies own and operate entire towns, and boy, have you heard of DUMBs? Yeah.

                  But like everyone else, even those uninterested in swallowing whole the Party line, the

                  >plane, no plane, missile, no missile, bomb, no bomb

                  crowd asks the wrong question, innocently or malignantly. The right question is this: how did a very large, very loud, decidedly-not-stealthy airliner divert dramatically from its start-to-finish real-time monitored-and-ground-controlled scheduled route, and penetrate the most heavily defended airspace, the airspace above the Pentagon? the fucking. Pentagon. — that’s the official story. We’re expected to believe this shit? I’m expected to believe this shit? I find this personally offensive.

                  By the way, would you like to see what effect a 100-ton, 150-foot-long, 400mph missile really has on a building? Look no further.

                • Yara says:

                  >I really don’t see what’s proving so hard here.

                  >The pilot’s claim is that the maneuver visible on the video, at the quoted speed, requires skill that exceeds his own. Therefore it’s highly improbable for the Arab hijacker allegedly flying the plane to have executed it.

                  >This seems plausible to me. It does not look like a barefaced lie as Jim claimed.

                  I agree, but again we have transitioned from the realm of certainties to that of probabilities.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The right question is this: how did a very large, very loud, decidedly-not-stealthy airliner divert dramatically from its start-to-finish real-time monitored-and-ground-controlled scheduled route, and penetrate the most heavily defended airspace, the airspace above the Pentagon?

                  In addition to your retarded claims about demolition and that Schrodinger’s jets hit or didn’t hit WTC this is also amazingly stupid.

                  What does “heavily defended airspace” mean? Defended against what threat? The defense of Washington DC from Soviet bombers at the height of the cold war wasn’t a massive circle of SAM batteries around the city – it was interceptors in Alaska. It was a SOSUS between Soviet naval bases and the Atlantic Ocean. The Air Force doesn’t fly combat air patrols over DC because it doesn’t have “attacked by an air force based in Logan Airport” as a threat model.

                  Or do you think there are rings of SAM batteries around the Pentagon?

                • Yara says:

                  >Lol. I may have more offspring than Genghis Khan. I am turning the Philippines into a white country. A very good looking batch I must say.

                  >I am only 53. Look like I am 35. Most of my male ancestors live to 90 to 95. I am still getting started.

                  >Next to conquer is the West as it collapses. Pussy will be a dime a dozen.

                  Man after mine own heart.

                • Yara says:

                  >In addition to your retarded claims about demolition and that Schrodinger’s jets hit or didn’t hit WTC this is also amazingly stupid.

                  I’ve made no claims whatsoever about so-called “Schrödinger’s jets”. You attribute to me things I have not said, and arguments I have not made.

                • Yara says:

                  >What does “heavily defended airspace” mean? Defended against what threat?

                  Everything. Accidentally scrape the border of a prohibited area and you’ll find yourself with a fighter escort within a handful of minutes.

                  >Or do you think there are rings of SAM batteries around the Pentagon?


                  That would seem prudent.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Believe it or not, there really are dozens and dozens (and dozens… probably hundreds) of crisis actors, and they really are employed by government agencies for this reason or that.

                  Nuts.

                  Some actors are employed by government agencies to play this or that role; observe those involved in the so-called 1947 Roswell UFO Incident, aka “the original psyop.” The UFOlogy movement was the original Troofism, equally lie-ridden as 9/11 Troofism.

                  Large scale crisis-acting programs are impossible, because non-compartmentalized. It takes one whistleblower to expose the whole thing, and TPTB wouldn’t bother employing hundreds or thousands of actors merely to stage a hoax-crisis; the whole idea of false flag is that the event itself is real, but not perpetrated by those assigned blame by the authorities.

                  If anything, the government would want you to believe that a bad event that happened didn’t happen, rather than that a bad event that didn’t happen happened. So maybe you should call them “crisis management actors,” who pretend that something very bad *didn’t* happen when it actually did. But there’s no evidence either way.

                  Anyway, your strongest point re 9/11 is that never before and never since have Muslim terrorists managed to hijack 4 (or 3 or 2) airliners within the same day and successfully crash them into buildings; so 9/11 is a very unique event, and one shouldn’t be crimestopped from suspecting that the terrorists were given a helping hand to achieve their feat.

                  The “controlled demolition” stuff is unnecessary and, as Jim says, used to divert attention away from the real culprits.

                  More broadly, most of the *popular* conspiracy theories are false, in my view. UFOs are not extraterrestrials. Sandy Hook was not a hoax. There is no basement beneath Comet Ping Pong. And Vegas was not a false flag. But to each his own, m8.

                • X says:

                  I wrote:

                  Very few eye witnesses are lying. The cab driver was lying and we have him on video admitting he lied. Most people just actually didn’t see the plane hit the building. This is covered in great detail in my blog. I go through every eye witness one-by-one. I am also significantly relying on the detective work done by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) but I also incorporate other information that I have assimilated.

                  The above was in reference to the Pentagon bombing event on 9/11, not the controlled demolitions in NY on 9/11. That should have been clear from the context of the discussion.

                • X says:

                  I live in White Australia with family and friends surrounded by humans and you live in a jungle with monkey people.

                  Thus we’ve established that I live in a tropical paradise with delicious Cebuano mangoes (not that crap you call a mango in Australia) and of freedom where there are nearly no laws (at least none actually enforced) other than death to drug pushers, murderers, radicalized Muslims, and those who rape infants. And you live in a barren dust-bowl with seasonal wildfires (that will become much worse with the coming Maunder Minimum) that is rapidly reverting a police state totalitarianism analogous to the penal colony from whence it was established.

                • X says:

                  @signal, I quote from my blog which I linked up-thread, since the guys who are complaining here do not seem willing to go read my blog:

                  Coming out of the closet as a homosexual rewards the individual with politically correct powers against discrimination; whereas, exercising one’s right to free speech under the Constitution w.r.t. the malfeasance within our governments can lead to grave discrimination in employment opportunities and other opportunities such as when applying for any license or permit from any (especially national level) government: “Show me your papers”. One of the Loose Change documentaries points out that, “There was a time in South Africa, they would put flaming tires around people’s necks” as example of what would happen to those who actively dissent.

                  Let’s just remember that without dissent there’s no science. Science is founded upon the principle that a theory is only valid if it has withstood the test of time and open source attempts to falsify it. Junk science involves delegation to an authority or closed (i.e. bounded) grouping of “experts” (decided by some authority) that becomes fake history as in “his story”. False-flags are fake his–stories.

                • X says:

                  By the way, would you like to see what effect a 100-ton, 150-foot-long, 400mph missile really has on a building? Look no further.

                  Your link was broken and I fixed it.

                  Yara stop that! Damn it! You’re very eloquent and smart, but you’re no lawyer nor detective. There was no missile. Read my blog. There was a plane, many eyewitnesses saw the plane, and the plane flew over the Pentagon. I have documented this extensively in my blog.

                  By spreading disinformation, you confuse the readers and give ammo to those who want to discredit us. Please stop spreading weak, loony arguments which you have no researched sufficiently. Stick to the irrefutable arguments such as my analysis of the Pentagon bombing and the physical evidence of controlled demolitions in NY on 9/11 as irrefutably proven by the presence of nano thermite (can’t be in the dust if no controlled demolition) and the free fall collapse which can’t exist in any natural collapse due to structural damage. Those are irrefutable facts which the dimwits here can never refute. It is impossible to refute those facts. Only those who fail to grok engineering could fool themselves into thinking they refuted those facts.

                • X says:

                  OK I’ll play.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgve7yG7DG8

                  @pdimov that link is not nearly as informative and complete as the link from my blog. Note the original link from my blog was removed by Youtube, but I located another copy of it:

                  Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!

                  Readers use the link above instead of the link @pdimov supplied.

                • X says:

                  I just wrote:

                  Note the original link from my blog was removed by Youtube, but I located another copy of it:

                  Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!

                  The original link in my blog was archived even though it is no longer accessible on Youtube:

                  http://archive.is/s747D

                  But the archive linked above does not play the video. It only allows you to see the archived Youtube page for the video. Instead click the link in my quote above which is a current active copy of the video on Youtube. Note I have saved a copy of the video to my computer so I can reload it to the Internet should it become entirely unavailable via a Google search on the title.

                  Note my quoted link above actually has the pilot in the video and it is 14 minutes in duration. Much more compelling than the video @pdimov provided.

                • X says:

                  The video @pdimov linked is disinformation, because it have video of the plane flying into the WTC in NY, but the pilot in my video is talking about the Pentagon attack. I do not know if any pilots are alleging that angle of descent was implausible in the WTC attacks! The angle of descent and turn are stated to be impossible for a commercial airliner in the Pentagon bombing false-flag. Please do not conflate the two locations. That is the sort of sloppy disinformation that confuses the reader and makes them think we are full of shit.

                  In addition to the better video I linked, I also suggest the Pilots of 9/11 Truth video (which is linked from my blog) as it is highly detailed and also explains the NORAD radar data anomalies in addition to discussing the impossibility of the Pentagon angle of descent for a commercial airliner.

                  There was no investigation because the FBI covered everything up:

                  https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/3987b2/retired_pilot_who_flew_doomed_airplanes_on_911/cs2cab1/?context=4

                • X says:

                  Note the last sentence there “the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky”. They didn’t. The rest is an assertion about the piloting skill needed to turn an aircraft past its design limit speed (gee, maybe design limits are set with concern for the continued long-term use of the aircraft and not as a limit past which the aircraft just falls out of the sky) – so therefore the aircraft *must* have been remote piloted. Then he says that the aircraft itself couldn’t handle the maneuver – which it did.

                  Ignore @pdimov’s video because as I explained that it is disinformation planted by those who want to discredit the truthers. And unfortunately many truthers are their own worst enemy because they sloppily spread such disinformation, because they’re too lazy to do their detailed homework. I did the detailed homework and the correct and best links to videos are in my blog. Please click the links in my blog and view them, them come back and report to us any inconsistencies you find. If you are unwilling to do that, then you are not interested in the truth. Laziness is not a virtue of white Hajnal men. Laziness and lack of desire to study the truth, is a trait of Muslims who believe whatever in the fuck Allah tells them. You believe whatever in the fuck your corrupt FBI/CIA/Mossad/Zionists media/Neocons tell you via their control over mass media and other tools of propaganda. But the Internet is a tool for truth if used by those who are diligent and not behaving like lazy Muslims so. So if you hate Muslims, then stop emulating them!

                  White Hajnal men are engineers who discern truth. Please start behaving like a white Hajnal man. Actions speak louder than words! Just Do It. Stop complaining like whiny bitch about your homework assignment.

                  There is a stall velocity due to feedback from the ground effect from earth’s surface and if it is exceeded then a vacuum forms under the wing and sucks the plane straight to the ground uncontrollably and thus it could not have precisely flown into the front face of the Pentagon (it would have crashed randomly some where near to it instead with large chunks of the plane strewn all over the area which of course did not happen). That is explained in detail in one of the videos I linked to from my blog (maybe it is in one of the two videos I linked above).

                  Thus the plane that flew over (not into!) the Pentagon was a military plane that has different capabilities and I provided some evidence for this as linked from my blog. Additionally the CIT evidence (which is extensively linked from my blog) concludes irrefutably that the plane flew in from the left hand side of the Citgo (not the right hand side as the government told us), thus it never came within a meter to the ground as alleged must have been the case if we believe the government’s official story (because the nose would have to have penetrated only at the ground floor because there was no hole above the floor of the second floor). It titled and powered-up some 100 meters or so before it reached the front face of the Pentagon. We have witnesses testifying to seeing it tilt and power-up. So thus the ground effect of being only a few meters from the ground never happened.

                  If you study everything in detail, you will realize that indeed this was all a pre-planned operation with some factions of the USA government involved. And there is no other possibility.

                  Of course, you abandon the claim in that and go on to a different claim – they were remote piloted military jets. Not interested in the world’s stupidest conspiracy where they flew jets into office buildings then demolished them with pre-planted explosives *when those same buildings were the subject of a truck bomb attack* a few years prior. Why bother flying the jets? Oh, but these are Schrodinger’s jets which either did or didn’t hit the buildings.

                  We do not know the planes were remote piloted. But we do know they were not piloted by Muslim hijackers armed with box cutters.

                  And we do know that no plane hit the Pentagon. We know it was a bomb that had been planted in the Pentagon in the intervening time where repairs and upgrades had been ongoing in that section of the Pentagon. Ditto the elevators shafts at the WTC twin towers (all the structural steel is in the center where the elevator shafts are, the exterior walls of the WTC towers only hold up the floors and not the building itself, i.e. if you blow up the center structural steel, then the exterior topples down).

                  Also we know for other reasons that the Pentagon was a bombing because for example everything was blown outwards into the field. The concrete beams were even angled outwards in the photos of the hole in the front face of the Pentagon.

                  Again my blog covers all the details. But you guys are too lazy to read it and click all the links in it.

                  .

                • jim says:

                  There is nothing surprising or unusual about the piloting, except that the pentagon plane is flying at near ground level, which is probably pilot error rather than clever piloting.

                  Came down too soon and almost missed. A flawless attack would strike from above.

                • jim says:

                  You are an idiot. Of course everything was blown outwards.

                  High speed bullets have similar effect. You are looking for low speed crash effects in a high speed crash.

                  Similarly, the effect of the planes hitting the towers. A high speed crash looks like an explosion.

                  Recall mythbusters firing a high speed snow plow into a car.

                • X says:

                  Let me clarify this further so there isn’t a misunderstanding:

                  Also we know for other reasons that the Pentagon was a bombing because for example everything was blown outwards into the field. The concrete beams were even angled outwards in the photos of the hole in the front face of the Pentagon.

                  Note that some material was blown out the other direction of an inner wall of the outer ring of the Pentagon. That too indicates a bombing because of the detailed analysis of the possibly trajectory of any plane that may have entered the front face per the official story, indicates that the official story is entirely impossible. For example, I have in my blog links and explanation that prove that the plane would have been liquefied into granules the size of bits of sand had it actually impacted at that velocity. Also the windows and front fascia wall where the engines would have impacted were still fully intact and not even cracked! Actually it is entirely physically impossible to have even positioned the plane with the engines a few inches off the ground as would have been required to even get the nose hole as low as we see in the photos of the hole to the front fascia of the Pentagon.

                  We have other evidence of the bombing, so do not hinge your refutations on this one point. You would have to refute all the evidence of bombing, including the irrefutable witness, flight data, downed light poles, topography of the approach, decoy plane seen immediately after, the plane seen flying over the Pentagon after the fireball, etc … that all irrefutably conclude in unison that the only possibility is a plane flew over the front face of the Pentagon.

                • X says:

                  There is nothing surprising or unusual about the piloting, except that the pentagon plane is flying at near ground level, which is probably pilot error rather than clever piloting.

                  Came down too soon and almost missed. A flawless attack would strike from above.

                  Jim stop spreading nonsense that you pull out of your ass. You are not an engineer.

                  The thrust required for the commercial airliner that close to the ground at the speeds recorded on the flight data recorder exceed the thrust that the commercial airliner is capable of it:

                  http://www.faatest.com/books/FLT/Chapter17/GroundEffect.htm

                  The expert pilot is explaining these facts of physics and you are choosing to ignore the facts and spread lies and BS to your readers.

                  Are you going to continue being a liar and emulating a dishonest Muslim? Or will you stop that bad behavior?

                • X says:

                  You are an idiot. Of course everything was blown outwards.

                  High speed bullets have similar effect. You are looking for low speed crash effects in a high speed crash.

                  Similarly, the effect of the planes hitting the towers. A high speed crash looks like an explosion.

                  Recall mythbusters firing a high speed snow plow into a car.

                  Jim you should stop trusting your very incorrect and sloppy “engineering” instincts because clearly you are not an engineer. You do engineering about at the level that Muslims do engineering.

                  A bullet fragmenting because it is a very small mass with small surface area is not capable to the behavior of a large mass with large surface area (slamming into a solid 18″ of concrete at the front of the Pentagon) made out of the materials a plane is made of. I have a link in my blog to a video which shows what happens to a plane at that velocity. It liquefies.

                  Refer to this quoted information from my blog to find all the links that are missing from this quote:

                  The F4 Experiment: In the F4 Phantom jet experiment, a plane was propelled at high speed on a rocket sled into a massive and impenetrable concrete wall. The plane was completely fragmented into small pieces.

                  Inapplicable for several reasons:

                  * The side wall of the pentagon has orders-of-magnitude less cross-sectional mass relative to the mass of the plane as compared to that experiment. Citing that experiment is designed to fool people who are ignorant of physics. The side wall of the Pentagon was only a layer of brick and 18” of concrete plus limestone. The concrete block for the cited F4 test was 3.66 meters (i.e. 930”) thick!

                  * The F4 fighter jet doesn’t have 3 ton engines hanging far off to either side. There’s no impact holes nor damage on the side wall for the 3 ton engines. The liquefied F4 debris was piled up with no hole created.

                  * Liquefaction isn’t seen in any photos of the wreckage nor described by any witness inside the building before or after impact.

                • Yara says:

                  >Some actors are employed by government agencies to play this or that role; observe those involved in the so-called 1947 Roswell UFO Incident, aka “the original psyop.” The UFOlogy movement was the original Troofism, equally lie-ridden as 9/11 Troofism.

                  I have no opinion on Roswell, there being insufficient reliable primary source evidence accessible to the public, as neither the transistor nor its penultimate brainchild the Internet had yet been invented. Attempting to conflate UFOism, about which there is no reliable evidence either way, with the events of 9/11, about which the evidence is reliable and plenty, at least with respect to the physical phenomena of the day, is absurd slander, dirty tricksterism, and wholly ineffective besides.

                  >Large scale crisis-acting programs are impossible, because non-compartmentalized. It takes one whistleblower to expose the whole thing, and TPTB wouldn’t bother employing hundreds or thousands of actors merely to stage a hoax-crisis; the whole idea of false flag is that the event itself is real, but not perpetrated by those assigned blame by the authorities.

                  By that general logic, “TPTB” surely wouldn’t bother intercepting and permanently archiving every phone call, text message, and Internet communication in America and possibly the world with few exceptions, collating it all, analyzing it at will, sharing both raw data and curated results with foreign governments, and so on. Right. Surely neither would “TPTB” bother to install a “god mode” Minix distro on every Intel processor made for the last two decades, literally intercept mail packages in transit from warehouse to high value targets and injecting custom chips into their contents, or deliberately compromise public cryptography, on which the world economy now depends, through its appendage sometimes known as “NIST”.


                  >If anything, the government would want you to believe that a bad event that happened didn’t happen, rather than that a bad event that didn’t happen happened. So maybe you should call them “crisis management actors,” who pretend that something very bad *didn’t* happen when it actually did. But there’s no evidence either way.

                  Periodic bad events (presumably your prototypical example of which is Sandy Hook, which you mention below) followed by round-the-clock news coverage serve to perpetuate an undercurrent of fear in the general populace, harmful to morale but helpful to compliance.


                  >Anyway, your strongest point re 9/11 is that never before and never since have Muslim terrorists managed to hijack 4 (or 3 or 2) airliners within the same day and successfully crash them into buildings; so 9/11 is a very unique event, and one shouldn’t be crimestopped from suspecting that the terrorists were given a helping hand to achieve their feat.

                  That isn’t my strongest point, but you’re right that on this topic especially we should be on the vigilant lookout for the subliminal signs of crimestop and doublethink.


                  >The “controlled demolition” stuff is unnecessary and, as Jim says, used to divert attention away from the real culprits.

                  Not so. Evidence for a persistent cover-up of a “helping hand” is evidence that “TPTB” is guilty of pervasive institutional malfeasance significant enough to provide sufficient coordination to lie about any operation of any magnitude, including demolitions units, probably brought in from foreign sources, probably Israel.

                  >More broadly, most of the *popular* conspiracy theories are false, in my view. UFOs are not extraterrestrials. Sandy Hook was not a hoax. There is no basement beneath Comet Ping Pong. And Vegas was not a false flag. But to each his own, m8.

                  Every “popular” so-called “conspiracy theory” (the term a literal CIA PSYOP from the 1960s) resonates because there’s something to it. These things can’t be force-memed, although I’m sure many interested parties wish they could be, and perhaps someday they will get their wish. But there really is something to UFOs, though it’s unlikely, as you said, that they are of extraterrestrial origin; Sandy Hook, which featured literal small-time actors with active IMDb pages posing as grieving parents; Comet Ping Pong, which posted pictures of its basement on the Internet for all to see, one of them tagged “#killroom”; and the Las Vegas shooting, which doesn’t make any sense by any interpretation known to myself.

                • X says:

                  Typos: failing[fairly] low surface area

                  because the[y] wanted eyewitnesses

                • X says:

                  To be technically accurate, above where I wrote “surface area” that really should be “cross-sectional surface area” as the impact surface of the wall at the Pentagon is a cross-section of the plane.

                • X says:

                  I really don’t see what’s proving so hard here.

                  The pilot’s claim is that the maneuver visible on the video, at the quoted speed, requires skill that exceeds his own. Therefore it’s highly improbable for the Arab hijacker allegedly flying the plane to have executed it.

                  This seems plausible to me. It does not look like a barefaced lie as Jim claimed.

                  I agree, but again we have transitioned from the realm of certainties to that of probabilities.

                  Not probabilities. 100% irrefutable. Since you guys wrote that, I have clarified the explanation and engineering/physics analysis above. I did my homework at a much greater level of detail than you two truthers did. Thus I can conclude there’s no probabilities involved. I know with 100% certainty that no hijackers flew a plane into the Pentagon. I know with 100% that no plane hit the Pentagon. And I know with high probability that what actually must have hit the Pentagon a was bomb planted inside. I have even more evidence of the bomb hypothesis that I have not yet presented, but it is alluded to and linked from my blog on this issue.

                • jim says:

                  > The pilot’s claim is that the maneuver visible on the video,

                  No maneuvers are visible on video. All videos indicate straight line flight direct to target

                  In the case of the Pentagon video, only two frames, making it impossible to say anything about maneuvers.

                • X says:

                  Correcting another typo: A bullet fragmenting because it is a very small mass with small surface area is not capable[comparable] to the behavior of …

                • X says:

                  In addition to your retarded claims about demolition and that Schrodinger’s jets hit or didn’t hit WTC this is also amazingly stupid.

                  How do you refute the nano-grade thermite in the dust at the WTC which can’t be there if there is no controlled demolition? It is impossible for you to refute that. Therefore you’re effectively asserting that you’re retarded. You should not make such a fool of yourself. It makes you appear to be emulating a Muslim. Next thing you will be kneeling and praying 8 times a day to the Neocons who fooled you, as Muslim pray to Allah their God who fools them so much they can’t do engineering, as you and Jim can’t do engineering.

                  Also there is no possible way for buildings to naturally collapse from even severe structural damage in a free-fall acceleration (do not say “velocity” because if you do then it means you flunked high school Physics) into their own foot-print. It entirely defies the laws of physics and entropy. There are ~3000 engineers and architects who have explained this in great detail:

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/

                  But you would prefer to trust your Muslim-loving Neocons than your fellow Hajnal white man engineers. Yes the Neocons love Muslims because they enable their lust for power to use to fool those foolish Westerners like you and Jim with.

                  My blog has links to sources which document that there were repairs and upgrades going on to the elevators shafts of the BTC in the 9 months preceding. The company doing the renovations was AFAIR documented to be owned by the Bush family and an Israeli.

                  Also the WTC had to be dismantled anyway, because it had asbestos insulation and to meet modern regulations it would have cost $2 billion to replace the insulation. Silverstein acquired the lease on the buildings and immediately opened huge insurance policies that were not in place before that added a special clause that allowed for damages due to such “terrorist” attacks. The WTC were designed to withstand multiple impacts from commercial airliners so of course the insurance was granted. Lol. Clever Jew that fuck.

                  I could go on and on and on with facts to make you fools STFU with your nonsense.

                • jim says:

                  > How do you refute the nano-grade thermite in the dust at the WTC which can’t be there

                  There is no such thing as nano grade thermite, and if such a thing existed, it would degrade almost instantly, because the finer the thermite powder, the faster it degrades, which sets a practical limit on how fine you can make thermite powder.

                  And thermite of any kind had been used to bring down the towers, you would not find thermite in the residue. You would find blobs of iron that had melted and then refrozen as characteristic and distinctive droplets, which form whenever molten iron is splashed about and just allowed to re-harden at random – which no one has found, no one has found any iron that melted and refroze therefore no thermite.

                • X says:

                  What does “heavily defended airspace” mean? Defended against what threat? The defense of Washington DC from Soviet bombers at the height of the cold war wasn’t a massive circle of SAM batteries around the city – it was interceptors in Alaska. It was a SOSUS between Soviet naval bases and the Atlantic Ocean. The Air Force doesn’t fly combat air patrols over DC because it doesn’t have “attacked by an air force based in Logan Airport” as a threat model.

                  Or do you think there are rings of SAM batteries around the Pentagon?

                  Everything. Accidentally scrape the border of a prohibited area and you’ll find yourself with a fighter escort within a handful of minutes.

                  If you want to really understand the significance then read the National air defense stand down section of my blog In T̶h̶e̶f̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶M̶a̶s̶s̶a̶c̶r̶e̶s̶ᵀʳᵃⁿˢᵖᵃʳᵉⁿᶜʸ We Trust. In that section I have links to some videos which explain in greater details such as the Pilots for 9/11 Truth video which I highly recommend watching.

                • jim says:

                  Everything on your blog that I have checked is a flat out in-my-face barefaced lie, in particular the claim that a video shows someone ordering the demolition of World Trade Tower Seven. The video shows him ordering or agreeing with the order to retreat from World Trade Tower Seven, which order implies he expects it to collapse imminently, but does not imply that he caused it to collapse.

                  Your lies have the effect of defending our enemies, in particular and especially, defending Mueller’s FBI from the charge that Mueller deliberately turned a blind eye to Muslim terrorists out of political correctness.

                  Your lies are a defense of our enemy, Robert Mueller, and I believe that he or associates of him are funding and directing you to spread these lies.

                • X says:

                  Anyway, your strongest point re 9/11 is that never before and never since have Muslim terrorists managed to hijack 4 (or 3 or 2) airliners within the same day and successfully crash them into buildings; so 9/11 is a very unique event, and one shouldn’t be crimestopped from suspecting that the terrorists were given a helping hand to achieve their feat.

                  The “controlled demolition” stuff is unnecessary and, as Jim says, used to divert attention away from the real culprits.

                  Roberto—my dear idiot snowflake (emulating a lazy ass Muslim patriarch who can’t do a lick of detailed engineering correctly … you white males here have become carbon copies of that which you hate, lol)—you’re full of shit as the evidence clearly shows.

                  You guys here always want to turn away from the engineering facts and turn the discussion back towards Muslims because you’re ostensibly jealous of Muslims and want to be a Muslim. Indeed I finally figured out the psychology here. You guys are jealous that Muslims have a strict patriarchy wherein they enslave their women enabling them to be lazy dumb asses that shit around the barbie and drink beer all day talking shit about nothing they actually know about. I told y’all in the prior recent blogs that strict patriarchy leads to complacency, stagnation, and a regressive, backward, failed society.

                  I already explained why the controlled demolition is a refutable fact and that it is crucially important because it implicates the Neocons and some factions (e.g. FBI) of the US government. Which is absolutely critical to for example understanding what chance Trump has of actually leading us out of the mess our society is in. And because the facts entirely disprove any involvement of any Muslim hijackers. That was a ruse (red-herring) to get you fools to sniff the wrong shadow with your broken stuck clock aliasing error.

                  More broadly, most of the *popular* conspiracy theories are false, in my view. UFOs are not extraterrestrials. Sandy Hook was not a hoax. There is no basement beneath Comet Ping Pong. And Vegas was not a false flag. But to each his own, m8.

                  I provided the links at the start of this discussion that show that Las Vegas was indeed a cover-up and therefore it is a false-flags. Everything that is a cover-up at the national level is always a false-flag, unless it can be clearly explained as something else.

                  Are you going to force me to drill that evidence down your throat as you forced me to do here for the 9/11 evidence because you guys are too lazy to read the links I provide?

                • X says:

                  Correction of typo: a[n ir]refutable fact

                • X says:

                  No maneuvers are visible on video. All videos indicate straight line flight direct to target

                  In the case of the Pentagon video, only two frames, making it impossible to say anything about maneuvers.

                  Jim the information is taken from the flight data recorders as provided by the government under a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request by truthers. The Pilots for 9/11 Truth video which I linked for you explains the flight path of that data.

                  I think you’re becoming senile. How ancient are you Jim? 60? 70? This discussion with you is become as farcical as the lack of comment reply depth of your blog format. You ostensibly can’t even comprehend information of the sources I provide to you.

                  There is no such thing as nano grade thermite, and if such a thing existed, it would degrade almost instantly, because the finer the thermite powder, the faster it degrades, which sets a practical limit on how fine you can make thermite powder.

                  Incorrect. There is a technology to control the nano-grade thermite employing a certain method of painting on the steel with a certain technology for the igniting charges.

                  And thermite of any kind had been used to bring down the towers, you would not find thermite in the residue. You would find blobs of iron that had melted and then refrozen as characteristic and distinctive droplets, which form whenever molten iron is splashed about and just allowed to re-harden at random – which no one has found, no one has found any iron that melted and refroze therefore no thermite.

                  The spherical balls of iron were indeed discovered in the dust which in fact one of the other evidence we have that there was indeed molten steel and temperatures hot enough to melt steel. That was provided on the page I linked for you yesterday in other fork of this discussion down-thread, but you continue to ignore this page (even it has photos of the molten steel all over the place):

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

                  Are you blind also? This is truly becoming farcical. And I am losing patience. You’re being disingenuous and wasting my time.

                  People that waste my time go on my “ignore list”.

                • jim says:

                  > Jim the information is taken from the flight data recorders as provided by the government under a FOIA

                  I am not going to check out each of your new lies when you fail to defend your old lies. Nothing I check out ever checks out, and when I complain, instead of responding, you just give me ten new things to check out.

                  Nominate your one best piece of evidence, and stand or fall on that one claim, that one piece of evidence, defend and argue that one claim, without replying by making ten new claims.

                  And another troofer telling the same lies is not evidence.

                • X says:

                  And thermite of any kind had been used to bring down the towers, you would not find thermite in the residue. You would find blobs of iron that had melted and then refrozen as characteristic and distinctive droplets, which form whenever molten iron is splashed about and just allowed to re-harden at random – which no one has found, no one has found any iron that melted and refroze therefore no thermite.

                  Also I have seen in the past a photo of an angled cut structural steel beam in the wreckage of the pit that has melted slag on it. I don’t know if I can still find that image.

                  Also it is quite disingenuous of you to assert that we can’t produce more photos of slag when in fact our corrupt government had the area sealed off and shipped all the structure steel (under very heavy security) off to China to be immediately melted for scrap metal sans a few well chosen pieces they decided to keep for NIST that are not fully representative.

                  So if our government has nothing to hide, then why are they hiding all the evidence? Why did our government confiscate all the surveillance video from the various establishments around the Pentagon and refuse to provide it and refuse to provide the video from the video cameras that are atop the front fascia wall of the Pentagon where the plane was alleged to have struck the Pentagon?

                  Why? Because they’re hiding the truth. It really is that simple. Even a reasonably intelligent 12 year old male could understand that.

                • X says:

                  Everything on your blog that I have checked is a flat out in-my-face barefaced lie,

                  List all of the inconsistencies you find. Do not make some extraordinary generalized claim. That is disingenuous and bad behavior in debating etiquette. List your specific claims.

                  in particular the claim that a video shows someone ordering the demolition of World Trade Tower Seven. The video shows him ordering or agreeing with the order to retreat from World Trade Tower Seven, which order implies he expects it to collapse imminently, but does not imply that he caused it to collapse.

                  I don’t remember ever making any claim about Silverstein’s order to “I told them to pull it”. Some truthers want to believe he was using a common term for controlled demolition “pull it”. But I never made that claim myself. We have far too much irrefutable evidence than to need to rely on some flimsy claim like that. Yara made that claim not me. It is possible that one of the truther videos I linked to (such as the Loose Change one perhaps?) makes that claim. But I do not have the luxury of removing claims from videos that I need to link to because of other information in the videos which I think is relevant.

                  Your lies have the effect of defending our enemies, in particular and especially, defending Mueller’s FBI from the charge that Mueller deliberately turned a blind eye to Muslim terrorists out of political correctness.

                  Your lies are a defense of our enemy, Robert Mueller, and I believe that he or associates of him are funding and directing you to spread these lies.

                  Your lies are defending Mueller. Because I actually link to a video which implicates Mueller in participating in the cover-up of 9/11!

                  You are the one implicitly defending the Neocons who are complicit in all the DEEP STATE corruption including actually being friends with Clintons. They are all in one elite country country together (Democrats and Republicans leadership, except maybe not Trump), and we are not members of their elite club.

                • jim says:

                  > List all of the inconsistencies you find. Do not make some extraordinary generalized claim

                  You are using the troofer tactic of spitting out too many lies to rebut, spat out too fast. I cannot make a list, because everything on your blog is a lie, and most things on your blog contradict several other things on your blog. So let us go with just one lie, let us start with one false claim: That someone ordered, on video, the destruction of World Trade Tower Seven. Who is this man, what exactly did he say, and where and when did he say it?

                  Defend that one claim, rather than issue one thousand new claims.

                  > You are the one implicitly defending the Neocons.

                  Robert Mueller is the arch neocon, Robert Mueller was in charge when the 911 terrorists were given a free pass, and you are giving Mueller a free pass.

                • X says:

                  The snow plow utterly vanished, leaving no readily recognizable fragments behind, in an explosion that threw everything outwards. A snow plow is a lot more solid than a plane. If the snow plow exploded like a bomb, a plane is going to explode in an even more bomb like fashion.

                  The snow plow held together long enough to cut the car in two, but nonetheless dispersed with explosive force. I conjecture that by the time it had cut a fair way through the car, it was more like a snowplow shaped cloud of ricocheting bullets than a solid snowplow.

                  I had not seen that Mythbusters video before. I just watched it. My prior analysis up-thread of what I would expect was based on imagining some a different meaning of “snow plow”. I thought you meant a huge bulldozer-like heavy equipment that they use to clear snow from the roads. Actually I have never lived in a place that has snow, so I have never seen a snow plow before and was just vaguely remembering what I thought a snow plow looked like. So I was imagining some huge mass of steel bring flung at a car with the mass of the snow plow being orders-of-magnitude greater than the car.

                  What actually happens in your Mythbusters video is the snow plow disintegrates entirely as in liquefaction exactly as I told you would happen when impacting a solid concrete barrier of sufficient thickness.

                  The debris you see flying backwards is the parts of the car either bouncing off the concrete wall or looks like also the explosive force of the liquefaction of creates a fireball that propels the parts of the car back in the other direction. IOW, the are no more parts of the snow plow. It is only car parts that did not disintegrate that are blow backwards because they are behind the liquefaction impact zone.

                  Thus that video you cited is entirely unlike the physics of the situation of the 18″ solid concrete wall with 6″ of solid brick at the wall of alleged impact for the Pentagon. At the Pentagon there was no thing that was split apart and trailing the plane. The plane itself would be entirely liquefied or if not then the 8 ton engines would have made holes in the wall, but neither are seen. No pile of liquefaction nor holes in the wall where the engines would be. All we see is debris out on the lawn from the bomb that exploded inside the Pentagon. And we see the structural concrete beams all angled outwards indicating all energy forces originated from inside the Pentagon, not outside.

                  Again I referred you to a video at my blog which shows the liquefaction that occurs when an airplane hits a solid concrete wall of significant thickness:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVz5vhNvskk

                  Please Jim stop pretending to understand Physics. You don’t. You’re also not very meticulously observant. You didn’t even pay attention to which parts where liquefied and which parts were flying backwards. Engineering is about details. Details matter otherwise bridges collapse and the military weapons don’t function. The West is rapidly descending into such decadence.

                • jim says:

                  > What actually happens in your Mythbusters video is the snow plow disintegrates entirely as in liquefaction exactly as I told you would happen when impacting a solid concrete barrier of sufficient thickness.

                  We don’t know what happened to the snow plow, other than that after the crash it seems to have vanished, because the crash consisted of an explosion similar to the 911 explosions, even though neither the plow nor the car had any explosives in them.

                  The point of this incident is that when things crash really fast they disintegrate and explode – and in fact when planes crash at full flight speed, they disintegrate and explode as the 911 planes did.

                  And the reason you have fire insulation over steel beams in tall buildings is …

                • X says:

                  We now have evidence that Jim is a covert gatekeeper of the evil side. He is deleting my replies:

                  http://archive.is/ZhTHi#selection-7769.0-7781.20

                  I suspected this. Tsk. Tsk.

                • jim says:

                  I ask for evidence. You announce you are providing evidence, but what you provide is not evidence for your claims, but evidence that troofers are making these claims.

                  Among the many pieces of evidence that I have asked for, and you have not provided, is evidence for molten metal. Provide evidence, and not claims that the evidence has been provided.

                  I ask for evidence of molten metal. You give me evidence of troofers saying that evidence for molten metal has been provided.

                • jim says:

                  You are wasting reader bandwidth with extremely long comments bombastically claiming evidence for all sorts of astonishing claims, but no actual evidence. If you have time enough to post at vast length, you have time enough to post actual evidence for some of the things claimed.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Because X is wasting reader bandwidth by lying blatantly and repetitiously, I am now deleting his comments as spam.

                  Thank you.

                • Dave says:

                  “Your lies are a defense of our enemy, Robert Mueller, and I believe that he or associates of him are funding and directing you to spread these lies.”

                  I don’t think Truthers are paid stooges. Notice the events they cluster around — 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the Vegas shooting, Sandy Hook. Events that demonstrate what an insane amount of damage can be done by one person, or by a very small conspiracy unconnected to any corporation or government. Shocked at how fragile our civilization is, many recoil in horror saying, “No! It can’t be! It was planned this way!” Even (especially?) people who don’t believe in God are desperate for reassurance that someone, good or evil, is in charge of this world. Tyranny is less terrifying than anarchy.

                  Of course the vast majority don’t really believe it, because they carry on loudly accusing the world’s most powerful government of murdering 3000 of its own people in cold blood, not thinking how easily that number could become 3001.

                • jim says:

                  Sandy Hook was real, theatrics around Sandy Hook were fake. Las Vegas shooting is genuinely mysterious, making wild yarns plausible. 911 was completely unmysterious, what was happening was blatant even before it happened, and the troofer tales about it are sheer fabrication.

                  Troofer evidence is troofers asserting that evidence exists, a trail of breadcrumbs that has no end in any actual evidence that I can easily find. You can follow the links all day, and you wind up just going in circles from one excessively lengthy and verbose troofer post to the next.

                • jim says:

                  The real 911 conspiracy was that Robert Mueller ordered the FBI to refrain from making Muslims look bad by arresting terrorist conspirators. Troofism is a conspiracy to cover Robert Mueller’s misconduct and protect affirmative action for Muslims. Notice that the troofers hate Trump, but never have a bad word for Robert Mueller. Even though they theoretically hate neocons, they don’t actually criticize any specific prominent neocons, and in particular do not criticize Mueller.

                  Troofists will tell you your real enemy is Trump, much as Carlylean Restorationist tell you your real enemy is white male American Christian heterosexual capitalists, and the Trots told the peasant that his real enemy was the peasant who owned more cows than he did.

                  The Trots, themselves wealthy Jews, told the Christian peasant his enemy was other Christian peasants, and Sorel, a supposedly a French Nationalist, told French Nationalists their enemy was other Frenchmen while Sorel worked for Russians.

                  We can tell who is paying the troofers because they never criticize the man their story helps the most (Robert Mueller) and they regularly criticize the man that Rober Mueller hates most of all, Trump. Their story is that allowing in millions of black male military age Muslims is no problem. Nor are progressive Jews in America a problem. It is those supposedly horrid right wing Jews in Israel, whose most horrid evil was that they want the US embassy moved to Jerusalem. Those guys are supposedly the problem: Trump and right wing Israeli Jews are supposedly the problem. From which I conclude that they are being paid by Robert Mueller, his organization, and/or left wing Jews.

                • Roberto says:

                  I beg to differ, Dave. Take for example the nascent idiocracy. The real reasons people are getting dumber are Feminism (high IQ women fail to reproduce; and families cannot be stably formed) and mass Third Worldization. So, what do troofers tell us?

                  “Hello, fellow dissidents. As you may have noticed, people are getting dumber. You may think that it’s because the West is suffering from feral female misbehavior and immigration from shitholes. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Actually, the Illuminati of Bavaria, who run the New World Order together with the Elders of Zion and the Freemasons, on behalf of the Nibiru extraterrestrials (of course), are spiking your water with FLUORIDE and giving your children IQ-lowering VACCINES. Also, here are some links to totally genuine people who totally agree with me that it’s all because of the Illuminati’s fluoride and vaccines rather than Feminism and dysgenic immigration.”

                  It’s astroturf.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Carlylean Restorationist tell you your real enemy is white male American Christian heterosexual capitalists”

                  I have seen the light Jim. The white male American Christian heterosexual capitalists at Chiquito’s, Time Warner, Walmart, American Airlines and the various Wall Street hedge funds are completely innocent. The fact their products are killing and bankrupting our people is merely the manifestation of the inherent wickedness of our people and we’ll all be better off when they’re gone and replaced with whatever the above corporations think would be more productive consumption units.

                • X says:

                  From which I conclude that they are being paid by Robert Mueller, his organization, and/or left wing Jews.

                  Jim do always chase shadows? I had already criticized Mueller in my blog implicating him as complicit in 9/11. What you do not like is that I also implicate your beloved Neocons.

                  Here I will criticize Mueller again:

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/mueller-is-conspiring-to-overthrow-trump-how-to-stop-him/

                  I don’t hate Trump. Rather I just think he cucked to the Zionists (when he recognized Jerusalem for example and when he accepted their loans to build his casinos and hotels) who enslave us and helped perpetrate 9/11 against us. Also I shared a link with you indicating he is losing the mid-term elections. Also I think the Zionists put Trump in office (unbeknowst to Trump) via their control over mass media and Wikileaks, which I actually predicted in a blog before the 2016 Presidential election.

                  Thank you.

                  Circle-jerk echo chambers are nice. Is your supply of Vaseline well stocked?

                  Troofer evidence is troofers asserting that evidence exists, a trail of breadcrumbs that has no end in any actual evidence that I can easily find.

                  Jim it’s okay. Yara and I understand you’ve made it abundantly clear about the limitations of your brain. We’ve stopped trying to confuse you with too many facts and deductive logic— so called “bread crumbs.”

                  Vasoline anyone? Cya!

                • X says:

                  Jim if you really wanted white men to rise up and start a civil war then the best motivator would be to help prove how deep the corruption is in our government.

                  By holding Trump out there as our King, you cause us to become complacent.

                  We need to attack NOW! WAR NOW. Not later!

                  Later we’re doomed if we don’t act now.

                • jim says:

                  I notice you attack Trump, not Mueller, consistent with my conjecture you are on the payroll of Mueller or the FBI.

                  To persuade people that our government is corrupt, far better to point to the FBI and the Judiciary, and in particular to point to Robert Mueller, than to point to Trump.

                • X says:

                  Jim you are delusional fruitcake. I have consistently attacked Mueller, Clinton, Hoover, Bush, and everyone of those corrupt bastards.

                  Whereas, you are attack every white man by perpetuating the lies of the corrupt bastards.

                  Mueller, Comey, Obama, and the former head of the NSA are fucking correct, as is Jeff Sessions, McCain, Dianne Feinstein, and on down the list of corruption.

                  Corruption every where. And Mueller and Comey a key point men in the corruption and have been for decades along with the others I mentioned and more.

                  I do not think Trump is corrupt. Rather I think he is being manipulated and he is trying to play chess but we do not give him enough support. If we really supported Trump we would start the war immediately. And by war, I mean decimating everything that is corrupt. Scorched earth policy immediately. But how realistic is that?

                  Who will lead when we have so much disagreement within our ranks?

                  When you can’t even fucking stop spreading lies about 9/11 then how can we possibly succeed in organizing for war when we do not have the truth?

                  Without the truth, no prophet.

                • X says:

                  [* comment deleted because it refers to “massive evidence* without actually presenting any of this massive evidence*]

                • X says:

                  It is deceptive and manipulative…

                  Freudian slip of honesty.

                  As if there’s any valid justification at all for censoring the a few selective posts of those you are debating with on a blog with 524 comments.

                • jim says:

                  I censor repetitious and unsupported lies, in order to spare reader bandwidth.

                  Troofers lie incessantly and shamelessly, and do so with conscious knowledge that are lying, which knowledge is betrayed by their use of tactics such as getting the customer to think past the sale – their rhetorical techniques indicate conscious awareness that troofism is a manipulative fraud.

                  I am not censoring facts. I am censoring manipulative posts that use substitutes for facts, such as assuming the sale. If you have evidence or argument, post it.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  he firefighters even say that it was WTC exploding and say the building is going to be coming down soon.

                  Wow, nanothermite AND explosives AND weakened supports AND a jet flying into the building – the whole thing was planned by some real belt and suspenders guys, eh?

                • X says:

                  Of course everything was blown outwards.

                  Dimwit I wrote that the concrete beams at the front side of the Pentagon were blown such that they angled outwards, not inwards as would be the case if they were struck from something from the outside.

                  There is no such thing as nano grade thermite, and if such a thing existed, it would degrade almost instantly, because the finer the thermite powder, the faster it degrades, which sets a practical limit on how fine you can make thermite powder.

                  And thermite of any kind had been used to bring down the towers, you would not find thermite in the residue. You would find blobs of iron that had melted and then refrozen as characteristic and distinctive droplets, which form whenever molten iron is splashed about and just allowed to re-harden at random – which no one has found, no one has found any iron that melted and refroze therefore no thermite.

                  Hey “Jimbob”, this smoking gun video refutes everything you have written and thought:

                  youtube.com /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

                  Make sure you watch all the way to the end.

                • X says:

                  The light in the videos comes from molten steel

                  Nope. It comes from the thermite reacting with the oxygen in the air. Once the thermite reaction has completed and then we are left with molten steel which is not that bright flash of light we see from the reactions. Jim seriously you are not qualified to judge anything related to engineering and physics. You make silly fundamental errors.

                • ui says:

                  > > The light in the videos comes from molten steel

                  > Nope. It comes from the thermite reacting with the oxygen in the air.

                  Liar:

                  Everything you say is a blatant barefaced and you are not deluded, you know full well you lie, because you change your story from one breath to the next.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4

                  At 31 seconds into the video, the molten iron starts to pour off the car. The molten iron is too bright for the camera to see properly, even though the camera sensitivity is cranked right down so that broad daylight is too dark to see properly.

                  At 42 seconds into the video, we see molten iron pouring off, and broad daylight is darkness in comparison, the intense light of the molten steel saturating its surroundings.

                  Obviously that is molten iron, and the mythbuster narration refers to it as molten iron, telling us that molten iron is too bright to look at except through goggles.

                  This is what molten steel looks like.

                  And the burning liquid pouring out of the two towers looks absolutely nothing like that. Looks like burning jet fuel, or molten aluminum carrying burning bodies and burning seat cushions.

                • X says:

                  Jim get a big picture clue as to what is really going on:

                  armstrongeconomics.com /international-news/politics/deep-state-using-discredit-strategy-to-drive-trump-from-office-to-what-end/

                  bitcointalk.org /index.php?topic=4675898.msg43123568#msg43123568

                  At 31 seconds into the video, the molten iron starts to pour off the car.

                  If that is molten steel dripping on to the car (it’s not very clear), the brightness of what is dripping at the point in the video, looks roughly equivalent to the brightness of what was pouring out of the WTC tower. I said the brightness of the initial burst of the thermite was not molten steel. Later any molten steel (if that is actually molten steel, not so clear) is not that bright. Also you prefer to focus on the irrelevant, because as I have already stated that molten steel obviously has different brightness in different ambient settings, camera proximity, proximity of the cold objects which the detail impacts and explodes off of due to the temperature differential causing increased radiance, etc.. Meaning you ignore all the holistic evidence of the controlled demolitions.

                • jim says:

                  > > At 31 seconds into the video, the molten iron starts to pour off the car.

                  > If that is molten steel dripping on to the car (it’s not very clear), the brightness of what is dripping at the point in the video, looks roughly equivalent to the brightness of what was pouring out of the WTC towe

                  Liar.

                  That video is in full sunlight, and full sunlight is darkness, because the light from the molten iron dripping off the car is so intense.

                  I have seen molten iron. I know what it looks like. It is too bright to look at, it floods its surroundings with its burning intense light, and that is what we see in each and every video where we know what is being filmed is in fact molten iron. Molten iron overwhelms the capacity of the camera to register the brightness, overwhelms the human eye.

                  Whereas what see in the World Trade Tower videos is only normal flame bright, probably a river of burning jet fuel carrying burning seat cushions and burning human body parts.

                  > Later any molten steel (if that is actually molten steel, not so clear) is not that bright.

                  Liar. Anyone can see what the video shows. If it is still molten and dripping, it is brighter than sunlight, vastly brighter than sunlight.

                  > Also you prefer to focus on the irrelevant, because as I have already stated that molten steel obviously has different brightness in different ambient settings,

                  Liar.

                  Every single video shows it saturating the capability of the camera. Videos taken in broad daylight show it far brighter, enormously brighter, than normal daylight.

                  Your preferred frame of your preferred video showed it saturating the camera and enormously brighter than the World Trade Tower. Every video, including the preferred frame of your preferred video, shows the same thing.

                  > camera proximity, proximity of the cold objects which the detail impacts and explodes off of due to the temperature differential causing increased radiance, etc..

                  You cannot a video that shows anything any different. Molten iron is intensely bright. I know what it looks like with my own eyes, and the videos, every video, show the same thing except that the capability of the camera is overwhelmed by the dazzling brightness.

                  The difference between the Trade Tower videos, and every video of molten iron, is obvious, conspicuous, and spectacular. Or rather molten iron pouring is spectacular, and whatever is pouring out of the Trade Tower is unspectacular.

                • X says:

                  The creators of the video of the car engine block melted with thermate (thermite mixed with sulfur which my prior linked video proves can cut steel with minimal amount of thermate), state unequivocally at 3:38 in the following linked video that the bright flashes are the molten thermite dust (not steel!) and that later the molten steel from the engine block dumps out the bottom of car. Also from 5:00 forward there are numerous photos of molten steel in the ruble pile weeks after 9/11 as well as addition photos of angle cut steel beams.

                  youtube.com /watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A
                  (9/11 Inside Job – The Most Damning Evidence Yet!)

                  THE FOLLOWING ENTIRELY DEBUNKS YOU. At exactly the split-second start of the 0:38 in the following linked video, we see the molten steel that is pouring out of the WTC twin tower bouncing off the exterior steel fascia of the building and making a very bight yellow hot bright color which only molten steel can. It is entirely impossible for molten aluminum mixed with anything to make that short of bright yellow explosive radiance when striking another object. I challenge you to find any video of molten aluminum pouring out and striking another object that appears anything like that. Molten aluminum pours out at the color of silvery white liquid.

                  youtube.com /watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE
                  (WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner)

                  Also in both of the above videos I see numerous instances of yellow hot molten steel, not just orange. The yellow hot looks as bright as what I have seen the foundry videos.

                  Finally starting from 0.48 in the following video we have Les Roberts—one of the chief structural engineers that built the WTC— stating the he saw molten steel closeup on 9/11.

                  youtube.com /watch?v=lDnbfXLUyI4
                  (Les Robertson confirms molten metal in WTC – AE911Truth.org)

                • jim says:

                  > The creators of the video of the car engine block melted with thermate (thermite mixed with sulfur which my prior linked video proves can cut steel with minimal amount of thermate)

                  Liar. Thermite is not effective at cutting steel, A quite thin piece of steel resists a lot of thermite, and this is in fact what each and every attempt to cut steel on you tube video proves.

                  > state unequivocally at 3:38 in the following linked video that the bright flashes are the molten thermite dust (not steel!) and that later the molten steel from the engine block dumps out the bottom of car.

                  Your video does not show evidence. It shows yet another troofer issuing the same old blatant lies that have already been discredited.

                  Does not show evidence, shows a talking head lying about the evidence.

                • X says:

                  Liar. Thermite is not effective at cutting steel, A quite thin piece of steel resists a lot of thermite

                  Jim you’re slobbering nonsense all over your bib. The video clearly states they are using thermate which is a mixture of thermite and sulfur. I had also linked a video for you up-thread (c.f. post linked below) which clearly shows that thermite mixed with sulfur can easily cut steel beams as thick as at the WTC towers:

                  https://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-perceptible-global-warming/#comment-1887191

                • jim says:

                  Talking heads can say anything, but videos show that thermite is slow and ineffectual in cutting steel, even quite thin steel, and thermate is completely incapable of cutting steel at all.

                • jim says:

                  You lie, for if you thought you were speaking truth, you would link to the video evidence, not videos of talking heads telling us what the videos supposedly show.

                • jim says:

                  The only things that cut steel effectively are the angle grinder and the oxygen lance, neither of which are all that fast.

                  Thermate on steel is as effectual as chewing gum.

                • jim says:

                  If you genuinely imagined that thermite or thermate or “nano thermite” could cut through a steel engine block, you would link to a video of it cutting through an engine block, not to a video of a talking head telling me that it can cut through a steel engine block.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  X, whether you want to or not, you’re presenting in a way that gives credibility to the official narrative.

                  Your very screen name sounds conspiratorial, like a guy who thinks he’d better call himself ‘X’ in case the CIA kicks his door down at 4am.

                  The terrible truth is, there’s a lot that was fishy about 9/11, but the fact there are so many people like you, with an infinite diversity of wacky stories that don’t add up and make no sense just makes people roll their eyes the minute anyone says that maybe the papers might not have been telling us quite the whole truth.

                  The Luggenpresse is highly adept at this.

                  Only this week we were all invited to a discussion as to whether America should attack Syria in light of the latest (soon to be) fake gas attack.

                  Meanwhile America really did drop white phosphorus bombs in Syria, the Russians reported on it, and the world saw it as an attempt to deflect attention from what Assad was possibly maybe thinking about considering doing at some point in the future, possibly.

                  What a fantastic strategy.

                  9/11’s exactly the same. Anyone who wonders why the Bin Ladens few out when all flights were grounded; anyone who wonders why all the (((entrepreneurs))) had readily available alternative office accommodation in place ***IN NY CITY AT SHORT NOTICE***; anyone who sees weird patterns of prescient pre-reporting…… looks just like you, because you establish (understandably) the impression in normal people’s minds that there are just loads of idiots talking crap about 9/11.

                • X says:

                  You lie, for if you thought you were speaking truth, you would link to the video evidence, not videos of talking heads telling us what the videos supposedly show.

                  I provided the video link twice already that shows thermite mixed with sulfur cutting steel beams the size of those that were inside the twin towers:

                  youtube.com /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

                  you’re presenting in a way that gives credibility to the official narrative

                  Only an idiot who doesn’t bother to actually read all the sources I provide and view all the videos I linked to, could possibly make that conclusion.

                • jim says:

                  > I provided the video link twice already that shows thermite mixed with sulfur cutting steel beams the size of those that were inside the twin towers:

                  > youtube.com /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

                  Does not show that. Shows someone claiming it, not showing it. Narrator lies, you lie.

                • jim says:

                  I provided the video link twice already that shows thermite mixed with sulfur cutting steel beams the size of those that were inside the twin towers:

                  youtube.com /watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

                  Not what that video shows. The narrator tells me that thermite mixed with sulfur cuts steel beams, does not show thermite cutting steel beams.

                • jim says:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

                  Contrary to what I said above:

                  On examining the video more carefully, I find he does cut steel beams with thermite. He puts the thermite in a steel box, with sufur so that it sends a spray of hot thermite out to cut a beam, and does cut steel beams contrary to what I asserted. He does this by controlling the flow and spray of hot thermite, so that a jet of thermite sprays from a steel box in a narrow cutting beam against a steel beam

                  But, when he succeeds in cutting decent sized steel beam, still get a decent amount of molten iron pouring out and the incredible brightness of molten iron.

                  If he genuinely cuts, looks like regular pours of molten iron – stupendously bright. And when his cutting succeeds, it is because a large box containing thermite is spraying thermite against a much narrower piece of iron. Still takes a lot of thermite to get anywhere cutting a lot of iron.

                  He proves that by efficiently containing and directing thermite, he can cut steel using a lot less thermite than other people used. but it is still rather a lot of thermite cutting rather a small amount of steel, and if a decent amount of steel is cut, get a indecent amount of molten iron, with similarly indecent brightness

                  His trick is focus. He uses a steel box to focus and direct a spray of a large amount of thermite onto a small amount of steel beam. Still needs quite a lot of thermite, and generates quite a lot of insane brightness if cutting a decent size steel beam. The sulfur is to generate gas pressure to blow the thermite onto target.

                  But yes, contrary to what I claimed, he really does cut steel beams. And, contrary to what I claimed, you really could bring the two towers down with his methods – but you would need a whole lot of big boxes containing large amounts of thermite, which would then generate large amounts of molten steel – which would be conspicuously visible, and insanely bright.

                • X says:

                  Every major country’s leaders and/or military has executed a false-flag to garnish public support for war:

                  zerohedge.com /news/2018-09-11/911-context

                  Why do you delude yourself into thinking the USA is an exception.

                • jim says:

                  The Syrian gas attacks were false flag.

                  The 911 attacks were exactly what they seemed

                • X says:

                  But yes, contrary to what I claimed, he really does cut steel beams. And, contrary to what I claimed, you really could bring the two towers down with his methods – but you would need a whole lot of big boxes containing large amounts of thermite, which would then generate large amounts of molten steel – which would be conspicuously visible, and insanely bright.

                  Bravo!

                  Well, well (surprising and perhaps this is evidence that Jim is not a disinformation agent) Jim’s cognitive dissonance has begun to melt just ever so slightly, but he clings to some other lame excuses to try to prevent himself from knowing the truth.

                  This is analogous (as a categorical dual) to the excuses of Eric S. Raymond who has a vested interest to cling to the official story because he hates Islam ostensibly because it enslaves females. Whereas, Jim is envious of Islam and thinks Mueller (as FBI head then) allowed 9/11 to happen because the left hates white males. Both of these men are duped by their confirmation biases which cause them to be unwilling to actually review the detailed evidence trail holistically. We see how when Jim is presented with some isolated instance of irrefutable physical evidence (of thermate cutting steel), it chips away at his cognitive dissonance protective armor but Jim’s protective confirmation bias is stronger than his desire to do a highly detailed, deep dive, objective research of this issue. This ideological societalcide exhibited by both Jim and Eric (funny that the two anatagonists share the categorical dual myopia) is at the generative essence of why for example Intel has lost the process technology lead to Asia:

                  steemit.com /money/@anonymint/re-quillfiller-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-countries-vulnerable-to-economic-devastation-soon-20180912t071854717z
                  (above linked post has nothing about nor any back links about 9/11)

                  So it is ironic that while Jim is correct about the SJW disease, he is suffering the categorical dual ideological delusion and thus helping to destroy Western civilization.

                  Jim so the argument you are making now (as you pivot away from your defeated argument that a thermite mixture can’t cut steel) is that number of cutting boxes, the amount of thermate required, and the resultant molten steel would be too extensive and conspicuous.

                  Yet in my most recent Steemit blog which I linked in earlier comments but you deleted, I have provided extensive analysis and eye witness testimony on how the alleged Bush-conglomerate perpetrators had the access they need over the preceding months (even hearing strange noises of construction). As for the molten steel pouring out, we have that. But you think we should see it pouring out more extensively. Note that the design of the WTC twin towers was unique in that most structural of the steel is all vertical in the center where the elevators shafts are. Thus that structural steel in the center could be cut with the molten steel falling down the elevator shafts. And we have video evidence of people who were burned with their flesh falling off in the basement. As for the horizontal steel beams holding up the floors, these were hidden and only accessible by workmen. It is entirely plausible that over the months in which the Bush-conglomerate companies has access, they could have installed catch basins for the molten steel cuts. The cuts would be only every say 10 meters of steel beam. Also note the one corner were we allege to see molten steel pouring out, is where the plane damage was extensive. So we can imagine such catch basins could have been damaged by the plane impact. Even we have so many eye-witness accounts of these explosions going off inside the building for a long time before the actual collapse. Even we have so many witnesses stating the air they were breathing smelled like sulfer not normal smoke. Yet you will still claim we should see more bright flashes of light from the outside. But realize these explosions could have limited to nearer to the center away from the exterior walls, until the final collapse when the pulverized concrete dust was obscuring most everything. In fact on the collapse video we see these explosions and squibs at the exterior firing just before the near free-fall collapse reaches those lower-level floors. IOW, they weakened the building with thermate cuts at the center structure for numerous minutes before the final highly explosive, controlled demolition phase.

                • jim says:

                  You keep asserting that you have irrefutable evidence of all these things.

                  But you never link to this irrefutable evidence. You link to other people claiming to have irrefutable evidence. And their evidence is other people, probably yourself, claiming to have irrefutable evidence.

                  When your guy successfully demonstrates thermite cutting though some serious steel, does not look much like the World Trade Tower.

                • X says:

                  Jim I think you might enjoy the end of the following linked post which is a real world recent example of possible shit testing scenario in the workplace that you describe in your blogs. The lady involved is now a HR adviser for tech companies:

                  steemit.com /money/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-countries-vulnerable-to-economic-devastation-soon-20180912t113824986z

                  (the above linked post does contain one buried back link to 9/11 but that is not the focus of the post)

                • X says:

                  Jim, this is a serious post. Is Trump (or the military?) preparing a massive coup!?

                  Check this out:

                  steemit.com /news/@dill3166/51-701-sealed-indictments-prove-a-shadow-war-is-happening

                  I have not fact checked it. No time to do so.

                • jim says:

                  Only creeping coups are visible in advance. Trump is not in position to perform a creeping coup.

                  Therefore, you will not know about a Trump coup until after it happens – and if done correctly, not for some time after it happens.

                • X says:

                  Jim here is the most irrefutable photo I have seen yet of molten steel in the rubble:

                  steemit.com /politics/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-succinct-absolute-truth-about-9-11-and-las-vegas-massacre-20180915t164833948z

                  Also I am linking my post there (which contains the image of the molten steel) because I have condensed a lot of the scientific arguments in one post. For example, what was pouring out the twin tower before it collapsed alleged to be molten steel, could not be jet fuel because it would have a dark grey smoke trail which we do not see. I didn’t think of that below.

                  Also I wanted to link to that above to expose what a fraud our host Eric Raymond is. At least you allow some discussion, so I have to backtrack on accusing you of being a fraud. I now think you are just highly invested in your bias.

                  After I get the decentralized Wikipedia working, then we can have a deep dive on the evidence there. Hope you will participate! Decentralized will mean you can’t be censored.

                  Okay end the fight now. I am satisfied that you have us a fair shake. And I do not have time to argue it in more detail now. Later when we have the decentralized site for making it a worthwhile effort.

                  Please stop thinking I am a plant from the left! Cripes man. I am just a s/w developer.

                • jim says:

                  > Jim here is the most irrefutable photo I have seen yet of molten steel in the rubble:

                  I know what molten steel looks like. You know what molten steel looks like. And I know, and you know, that that is not molten steel.

                  If that is the most irrefutable photo there is, you are refuted.

                  Last night, I set the barbecue burning, and my girlfriend roasted some pork. And after she took the pork inside, what I saw inside my barbecue looked very like that photo.

                • X says:

                  Jim do you understand the process for mining coal or producing charcoal from for example coconuts in the Philippines? Can you explain how a toppled building can spontaneously manufacture charcoal?

                  The white smoke in the image tells us the temperature is in excess of 1,000°F.

                  Do choose to ignore what the construction crew wrote:

                  Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F.

                  9/11 is indeed refuted in the minds of those who do not understand engineering and physics. IOW, those who do not understand the laws of nature are indeed duped. What is your rebuttal my friend?

                • jim says:

                  Yes, I have seen charcoal burning the in the Philippines. And tonight we had another barbecue, there was white smoke, and glowing coals similar to your photo, and the temperature was not “in excess of 1,000°F.”

                  That glowing coals were mixed with black coals indicates that the temperature in your photo is barely hot enough to glow red – which is to say, cooler than my barbecue after dinner.

                • X says:

                  glowing coals similar to your photo, and the temperature was not “in excess of 1,000°F.”

                  Incorrect:

                  https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-temperature-at-which-coal-burns

                  You fail to understand seemingly every facet of physics. The mass of the yellow-orange portion and relative proximity determine how hot it feels to you.

                  Anyway, at least now I understand why most people are duped. Ignorance of physics seems to be widespread among the general population. No malice intended my friend. Keep up the good fight against the leftists.

                • jim says:

                  I just checked my barbecue again, which has burned down to a few dying hot coals again. Looks like your picture.

                • jim says:

                  That picture of burning coal is shows coal burning much hotter than your picture of “molten steel”.

                  Some of the coals in that picture of burning coal are yellow hot, flame hot. Your picture of “molten steel in the ruins of the 9/11 tower” is merely red hot, much like the coals in my barbecue after dinner.

                  Molten steel is white hot, and glows with brilliant light, too bright to look at, so bright as to drown out sunlight.

              • Yara says:

                >Taylor Swift is not Jewish

                Probably not, but the possibility amuses me enormously. And there is a reasonably strong possibility.

                >and those 5 Israelis were neither dancing nor Mossad agents

                You have my attention. I look forward to your plausible altstory.

                • signal says:

                  There is a strong possibility that Yara believes whatever the heck he wants to believe:

                  1) That the Mossad would send 5 of its agents to randomly dance when the towers were hit, because that’s just what intelligence operatives do, right? The possibility that these were 5 ordinary Israelis who (as Israelis tend to be) were boisterous and Middle-Eastern-like, were reported on suspicion of being terrorists themselves, arrested, released, then all went on prime time Israeli television to discuss the incident – that possibility is just not entertained, Occam’s Razor be damned. Once it is “established” (implausibly claimed) that the 5 Israelis “must have been” Mossad agents, it can then be argued that Israel did 9/11; quite convenient indeed.

                  2) That Stephen Paddock must have been a CIA/FBI patsy, possibly MKUltra’d too, because sending an old sociopath on a deadly suicide mission without even building a narrative about who he is and what his motives are, thus leading the entire nation to speculate about possible federal involvement, is just what CIA/FBI would do, right? That he himself was a conspiracy theorist Troofer nutcase, as reported by the prostitute he’s been with and by several other people who met him, and carried out the massacre *in order* to provoke the exact response it has provoked, is not entertained.

                  3) That Taylor Swift is Jewish, because a Jewish blogger trollishly said so to give 4chan a mindfuck, because “lol let’s believe things for shits and giggles.”

                  Yara is not someone you can trust to tell fact from fiction.

                • Yara says:

                  Five dancing Israelis is probably the weakest bit of evidence supporting the claim that Israel and her assets were in large part responsible for the controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Far stronger, for example, is the moving company van full of explosives and Overseas Israelis arrested by NYC police that fine day. Reportedly (read: I haven’t verified this, but I tentatively believe it to be true), there were multiple vans painted with murals depicting airplanes crashing into towers, with photographs on Google Images if you should care to search for them. Does this suggest a set-up? Let’s talk about it.

                  Nothing about the Las Vegas shooting makes any sense to me — not then, not now — and I was watching the videos in almost-real-time as they were published to Youtube and the chans. Some tentative possible connections: arms deal gone awry; Saudi Arabia coup; gun control push; something to do with Trump. Watching the PR footage of Vegas police, though, the body language of dishonesty is glaringly obvious.

                  Less further information, I hereby give Taylor Swift a formal Jewishness Probability Index of 27% on the basis of strange facial features suggesting Eastern European ancestry.

                  P.S. Stephen Miller is the world’s greatest Jew.

                • jim says:

                  These stories are all lies. No dancing Israelis, no moving company van full of explosives, no overseas Israelis arrested by NYC police that day, no vans painted with murals depicting planes crashing into towers that day.

                • Roberto says:

                  Re: Taylor Swift.

                  It says, “Ethnicity: German, English, some Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish/Northern Irish, Welsh, 1/16th Italian, as well as distant French, Swedish, Dutch, and Belgian Walloon.”

                  How do you go from “there is something vaguely Slavic about her face” (but she is not Slavic) to 27% probability of Jewishness? I think you’re just trying to troll Peppermint or something.

                  Re: Vegas.

                  Have been investigating the issue quite a bit, and found no “smoking gun” that proves that The Official Narrative (lone crackpot accumulates stocks of arms over a year, snaps out at randos) is false. “People acting weird” may suggest that something is off, but that’s not much of a confirmation.

                  Re: 9/11.

                  Jim thinks that there was no controlled demolition. Joel van der Reijden, for whom I’m shilling a lot, is convinced that there was, e.g.:

                  https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidence-for-explosives-and-thermite-at-WTC

                  Anyway, Jim’s position, IIRC, is that the 9/11 truth movement was created by the government for the purpose of “damage control.” FBI / CIA / State Department are left-wing, therefore failed to prevent Muslims from pulling off 9/11, thus created a truth movement that paints the event as being purposely designed by various forces, thereby covering up USG’s embarrassing and PC-driven failure to prevent it.

                • jim says:

                  > Anyway, Jim’s position, IIRC, is that the 9/11 truth movement was created by the government for the purpose of “damage control.” FBI / CIA / State Department are left-wing, therefore failed to prevent Muslims from pulling off 9/11, thus created a truth movement that paints the event as being purposely designed by various forces, thereby covering up USG’s embarrassing and PC-driven failure to prevent it.

                  Exactly so.

                  Noticing bad Muslim behavior is forbidden. Noticing suspicious Muslim behavior is forbidden. Thus various red flags were ignored. The great tragedy of 9/11 was supposedly not that thousands were murdered, but that a policy of ignoring Muslim misbehavior was made to look bad.

                  The Troofer movement is the “lets go right on ignoring Muslim misbehavior” movement.

                  Jews have lots of irritating characteristics, but they are not fucking our women, except for the porno whores. We are fucking their women. Muslims are fucking our women. Killing people for coming up with an overly clever interpretation of a contract is absurd. Killing people for fucking your woman is completely sensible. We need to kill Muslims and enslave their women, not smash up Jewish pawn shops. You are not going to get anything of substantial value by smashing up a Jewish pawnshop.

                • jim says:

                  > Joel van der Reijden, for whom I’m shilling a lot, is convinced that there was, e.g.:

                  https://isgp-studies.com/911-evidence-for-explosives-and-thermite-at-WTC

                  None of the words in context are indicative that witnesses thought that there were literals explosions. The collapse caused events resembling explosions, it was not caused by events resembling explosions. The stream of burning material was only ordinarily flame hot, not thermite hot. Would have been far brighter if thermite hot.

                  If you watch the video frame by frame, the tower starts to tilt to one side and fall sideways, and as it does so, then there are events resembling explosions as the supports shatter, and then it goes into freefall downwards. First the collapse begins with a sideways rotation, then events resembling explosions, then the free fall, indicating the shattering of supports.

                  If literal explosions, if literal demolition, the explosions would have been first, then the free fall. There would have been no initial tilt.

                  The central claim of those arguing controlled demolition is initial free fall straight down, but this is simply not what we observe. Each collapse starts with the upper part rotating sideways, towards the part of the building that is most severely damaged and most severely on fire.

                  If the collapse is caused by impact damage and the fire softening steel beams whose insulation has been stripped by impact damage, collapse will start with a lean towards the impact holes and the fire. Which is what we in fact observe. The initial tilt of each tower points to Muslims, and to the American government turning a blind eye to obvious Muslim terrorists, to political correctness as the ultimate cause of 9/11

                • Koanic says:

                  Agreed Jim. However, a sufficient explanation is in practice often not the only causal factor. It is possible that the Israeli government, in concert with Silverstein, guided the Muslim operatives towards their final destination.

                • jim says:

                  Possibly. It is worth taking a closer look at the steadfast blindness of the authorities towards the terrorists, but all “controlled demolition”, “precision bombing” claims deflect attention from that issue, deflect from the left wing deep state, for which affirmative action for Muslims is a core value, to the right wing deep state.

                • Yara says:

                  >None of the words in context are indicative that witnesses thought that there were literals explosions. The collapse caused events resembling explosions, it was not caused by events resembling explosions. The stream of burning material was only ordinarily flame hot, not thermite hot. Would have been far brighter if thermite hot.

                  >If you watch the video frame by frame, the tower starts to tilt to one side and fall sideways, and as it does so, then there are events resembling explosions as the supports shatter, and then it goes into freefall downwards. First the collapse begins with a sideways rotation, then events resembling explosions, then the free fall, indicating the shattering of supports.

                  >If literal explosions, if literal demolition, the explosions would have been first, then the free fall. There would have been no initial tilt.

                  >The central claim of those arguing controlled demolition is initial free fall straight down, but this is simply not what we observe. Each collapse starts with the upper part rotating sideways, towards the part of the building that is most severely damaged and most severely on fire.

                  >If the collapse is caused by impact damage and the fire softening steel beams whose insulation has been stripped by impact damage, collapse will start with a lean towards the impact holes and the fire. Which is what we in fact observe. The initial tilt of each tower points to Muslims, and to the American government turning a blind eye to obvious Muslim terrorists, to political correctness as the ultimate cause of 9/11

                  Why do you never talk about WTC 7? It’s like it never…

                  even…

                  happened…

                • jim says:

                  > Why do you never talk about WTC 7? It’s like it never…

                  WTC 7 same as each of the others:

                  Massive impact damage, fire, tower tilts sideways towards the massive impact damage and the fire. WTC 7 rotates sideways like a falling tree till about twenty degrees off vertical, then the explosions and the free fall straight down.

                  Causation obvious, and directly traceable to affirmative action kid gloves treatment of Muslims.

                • Roberto says:

                  Lol, come on Yara. Here even Reijden is on Jim’s side, i.e.:

                  “How could any potential conspirators know for certain that the collapse of the North Tower would result in damage to Building 7 and fires breaking out here?”

                  In other words: the event-narrative you are weaving is unnecessarily convoluted. As such, even if there is an actual element of conspiracy perpetrated by CIA, FBI, Mossad, etc., it will be drowned out by the noise of bullsh*t.

                • X says:

                  Five dancing Israelis is probably the weakest bit of evidence supporting the claim that Israel and her assets were in large part responsible for the controlled demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7. Far stronger, for example, is the moving company van full of explosives and Overseas Israelis arrested by NYC police that fine day.

                  My father was West Coast Division Head Attorney during the Valdez Alaska spill in the 1980s. I think some of his legal skills make have rubbed off on me. You probably know this but never present your weakest arguments in a debate because your adversary will use these against you to steer the debate away from your stronger arguments.

                  Actually none of that is the strongest evidence of Israeli involvement in 9/11. The Mossad aspect is less irrefutable than the PHYSICAL evidence of demolitions. The Israeli connections are covered in that blog of mine that has the term mossad in the title. There are many, many details to that argument. For example that all the key security was transferred to Israeli owned front companies just before the attack. My blog cites more details.

                  Nothing about the Las Vegas shooting makes any sense to me — not then, not now

                  It’s irrefutable that there’s a cover-up. The government won’t even publish forensic evidence, nor all the videos. We know there are several video cameras on top of the hotel. None of this footage nor the detailed footage in all the hallways and stairwells of the hotel.

                  Also the Pentagon had several video cameras on the roof and none of this footage has been released. Clearly a cover-up by the government.

                • X says:

                  WTC 7 same as each of the others:

                  Massive impact damage, fire, tower tilts sideways towards the massive impact damage and the fire. WTC 7 rotates sideways like a falling tree till about twenty degrees off vertical, then the explosions and the free fall straight down.

                  I cite in my blog the expert explanations that refute everything you have written there. Frankly Jim I am losing respect for you. You’re clearly no engineer.

                  There have been many cases of fires in steel buildings, some of which were much worse and engulfed the entire building, and never has any of them collapsed from fire. The detailed explanations from engineers explain that it is absolutely impossible. Even one of NIST employees defected and I have him on video explaining in great detail why your above non-sequitur is absolute nonsense that only someone who has no knowledge of engineering would think.

                  Causation obvious, and directly traceable to affirmative action kid gloves treatment of Muslims.

                  You’re delusional hammer for every nail. Just like you want to blame the collapse of the West on females instead of on reality. Reality is the natural cycles caused by entropy and the corruption and complacency (see @simon above) that is decadence.

                  I do not have too much more time to waste here. So please make your best arguments now.

                • X says:

                  None of the words in context are indicative that witnesses thought that there were literals explosions. The collapse caused events resembling explosions, it was not caused by events resembling explosions.

                  I have a link to a video from my blog that I provided to you, which clearly has massive explosions in WTC7 a long time before the collapse.

                  Also I linked to witness testimony of this.

                  Btw, on the Pentagon the eye witnesses also include two police officers. So you can’t attack the credibility of the all witnesses.

                • jim says:

                  > have a link to a video from my blog that I provided to you, clearly has massive explosions in WTC7

                  You are changing the subject yet again. I asked for thermite. Further, It is not particularly obvious how I should find this video, or having found it, what part of the video would constitute “clearly having massive explosions”. When I have gone looking for such supposed evidence, always turns into a wild goose chase. If you claim evidence exists somewhere, need to provide more specific directions on how to find it, because troofer evidence can never actually be found.

                • Simon says:

                  I know X, I also lose respect for someone when I discover they are not an engineer.

                  What made you consider that moving to the Philippines as a forty year old man would be a superior strategy to suicide as a solution for your extreme existential despair?

                • X says:

                  What made you consider that moving to the Philippines as a forty year old man would be a superior strategy to suicide as a solution for your extreme existential despair?

                  You’re missing some information. My existential crisis began when I was five years old and my father ran away to Belize with some whore. So I suppose I had to get the demons out by copying him. But that is neither here nor there. Yeah I have suffered tremendously for being moved to a dozens different schools (even all negro schools in Baton Rouge) before graduating High School. And from having a leftist mother. But you see how strong I am. I still managed to for example get an A in Calculus at the University at night school while I was still in high school. Was still a good athlete. Taught myself everything about computers at age 13. Etc.. So please stop changing the subject.

                • Simon says:

                  I am not surprised by your life story.

                  Your actions reveal the poverty and incoherence of your worldview. You are not worth listening to.

                • X says:

                  You are not worth listening to.

                  Unfortunately you proclamations aren’t universal. My life goes on and many astute people choose to listen to me and ignore you. Because they don’t want to participate in your corrupt “I am better than you because I align myself with the corruption of a defection State.” Payback always comes. Hopefully you’re young enough to be around for another 10 years so you can experience the totalitarianism that is developing in Australia. What is really funny is y’all think those laws are only going to be applied to everyone but you:

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australia-adopts-presumption-of-guilt-denying-any-presumption-of-innocence-rejecting-all-principles-of-a-free-society/

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/australia-oceania/australian-police-want-a-new-law-to-covertly-turn-all-phones-into-listening-devices/

                  Jim probably thinks those laws are good for enforcing strict patriarchy, lol.

                  Go to be fun watching y’all crash and burn. My popcorn is ready.

                • X says:

                  Further, It is not particularly obvious how I should find this video, or having found it, what part of the video would constitute “clearly having massive explosions”.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-VNNB_j0bg

                • jim says:

                  Not an explosion. That is a crash. I know what explosions sound like.

                • X says:

                  I asked for thermite.

                  Military-grade nano-thermite:

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTOjccby-L4

                  These links are in my blog which I provided to you already.

                • jim says:

                  The links you give just repeat the same lies you already made, without providing any evidence for those lies either.

                  Typical troofer trail of breadcrumbs in the forest.

                  A troofer asserts something, and when asked for evidence, points to another troofer making the same assertion.

                  One hundred troofers all confidently asserting the same thing is not a reason to believe that thing.

                  Similarly, one hundred global warmers.

                • X says:

                  The links you give just repeat the same lies you already made, without providing any evidence for those lies.

                  Are you incapable of clicking the “Read More” link on the page I linked for you. Here let me hold your hand Jim:

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

                • jim says:

                  Still no evidence, just a never ending trail of breadcrumbs wherein one troofer makes an assertion backed by another troofer making the same assertion.

                  Evidence would have to start with an explanation as to how the troofer knows the fact claimed.

                  And that he knows it because some other troofer told him so is not an explanation.

                • X says:

                  Typical troofer trail of breadcrumbs in the forest.

                  Next I want to see you explain the pools of molten iron in the pit of the collapse that remained molten for weeks.

                  Are you insane Jim?

                • jim says:

                  There was no molten iron.

                  I know what metal that has melted, and then re-hardened in a random puddle looks like.

                • X says:

                  Not an explosion. That is a crash. I know what explosions sound like.

                  I can play the same obfuscation game you’re playing. Where is your proof that it is a crash? Crash of what? What caused the crash?

                  Anyway, you can try to wiggle away like a slimy worm defecting on your fellow man by promulgating the disinformation campaign on our slave masters, but the fact is you will never be able to disprove the molten pools of iron in the pit nor the physical evidence of military-grade nano-thermite.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim writes “Possibly. It is worth taking a closer look at the steadfast blindness of the authorities towards the terrorists, but all “controlled demolition”, “precision bombing” claims deflect attention from that issue, deflect from the left wing deep state, for which affirmative action for Muslims is a core value, to the right wing deep state.”

                  Exactly right, this is why troofers used to piss me off so. It was clearly not aimed at pressing for further investigation into FBI incompetence and Saudi bribery of our government but was used to take the heat off of Muslims.

                  I’m glad that Alex Jones (who I used to hate for that) seems to have become (if still crazy in many ways) much more sensible along these lines and a hardcore Trump supporter.

                • X says:

                  Still no evidence, just a never ending trail of breadcrumbs wherein one troofer makes an assertion backed by another troofer making the same assertion.

                  Evidence would have to start with an explanation as to how the troofer knows the fact claimed.

                  Are you incapable of using a computer Jim?

                  https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf

                • X says:

                  There was no molten iron.

                  Are you incapable of seeing the large photo on the page I linked for you with a molten piece of metal being dug out of the pit?

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

                  Are you refuting the dozens of eye witness testimonies (including firemen) of the molten pool and the intense heat below?

                  Are you refuting the satellite photos which show the intense heat of the molten pool?

                • X says:

                  Anyway, Jim’s position, IIRC, is that the 9/11 truth movement was created by the government for the purpose of “damage control.” FBI / CIA / State Department are left-wing, therefore failed to prevent Muslims from pulling off 9/11, thus created a truth movement that paints the event as being purposely designed by various forces, thereby covering up USG’s embarrassing and PC-driven failure to prevent it.

                  Exactly so.

                  Noticing bad Muslim behavior is forbidden. Noticing suspicious Muslim behavior is forbidden. Thus various red flags were ignored. The great tragedy of 9/11 was supposedly not that thousands were murdered, but that a policy of ignoring Muslim misbehavior was made to look bad.

                  The Troofer movement is the “lets go right on ignoring Muslim misbehavior” movement.

                  Next Jim will claim a grand leftist conspiracy of witnesses, 1000s of “leftist” engineers, etc.. And notice how he shifts the mind of his weak-minded reader back to his enslavement thesis. Got to keep those whites focused on a politicized scapegoat so the minions of faithful here at this flog will not focus on who their real slave masters are.

                  Perhaps Jim works for our slave masters (either knowingly or implicitly).

                  White men are so easily divided-and-conquered because our ressentiment. Precisely as Nietzsche predicted. @simon’s bad behavior in this flog is a perfect example of what Nietzsche predicted. Jim is following Nietzsche scripted outcome perfectly.

                • jim says:

                  > Next Jim will claim a grand leftist conspiracy of witnesses, 1000s of “leftist” engineers,

                  You have zero witnesses, and near zero engineers supporting you claims. If you had one witness, would have provided him, instead of saying “thousands”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “1000s of “leftist” engineers, etc.”

                  Well they CAN do that with shilling for global warming (except substitute scientist for engineers) but not too many engineers back the controlled demo theory. There are a very very few and that doesn’t mean they are wrong but its unlikely.

                  Plus to do controlled demo you have to wire buildings for controlled demo and there is just no evidence this was ever done and it would be almost impossible to conceal doing that. Plus it would involve masses of the most honest group of people in existence tradesmen keeping their mouth shut or all being quickly killed with no one noticing after 9/11 and probably before.

                  All in all exceedingly unlikely if not impossible.

                • Yara says:

                  >Massive impact damage, fire, tower tilts sideways towards the massive impact damage and the fire. WTC 7 rotates sideways like a falling tree till about twenty degrees off vertical, then the explosions and the free fall straight down.

                  1. Minor superficial damage; zero observable structural damage.
                  2. Skyscrapers invulnerable to fire.
                  3. Visually indistinguishable from any other controlled demolition.
                  4. The proprietor literally said on readily accessible video that he ordered its demolition.

                  >It exploded, but it did not explode.

                  This is how I feel right now: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Y8vCbIUifr8

                  >Causation obvious, and directly traceable to affirmative action kid gloves treatment of Muslims.

                  The only competent Muslims are Chechens, and the most they’ve managed to accomplish in recent history is a small rebellion against weak and womanly rump state Yeltsin Rus.

                • jim says:

                  > > Massive impact damage, fire, tower tilts sideways towards the massive impact damage and the fire. WTC 7 rotates sideways like a falling tree till about twenty degrees off vertical, then the explosions and the free fall straight down.

                  > 1. Minor superficial damage; zero observable structural damag

                  Massive damage, surprising building seven did not fall down immediately. Great big holes all over one side of the building look structural enough to me.

                  > 2. Skyscrapers invulnerable to fire.

                  Not invulnerable to fire after having big holes blasted in them. The force of the impact would have stripped the fire insulation off the steel beams.

                  And even with no fire, surprising it was still standing up.

                  > 3. Visually indistinguishable from any other controlled demolition.

                  Barefaced lie. Controlled demolitions fall straight down. Tower seven tilted sideways like a falling tree, the collapse starting on the damaged side of the building.

                • Yara says:

                  >The Troofer movement is the “lets go right on ignoring Muslim misbehavior” movement.

                  When you debase the word “truth” and label those interested in it political activists, you commit a crime against nature and against yourself. Truth is a hallowed thing and truth-seeking a sacred activity. Repugnant!

                  >Jews have lots of irritating characteristics, but they are not fucking our women, except for the porno whores. We are fucking their women. Muslims are fucking our women. Killing people for coming up with an overly clever interpretation of a contract is absurd. Killing people for fucking your woman is completely sensible. We need to kill Muslims and enslave their women, not smash up Jewish pawn shops. You are not going to get anything of substantial value by smashing up a Jewish pawnshop.

                  Straight-up prevarication, 100-proof, undiluted.

                  If Israeli intelligence assets were involved in the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7, or an attack on the Pentagon, we need to know, and we need to act upon that information as part of a comprehensive reckoning that exerts most of its justice-bringing activities not on enemies from without but traitors from within. Faced with an enemy and a traitor, armed with one bullet, let the traitor have it.

                  “Terrorism” is a farce. Muslims are completely impotent. ISIS is a paper-thin apparition created by Madame Secretary Clinton and her pet, John McCain, may he rest in chaos. “They’re fucking our women” is disinfo-agit-prop, the phenomenon itself proxy terror warfare, frightening only to little children ignorant of the man behind the curtain.

                • jim says:

                  > If Israeli intelligence assets were involved in the destruction of WTC 1, 2, and 7, or an attack on the Pentagon, we need to know

                  But, you are telling us lies about it. You make all sorts of extraordinary claims, with zero evidence, and no real explanation.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yara writes “The only competent Muslims are Chechens”

                  My point is they don’t have to be all that competent when the FBI field agents who are supposed to be arresting terrorists and did notice MOST (if not all) of the 9/11 hijackers were prepping a large scale terrorist act were not allowed to touch them.

                  That is the biggest REAL 9/11 conspiracy theory.

                • jim says:

                  Troofism is not only untrue, but it is an untruth that points in the opposite direction to the real conspiracy, which inclines me to believe that it is issued by the real conspiracy – that it is an effort to distract us from the bad consequences of affirmative action in favor of official victim groups that are inclined to criminal conduct.

                • Yara says:

                  >The central claim of those arguing controlled demolition is initial free fall straight down
                  >There would have been no initial tilt.

                  Strawman.

                  The central claim of those arguing controlled demolition is non-localized collapse of any kind.

                • jim says:

                  Fine. Make one specific concrete claim and we will argue that one.

                  The tower tilting over is what we would expect to see if it was caused by impact and fire. What then is your evidence for demolition? Make a specific concrete claim “It must be demolition because of such and such”

                • jim says:

                  > The central claim of those arguing controlled demolition is non-localized collapse of any kind

                  The collapse of building seven started on the damaged side of the building. That is localized.

                • Yara says:

                  >That is the biggest REAL 9/11 conspiracy theory.

                  And it’s probably true: no one operates on American soil unless the agencies want them to. But it’s only enough to get the airplanes to crash into the buildings (which is bad enough), not for the buildings to come down.

                • Yara says:

                  >You are changing the subject yet again. I require thermite. etc. etc. etc.

                  Your disturbingly mobile goalposts are obvious to everyone else but yourself.

                • Yara says:

                  >X,

                  >You probably know this but never present your weakest arguments in a debate because your adversary will use these against you to steer the debate away from your stronger arguments.

                  You’re absolutely right, and for this I apologize.

                  >There have been many cases of fires in steel buildings, some of which were much worse and engulfed the entire building, and never has any of them collapsed from fire. The detailed explanations from engineers explain that it is absolutely impossible.

                  Exactly so.

                  >Just like you want to blame the collapse of the West on females instead of on reality. Reality is the natural cycles caused by entropy and the corruption and complacency (see @simon above) that is decadence.

                  I’m increasingly inclined to agree with you, though I consider it less an inviolable law of nature than an engineering problem.

                  >You’re clearly no engineer.

                  He might be, but the engineering apparatus is clearly subservient to the Bogan Boomer crimestop.

                  >I have a link to a video from my blog that I provided to you, which clearly has massive explosions in WTC7 a long time before the collapse.

                  One can also reference the 14-minute, 23-angle video link I posted above, which from some angles shows coordinated inner structure implosion preceding main structure collapse in excess of 5 seconds.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The entire “controlled demolition” theory is retarded on its face.

                  Obviously the controlled demolition team didn’t care about avoiding casualties so there’s no motivation to stage a controlled demolition triggered by a pair of aircraft hitting the buildings (which obviously happened as I personally witnessed – along with thousands of others) as opposed to simply putting a truck or multiple trucks with explosives on site and using those as the trigger / cover. Ok, that’s not splashy enough – gotta have a jet flying into the buildings to sex it up! If so there’s absolutely no reason to bother with the controlled demolition. A jet flying into an office tower which (of course) does minimal damage (sure) and only kills the passengers aboard the flights and all the people on the floor of and above the crash – well that’s just not going to accomplish the planners aims! Gotta have the buildings collapse too!

                  It’s just pure insanity – making this overly complex plan for no gain when any part of it works for whatever aim you claim they’re going for.

                  Of course, the alternative story where the government is leftist controlled and so looks the other way when Muslims do Muslim things is easily seen on a daily basis.

                  9/11 truthers are a combination of insane and stupid.

                • Roberto says:

                  >When you debase the word “truth” and label those interested in it political activists, you commit a crime against nature and against yourself. Truth is a hallowed thing and truth-seeking a sacred activity. Repugnant!

                  By calling it “Troofism,” Jim mocks the Orwellian nature of a movement that spreads nothing but lies aimed at shielding the government from criticism.

                • peppermint says:

                  “Military-grade” is meaningless.

                  “Nano-thermite”, if it means anything, means ultrafine powders milled in an oxygen free environment so the aluminum doesn’t oxidize too much. May have different properties from the usual stuff, idk.

                  “military-grade nano-thermite” sounds like you’re trying to lie about chemistry and physics on the Internet as if these reactionaries you found who you respect actually are just as ignorant as everyone else.

                  Timed detonation to match an airplane flying over is utterly retarded. Was the airplane then crashed into the ocean?

                • Calvin says:

                  >“Terrorism” is a farce. Muslims are completely impotent. ISIS is a paper-thin apparition created by Madame Secretary Clinton and her pet, John McCain, may he rest in chaos. “They’re fucking our women” is disinfo-agit-prop, the phenomenon itself proxy terror warfare, frightening only to little children ignorant of the man behind the curtain.

                  What the hell are you babbling about, Muslim terror has been a known phenomenon ever since anyone wrote anything at all about Muslims. Allah’s akbars doing it fits perfectly into their modus operadi and the known characteristics of leftists vis a vis Muslims. Major Hassan gave a goddamn powerpoint presentation about how and why he was going to murder his audience and they piously ignored it right up until he actually did it. Whereupon the survivors mouthed platitudes about diversity. This mental crimestop far better fits the facts and motivations of the government than them suddenly developing hypercompetent secret demolition squads so they can go wage war in Afghanistan.

                • Yara says:

                  >Massive damage, surprising building seven did not fall down immediately. Great big holes all over one side of the building look structural enough to me.

                  Lie.

                  No holes; medium-sized gashes on the exterior; insignificant fires. The structure is on the inside, where no falling debris penetrated.

                  >Not invulnerable to fire after having big holes blasted in them.

                  Lie.

                  No holes; medium-sized gashes on the exterior; insignificant fires limited to a few scattered floors. Example.

                  >The force of the impact would have stripped the fire insulation off the steel beams.

                  Lie.

                  99% of all steel beam surface area was not in any way exposed.

                  >Controlled demolitions fall straight down.

                  Truth.

                  >Tower seven tilted sideways like a falling tree, the collapse starting on the damaged side of the building.

                  Lie.

                  A sufficiently damaged skyscraper could conceivably topple like a tree. WTC 7 did not. Example.

                • Yara says:

                  >But, you are telling us lies about it. You make all sorts of extraordinary claims, with zero evidence, and no real explanation.


                  Lie.

                  I have made one hard claim, namely that WTC 7 was felled by a routine controlled demolitions operation. In support of this claim, I have supplied numerous primary sources, including the videotaped admission of the building’s proprietor.

                  You refuse to see what is before your very eyes.

                • Yara says:

                  >Troofism is not only untrue, but it is an untruth that points in the opposite direction to the real conspiracy which inclines me to believe that it is issued by the real conspiracy – that it is an effort to distract us from the bad consequences of affirmative action in favor of official victim groups that are inclined to criminal conduct.

                  Affirmative action, for all its faults (which are legion), has never in any way facilitate the Muslim hijackings of any airplanes anywhere in the world, ever.

                  You are implicitly accusing me of favoring Muslims somehow, but your claim falls dramatically and catastrophically flat. Muslims are contemptible creatures, but so incompetent as to be utterly harmless to anyone but themselves — when not choreographed from above like the pawns that they are. And even then, with pretty much unlimited American support, they were still unable to serve as functional ground troops for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s ISIS/ISIL — an, as you so elegantly put it, real conspiracy.

                • Yara says:

                  >By calling it “Troofism,” Jim mocks the Orwellian nature of a movement that spreads nothing but lies aimed at shielding the government from criticism.


                  And yet in so doing Jim is shielding the American government from criticism, which was certainly involved, the Israeli government from criticism, which was probably involved, and the Saudi government from criticism, which was possibly involved.

                • jim says:

                  You lie shamelessly, for every time someone points to a hole in your troofer account of 911, you change your troofer account to yet another incompatible troofer account, revealing that you do not actually believe any of the innumerable mutually incompatible troofer accounts that you give us with such great confidence.

                  You speak for men who thought the great tragedy of Fort Hood was not that major Nidal Hasan shot their friends and colleagues, but that by doing so he cast doubt on Muslims getting affirmative actioned over whites and Christians.

                  You speak for men who refuse to enforce the law on Muslim rapists, because it would put them over their arrest quota and make the mass importation of rapeugees to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat look bad.

                  You tell us you are a reactionary and a nationalist in one breath, and in another breath assure us Muslims are not a problem.

                • Yara says:

                  >What the hell are you babbling about, Muslim terror has been a known phenomenon ever since anyone wrote anything at all about Muslims. Allah’s akbars doing it fits perfectly into their modus operadi and the known characteristics of leftists vis a vis Muslims. Major Hassan gave a goddamn powerpoint presentation about how and why he was going to murder his audience and they piously ignored it right up until he actually did it. Whereupon the survivors mouthed platitudes about diversity.

                  And the Barbary pirates were an omnipresent terror for anyone doing anything near the Mediterranean: sailing, shipping, fighting or just simply living. Hell, the Moors even overran the Iberian Peninsula and part of Italy for several hundred years, no doubt raping the shit out of the local gene pool.

                  That all ended with the Industrial Revolution. Muslims are incapable of industry, whether by religion or biology — probably both. The only reason, literally the only reason, that anyone anywhere cares about the UAE or any other country in the Middle East, besides Israel which has actual human capital, is because of its oil.

                  >This mental crimestop far better fits the facts and motivations of the government

                  Our rulers — our real rulers, e.g. Hillary Clinton — are literal child-fucking psychopaths. They aren’t crimestopped. They know exactly what they’re doing. Their minions are crimestopped to varying degrees.

                  >than them suddenly developing hypercompetent secret demolition squads so they can go wage war in Afghanistan.

                  The people staffing the high echelons of USG are not the mouthbreathing morons of your neighborhood DMV. They are, without exception, to a man (or woman, because apparently that’s a thing now), 99th percentile or above. This may be uncomfortable to realize, but it’s true.

                  Don’t underestimate those who want you dead.

                • Yara says:

                  >Yes, we have plenty of real evidence for bad people doing bad things leading to 911. In particular, plenty of real evidence of bad people in the FBI, the same bad people who are now attempting a creeping coup against Trump.
                  
>And all of the tall troofer tales point away from those bad people doing bad things.

                  Not so. The fact that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished makes it 1000x worse for our own homegrown traitors. Yeah, it’s bad for Israel… yeah, it’s bad for Saudi Arabia… but they are small potatoes, relatively speaking.

                  Without demolition, there were plausibly some bad actors in the American government that deactivated the air defense systems and such, but nothing was really covered up so as to cause a literal people’s uprising in the manner of a swarm of people descending on Washington, D.C. like a plague of locusts descends onto a hale and hearty crop field.

                  With demolition, it becomes strikingly and unignorably apparent that not only were foreign nationals responsible for heretofore unrequited attacks on American soil (contrary to the bin Laden narrative (rah! rah! rah!)), but that the truth of the event was blatantly… flagrantly… traitorously covered up and then lied about, for nearly two decades now(!), by every. single. individual. and institution. of any. significance. whatsoever. in America, and the entire rest of the world.</b

                • Yara says:

                  >for every time someone points to a hole in your troofer account of 911, you change your troofer account to yet another incompatible troofer account, revealing that you do not actually believe any of the innumerable mutually incompatible troofer accounts that you give us with such great confidence

                  Identify one such contradiction and I will desist entirely.

                  >You speak for men who thought the great tragedy of Fort Hood was not that major Nidal Hasan shot their friends and colleagues, but that by doing so he cast doubt on Muslims getting affirmative actioned over whites and Christians.

                  Lie.

                  Given the Ring of Fnargl, I would send every single one back to the Middle East, not because they’re a military threat, which they patently are not, but because they’re a threat to the social cohesion of sexy high-T high-status high-TFR armed white men.

                  >You speak for men who refuse to enforce the law on Muslim rapists, because it would put them over their arrest quota and make the mass importation of rapeugees to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat look bad.

                  Lie.

                  >You tell us you are a reactionary and a nationalist in one breath, and in another breath assure us Muslims are not a problem.


                  I have never claimed to be a reactionary, and I am not a nationalist.

                  USG bombing Hereditary President Donald John Trump’s marginal electoral districts with Muslims is a problem; Muslims themselves are literally useless. Gore the matador, moron.

                • jim says:

                  > Identify one such contradiction and I will desist entirely

                  I have unsuccessfully been trying to pin you down to one story. There are no contradictions because all contradictions, because the planes flew and did not fly, the towers were brought down with explosives and thermite, the planes never existed, were military planes, were drones. The towers were brought down by explosives all triggered at the same instant and there were a lot of explosives detonated in different places and different times in each building. Steel melted, an this proves military equipment was used to bring the towers, and steel did not melt. The moment I address any one story, you tell me that is not the story you are telling.

                  Which is it? Molten or not molten? And is the presence of molten steel or the absence of molten steel supposed to be proof that the Jews rather than the Muslims, were to blame?

                  You will not provide evidence for any of your claims, nor make claims that are sufficiently fixed and definite that it would be possible to provide evidence for them.

                  I cannot get you to stay put and tell me one and only one story about what happened. Whenever I produce evidence against any one story, you tell me you are telling a different story, without being particularly clear what is the different story.

                • Calvin says:

                  >That all ended with the Industrial Revolution. Muslims are incapable of industry, whether by religion or biology — probably both.

                  “Fly hijacked plane into building, allah akbar” is not an act requiring genius. Even Muslim countries produce people capable of flying planes, if not building them.

                  >Our rulers — our real rulers, e.g. Hillary Clinton — are literal child-fucking psychopaths. They aren’t crimestopped. They know exactly what they’re doing. Their minions are crimestopped to varying degrees.

                  Mrs. Clinton is elderly drunk transparently losing several IQ points every year. The hell she knows what she’s doing, she can’t even walk straight anymore. The fact that our rulers have transparently caught their own mind virus is far more frightening than any conspiracy. They really have no idea what they’re doing, hence the celebration of Mubarak being ousted by the MB and the outrage when Sisi rightfully couped Morsi.

                  >The people staffing the high echelons of USG are not the mouthbreathing morons of your neighborhood DMV. They are, without exception, to a man (or woman, because apparently that’s a thing now), 99th percentile or above. This may be uncomfortable to realize, but it’s true.

                  No, it isn’t. They select themselves by their belief in stupid things or at least willingness to mouth them most enthusiastically. There really is no one left amongst them with the wit to see what’s happening, which should frighten you more than any conspiracy.

                  >Don’t underestimate those who want you dead.
                  I could say the same considering you don’t seem to view the screaming moon cultists flooding over the border as a problem. Or the fact that the left, including the deep state’s leaders, sincerely view them as a benevolent force of anti-racism. It’s not an act, they really are that dumb.

                • Calvin says:

                  >With demolition, it becomes strikingly and unignorably apparent that not only were foreign nationals responsible for heretofore unrequited attacks on American soil (contrary to the bin Laden narrative (rah! rah! rah!)), but that the truth of the event was blatantly… flagrantly… traitorously covered up and then lied about, for nearly two decades now(!), by every. single. individual. and institution. of any. significance. whatsoever. in America, and the entire rest of the world.

                  If you want to be given any credence whatsoever, explain:

                  A) Exactly what happened on 9/11 in detail. What happened to the planes, passengers, hijackers, and buildings? The full and true story.
                  B) Who did it, and what the hell their motivations were.
                  C) Why no one, including the enemies of the US elite, has put together a convincing dossier of why Muslims are actually innocent lambs in the 17 years since that day.

                  And do it here. “Look at my blog” is not a valid response.

                • X says:

                  You have zero witnesses, and near zero engineers supporting you claims.

                  Liar.

                  Jim are you high on drugs? When you go back to earth, check out my blog which I had linked for you.

                  Exactly right, this is why troofers used to piss me off so. It was clearly not aimed at pressing for further investigation into FBI incompetence and Saudi bribery of our government but was used to take the heat off of Muslims.

                  Liar.

                  So many people have petitioned for non-corrupted investigations and we are always stonewalled by the government.

                  Well they CAN do that with shilling for global warming (except substitute scientist for engineers) but not too many engineers back the controlled demo theory. There are a very very few and that doesn’t mean they are wrong but its unlikely.

                  Liar.

                  ~3000 architects and engineers:

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/

                  Plus to do controlled demo you have to wire buildings for controlled demo and there is just no evidence this was ever done and it would be almost impossible to conceal doing that. Plus it would involve masses of the most honest group of people in existence tradesmen keeping their mouth shut or all being quickly killed with no one noticing after 9/11 and probably before.

                  There is much evidence that this was done. We even know when they did it and how they did it. And we know it was an Israeli+Bush company that did the wiring in the elevator shafts. They also closed entire floors during the “remodeling and upgrade” operations.

                  All in all exceedingly unlikely if not impossible.

                  Exceeding likely to the degree that we have evidence it was done.

                  Do you guys just enjoy slobbering about shit you know nothing about because you refuse to study the evidence.

                • jim says:

                  > >You have zero witnesses

                  > Liar.

                  If you had one witness, you would present him, instead of calling me a liar.

                • X says:

                  Mrs. Clinton is elderly drunk transparently losing several IQ points every year. The hell she knows what she’s doing, she can’t even walk straight anymore.

                  Rumor is she has Parkison’s disease:

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/hillarys-parkinsons-disease-is-why-she-will-not-do-press-conferences/

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/why-wont-hillary-release-her-medical-records-what-is-she-hiding/

                  Massive damage, surprising building seven did not fall down immediately. Great big holes all over one side of the building look structural enough to me.

                  Jim even the government’s official NIST model (which is proven to be impossible and thus the government is involved in a cover-up) doesn’t have the massive structure damage you claim. Where is YOUR proof?

                  Barefaced lie. Controlled demolitions fall straight down. Tower seven tilted sideways like a falling tree, the collapse starting on the damaged side of the building.

                  I have seen many controlled demolitions that do not fall immediately and straight down.

                  Your natural collapse theory is entirely impossible even if there was massive structural damage (which there was not and you have no proof of), because natural collapse can’t fall at free fall acceleration which all 3 buildings did. Because natural collapse will have localized inertia that will slow the collapse down. This has all been modeled exhaustively and the natural collapse scenario is entirely and completely impossible. If you were an engineer with the necessary expertise you would understand this.

                • X says:

                  If you had one witness, you would present him, instead of calling me a liar.

                  It is all in my blog which I provided a link for you on this blog. And if you are too disingenuous to read my linked blog, then you’re not worthy of my rebuke on any points you make about your refusal to read my blog.

                • jim says:

                  > > If you had one witness, you would present him, instead of calling me a liar.

                  > It is all in my blog w

                  I have checked your blog. There is no evidence there, nor do you commit yourself to any one story, which evasiveness reveals that you are knowingly lying.

                  What I see on your blog is fake consensus. Everyone supposedly agrees with great confidence, but what reason they have to agree is never revealed, and it is not clear what they are agreeing on, other than that Muslims are in the clear.

                • X says:

                  When you debase the word “truth” and label those interested in it political activists, you commit a crime against nature and against yourself. Truth is a hallowed thing and truth-seeking a sacred activity. Repugnant!

                  Well put. You’re often exceeding eloquent and technically precise. Admired.

                  My point is they don’t have to be all that competent when the FBI field agents who are supposed to be arresting terrorists and did notice MOST (if not all) of the 9/11 hijackers were prepping a large scale terrorist act were not allowed to touch them.

                  It’s already been stated by expert pilots that there’s no way alleged hijackers (the ones supposed armed with box cutters) could fly the commercial airplanes at the necessary trajectory and g and stall forces. Simply not physically plausible. Even expert pilots could not pull off that maneuver. Instead what we saw were military replicas fitting with remote guidance systems. The commercial jets were probably flown to a hanger somewhere at the point where they flew into the holes in the USA radar system. That is why the planes flew the wrong direction first, is because they flew into those blind spots in the radar system so they could be swapped (on radar) with other military planes. Again all the links to all of this is on my blog which I linked earlier on this blog.

                  BTW, I agree with you that some higher-ups in CIA and FBI have to be complicit. Those agencies have always been corrupt. The Bush connection to the CIA and Zionists long-standing. Etc…

                • jim says:

                  > It’s already been stated by expert pilots that there’s no way alleged hijackers (the ones supposed armed with box cutters) could fly the commercial airplanes at the necessary trajectory

                  There is nothing difficult about flying a plane in a straight line steeply downwards into a solid object.

                  And if you had an expert pilot who said anything different, you would have given his name and place where he said it.

                • X says:

                  I have checked your blog. There is no evidence there, nor do you commit yourself to any one story, which evasiveness reveals that you are knowingly lying.

                  I specifically discussed the witnesses and provide links off to more details on each witness I mention. Note you must click every single link in my blog and that will probably require more than a day of your time. I am not going to hold your hand. I know you are not interested in the truth. So be it. I do not give a fuck if you rather to destroy yourself with ignorance. I have no obligation to rewrite in my blog every minute detail which is covered at the sites I linked to. You have already been given enough specific evidence in this thread, which you have chosen to ignore. Such as the evidence of the nano thermite. That should be enough to cause you to doubt your stance and motivate you to dig for the truth. But you are not interested in the truth, because you prefer your politicized version of a grand leftist conspiracy with the neocons being the good guys. Lolz. Complete and utter delusion.

                • jim says:

                  > > I have checked your blog. There is no evidence there, nor do you commit yourself to any one story, which evasiveness reveals that you are knowingly lying.

                  > I specifically discussed the witnesses and provide links off to more details on each witness I mention

                  Bullshit.

                  For starters, who is this expert pilot who says you cannot fly a plane in a straight line into the ground, and where and when did he say it?

                  > Such as the evidence of the nano thermite.

                  There is no evidence of nano thermite, in part because there is no such thing as nano thermite.

                • X says:

                  > The expert pilots have explained

                  liar

                • X says:

                  Bullshit.

                  Liar. It is on my blog:

                  https://steemit.com/freedom/@anonymint/in-t-h-e-f-t-a-n-d-m-a-s-s-a-c-r-e-s-we-trust

                  Here it is quoted without the links:

                  None of the known 150 witnesses who are purported to have seen the airplane, actually saw it hit the Pentagon. This is because the view of the alleged impact point is obstructed from view except in a very few close locations. Also it’s because the speed of the airplane and the precise timing of the fireball provided no way for the human eye to actually discern the difference between the plane flying through the fireball or over the side of the Pentagon (both outcomes would appear visually the same because our human visual system can’t detect such hundredths of a second movements, but maybe a cat could). Five or six members of the mainstream media (MSM) conveniently claimed to be driving adjacent to the impact point, but their view was obstructed such that they would not see the impact and would have only seen the fireball. One of them USA Today editor Joel Sucherman stated that he saw a plane peal off instantly after the fireball and fly away at a steep trajectory. Roosevelt Roberts, Jr. stated he saw the airplane fly away from the Pentagon immediately after the explosion.

                  Eyewitness testimony must be extensively cross-checked because for example the (sometimes incomplete and even paraphrased) summaries of their accounts contain numerous anomalies. For example, Sean Boger didn’t see the airplane hit the Pentagon. Rather he saw it coming directly at him, then he ducked and couldn’t see. He presumed it hit the Pentagon because of the loud explosion. Steve Anderson claims one of the wings dragged on the lawn but there was no such markings on the lawn. CitizenInvestigationTeam.com (CIT) contacted Frank Probst but he refused to be interviewed without permission from the Pentagon! Master Sergeant Noel Sepulveda claimed (c.f. also) he saw landing gear down which conflicts with all of the dozens of other witnesses; and there’s other reasons to doubt his credibility. Mark Bright presumes the airplane hit but didn’t actually see it hit, and he stated the plane “powered-up” at the last moment. In an interview by Jeff Hill, Penny Elgas stated she saw the plane go over the (presumably north side based on her description of the position of the wing of the plane “over” the) CITGO and she saw the plane tilt and 40-50 feet up at the time of the explosion. Thus her recollection of the plane being enveloped by the smoke was the plane flying over the Pentagon. She imagined this was the plane flying into the wall, but her state-of-mind was hallucinating that day as she admitted in the interview. Sean Boger and Jack Singleton confirmed the tilt of the plane as it powered-up over the Pentagon (they were facing the nose incoming, so their right was the left for those CIT interviewed at the CITGO station). Dawn Vignola and Hugh “Tim” Timmerman were too far away and a building obscured their view, yet in the split second in which they could see the plane emerge from behind a building they heard and saw the plane tilt and power-up. Timmerman stated to CNN that he was only a quarter of a mile or less from the fireball, but actually the distance is much farther away at approximately three-quarters of a mile.

                  April Gallop stated, “I was 50 feet from the impact zone, the engine should have been in my lap.” She was inside the Pentagon during the explosion and walked out of the outside hole in the Pentagon along with other co-workers who survived the blast. She said there was absolutely no wreckage parts of an airplane. Photos just after the explosion don’t seem to show any wreckage. Those who claim they saw passengers in airplane seats actually saw charred human remains perhaps next to charred office chairs, or they’re lying. No such photo of airplane seat or other extensive wreckage has ever been produced. The few small pieces photographed with AA logos could have been planted, such as during the chaotic evacuation of the area minutes after the initial explosion when the C-130 approached and the people were told a second hijacked airplane was incoming. The non-randomized sheared base of the downed light poles compared to similar light poles naturally downed by high winds indicates the 9/11 poles were staged with a blow torch.

                  ——

                  For starters, who is this expert pilot who says you cannot fly a plane in a straight line into the ground, and where and when did he say it?

                  https://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-perceptible-global-warming/#comment-1881016

                  I also linked to a video with that pilot explaining that and I have other videos linked which delve into the issue deeply.

                • jim says:

                  I wrote:

                  > Nobody claims a plane hit the Pentagon, or that the Pentagon took any 911 damage in any way, shape, or form, so I fail to see what this is supposed to prove.

                  Oops, I forgot the plane that did hit the Pentago.

                • X says:

                  Your disturbingly mobile goalposts are obvious to everyone else but yourself.

                  When we slamdunk such as my link to primary source on the proof of nano thermite, he changes the subject.

                  Btw, I do have to thank Jim for not censoring us. On the 10th anniversary of 9/11 I tried to raise this issue on Eric S. Raymond’s blog and I was resoundingly ridiculed and censored. Because of course they misinterpret my search for the truth as being in support of Muslims. Funny though is Eric hates Muslims because they enslave women. And Jim hates Muslims because they’re so competent…uhh I mean because Jim is does not live i reality:

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/sunni-v-shiite-civil-war-in-islam-drawing-the-world-into-another-crusade-precise-with-war-cycle/

                  (see the chart on above link that Islam is peaking 2021)

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/religion/cycle-of-religion-detailed/

                  That all ended with the Industrial Revolution. Muslims are incapable of industry, whether by religion or biology — probably both. The only reason, literally the only reason, that anyone anywhere cares about the UAE or any other country in the Middle East, besides Israel which has actual human capital, is because of its oil.

                  Exactly. These fools are focused on the wrong ball (still fighting a war from the Middle Ages), whilst they’re pick-pocked by those neocons who they think are their allies. Jim wants to go back to the 17th century. With such myopic insanity, no wonder we whites are losing our mojo.

                • X says:

                  Nobody claims a plane hit the Pentagon, or that the Pentagon took any 911 damage in any way, shape, or form, so I fail to see what this is supposed to prove. It is as if you provided witnesses that the sun rose in the east.

                  Our government claims a plane hit the Pentagon. What are you claiming hit the Pentagon on 9/11?

                  Let us have a witness for any of the highly improbable claims that you have made. For starters, these “expert pilots” who don’t believe you can fly a plane in a straight line downwards.

                  I provided already the link for the expert pilot. Let me know if there is an issue with that link and I will dig up the one from my blog.

                  As for other witnesses pertaining to the WTC collapses in NY, there are some witnesses (such as witnesses of molten iron in the pit and explosions occuring in the main towers long before the collapse) but I prefer to focus on the irrefutable PHYSICAL evidence of demolition including the nano thermite and the physics of free fall collapse for example. There are many physics and engineering reasons that can be given to prove your theory of natural collapse is so incredibly loony that it makes us just look at you like you are a complete idiot. Sorry to say that, because it is not a personal matter. I do not wish to speak disparaging about you, but there is no possible way those buildings could free fall like that naturally. The engineers and architects have explained this in great detail but you refuse to pay attention.

                  I have no fucking clue how someone like Eric S. Raymond with a 155+ IQ could believe those buildings naturally collapsed without demolition. I guess he is totally ignorant of engineering?

                • Calvin says:

                  >I have no fucking clue how someone like Eric S. Raymond with a 155+ IQ could believe those buildings naturally collapsed without demolition. I guess he is totally ignorant of engineering?

                  Quit babbling and answer the damn question you dancing monkey. Provide your *exact* sequence of events of 9/11. Planes, buildings, passengers, hijackers, flight 93 in the field.

                  “Look at my blog” is not a valid response.

                • X says:

                  Nobody claims a plane hit the Pentagon, or that the Pentagon took any 911 damage in any way, shape, or form, so I fail to see what this is supposed to prove. It is as if you provided witnesses that the sun rose in the east. None of your witnesses provide any good reason to believe that anything unusual happened near the pentagon. Some guy thinks he saw a plane, but then it turns out he did not.

                  We have numerous people who were burned and on video we have a military many that suffers ongoing from his severe burns from the Pentagon. We have eyewitnesses who walked out the hole in the front of the Pentagon after the bombing. We have the eyewitness on video who was in the control tower on the lawn of the Pentagon and saw the plane heading straight for him. When it was within 50 meters he ducked and there was the huge explosion. We have a witness who was on the lawn when the explosion occurred. Etc.. You’re fucking delusional. You ignore everything you wish to ignore and keep changing the subject. Where is your rebuttal about the nano thermite? I provided you a link to the primary source of the measures of the dust from NY.

                  There were three planes hijacked. Two crashed into the towers, one crashed in a field while passengers were fighting with hijackers.

                  No plane crashed into the field as you claim. There was nothing there. I have eyewitnesses on video who say there is nothing there by a hole that looks like it was dug out with a backhoe.

                  You have not done any research whatsoever. You are entirely ignorant about 9/11.

                  Let us have a witness for any of the highly improbable claims that you have made. For starters, these “expert pilots” who don’t believe you can fly a plane in a straight line downwards.

                  I already told you I provided that link. Why do you continue repeating that same request and ignoring that I already provided it to you.

                • X says:

                  The entire “controlled demolition” theory is retarded on its face.

                  Obviously the controlled demolition team didn’t care about avoiding casualties so there’s no motivation to stage a controlled demolition triggered by a pair of aircraft hitting the buildings (which obviously happened as I personally witnessed – along with thousands of others) as opposed to simply putting a truck or multiple trucks with explosives on site and using those as the trigger / cover. Ok, that’s not splashy enough – gotta have a jet flying into the buildings to sex it up! If so there’s absolutely no reason to bother with the controlled demolition. A jet flying into an office tower which (of course) does minimal damage (sure) and only kills the passengers aboard the flights and all the people on the floor of and above the crash – well that’s just not going to accomplish the planners aims! Gotta have the buildings collapse too!

                  It’s just pure insanity – making this overly complex plan for no gain when any part of it works for whatever aim you claim they’re going for.

                  Of course, the alternative story where the government is leftist controlled and so looks the other way when Muslims do Muslim things is easily seen on a daily basis.

                  9/11 truthers are a combination of insane and stupid.

                  Steve Johnson the entire point of the elaborate false-flag was to create this divide-and-conquer amongst white males that we are doing right here. Apparently you do not even knowing the definition and purpose of false-flags. They are always for political purposes.

                  It was designed to make ignorant fools who irrationally fear Muslims fight against intelligent white males like Yara and myself.

                  Divided-and-conquered we will easily fall just as our Zionist masters want it to be.

                  Also it was the excuse to take away all our freedoms with the Patriot Act and all the totalitarian police state shit that has ensued and it getting worse.

                  They’re destroying us by attacking our political fantasies. It is the most clever way to do war against us without even needing to fire one bullet.

                  And you dumb asses biting into the false-flag fully. But you’re dumb.

                • X says:

                  We have numerous people who were burned and on video we have a military many that suffers ongoing from his severe burns from the Pentagon. We have eyewitnesses who walked out the hole in the front of the Pentagon after the bombing.

                  No you do not.

                  Liar. It is all linked from my blog. You’re just disingenuous and lazy. You may even be a leftist disinformation pysop.

                • jim says:

                  You are correct, a plane did hit the pentagon, and I was incorrect to deny it.

                  However, I fail to see what your witnesses are supposed to be proving that contradicts the official story.

                • jim says:

                  https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2017/mar/31/pentagon-after-911-attack-american-airlines-flight-77-in-pictures

                  Here are some photographs of the pentagon, which show rather small bits of flight 77 amidst the wreckage.

                  Thus, the proposition that flight 77 never hit the pentagon appears to be decisively falsified.

                  None of your eyewitnesses provide persuasive evidence that it did or did not hit the pentagon, but small bits of the plane do provide persuasive evidence that it hit the pentagon.

                • X says:

                  The material you quoted in the comment above is unlikely to persuade anyone that anything happened at the Pentagon.

                  If nano thermite in the dust at impossible concentrations without a controlled demolition does not convince them, then they do not want truth. That nano thermite can not be in the dust without controlled demolition. Period.

                  What is your dumb excuse now?

                  “Military-grade” is meaningless.

                  “Nano-thermite”, if it means anything, means ultrafine powders milled in an oxygen free environment so the aluminum doesn’t oxidize too much. May have different properties from the usual stuff, idk.

                  “military-grade nano-thermite” sounds like you’re trying to lie about chemistry and physics on the Internet as if these reactionaries you found who you respect actually are just as ignorant as everyone else.

                  The nano-grade material is (or was at that time) only produced for the military. Regular thermite is commercially available.

                  Timed detonation to match an airplane flying over is utterly retarded. Was the airplane then crashed into the ocean?

                  No it was landed at the nearby Air Force base. We have video of the decoy plane overhead the Pentagon for example.

                  It is not retarded. You would not want the actual plane parts to be found because that would be evidence that hijackers and passengers were not inside.

                  The passengers were probably flown to an airbase when the handoff occurred with the military plane in the radar hole I mentioned. We also have some anomalies on the radar that look like two planes in the same area around the area of the hole where the handoff apparently took place. Note this handoff stuff is more speculative and is not central to my claims. I am just offering it has an explanation of other parts of the story you may be curious about.

                • X says:

                  You are correct, a plane did hit the pentagon, and I was incorrect to deny it.

                  However, I fail to see what your witnesses are supposed to be proving that contradicts the official story.

                  Whew. Thank you. I was beginning to think you were entirely disingenuous.

                  Jim I think what is happening here is that you think we are pysops planted to destroy you and your readers. I guarantee you that I studied that 9/11 shit for weeks. And I promise you that if you really dig into it, you are going to discover the truth. Start from my links because I discarded all the nonsense disinformation that surrounds the topic. There as no missile, no energy ray gun, no holographic airplanes, none of that nonsense is true. The truth is much simpler than that.

                  I hope you dig in. You owe it to yourself to not remain ignorant of this subject.

                  WARNING: it is going to change your thinking about many things you have been writing about. Specifically the Zionists.

                • jim says:

                  Your witnesses don’t say anything that is evidence that a plane did not hit the pentagon – just the normal confusion one gets from any bunch of witnesses.

                  As evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon: The plane was hijacked the passengers died, a big hole in the pentagon, and few very small bits of flight 77 lying around the pentagon.

                • X says:

                  Guys I need to work. I will try to come back next day or so. Hopefully Yara can also continue in my absence. Calvin I saw your posts,and I will try to respond when I have more time. The physical evidence is sufficient for controlled demolition.

                • Roberto says:

                  >in concert with Silverstein

                  Because of the “pull it” comment? Lol, here’s a nice debunking:

                  https://youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Our rulers — our real rulers, e.g. Hillary Clinton — are literal child-fucking psychopaths. They aren’t crimestopped. They know exactly what they’re doing. Their minions are crimestopped to varying degrees.”

                  There may have been a time when this was true but increasingly they are selected for stupidity blind order following and zeal. John Podesta probably engaged in child snuff blackmail and knows hes bad but that doesn’t make him smart. John Podesta is obviously quite stupid as he keeps fucking up basic computer security (he fell for a phishing scam that he tried to blame on Muh Russia) despite being in a position where he should know how damaging it could be.

                  Bill Clinton is actually intelligent, Hillary Clinton is a demented evil old drunk. Soros is probably very very intelligent too but I’m not sure who else among the global left is.

                • Yara says:

                  >I have unsuccessfully been trying to pin you down to one story.

                  Lie.

                  I have given it to you, and it hasn’t changed and will not change, ever.

                  To reiterate:

                  >It must be demolition because upon coming to rest it was not lying horizontally on the ground but otherwise in one piece and pretty much structurally intact.
                  >Instead, it was lying in a mound of its own rubble. You yourself have repeatedly compared WTC 7 to a falling tree. A felled tree does not collapse into a mound of its own constituent mass, and steel is many times stronger than wood.

                  >because the planes flew and did not fly

                  Lie.

                  I have never made any claims on the materiality of any 9/11-related airplanes, and I will not be making any such claims. In fact, they are irrelevant to WTC 7, the only building on which I have made any claims whatsoever. That you cannot focus on WTC 7, that your attention drifts off to the left (WTC 1) and to the right (WTC 2), is evidence of highly active and defensive crimestop.

                  >the towers were brought down with explosives and thermite

                  Lie.

                  I have never made any claims as to the specific mechanism by which the building (WTC 7) was brought low, and I will not be making any such claims. You attribute to me arguments I have not made — squid ink — in the manner of ideological bullet-point testing that progressives give to each other on a daily basis.

                  >the planes never existed, were military planes, were drones

                  Lie.

                  I have never made any claims as to the existence or non-existence of any airplanes, their type of origin, or the manner in which they were flown, and I will not be making any such claims. I did once state, quite reasonably, that I find it difficult to believe that a novice pilot with previous flying experience only in small, single-engined trainer aircraft would possess the flying ability necessary to fly impromptu a Boeing 757 at all, much less with the precision necessary to strike a skyscraper right on the money, much less two such novice pilots fly with such aforementioned extraordinary precision. I certainly couldn’t do it, and I am, I would imagine, far more intelligent and capable than any psychotically suicidal religious fanatic with significant African admixture. This sentiment is echoed by the expert video linked by the commenter X.

                  >The towers were brought down by explosives all triggered at the same instant and there were a lot of explosives detonated in different places and different times in each building

                  I believe that is the definition of a controlled demolition, yes.

                  >Steel melted, an this proves military equipment was used to bring the towers, and steel did not melt.

                  Lie.

                  I have not made any claims concerning the melting of steel, and will not be making any such claims. I will say that there are interviews of people plausibly claiming to have been involved in the search and rescue operations, and they have said that they found still-smoldering melted metal weeks after the event. Regarding these claims I am ambivalent, with no strong feelings either way, although if they were who they said they were, I see no motive for them to have lied.

                  >The moment I address any one story, you tell me that is not the story you are telling.

                  I have never made any of the claims you say I have supposedly made. You are fighting ghosts.

                  >And is the presence of molten steel or the absence of molten steel supposed to be proof that the Jews rather than the Muslims, were to blame?

                  In either case the blame is on the intelligence agencies for allowing the events to take place, and 1000x more so for covering it up afterwards.

                  >You will not provide evidence for any of your claims, nor make claims that are sufficiently fixed and definite that it would be possible to provide evidence for them.

                  Ghosts.

                  >I cannot get you to stay put and tell me one and only one story about what happened. Whenever I produce evidence against any one story, you tell me you are telling a different story, without being particularly clear what is the different story.

                  Lie.

                  I have made one (1) hard claim. You have not engaged it.

                  Worse, you have produced no evidence [I think] against the claims I supposedly made but did not make.

                • Yara says:

                  >I could say the same considering you don’t seem to view the screaming moon cultists flooding over the border as a problem. Or the fact that the left, including the deep state’s leaders, sincerely view them as a benevolent force of anti-racism. It’s not an act, they really are that dumb.

                  “The left”, including the Deep State’s leaders, sincerely view them as a benevolent force of anti-racism if you define “anti-racism” to mean “our foot soldiers against the evil, dangerous, insane, gun-wielding, crime-thinking BadWhites”, which “the left”, including the Deep State’s leaders, in fact do.

                • Yara says:

                  >Well put. You’re often exceeding eloquent and technically precise. Admired.

                  Thank you kindly.

                • Yara says:

                  >Exactly what happened on 9/11 in detail. What happened to the planes, passengers, hijackers, and buildings? The full and true story.

                  Moving goalposts and/or tectonically shifting Null Hypothesis.

                  The simple fact is this: I don’t know the full and true story of what happened on 9/11. I don’t know who is ultimately responsible and worthy of hanging from lampposts. I can only say that WTC 7 was not impacted by any planes, passengers, or hijackers, but came down anyway in a fashion visually indistinguishable from controlled demolition, suggesting controlled demolition. Furthermore, the proprietor and chief administrator of the WTC complex is on publicly available video explicitly saying that he ordered the demolition of WTC 7. Since we know that steel is many times stronger than wood, and unlike wood completely impervious to fire, with universal evidence of skyscrapers suffering no loss of structural integrity due to fire on all days other than 9/11/2001, then it stands to reason that to fell a skyscraper without explosives and/or thermite would necessitate chopping its base to smithereens, like a lumberjack would chop a tree, and letting it crash down horizontally like a falling tree. In light of this evidence and straightforward reasoning, necessarily including the videotaped admission of its proprietor and chief administrator, we can safely conclude that WTC 7 was felled not by fires, which were tiny and to which it was impervious, nor by jet fuel, of which there was none, but to some manner of demolition conducted with whatever active agents are typically used in such operations. Having established that WTC 7 was demolished, and knowing that WTC 1 and WTC 2 likewise did not fall horizontally like a falling tree, it is reasonable to conclude that they, too, were demolished, though clearly the explosive nature of their demolitions, with much far-flung debris ejected at high velocity, is highly atypical of conventional demolitions, indicating a desire for theater on the part of the conspirators, of whom Larry Silverstein, the proprietor and chief administrator of the victim WTC complex, as indicated by his guilt-ridden countenance, was probably not a member.

                  >Why no one, including the enemies of the US elite, has put together a convincing dossier of why Muslims are actually innocent lambs in the 17 years since that day.

                  The Muslims would kill us all if they could, but they are so incompetent as to be incapable of defeating ex-dentist Bashar al-Assad even with unlimited American air cover and materiel support.

                  >And do it here. “Look at my blog” is not a valid response.

                  I don’t have a blog. If I did, I would probably use it. This blog’s comment depth limitation approaches the farcical.

                • jim says:

                  > but came down anyway in a fashion visually indistinguishable from controlled demolitio

                  Liar

                  In a controlled demolition, everything starts coming down at the same instant and goes straight down in free fall

                  Each of the towers first tilts slowly towards the damage and the fire like a falling tree, and then only after initially tilting, goes into free fall. This falling tree behavior is particularly noticeable with
                  World Trade Tower Seven.

                  Demolitions go straight down in free fall. The towers, especially tower seven, start by falling sideways like trees.

                • Yara says:

                  >The passengers were probably flown to an airbase when the handoff occurred with the military plane in the radar hole I mentioned. We also have some anomalies on the radar that look like two planes in the same area around the area of the hole where the handoff apparently took place. Note this handoff stuff is more speculative and is not central to my claims. I am just offering it has an explanation of other parts of the story you may be curious about.

                  I once saw an infographic that suggested that one or more of the airplanes’ flight paths would have taken them directly over military bases. Is this true, to your knowledge?

                • Yara says:

                  >There may have been a time when this was true but increasingly they are selected for stupidity blind order following and zeal.

                  This is probably true as far as the public-facing elected-type contingent is concerned. Whether that fact is evidence for the enstupidation of the private contingent is another matter entirely. I tend to doubt it, as we know that electoral politics have been becoming less and less important for quite some time. Naturally, talent will tend to suss out where to find the power and go there, which is probably the principal driver of the witnessed phenomenon.

                  >John Podesta is obviously quite stupid

                  He got his law degree from Georgetown and then went on to a life of high politics. I don’t think that fits any reasonable definition of “quite stupid”, unless your definition of “quite stupid” includes persons with IQs in excess of 130.

                  >as he keeps fucking up basic computer security

                  That’s generational more than anything else. All Boomers regardless of IQ are fucking retarded as it pertains to computers unless they were literally programmers working on mainframes and/or very early PCs back in the 1970s/1980s, and even then the social element of computing and the Internet has changed so much that most of them are probably pretty retarded anyway.

                  >Bill Clinton is actually intelligent, Hillary Clinton is a demented evil old drunk. Soros is probably very very intelligent too but I’m not sure who else among the global left is

                  Hillary was always smarter and more capable than Bill, though less charismatic than a doorstop, and it’s quite possible that she’s declined dramatically as of late, though as recently as a few months ago she was giving a pretty rousing speech to Yale in which she mentioned, and I quote, “tanks in the streets”, explicitly in the context of combatting the “racist, bigoted, hateful, etc.” Trump presidency.

                  Soros and Kissinger and such were very smart but are now older than dirt, which is a huge impediment no matter one’s residual IQ. Depending on what you count as “global left”, some very smart members may include Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Sam Harris, and many others. One Oprah Winfrey has been floated as a presidential candidate, and she’s extraordinarily smart, though Pol Pot-tier evil.

                • jim says:

                  Old elite smart. Young elite dim and getting dimmer.

                • X says:

                  There are no contradictions because […] Steel melted, an[d] this proves military equipment was used to bring the towers, and steel did not melt. The moment I address any one story, you tell me that is not the story you are telling.

                  Which is it? Molten or not molten?

                  Lie.

                  I have not made any claims concerning the melting of steel, and will not be making any such claims. I will say that there are interviews of people plausibly claiming to have been involved in the search and rescue operations, and they have said that they found still-smoldering melted metal weeks after the event. Regarding these claims I am ambivalent, with no strong feelings either way, although if they were who they said they were, I see no motive for them to have lied.

                  I already provided the irrefutable evidence of molten steel, but Jim can’t seem to understand what is written on that page, ostensibly due to some combination of his engineering inability and his desire to not find the truth because it would destroy his delusion about neocons not having lied to him.

                  So let me help the feeble or unmotivated reader like Jim grok the evidence mentioned on that web page linked above. Firstly, the USGS officially reports that satellite imagery and aerial flyover spectrometry analysis estimates the temperatures exceeding 1020 Kelvin (1360 F) at the site of the WTC collapse 5 days after 9/11! WTF?!

                  So there was something in the pit still exceeding 1350 F some 5 days after the collapse in 9/11. Moreover that 1350 F is not the peak temperature in the pit but rather some estimate of the mean including hot and cold areas of the pit (i.e. the spectrometry isn’t high resolution enough to measure the individual pools of molten iron in the pit and instead forms an average over its resolution limitation).

                  Don’t be mislead by this:

                  A spectrometer, however, overcomes the ambiguity problem above, because the shape of the thermal spectrum can be used to derive a unique temperature, and the intensity gives the area of the emitting source. If a large enough spectral range is covered, a range of temperatures and the area of each can be derived. In the near infrared spectral range of AVIRIS, reflected solar radiation also contributes to the signal.

                  That means the resolution is sufficient to measure the mean of hot spots but it doesn’t the resolution is sufficient to not average them with the cold spots interspersed within a hot spot as limited by the 1.7 meter resolution of the aerial spectrometry. Note 1.7 meters means the reliable resolution would be on the order of a square of four pixels thus a diameter of approximately (by Pythagorean’s theorem) sqrt(2 * 3.4²) = 4.8 meters (~16 ft) with a smoothing filter.

                  It is simply impossible for that heat to be explained by residual office fires still burning which although they burn at roughly 1100 F, would not be able to continue burning in the pit for 5 days at those temperatures because they need oxygen flow to burn and they can’t get that in the bottom of pit stacked vertically with debris from a 110 storey skyscraper. Jet fuel (kerosene) burns at 800 to 1500 F (which is not hot enough to melt steel) yet it also needs oxygen to continue burning and besides it would have long since burned off by 5 days after 9/11. And there simply wasn’t enough jet fuel to produce that intensity and scope of heat for any significant duration. Also there’s insufficient smoke rising from 9/11 after 5 days to account for the fires that would be needed to produce this degree and scope of heat as seen on the satellite imagery.

                  My next comment will continue on with more details on the evidence of molten steel at the bottom of the pit…

                  And is the presence of molten steel or the absence of molten steel supposed to be proof that the Jews rather than the Muslims, were to blame?

                  Jim what do you gain by being obviously disingenuous in your debating etiquette? Displaying bad behavior doesn’t make you more convincing. You know damn well that our argument is not that molten steel directly ties Jews into the controlled demolition. Actually the molten steel can help support the demolition thesis which is also supported by the nano-grade thermite which you choose to conveniently ignore because you can’t refute it.

                  The evidence of Jews being involved is not central to the proof that there was a controlled demolition. We do have considerable evidence of Israeli and Bush family business being involved in for example the security of the WTC and the renovation of elevator shafts where all the structural steel is and where the renovation teams would have complete access to planting the necessary thermite cutting charges for the controlled demolition. We have other circumstantial evidence of the Mossad involvement. Not dancing Israelis. We have more compelling evidence than that. But I would prefer to stay focused on the PHYSICAL evidence of a controlled demolition which you cannot refute.

                • jim says:

                  > I already provided the irrefutable evidence of molten steel

                  I followed your link, found no such evidence, just more troofers telling more lies, without providing evidence or explanation for their lies. It is a trail of breadcrumbs. One troofer confidently cites another troofer, and I supposed that other troofer will cite yet another.

                  Further you are not going to respond to this complaint by following the trail of breadcrumbs for me, and finding the evidence that supposedly convinced the first troofer in this long chain of troofers, but instead you will issue ten more lies supported by ten more links of the same type as the one above.

                  If steel had melted, you would link to the evidence, instead of linking me to yet another troofer, who doubtless links to yet another troofer.

                  From now one I will delete every link unless it links to actual evidence, rather than yet another troofer telling more unexplained and unsupported lies.

                • jim says:

                  Because X is wasting reader bandwidth by lying blatantly and repetitiously, I am now deleting his comments as spam.

                  So, if you think 911 troofers are telling forbidden truths, rather than being Robert Mueller’s PR department, wrong blog for you.

                  I will stop deleting his comments if he stops and defends one story, instead of making a ten claims, then, when one of those claims is refuted, instead of defending that one claim, making one hundred fresh claims.

                  Not enough bandwidth to respond to one hundred blatant lies. If X wants to tell his story, find one story and stick to it. Make one controversial claim, and defend it by direct evidence, not by one hundred more controversial claims.

                • X says:

                  In an official government NIST document, we have simultaneously in #9 of that linked document an admission that such office fires can’t produce maximum temperatures because they’re oxygen starved (even before making a huge pile after collapse) which is evident by dark colored smoke that we observed. And yet in #7 on the same page, NIST disingenuously claims that the measured air temperature that day of 1800 F was possible due to office fires and jet fuel. Yet we know that office fires only burn at about 1100 F, jet fuel at only 800 – 1500 F (maximum only if not oxygen-starved), the amount of jet fuel was insignificant compared to the mass of structural steel (even if it was not scattered), and that the jet fuel ostensibly mostly burned off in the fireball and was scattered outside, inside, and down the elevator shafts.

                  Yet on the link I provided in my prior post, we clearly have photos and analysis verifying molten steel pouring out of the WTC towers before collapse.

                  Who the fuck could believe any of these lies from the NIST?

                • jim says:

                  This is almost too stupid and dishonest to respond to.

                  The reason you put insulation on steel beams is because normal fires, can, and routinely do, reach temperatures that substantially weaken steel. If “Jet fuel cannot melt steel” why are the beams coated with fire resistant insulation?

                  The explosive force of the crash would strip the already shitty insulation, which insulation was there for a reason.

                  Clearly the fire in parts reached normal fire temperatures, as was clearly visible from the streets, which is going to cause the remaining steel beams stripped of insulation to fail, and fail one at a time, irregularly, in the manner that we saw them fail.

                • X says:

                  Let me provide some quotes from the document I linked several times but Jim apparently refuses to read carefully:

                  https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

                  Yet structural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F). How then did NIST explain the evidence of molten metal?

                  “The yellow color implies a molten metal temperature of approximately 1,000°C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce…. Also, the fact that the liquid metal retains an orange hue as it nears the ground…further rules out aluminum….

                  “We also noted [in our experiments] that…the falling aluminum displayed a silvery-gray color, adding significantly to the evidence that the yellow-white molten metal flowing out from the South Tower shortly before its collapse was NOT molten aluminum.”

                  Iron Spherules and Other Particles in the WTC Dust

                  Three scientific studies have documented evidence in the WTC dust that indicates extremely high temperatures during the destruction of WTC 1 and WTC 2 — and possibly WTC 7.

                  The RJ Lee Report

                  Released in May 2004, the RJ Lee report titled WTC Dust Signature identified “[s]pherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature” in the dust.

                  An earlier 2003 version of RJ Lee’s report observed:

                  “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…. Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in the WTC dust…but are not common in normal office dust.”

                  The 2003 version also reported that while iron particles make up only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted 5.87 percent of the WTC dust.

                  Iron does not melt until 1,538°C (2,800°F), which, as discussed above, cannot be reached by diffuse hydrocarbon fires. Still, even higher temperatures than 1,538°C were indicated by another discovery documented in RJ Lee’s report:

                  “The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.”

                  The 2003 version also referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” For such vaporization to occur, lead would need to have been heated to its boiling point of 1,749°C (3,180°F).

                  Steven Jones et al.

                  Published by Dr. Steven Jones and seven other scientists in early 2008, the paper “Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction” connected the dots between the earlier RJ Lee and USGS reports. It also provided new observations based on analysis of WTC dust samples obtained by Dr. Jones. According to the authors:

                  “The formation of spherules in the dust implies the generation of materials somehow sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes. The shape is retained as the droplet solidifies in the air.”

                  In addition to observing spherules of iron and silicates, their study discussed the presence of molybdenum spherules documented by the USGS study but not included in its report. (This additional data from the USGS study was obtained through a FOIA request.) Molybdenum is known for its extremely high melting point of 2,623°C (4,754°F).

                  Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust

                  In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

                • jim says:

                  > Yet structural steel does not begin to melt until about 1,482°C (2,700°F). How then did NIST explain the evidence of molten metal?

                  Nist did not explain evidence of molten metal because there is no evidence of molten metal. And if there was any evidence, you would have linked to it, instead of linking to a whole lot of stuff that confidently takes the existence of evidence for molten metal for granted, without actually providing any evidence of molten metal.

                  I challenged you on this, you gave me a link, your link was not to evidence of molten metal, but rather to a troofer confidently taking for granted that evidence existed. If evidence actually existed, you would have linked to evidence.

                  If you give me a link to actual evidence, I will continue this conversation. If you continue to change the subject, or continue to link not to the evidence, but to people claiming with immense confidence that the evidence exists, I will just silently delete your stuff.

                  You say evidence for molten metal exists. But you give me a link not to evidence for molten metal, but to yet another troofer, probably yourself or whoever is paying you to say this stuff, saying that evidence of molten metal exists. And I suppose he links to yet another post saying that evidence exists …. somewhere.

                • X says:

                  Your witnesses don’t say anything that is evidence that a plane did not hit the pentagon – just the normal confusion one gets from any bunch of witnesses.

                  Liar. Incorrect.

                  Jim you have already demonstrated a shockingly utter incapacity to absorb detailed correlations and detective work. The CIT investigation which I summarized and expounded upon in my analysis on my blog is backed by dozens of videos at the CIT website. There is holistic point being made there which you do not grok. And I am afraid you’re incapable of grokking it.

                  As evidence that a plane did hit the pentagon: The plane was hijacked the passengers died, a big hole in the pentagon, and few very small bits of flight 77 lying around the pentagon.

                  You have already been resoundingly refuted in the other fork of this discussion up-thread.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Furthermore, the proprietor and chief administrator of the WTC complex is on publicly available video explicitly saying that he ordered the demolition of WTC 7.

                  No, he is not. Never happened, just as your dancing Israelis never happened.

                  https://youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

                • Yara says:

                  >In a controlled demolition, everything starts coming down at the same instant and goes straight down in free fall

                  That’s the goal, but often not the reality. It takes a high level of skill to achieve any significant degree of coordinated collapse at all. There are dozens of videotaped examples of botched demolitions on Youtube, most of them probably recorded in the last decade, which suggests that there are multiple outright failures per year, to say nothing of the successful ones in which there is dramatically more lean than displayed in the case of WTC 7, which is none.

                  >Demolitions go straight down in free fall. The towers, especially tower seven, start by falling sideways like trees.

                  That is an outrageous lie. I have watched WTC 7 fall from at fewest 23 angles and I have not detected any observable lean at all except that the interior structure can be seen to have collapsed in excess of 5 seconds preceding the exterior. You are telling me that I do not see what I do see. I can plausibly believe in God or angels or what have you if they are claimed to remain outside the corporeal realm; I cannot and will not believe or profess to believe in such things as this-world elves or goblins or human evolutionary equality unless provided with substantial, exceedingly high-quality evidence. I will believe my lying eyes, you mealy-mouthed faggot.

                • Yara says:

                  >Old elite smart. Young elite dim and getting dimmer.

                  Possibly, but the colleges were still doing pretty damned well as recently as the early 2000s. Meaning, we’re pretty thoroughly fucked for at least 50 years, ideologically-driven insanity notwithstanding.

                  And smart and sane and ruthless guys like Bezos or whomever are just waiting in the wings for their turn on the Great Washingtonian Carousel.

                • Yara says:

                  >Each of the towers first tilts slowly towards the damage and the fire like a falling tree, and then only after initially tilting, goes into free fall. This falling tree behavior is particularly noticeable with World Trade Tower Seven

                  Deep in the Canadian wilderness, a very large lumberjack exerts himself.[Rest of this lengthy, irrelevant, and completely evidence free comment deleted as a total waste of reader bandwidth. This deleted comment reflected the troother tactic of just hurling lengthy random stupid lies at enormous length, invoking vast amounts of claimed, but not presented, evidence, until their opposition gets tired and bored]

                • X says:

                  > > I already provided the irrefutable evidence of molten steel

                  I followed your link, found no such evidence, just more troofers telling more lies, without providing evidence or explanation for their lies. It is a trail of breadcrumbs. One troofer confidently cites another troofer, and I supposed that other troofer will cite yet another.

                  Jim you’re always lying. There’s plenty of evidence on the page I linked.

                  You lie because of some combination of either being senile, being a disinformation agent/gatekeeper, and/or you can’t accept that your preferred narrative and life philosophy is entirely bankrupt.

                  About your bad behavior as the host of this blog with your back-dating of your comments and deleting of my comments, I’m archiving everything and publishing / exposing you as a bald-faced liar on both Steemit and Medium. And as I gain popularity for my work in crypto, I am going to widely expose you as a fraud.

                  I warned you to not enter a debate with me. I do not lose when I am correct. Repeat, I never lose when I am correct. I would rather die than lose. And I put a lot of effort into making sure I am correct and correcting myself.

                  Further you are not going to respond to this complaint by following the trail of breadcrumbs for me, and finding the evidence that supposedly convinced the first troofer in this long chain of troofers, but instead you will issue ten more lies supported by ten more links of the same type as the one above.

                  The facts of 9/11 can’t simplify themselves to the paucity of your intellect.

                  I will stop deleting his comments if he stops and defends one story, instead of making a ten claims, then, when one of those claims is refuted, instead of defending that one claim, making one hundred fresh claims.

                  You have not refuted a single claim of mine. You challenged Yara’s claims about dancing Israelis and Silverstein’s order to “pull it”. I have no obligation to respond to claims I never made.

                  You challenged my claims about the nano-thermite and the molten steel, and I rebuked your challenge. And you have made a new challenge about insulation, which I am going to destroy below by referring to something I wrote earlier which you intellect was unable to assimilate.

                  This is almost too stupid and dishonest to respond to.

                  The reason you put insulation on steel beams is because normal fires, can, and routinely do, reach temperatures that substantially weaken steel. If “Jet fuel cannot melt steel” why are the beams coated with fire resistant insulation?

                  As usual, you presume you know something about physics and engineering but you are never correct in your silly and childish misunderstanding of physics and engineering.

                  Neither ae911truth.org nor myself claimed that insulation on steel beams is not necessary to protect against steel weakening due to fires.

                  The failure of your assimilation is due to the fact that you never bothered to watch the videos I provided for you which refute the NIST models and official story as told by NIST. Or that you had some issue in digesting the information in those videos (such as you flippant appeal to your own ignorant misunderstandings of physics and engineering). In those videos, they explain what I am about to tell you now. The problem is you are unwilling to do the necessary prerequisite homework assignment so that you could understand the additional evidence that is presented based upon presuming the student of 9/11 has already studied the prerequisites they were given the links to!

                  As Yara and I have told you already numerous times that if the building had collapsed due to beams that weakened or even deformed due to heat, then the building could not have collapsed at free fall acceleration perfectly into its own footprint. It would have toppled to one side of the other and also it could not have completely collapse.

                  [*Rest of comment deleted because it contains more links to Troofer lies, and I do not want to give page rank or publicity to repetitious and tedious barefaced lies*]

                • jim says:

                  > > > I already provided the irrefutable evidence of molten steel

                  > > I followed your link, found no such evidence, just more troofers telling more lies, without providing evidence or explanation for their lies. It is a trail of breadcrumbs. One troofer confidently cites another troofer, and I supposed that other troofer will cite yet another.

                  > Jim you’re always lying. There’s plenty of evidence on the page I linked.

                  There is zero evidence. There is exactly what you post in this comment on this blog to which I respond: Claims that unspecified evidence exists somewhere, evidence that is so obvious, so clear, and so compelling that you do not need to actually present it, not evidence, but more claims about evidence.

                  If the evidence exists, present it here. I have become tired of following your links, and finding nothing but more of the same, confident bombastic assertions that substance exists, but a total lack of substance, plus claims that some video shows something, when it shows the opposite of that thing.

                  There is no evidence of molten steel. Someone, probably you under another name, eventually linked to a video showing burning stuff falling from a building which he claimed, without evidence or explanation, to be molten steel, though it quite obviously was not hot and bright enough to be molten steel, and was composed of large, approximately human sized fragments, while droplets of molten steel would be droplet sized.

                  You lie, you know you lie, and when challenged for evidence, you tell us that compelling proof exists, which is so compelling and so obvious you do not need to tell us what it is.

                  If evidence for molten steel in the 911 fires exists, post that evidence here now.

                  You never present evidence for any of your astonishing claims. You present claims that evidence exists, not evidence.

                • jim says:

                  I am going to delete all further posts by X unless they contain evidence for molten steel – not claims that evidence exists somewhere else, but the evidence itself. If he says a video contains evidence, he should give a non clickable video link (any clickable links will be instantly deleted by me, because of past abuse to link to crap, thereby generating publicity and page rank for the usual lies) and identify the time in the video that shows molten steel, and why the thing shown should be interpreted as molten steel or steel that was formerly molten and refroze.

                  No video links to talking heads telling me that evidence for molten steel exists somewhere else in some unexplained way are wanted. No references to some other page that supposedly contains compelling proof. I have read far too many such pages. If there is anything of substance on those pages he should select the part that is of substance and copy and paste it here. Bombastic assertions that substance exists are not substance.

                • X says:

                  [*This comment deleted because it does not contain evidence for molten steel in the 911 fires, but rather the usual bombastic claims that compelling and persuasive evidence for something improbable and remarkable exists somewhere else*]

                • X says:

                  Jim I watched the molten steel pour out of the WTC towers on TV on the day it happened.

                  You can find the numerous videos on Youtube. A simple Google search will find them for you.

                • jim says:

                  Well, I watched and I did not see molten steel in the 911 fires.

                  Give the url in text form (not clickable form) and the time in the video where you claim you saw molten steel.

                  And don’t tell me I can easily find the evidence. Troofers are always saying the evidence for their claims is readily available, and it never is.

                  Molten steel is enormously brighter than ordinary fires, because enormously hotter than ordinary fires. You cannot look at it, it is like looking at the surface of the sun. If molten steel, would stick out like dog’s balls. The hottest things in the 911 fires are only ordinarily flame hot.

                  If molten steel was seen, no one could possibly doubt seeing it. And I quite certainly doubt seeing it.

                • X says:

                  Video title: 9/11: South Tower – Molten steel #1 (WTC)

                  youtube.com / watch?v=LaDB5sBoqZE

                  The video is only 59 seconds in duration. Near to the end of the video the molten steel pouring down can even be seen as a still molten shower as it approaches the ground at the lower floors.

                  I entirely expect you to apply some of Jim’s hokey physics excuses. Perhaps you will imagine you are seeing burning pieces of office rugs burning all the way as they fall to the ground. Or perhaps Jim will claim these are Photoshopped videos. I am confident you can invent some “Jimbo-logic” to remain in denial. Your blog an instance of Poe’s law in action.

                  Remember it can’t be molten aluminum because that would silvery in color not glowing orange.

                • OU says:

                  Obviously not molten steel. Molten steel is enormously hotter and brighter than flame hot. I have seen molten steel – it is intensely bright. You have to wear goggles to look at it. This stuff is only ordinary flame hot, ordinary flame bright. Probably molten aluminum carrying burning stuff – human flesh, bits of seats, bits off office equipment, with it.

                  look at the fragments. They are not droplet sized, they are seat cushion sized. Probably burning seat cushions, parts of burning desks and human body parts, carried on a river of molten aluminum. The flow looks like a liquid, probably is a liquid, but when it falls, the flame bright bits are far too big to be liquid, must be quite large solid things carried in or on the liquid. Probably smashed up burning seats and people on a river of liquid aluminum. When the aluminum falls, it vanishes, because not hot enough to be bright, but we see the flames of the seat parts and people parts.

                  If you put aluminum in an ordinary gas flame, which is about the same heat as a jet fuel flame, will melt. Yes, molten aluminum from a gas flame looks silvery, not flame bright, but those flame bright chunks are not droplets, they are solid lumps the size of plane seat cushions. Too bright to be molten aluminum, but not nearly bright enough to be molten steel. Only ordinarily flame bright.

                • jim says:

                  Here is a video that shows actual molten iron. The video is taken in broad daylight, but the light from the iron is so intense that the camera has to be stopped down to make everything else black as night.

                  That is what molten iron actually looks like.

                  If that stuff pouring out of the 911 fire was molten iron, would have burned a hole in the camera, unless the camera was stopped down to make everything except the molten iron black as night. If there was molten steel in the 911 fires, no one would have the slightest doubt about it.

                • X says:

                  Actually I think this video gives a more complete footage of the molten steel pouring out of the WTC tower:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE

                  It required a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) court order to get the government to release this video. And I clearly see why they were hiding it as the molten steel is very recognizable:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=EJT8K77DTYM

                • jim says:

                  This is what thermite and a stream of molten steel looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4
                  at thirty one seconds, daylight goes black, because the light from the molten steel is so intense, that the camera has to be stopped right down.

                  At forty two seconds, daylight is not quite black, but the light from the molten iron is saturating the camera.

                  And now you know what a stream of molten iron produced by thermite looks like. It so much brighter than sunlight, that sunlight is darkness.

                  It is almost impossible to photograph molten iron. It is just too bright.

                • X says:

                  The following video at 0:20 shows a blog of what appears to be molten something which they appear to be indicating came from WTC and then remainder of the video shows brief orange hot spots during the digging out of the pile of debris:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=7fs2duxjpE4

                  Here follows is a Quora post with photo of a huge glob of the cooled molten steel that was taken from the WTC and stored at a hanger for debris from WTC:

                  quora.com / How-do-you-debunk-the-theory-of-thermite-being-the-cause-of-molten-steel-from-the-twin-towers-during-9-11-to-a-conspiracy-theorist/answer/Brighton-Jaimeson

                  The following video at 6:13 has a photo of a crane at 9/11 lifting some molten steel out of the pile:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=Xy_jMrJGF9M

                • X says:

                  Obviously not molten steel. Molten steel is enormously hotter and brighter than flame hot. I have seen molten steel – it is intensely bright. You have to wear goggles to look at it. This stuff is only ordinary flame hot, ordinary flame bright.

                  Following video is real molten steel. And it is not as bright as what I saw on the 9/11 videos:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=xGLHFoa-9Tg

                  Next excuse Jim? Did your dog eat your homework assignment?

                • X says:

                  Jim if you want to protest that the prior video is molten iron, then here is one with molten steel and we see it is less bright than the sunlight outside the factory:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=Xjl-mx5MDmo

                • X says:

                  The video shows the brightness Jim is citing but at the 4:40 we see the near identical effect that we see on the 9/11 video. The shower of metal is not nearly as bright as the solid pour:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=vNzP9cvHSkM

                  So once again we have demonstrated the Jim’s judgement of reality and physics is not accurate and cannot be trusted.

                • jim says:

                  > The video shows the brightness Jim is citing but at the 4:40 we see the near identical effect that we see on the 9/11 video. The shower of metal is not nearly as bright as the solid pour:

                  Bare faced lie, as I have come to expect from troofers:

                  The molten iron saturates the camera, and brightly illuminates its surroundings. The molten iron does not look like a stream of liquid, it looks like a Star Wars light saber.

                  You guys keep saying that you see X, but when anyone looks, they see Y. You lie.

                  The light from the molten iron blooms out over the image of the ladle and the tank. You cannot see the stream of molten iron itself, because you cannot see anything in the image near the stream of molten iron. For example, you cannot see the rim of the tank.

                  In contrast, the stuff pouring out of the 911 fire is only ordinarily flame hot and flame bright.

                  Over and over again you tell barefaced lies that anyone can instantly and easily check, and just tell so many lies that people cannot instantly check all of them.

                  In this image, you can see the stuff around the molten iron, but you cannot see the molten iron, because it is too bright, and you cannot see anything, for example the rim of the tank, near the molten iron. Thus it looks like a special effect from a Star Wars movie, not like a stream of fluid.

                • X says:

                  Here is a photo of one of the structural steel beams as it is clearly standing on a sunny day in the pile of debris, appears to be angle cut at 45 degrees so that the upper portion of the beam will slide off and collapse:

                  http://www.sharpprintinginc.com / 911/images/pagemaster/jones9_p1_2.jpg

                  There is a video that attempts to debunk that photo asserting that it was cut by clean-up crews:

                  youtube.com / watch?v=DlkWFDiYgig

                  But they are full of shit because no clean up crew would use 45 degree angle cuts and have the beam slide on them while they are cutting.

                  The comment on that Youtube explains perfectly:

                  This video is nothing more than a lame attempt at covering up the OBVIOUS demolition of both Trade Towers and notice, the shill that made this video never addressed the question of WHY the supposed cleanup crews would cut these huge steel columns at a 30 and 45 degree angle. I’m a seasoned welder of many years and can tell you without a doubt that there is absolutely NO REASON to cut them columns like this. Also, there are more damning evidence as far as these cuts that i happen to notice as well, including EVIDENCE of the device to hold the cutting charges in one photo.

                • jim says:

                  > Here is a photo of one of the structural steel beams as it is clearly standing on a sunny day in the pile of debris, appears to be angle cut at 45 degrees so that the upper portion of the beam will slide off and collapse:

                  This was obviously cut with an angle grinder, which is what you do with steel beams preparatory to carting them off for scrap. Is your story now that the two towers came down because people were on it cutting with angle grinders?

                  You are not even trying to make sense – notice that the story that the two towers came down by cutting is inconsistent with your controlled demolition theory, which is also inconsistent with your molten steel thermite theory.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In all fairness, it’s not that molten iron/steel turns sunlight into darkness: it’s that the camera adjusts to prevent the visual equivalent of ‘clipping’. (Basically it’s the normalisation of levels to fit within an arbitrary digital scale not determined by reality.)
                  This is just a side-effect of the digital revolution. Old analogue film has to be adjusted by hand and can easily be set to show normal daylight plus a bright concentrated light source. It’ll look to the film like it looks to the naked eye: something pretty bright is there.

                  Cameras auto-adjust in the same way that your TV can be set (and is often set by default) to auto-adjust sound, leading to ridiculous volume increases during brief semi-silences.

                  Just another example of the failure of the computer revolution and the assumption that AI is prudential rather than just technical.

                • X says:

                  The molten iron saturates the camera, and brightly illuminates its surroundings. The molten iron does not look like a stream of liquid, it looks like a Star Wars light saber.

                  You select the frame with the darkest ambient lighting you can to make an entirely irrelevant conclusion. And you ignore the frames where the solid pour has dispersed into a shower of droplets which looks nearly identical to what we saw on the 9/11 film.

                  Jim it is quite obvious that you’re running some sort of disinformation psyop. Most likely you work for the globalists. Spreading disinformation.

                  Anyway, I hope we have the “pleasure” of meeting one day fruitcake. I am done with your nonsense until then.

                  Goodbye asshole.

                • jim says:

                  > > The molten iron saturates the camera, and brightly illuminates its surroundings. The molten iron does not look like a stream of liquid, it looks like a Star Wars light saber.

                  > You select the frame with the darkest ambient lighting you can to make an entirely irrelevant conclusion

                  That was the frame at 4:40, the frame that you chose as most resembling the 911 pour.

                  When the molten iron pours, the camera or the camera operator turns the brightness down as far as it will go, making the ambient lighting look dark. And cannot or does not turn the brightness down far enough to properly photograph the molten iron, which is too bright to see, too bright to photograph correctly.

                  The stuff pouring out of the burning 911 building is not molten iron. It is merely ordinarily flame hot. Molten iron is too bright to look at without goggles, too bright to easily photograph, too bright to photograph correctly with an ordinary camera – and has not been photographed correctly in this video that you chose, that you chose as resembling the 911 pour. Similarly, thermite burning.

                  You guys knowing lie about the evidence, and your tactic is to spit out so many barefaced lies, so fast, that people get tired and cannot check them all.

                • Yara says:

                  > > Deep in the Canadian wilderness, a very large lumberjack exerts himself.[Rest of this lengthy, irrelevant, and completely evidence free comment deleted as a total waste of reader bandwidth. This deleted comment reflected the troother tactic of just hurling lengthy random stupid lies at enormous length, invoking vast amounts of claimed, but not presented, evidence, until their opposition gets tired and bored]

                  > I bet you didn’t even read it through, you cheeky fucking wanker.

                  I read enough of it to know it was going to be pile of unsupported lies, and thus a waste of my bandwidth, and the bandwith of anyone reading this blog.

                • jim says:

                  If you guys present actual evidence, I will allow the comment, but just endlessly repeating already exposed lies with even greater confidence but no attempt at explanation or evidence will be deleted as a waste of bandwidth

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnLcUxV1dPo

                  1:27-1:32 “See the thing leaning like this” – fireman saying World Trade Tower seven “is definitely going to fall”

                  The fall of the towers simply did not look like a controlled demolition to anyone, and saying that it did look like that is just a flat out barefaced in my face lie

                  You can see the towers leaning into their fall on the videos, and the people at the time saying that they are leaning and about to fall.

                  Troofers are flat out barefaced lying about what I saw, what they saw, and what people on the ground said at the time that they were seeing.

                  I saw at the time what that fireman said at the time he was seeing, and what we both saw is recorded on the same video and you can all see it all over again if you want to waste the bandwidth.

                  Each tower began its fall by tilting towards the damage caused by the massive impact of the planes, like a tree leaning towards the axeman’s notch. They fell as you would expect them to fall from fire and damage, not like a controlled demolition. We all saw this, just as we all saw the planes.
                  .

                • Yara says:

                  * I don’t know, but [Molyneux]I’m sure we’ll find out.[/Molyneux]

                • X says:

                  That was the frame at 4:40, the frame that you chose as most resembling the 911 pour.

                  Which is exactly what I told you in my post where I linked it, that it exemplifies the brightness that you were claiming. I also stated that following that is a shower of molten steel that precisely resembles the shower on 9/11.

                  You’re making claims about optics and cameras that are not backed by expertise about their physics and engineering. Specifically we don’t know at what distance was the camera used to take the video of 9/11 that is cited. We don’t know what zoom factor, digital filtering employed, etc.. So you’re just pulling unsubstantiated BS out-of-your-asshole. Anyone with a brainstem can detect the disingenuous tactics you’re employing which make your replies worthless.

                  What you can’t refute is any sort of holistic analysis of the facts. Instead you want to force the debate into a narrow analysis of only one claim in isolation. Then you attack that claim with your flimsy personal opinions that have no backing by actual physics or engineering expertise. Analyzing a crime scene by considering each fact in isolation is not only idiotic (no investigator would do that!), it clearly shows that you are not interested in the truth. You have some other agenda.

                • jim says:

                  >> following that is a shower of molten steel that precisely resembles the shower on 9/11.

                  I don’t see what you say you see. Tell me the exact moment of the frame that you claim resembles the 911 pour, and I will post a photo of that pour of molten steel (If indeed it is a pour of molten steel, and not, as is usually the case with troofer “evidence”, something utterly irrelevant and entirely unrelated.)

                • X says:

                  Jim hope you don’t mind I am interesting this here because I want to make sure Yara sees it as I have no way to contact him and he was asking out the relevance of Bitcoin in one of the prior blogs. And I think also Jim this is useful for you and your readers in general. The following link (afaik) has no back links to anything about 9/11.

                  I laid out a very succinct explanation of what Bitcoin will become and why it was created (to move us to a two-tier financial system):

                  steemit.com / cryptocurrency/@anonymint/re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-goldgoatsnguns-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-re-anonymint-bitcoin-rises-because-land-is-becoming-worthless-20180905t155947492z

                  The above linked blog comment also has detailed reasoning on the upcoming price movements expected and their expected timing.

                  Please do not delete. Hopefully this is my final comment post in this blog.

                • X says:

                  Tell me the exact moment of the frame that you claim resembles the 911 pour

                  4:45

                • jim says:

                  OK: Here is your preferred video of hot burning liquid pouring from the World Trade Tower after 911:

                  And here is your preferred video of molten iron pouring:

                  The bright white light the molten steel casts on everything around it is the difference between burning jet fuel hot, and molten steel hot.

                  Obviously the World Trade tower stuff is only flame hot, burning jet fuel hot.

                  The second image, showing the pour that is known to be molten steel is obviously one hell of a lot hotter than that.

                  One is yellow hot, and fails to illuminate the surrounding objects. The other is white hot, and its intense light brightens everything around it.

                  You lie about what all of us saw.

                • X says:

                  Here are some photographs of the pentagon, which show rather small bits of flight 77 amidst the wreckage.

                  Thus, the proposition that flight 77 never hit the pentagon appears to be decisively falsified.

                  I do not think I replied to this before or at least I don’t think I replied sufficiently.

                  Little bits of shrapnel prove nothing at all. That is such a superficial analysis that it makes you not credible to even make such a lame claim based on such a flimsy datum.

                  You tend to focus on isolated tidbits which are invalidated by the holistic information that an investigator would consume. Jim have you ever studied the Nyquist Sampling Theorem? This is a fundamental theorem of information theory which stipulates that if you undersample (i.e. don’t capture all the context), you will get aliasing error which can give you an entirely incorrect representation of the signal you were attempting to reconstruct. That theorem can be extended to be generally applicable to any genre of information, not just over the time domain but also over the space domain (after all the two domains inseparable via spacetime and the Fourier transform).

                  If you were to actually dig deep into a holistic analysis, you would come to understand that the totality of the facts makes it absolutely impossible that the alleged commercial airplane hit the Pentagon. I had presented numerous reasons why which you never responded to. For example, where are the holes in the Pentagon wall for the t tons (each) of engines on the wings? Or at least why are the windows not even broken where the engines would have impacted? And you have not refute the fact that it would absolutely impossible to even point the nose below the floor of the 2nd floor (as the hole and non-fire damage was entirely contained to the first floor), because it was physically impossible due to both the engines would have stuck the ground and the ground effect aerodynamics at the velocity reported by the government. Those are just some of the many corroborating evidence which you choose to ignore. Hope you are happy with your truth Jim.

                  I think I remember (not 100% sure) that I have links in my blog that show the alleged bits of plane wreckage on the lawn which were identifiable as such were planted on the lawn after the actual explosion. I can not remember the details, but I believe perhaps they were not seen in one photo and the later appeared in another photo. Or something like that. But that is not really important. The entire charade is entirely impossible based on the most important physical evidence which I explained in the prior paragraph.

                  I wrote a blog in 2012 that concluded the essence of genius is to not focus on the irrelevant:

                  unheresy.com / Essence%20of%20Genius.html

                  You Jim seem to focus on the irrelevant and ignore the relevant.

                  For example, you known damn well that defection destroys State patriarchy, yet you are totally ignoring that our patriarchs in government from all political parties have defected on us and are killing us. Yet you make excuses, because ostensibly you just cannot accept the horrible truth of our world and the loss of your fantasy of what you wish our world could be.

                • jim says:

                  > > Here are some photographs of the pentagon, which show rather small bits of flight 77 amidst the wreckage.

                  > > Thus, the proposition that flight 77 never hit the pentagon appears to be decisively falsified.

                  > Little bits of shrapnel prove nothing at all.

                  Oh come on.

                • X says:

                  You lie about what all of us saw.

                  Incorrect. You’re ignorance of how to properly investigate lies to you Jim.

                  The bright white light the molten steel casts on everything around it is the difference between burning jet fuel hot, and molten steel hot.

                  I see slight glow on the WTC exterior wall behind, left the molten steel that is pouring out. Of course we would not expect the glow to be as intense outside in broad sunny daylight as inside an enclosed factory with a roof. Additionally and more importantly, this is another example where you don’t understand physics. The radiance of the steel inside the factory only has to disperse over a very short distance before it is reflected by objects and containment all around it. Therefore the intensity of the radiated light is amplified by the environment, whereas in the case of the WTC the radiance is dispersed and de-amplified by the environment. It’s nonsense to conclude anything whatsoever based on the relevant radiance because the environmental and camera proximity parameters are all different. All we can conclude is that what was pouring out of the WTC looks more similar to molten steel than any other explanations. Other attempted explanations are contrived and can be easily refuted when analysed in detail. For example your assertion that the burning materials are carbon based can be easily refuted and have been refuted in the original link I gave you on this topic. The jet refutation below also applies to any carbon-based objects, they would not appear to be a stream of molten fire and also not spontaneously disperse into a shower as we see for molten steel.

                  Secondly, you grabbed the screen capture from the video of the steel factory a split second too early. Capture it at a later moment and the apparent radiance has decreased significant as the camera has automatically adjusted its exposure and any digital post processing filtering.

                  Obviously the World Trade tower stuff is only flame hot, burning jet fuel hot.

                  The government (NIST) said that the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes. FEMA experts said four minutes. So the timeline makes it impossible that pouring out of yellow-orange is jet fuel burning.

                  Again you have a 5 year old’s cartoon level of understanding of physics. Jet fuel liquid will not burn as a stream of fire. Try to light some kerosene and toss it and observe what happens. And especially not for 100s of meters all the way to near the ground as shown in the videos I provided.

                  The physics of flamethrows requires that the fuel be turned into a mist in order to burn over all its surface. I will quote:

                  reddit.com / r/askscience/comments/4e7gnz/how_does_a_flamethrower_prevent_the_back_flow_of/

                  Things need the fire triangle to burn. These are heat, fuel, and an oxidizing agent (for simplicity oxygen – O2). These 3 items all have minimum values they need to support their function. Example a little heat might not cause combustion but add a little more to the fuel/O2 and you get fire. The liquid fuel in the pipe is missing both the heat and the Oxygen. In addition when you dig a little deeper you will find that almost all fuels must convert to vapor to burn so seeing as the fuel in the pipe is still liquid this also reduces the possibility of combustion. If you look closely you can see that the flames don’t actually appear until the liquid fuel is a few inches from the tip at the point where enough of the fuel has vaporized to support the combustion

                • jim says:

                  > I see slight glow on the WTC exterior wall behind, left the molten steel that is pouring out. Of course we would not expect the glow to be as intense outside in broad sunny daylight as inside an enclosed factory with a roof

                  I showed you videos of molten steel in bright sunlight, and the brightness of the molten steel is enormously more intense than bright sunlight, requiring the camera aperture to be adjusted down to make full sun seem like night.

                  When molten steel is photographed in the noonday sun, everything near the molten steel is illuminated by the steel far more intensely than by the sun.

                  Molten steel makes sunlight look like candlelight at best, darkness at worst.

                  Here is a video of molten iron in full sunlight. Everything near the molten iron is so intensely illuminated, that the sun seems like darkness:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRZFTJe22Tg

                  Here is another video of molten steel in sunlight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D1ANJTb_2k Everything that is illuminated by mere sunlight shows up as completely dark.

                • X says:

                  [*Another evidence free troofer post deleted*]

                • X says:

                  [*This comment deleted because it wastes reader bandwidth by repeating yet again, without any attempt at explanation or evidence, the blatant lie that the towers fell down in a manner characteristic of demolition – everything falling straight down in immediate free fall starting at the same moment, when in fact the towers started their fall by toppling to one side towards the gaping holes smashed in their supports, like trees falling towards the notch cut by the axe.*]

                  Do you dispute the

                  [*Rest of comment deleted, because X troofers should produce evidence for a claim, before anyone else needs to dispute that claim and that evidence.*]

                • jim says:

                  If you want to argue “A therefore B, therefore the Israelis did it, and Muslims and Robert Mueller are pure as the driven snow”

                  you need to start by producing evidence for A, before arguing “therefore B”.

                  Until you first produce evidence for A, no one has to take any position on whether A is true or not, or whether A leads to B.

                  You are trying to get us to think past the sale.

                  It is deceptive and manipulative to ask us to think about the implications of A being true, or ask us to go looking for evidence that A is not true, when you have not presented any reason to believe A, other than the unsupported claims of a proven liar who changes his story with every breath.

                • X says:

                  Not an explosion. That is a crash. I know what explosions sound like.

                  youtu.be /GvAv-114bwM

                  From 5:00 to 5:25, you are proven wrong. The firefighters even say that it was WTC exploding and say the building is going to be coming down soon.

                • X says:

                  Here is a video of molten iron in full sunlight. Everything near the molten iron is so intensely illuminated, that the sun seems like darkness:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRZFTJe22Tg

                  Here is another video of molten steel in sunlight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D1ANJTb_2k Everything that is illuminated by mere sunlight shows up as completely dark.

                  Lol dimwit. Conflating flames with molten steel.

                • jim says:

                  You lie about what is in these videos. The light in the videos comes from molten steel, which is enormously brighter than flames, whereas the liquid that we see flowing out of the two towers in the 911 video is only flame bright, therefore is burning jet fuel, or molten aluminum mixed with burning seat cushions and burning people.

                • X says:

                  Jim I must admit the official story is becoming more plausible now that I’ve seen the evidence of the camel-riding hijackers:

                  i.imgur.com /j2pe6rz.jpg

              • X says:

                I just rebutted one of your claims.

                Excuse me Jim. Where precisely is that said rebuttal? I am not finding it on this page so far.

                Jim apparently you’re referring to your discussion with Yara. Those are not my claims. You have not yet refuted any of my claims.

                I warning you. You will lose this debate. I did my very detailed homework.

                • The Cominator says:

                  X most of the real evidence of 9/11 points to the following conspiracies which are not the truther conspiracies.

                  1) An awful lot of big Saudis were involved in supporting these people and that our government was bribed at all levels to look away.

                  2) Either massive incompetence or deliberate negligence on the part of the FBI and Justice Department, they had field agents who wanted to arrest some of these people but these got turned down at headquarters. James Woods the actor for instance reported a dry run to the FBI.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, we have plenty of real evidence for bad people doing bad things leading to 911. In particular, plenty of real evidence of bad people in the FBI, the same bad people who are now attempting a creeping coup against Trump.

                  And all of the tall troofer tales point away from those bad people doing bad things.

                • The Cominator says:

                  X if you want to hurt the government and the deep state LIHOP (Let it happen un purpose, or at least they had a policy of not arresting Saudis) is much much easier to prove has much more compelling evidence and would be ALMOST as damaging as MIHOP (the government MADE IT HAPPEN) which has very weak evidence and is much much harder to prove.

                • Yara says:

                  >Jim apparently you’re referring to your discussion with Yara.

                  I’m not aware of any such discussion, which would imply two-way information flow. Bald-faced bluster and blatant disregard for supplied primary sources don’t, I believe, count as such.

                  I’m not sure whether it’s conscious prevarication or the case of a superpowerful crimestop module is simply too powerful, but I suppose in the end it doesn’t matter: once a commie, always a commie.

                • X says:

                  I’m not aware of any such discussion, which would imply two-way information flow. Bald-faced bluster and blatant disregard for supplied primary sources don’t, I believe, count as such.

                  Yara I posit Jim feels that if he does not defend the neocons then all hope is lost for returning to his 17th century Victorian nirvana. I’m thinking his entire emotional state-of-being is tied up in that. And he views our evidence as subterfuge and subversion of his goals. I don’t think he can accept that maybe what he wants is impossible and that we need to instead have a different strategy for achieving some goals for Hajnal white culture.

                  I’m not sure whether it’s conscious prevarication or the case of a superpowerful crimestop module is simply too powerful, but I suppose in the end it doesn’t matter: once a commie, always a commie.

                  I grok everything except the commie bit. Could you unpack your intended meaning for me?

                • jim says:

                  > Yara I posit Jim feels that if he does not defend the neocons

                  Who is it that is defending the neocons? On the Jerusalem issue, you are taking neocon position. On Muslims, you are taking the progressive position. On every issue, you find supposedly reactionary grounds for taking left wing positions, much as Pope Francis keeps discovering extremely holy Christian grounds for transvestite prostitutes, priests, and small children having sex in a great big pile.

                • X says:

                  Jim you’re confusing the map with the territory. I expounded on that in our discussion down-thread as linked below:

                  https://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-perceptible-global-warming/#comment-1883347

                  Neither Yara nor I support progressivism, Muslims, Neocons, Zionists, etc.. My best guess about Yara is he and I both support factual truth and empowerment for white males. We’re trying to figure out how to not fail and not be enslaved.

                • X says:

                  On every issue, you find supposedly reactionary grounds for taking left wing positions.

                  Which left wing positions? That 9/11 was a controlled demolition? How is that truth left or right wing. Truth is not a political position.

                  Is my stance that Puritanism teaches boys to be cucked a left-wing position?

                  I have not supported any of Pope Francis’ insanity. I even wrote a blog criticizing that he is wants to offer mercy to Muslims who slaughter Christians. And I was happy to see President Duterte tell the Pope to fuck off.

                • Yara says:

                  >I grok everything except the commie bit. Could you unpack your intended meaning for me?

                  He was a literal politically active communist in the 1970s to the extent that he visited Cuba or Russia or wherever and came back chastened.

                • X says:

                  He was a literal politically active communist in the 1970s to the extent that he visited Cuba or Russia or wherever and came back chastened.

                  Once an ideologue, always an ideologue. The Western boomer generation is a plague on humanity.

                  I’m curious where you obtained that background information?

                • X says:

                  I’m curious where you obtained that background information?

                  Hmm.

                  bitcointalk.org /index.php?topic=628344.msg45289153#msg45289153

      • Joe says:

        Every man has a definition of an alpha male that includes himself.

        • X says:

          Which is why most every man here is a defector loving collectivist and not interested in meritocracy. Very few here are willing to face the reality that without the defection State, they would be butchered and enslaved by the warrior crusades of real alphamales.

          So instead we opt for subjugation by the global-elite alphamales who insidiously leverage our betamaleness.

          Everyone on this forum is probably all talk and no action.

          • Joe says:

            You are the resistance, X. If you have a plan then I suggest you implement it now.

          • Koanic says:

            > Everyone on this forum is probably all talk and no action.

            Gamma detected.

            • Roberto says:

              Did you cry when Vox Day raped you?

            • X says:

              > Gamma detected.

              To be alpha, I think you also need to be gamma. You play by your own rules. These days you don’t want the betas to recognize you as alpha. The politicians are just lower-level fodder. The alphas are hidden behind the curtain pulling strings.

              • Yara says:

                >The politicians are just lower-level fodder. The alphas are hidden behind the curtain pulling strings.

                Duh.

        • Yara says:

          Ha!

        • eternal anglo says:

          Humans are so dumb amirite? We’re all so solipsistic and biased that objective reflection is basically impossible lol. Well, except for me, because I am capable of pointing this out. /sarcasm

          No, I know perfectly well I’m a spergy beta with all the social grace of a kangaroo in a ball pit. I’m 6’4″and I cannot score chubby 5’s. I am sure that with an extensive revamp of my priors, reflexes and self-presentation regarding girls in accordance with Jim/Heartiste theory, I will have more success, but as things stand I am in for 10-15 years bone dry before I am blessed with the wonderful opportunity to obtain some well-chewed roast beef in exchange for my cuckshekels.

          The WQ is by far the most important part of the dark enlightenment. The WQ makes the Restoration personal. Every day, more betas realise the simple, matter-of-fact horror of their position. “Alpha fux, beta bux” gets nods of agreement among normie nerds nowadays. The King who provides them with young, obedient virgin wives will have men falling on their knees before him in the street when he passes. I do not think adapting to a restored government, or ensuring loyalty to it, is likely to be a problem.

        • I don’t, actually. Perhaps I think that I could be if I cared.

          You know, on a related quality, social skills, Paul Graham wrote once that nerds are unpopular in high school not because they are unable to be popular, but because they are not interested in doing the things that would make them popular, and more interested in doing other things. Initially I found his opinion retarded because just look at how unhappy and bitter folks like /r/incels are. Then I realized a lot of fat people are unhappy and bitter about being fat but still choose to stay so instead of changing their eating and exercise habits. While I learned on LessWrong that wanting and liking things is not the same, sometimes we want doing things we dislike and sometimes like doing things we don’t want to, it is quite possible that at least some unhappy fat people would be even more unhappy if someone forced them to do all the necessary things. Preferences are still preferences even if a person has a scarcity mentality and thus it looks like all choices suck.

          So just like fatty would prefer to not change his habits and yet magically lose fat, but not prefer to suffer through a dietary change, maybe PG meant that the nerd would prefer to be popular and still talk about anime, but not prefer to be popular if it requires him to talk about football.

          I think there are plenty of men who could be alpha if they cared. If they wanted that so strongly that they would be willing to do everything that requires. Roosh V once wrote his initial motivation was a strong burning desire for sex. If you don’t feel that, then it does not really worth it, you can just marry a kind and nice but not sexy woman, one with a similar low sex drive, have sex on vacations perhaps when you both escape the stresses of life and thus can focus on enjoyment, and generally not bother much about alpha. It does not mean becoming an utter gamma cuck of course – the range is quite wide. But it may be that just your natural masculinity, without performance, may suffice in this case.

          It seems to me alpha is a full time job or nearly so. What you get is a great variety of sex with gorgeous women. But even if you don’t do that job, you will not be entirely sexless, nor wifeless or famililess, heirless, if you are not totally the other extreme. So everybody has to decide if they want to pay that price.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “Alpha male” is just another irritating misuse of biological jargon, up there with ‘r-selected humans’.
          By definition, there is only ONE alpha male in an animal social group. In the human context that would mean ONE alpha male in whatever social group a particular person belonged to. Drawing those lines is very difficult in modern human society for geographical, economic and especially technological reasons but it’s pretty obvious that even for the most isolated first world human communities, there is no ‘alpha male’.
          Are there hunter-gatherers somewhere who have them? Sure. Were there good historical examples? Sure.
          Extant Western alpha males? Utter garbage.

    • javier says:

      The worst and most dire models I have seen show .8 degrees of warming in the last century. That is from the worst and most zealous fearmongers, the biggest “ZOMG we need to kill 6.5 billion people tomorrow or the planet is toast” crazies.

      Which makes me think their real goal is just to kill a lot of people and not really to save the planet.

    • X says:

      The last study on climate change that I read showed a rise of (I think) 1.6 Celsius over the last hundred years or so.

      People who trust fraudulent data and are easily hoodwinked by authority scare me the most I think. I would outgroup them.

  3. some guy says:

    elon musk is white male capitalist. some pople hate him but lotsa leftys like him

  4. John Hunyadi says:

    My opinion is that global warming is happening (even if not to the apocalyptic level we are told), but I too am unwilling to part with the comforts of Civilization without a damn good reason.

    To be honest, I am not really sure that CO2 emissions are the biggest culprit for global warming. Do you know what else our species have been doing since Antiquity, and has accelerated since the Industrial Revolution? Cutting down trees.

    Let’s make a thought experiment. Imagine yourself in the heart of a big European or American city in summer. Now imagine yourself in the middle of a forest, surrounded by secular trees. Where do you think you’re going to feel cooler?

    This is not a simple anecdote, BTW. Scientists found out that savanna regions created by cutting down the Amazon rainforest experienced much higher temperature variation than forested areas. It is also well-understood that planting trees in the Sahel region prevents the Sahara desert from advancing southwards.

    So, why this assault against CO2 emissions by factories, but not against the destruction of the biological devices evolve to suck it down and to transform it into oxygen in the presence of sunlight?

    • ivvenalis says:

      Cutting down trees, like population growth, stopped being a problem that anyone cared about when white people stopped doing it.

      • Yara says:

        Deforestation, overfishing, oceanic pollution, endocrinical environmental entoxification, carbon dependence, soil depletion, aquifer depletion, antibiotic-ridden cattle, growth-hormone-ridden poultry, dwindling crop varieties at the expense of MegaCorp GMOs (famine risk), territorial expansion of invasive species, and so on and so forth really are tremendous problems, which is why they are so seized upon by professional, semiprofessional, amateur, and useful idiot agitation activist/statists in the interminable pursuit of the slavish cause of illimited authoritarian expansion.

        • The Cominator says:

          Climate always changes and humans probably do have an effect due to land use and whatever it is that is killing corral reefs. CO2 though is likely insignificant and the effect that we do have is not testable.

          Even if the Al Gore theory is true (and its not) it would be subject to a prisoner’s dilemma.

          So the narrative on global warming is a lot about deindustrializing and impoverishing white people and a little about making Goldman Sachs money through the “carbon credits” scam.

          • Yara says:

            The carbon credits scam was inherently a push for a global tax, to be the foundation of a world government.

            • X says:

              Jim is also correct that it attacks Hajnal white males because it effectively destroys the free market for engineering and collapses the West into a leftistard clusterfuck.

              Jim has a keen sense of insight about anything that triggers his fag-o-meter. Yet he can’t accept the neocons are in bed with the Zionists working for a NWO.

              • Yara says:

                The Zionists want a free an independent muscular secular-Jewish State with Apartness and/or territorial expansion à la Greater Israel.

                I want a free and independent muscular secular-Protestant State with Apartness and/or territorial expansion à la Manifest Destiny.

                The Zionist Jews have a place in the world, under the Yara World Order. The Progressive Jews have Zionist Israel, where their children will be educated into Zionist Jews by the Israeli public school system, or Alaska, where they can choose to live like literal Eskimos.

                • Roberto says:

                  The most likely scenario of JQ solution is the following threefold program:

                  1. Extermination of the worst offenders, such as those who act like George Soros and those who would wish to act like George Soros (~5%);

                  2. Transfer to Israel of the masses of un-assimilable Schlomos and Chaims who are either religiously Jewish or Zionist or both (~85%);

                  3. Allowing the minority of Jews who are perfectly compatible with white civilization to stay within white civilization (~10%).

                  Jews be mad about 1., /pol/acks be mad about 3., so seems like the perfect plan.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In case Jim’s gone to bed (and I’m about to go to bed right now), it’s crucial for someone to just point out that nobody here is advocating any kind of illegal activity, especially violence, and nobody here would welcome state-initiated extermination campaigns, targeting Jews or anyone else for that matter.

                  The solution to the JQ and all similar questions is to secure the necessary power in white countries to guarantee the existence of our people and a future for white children. That just means having clear, enforced laws structured in such a way that the nation’s interests come first.
                  The JQ and similar problems are the direct result of there being a debate about what our objectives actually are. That debate needs to end: our objective is the health of our people, simple as that. It’s not up for debate.

                • Roberto says:

                  A state initiated extermination campaign against radical leftist subversives (of all ethnicities) will probably result in some 5% of Jewry, or 750,000 lox bagels, vanishing.

                • peppermint says:

                  > it’s crucial for someone to just point out that

                  kys fgt

                  you are the same decaying organic matter as everyone else. You’ve never had an original thought in your life and your short career in Internet racism is as much of a failure as anything else you’ve done.

                • Yara says:

                  >3. Allowing the minority of Jews who are perfectly compatible with white civilization to stay within white civilization (~10%).
                  >Jews be mad about 1., /pol/acks be mad about 3., so seems like the perfect plan.

                  I unequivocally endorse the presence of secular-Protestant Jews interested in a peaceful and harmonious coexistence with their natural spiritual parent culture.

  5. Bruce says:

    I’ve camped out in the backyard with the kids and camped out in the woods a dozen or two miles from the house – it’s colder camping in the woods.

  6. Cloudswrest says:

    “So, why the high drama about global warming? Why the catastrophism? Why the demand for dramatic changes that somehow always result in our power system being looted and damaged?

    The reason for the high drama is that science, technology, and industrialization was created by white male capitalists, an enormous achievement for which mankind should be eternally grateful. And people who hate whites, hate males, and hate capitalism want to destroy science, technology, and industrialization. ”

    ———————————-

    I remember reading an anecdote from a Peace Corps volunteer where he related the result of Western aid investment in African startup businesses, mainly farming. African farming exists mostly at the subsistence level, and due to the evolutionary psychology of the extended family structure, no other level is viable. What happens is any production above break even, instead of being reinvested into growth of the business, is siphoned off as handouts to, or extortion by, the extended family. Lower ranking/poorer family members demand aid/handouts, and higher ranking members demand protection money. Among the larger population there is no asabiyyah. For example do you think the president of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, doesn’t know for one minute that the policies he’s espousing for white farmers will completely fuck over South Africa and eventually hurt the black population even more than the whites (see Zimbabwe). Of course he does, but he and his kinsmen will be off, with their $billions in looted foreign aid, enjoying the good life in Switzerland or wherever. The rest of the people, black and white, can go to hell.

    Large scale technological civilization depends on collective cooperation by large quantities of intelligent people, and reinvestment into the civilization. This is impossible in a society with an extended family psychology. When the people who built the civilation go away, the infrastructor starts to get looted and cannibalized. Copper and aluminum are stolen from the grid. Stone is stolen from the temples, coliseums, etc to repair dwellings. Society collapses into a simpler structure. If the former population quantity relied on the civilation for existence you can imagine what happens next.

    In addition to intelligence, the nuclear family structure is what allowed Western society to prosper. With nuclear family psychology, family members only feel primary loyalty to spouse and children. All other dealings are more or less quid pro quo. But this also requires a strong government because you can no longer rely on your mafioso kinsmen for collective protection.

    • Dave says:

      In Ghana, all the shopkeepers are from Senegal, and in Senegal, all the shopkeepers are from Ghana. If you open a business within 200 miles of your birthplace, third-cousins you never heard of will show up every day demanding free stuff, and you can’t refuse because they’re “family”.

  7. B says:

    So, can I, in good conscience, go ahead and buy that Dodge Challenger I’ve been lusting after?

    Also, what is your opinion of electric and hybrid cars? If one doesn’t believe the party line on global warming, are they a good option for the frugal?

    Or are they a scam with no business case for individual drivers?

    • jim says:

      Hybrids work, particularly for inner city travel with frequent braking. Fully electric are a problem because you cannot use them to travel long distances, and because their very expensive battery packs fail after a disturbingly short lifetime.

      A fully electrical vehicle is only useful for golf cart style jobs – short low speed inner city travel with frequent braking. If you use it heavily, the battery pack cost will burn you. Maybe this will change with technological progress in batteries, but right now batteries just are not good enough.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      The real scam is hot vaporization technology not proliferating amongst piston engine manufacturers.

  8. vxxc says:

    O/T

    “Democrats have morphed into the trade union for America’s malignancies.
    Thugs, criminals, MS13, Porn Stars, radicals, illegals,
    and anything else that runs counter to our constitution, laws,
    or sovereignty is a welcome vote to Democrats.”

    Stolen Brilliance.

    Can’t get enough play/ RT

  9. Alrenous says:

    There’s no reason for it to be difficult to measure changes in albedo. Simply add up the total energy of the troposphere. Physicists do this routinely with small systems, doing it to the air is simply a matter of how much interpolation you would like to tolerate. Corroborate with satellites measuring outgoing radiation as compared to incoming radiation.
    However, this would be logical, rather than religious, so I would be unsurprised if it didn’t even occur to them. It would give unholy answers, so even if they carried it out it would be conscientiously misplaced.

  10. Encelad says:

    I can understand AGW as a clever plot for bureaucrats to thwart money into their pockets and gain status, like aztec priests sacrificing people to preserve the rising sun. But why would they wish to kill the golden goose? Is it insanity brought by envy or more like a holiness spiral pattern?

    • Doug Smythe says:

      This is the million dollar question. What makes it all the more incomprehensible is that plenty of the participants of this suicide cult are White male capitalists themselves. I figure a lot of them just don’t take it seriously. They have a naive faith that everybody is as cynical and opportunistic as they are, and that when push comes to shove nobody’s *really* going to delete the economy or anything like that. They don’t realize that the holy madness isn’t just an act.

    • jim says:

      Holiness spiral and envy are not separate hypotheses

      In a holiness spiral, you are demonizing someone as unholy, and you likely want the property and women of the people being demonized.

  11. Joe says:

    The greatest threat to an organism is other organisms.

    The entire debate is meaningless.

  12. The Cominator says:

    Jim,

    About sumptuary laws and getting women to respect the male status hierarchy what do you think of my idea of strictly no jewelry in public for single women. Maybe then restrict the jewelry of married women based on their husband’s status (and for instance we could lower the status of professional athletes by restricting their wives to a simple gold band ring)?

    • jim says:

      We want husbands to have authority over their wives. We don’t want this to result in marriage lowering a woman’s status. So, have to keep the status of single women down. Sumptuary laws restraining display by single women would help.

      • The Cominator says:

        Thats why I said no jewelry period for single women (maybe with some exception for actresses portraying historical figures but otherwise nothing at all) but then what jewelry married women can wear should be restricted according to their husband’s status.

        • Roberto says:

          >what jewelry married women can wear should be restricted according to their husband’s status.

          Well, yeah, but it shouldn’t be occupation-based, strictly speaking. Rather, should be class-based: royalty chicks should wear the best kind of jewelry, wives of yeomen second rate jewelry, wives of commoners third rate, and wives of slaves the crappiest.

          • The Cominator says:

            Normally I would have it be class based BUT I would have certain professions be akin to Roman “infames”. Professional athletes and most entertainers certainly (though I think the king could give exemptions to certain entertainers for dutiful patriotic activities), probably lawyers too.

            Their wives would be restricted to “bottom rung” dress.

            I disagree generally with hardcore NRx on slavery… I would have non hereditary civil slavery for certain criminals but no chattel slavery. I guess I’m an 1840s leftist…

            • peppermint says:

              Not rationality and market forces, nor baubles, can control women, the only thing that can control a woman is a man of higher status.

              Young women know, and will always know, that they are higher status than older women, no matter what you tell them.

              Do you want an easy, victimless crime to raise the status of the person who commits it?

              The right of first night is an evil lie against our Christian ancestors, but if you wanted it to be a real thing, sumptuary laws that humiliate normal women and their fathers would be how to do it.

              We want fathers who are law abiding and work for a living to be the highest status.

              • The Cominator says:

                I’m CERTAINLY not talking about making tradesmen artificially low status.

                I’m talking about making professional athletes and entertainers artificially lower status.

                What harm can they do, of course women will hate the sumptuary laws but what does that matter? They hated Cato the Censor’s sumptuary laws. But Roman marriage went to hell after they were repealed.

  13. X says:

    No Perceptible Sanity Remaining in the West

    https://deadline.com/2018/09/asia-argento-anthony-bourdain-parts-unknown-cnn-pulls-episodes-1202456000/

    Things are starting to get even worse for Asia Argento. CNN has pulled episodes of Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown that feature Argento. It’s the latest development since the disgraced #MeToo advocate was accused of sexual assault by Jimmy Bennett.

    […]

    Bennett, the actor-musician claims he was sexually assaulted by Argento in a Marina del Rey hotel room in 2013 when he was 17. Argento has since denied the accusations saying that she never engaged in a sexual relationship with him, and that she was “deeply shocked and hurt having read the news that is absolutely false.” The Italian actress did, however, confirm that her late boyfriend, Bourdain, paid Bennett as much as $380,000 to stop harassing Argento as part of a shakedown.

    Please tell me this is deadpan humor?

    How the fsck does a 17 year old man get sexually assaulted by reasonably attractive women? Even if she resembled the offspring of Godzilla and a hippopotamus, a bag over head would suffice for a horny 17 year old.

    • The Cominator says:

      Its the purity spiral of sex crimes. The nature of purity spirals is eventually they eat even there own. Asia Argento was an attention seeking thot trying to get her name in the papers.

      Of course she couldn’t “rape” a 17 year old boy and the idea she could is insane but I’m kinda glad she is being hoisted by her own thotard here.

    • peppermint says:

      Because no one wants their horny 17 year old son to get involved with an older woman. They want their 17 year old sons to be working on their careers with the goal of marrying a 17 year old woman in four years.

      It’s awkward because the 17 year old man doesn’t want anything to do with the derpy 13 year old girl who in four years will be his beautiful bride.

      If it could be ensured that the 17 year old man would purely be doing sex for money with the old whore, there wouldn’t be a problem, but the president of France proves that 17 year olds having sex with older women can easily be a problem.

      The joke is a 17 year old with a 25 year old hot teacher is good score bro. In reality when the 17 year old is 25 and has a solid career, the 25 year old is 33, fading in beauty without much time left to have kids.

      In this culture rape ranges from any kind of problematic sex like drunken hookups to the bizarre innovation of marital rape.

      • X says:

        Much better to teach your son to fuck every whore that opens her legs (assuming she has a recent STD test) and cum inside her. And to never, ever get emotionally attached to a whore. Fuck ’em, impregnate them, leave them. That’s exporting entropy. You’re way is not sustainable because you’re not exporting entropy while attempting a strict order.

        • X says:

          You’re[Your]. Need to turn off the simplistic automated spell checker in my fingers and tell it to delegate to my brain.

        • Yara says:

          >That’s exporting entropy.

          I mean… not if you’re depositing dramatically superior genes than otherwise available…

          • X says:

            The entropy of DNA is actually quite low. It is the chaos of billions of autonomous actors that adds entropy for example. Go forth and multiply.

            By teaching our boys to not maximally procreate, we go extinct, our boys learn to be cucked and be so emotional, etc.. Too much order bites.

    • Roberto says:

      Accelerationism is the answer. Encourage the Cathedral to designate every 19-year-old as an “abused child,” and soon enough there’ll be legions of men as redpilled about sex as Jim. That which cannot continue, will stop. Puritanism will soon become unfashionable – either that, or the Left Singularity will devour the Anglosphere wholesale.

      • jim says:

        Trees do not grow to the sky, but they grow till they fall over. There is a very real possibility of leftism going all the way to genocide – indeed, past outcomes suggest that it would always go all the way to autogenocide, except that one leftist makes himself supreme, and freezes the holiness spiral as it is now primarily a threat to himself.

        • The Cominator says:

          I don’t see that the current American left has any semi sane intelligent leftists who could be a Stalin either.

          Stalinism which is the repository of the saner extreme left is a weak strain in America. America has progressives (Gramscians) and their close cousins the Trotskyists on the left. Both these sects tend to emphasize extreme and competitive lunacy.

          We must flee conquer or die.

          • X says:

            The leftists rigged the election to steal it from Barry Sanders in California. Barry Sanders was directly focused on populist ideology of really stealing from the uber rich, but of course that is why he can’t be elected because the leftists must retain their support from the rich banksters who are also defecting on the State. Clinton for example repelled Glass-Steagal and made student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The Clinton Foundation fundraiser put influence in U.S. government for sale to the highest bidders.

            The Zionists put Trump in office (with their control over Wikileaks and the mass media) to accomplish several near-term goals, First he recognized Jerusalem and will further their aims of developing a proxy war in the Middle East. This is a divide-and-conquer strategy against white men (Russia, China, and USA fighting each other). And he provides the effigy of hate to motivate and accelerate the radicalization of the left. It appears to me the Zionists want another civil war in the USA to have white men fight each other.

            The useless idiots leftists in academia for example are just fodder and have no real power:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4kHiUAjTvQ

            The white men in the USA for example can no longer conquer the entire nation because it’s too diverse. The guerrilla war would go on for centuries because there are very hardy brown and black skin people now in large numbers spread out all over. And significant number of white people support the left down to the core of their existence and life philosophy.

            So it appears to me the global elite will mire the white man in chaos to disrupt what he does best, which is study hard, work hard, raise a strong family, etc.

            My stance is that the only effective counter strategy for white men is to abandon the State and regroup in highly decentralized, highly predatory, highly focused smaller groupings. Yet others have reminded me that West of the Hajnal line white men seem to not be congruent with the Apache strategy of organization:

            http://www.starfishandspider.com/preview/index.html

            • Yara says:

              >The useless idiots leftists in academia for example are just fodder and have no real power:

              Exactly. Nice Yuri reference, too.

              >but of course that is why he can’t be elected because the leftists must retain their support from the rich banksters who are also defecting on the State. Clinton for example repelled Glass-Steagal and made student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The Clinton Foundation fundraiser put influence in U.S. government for sale to the highest bidders

              Lol, have you seen this one?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORWM0ukT-Xw

              >to accomplish several near-term goals, First he recognized Jerusalem and will further their aims of developing a proxy war in the Middle East. This is a divide-and-conquer strategy against white men (Russia, China, and USA fighting each other). And he provides the effigy of hate to motivate and accelerate the radicalization of the left. It appears to me the Zionists want another civil war in the USA to have white men fight each other

              I’m skeptical of this one. Trump seems to be pretty averse to being dragged into such conflicts (e.g. Syria missiles). Please explain your reasoning and provide high-quality evidence, if any.

              >The white men in the USA for example can no longer conquer the entire nation because it’s too diverse.

              I disagree very strongly. If USG disappeared tomorrow a new government would coalesce within the week and deportations would begin within the month. Nonwhites, with the possible exception of semi- to fully-automated Chinese missile and/or drone warfare, are no military threat whatsoever.

              • X says:

                Will reply more after my daily exercise. Before I forget, they put an “angry white man” into office so they can blame the strong dollar-short vortex global economic collapse on him. They can also blame it on him erecting a trade war. They want to motivate leftists all over the world to hate white men. Trump is now the effigy of the white man globally. And now progressive white men hate themselves (and thus want to become not men as much as possible). Etc. Jim articulates well much of it.

              • X says:

                Also remember the people need a religion. So the leftist religion needs an idol or effigy to inspire the coming holy war, because leftism is as Jim points out about breaking things or spilling the apple cart. So they need an idol of hate. Google the term effigy and Trump’s exaggerated caricature shows up raised up on a stake for burning.

                Hillary Clinton: Progressive Isn’t About Breaking Up Big Banks

                Lol, perfect find. That so germane to the point I was making.

                I’m skeptical of this one. Trump seems to be pretty averse to being dragged into such conflicts (e.g. Syria missiles). Please explain your reasoning and provide high-quality evidence, if any.

                By recognizing Jerusalem, Trump escalated the proxy war. So no matter what other BS comes out his mouth, he already cucked. The white man bowed down to his Zionist masters. See also:

                http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18533/russian-mercenaries-take-a-lead-in-attacks-on-us-and-allied-forces-in-syria

                https://steemit.com/politics/@anonymint/powers-that-be-are-moving-us-towards-world-war-3

                Trump is far too old school like Jim to know how to outsmart the Zionists. Only Geronimo could challenge the Zionist system but he lacked enough understanding of technology to morph his tribe into the modern age. In the way that the Hajnal white men lack the Apache understanding of decentralization, the Apaches lacked the Hajnal’s capability for engineering. The Jews are masters at religion. They are employing religion to conquer the world.

                Puritanism must be discarded. We teach our Hajnal boys to be so good that they don’t procreate enough. They become cucked. We need 100 offspring per male. So we need to be small and lean.

                The white men in the USA for example can no longer conquer the entire nation because it’s too diverse.

                I disagree very strongly. If USG disappeared tomorrow a new government would coalesce within the week and deportations would begin within the month.

                You make the same mistake as most Hajnal’s males do. You think in terms of logistics and not in terms of religion. That is why the Zionists always win against the white males over the long-term.

                The Zionists have turned man against man with religion. There is no way to deport everyone. Not only would you have massive guerrilla resistance supported by other nations, but which country is going to take all these deportees? The U.N. would declare war on your government. Actually something like this might be coming. I bet future events in the USA will be quite crazy. Australia I think will go into a police state, locked down throwing white men in prison again. Back to penal colony it started off as, with the Asians taking over the country and imprisoning the whites. At least the whites who don’t agree to be cucked by the system.

                Rememeber also that many whites such as @simon will sell out to save their own comfort and lifestyle. So divide-and-conquer will always be in play as well.

                There are very few actual warriors in white society now, just a lot of ego and myopic selfishness.

                • X says:

                  By true warrior, I mean also a leader. Of course there are still some young men willing to sacrifice themselves, but they are misguided by cucked leaders and deleterious forms of religion. To train true warriors, we must not cuck our boys with for example Puritanism. We need a modern religion. Christianity worked when we needed the State to accumulate large fixed capital for agriculture and industrialization, but now we’re in a decentralized knowledge age with the advent of computers and the Internet.

                • jim says:

                  > By recognizing Jerusalem, Trump escalated the proxy war. So no matter what other BS comes out his mouth, he already cucked. The white man bowed down to his Zionist masters.

                  Observe who boycotted the opening of the Jerusalem embassy. It was boycotted by the warmongering neocons, (almost all of them Jewish) who continue to be in a white hot fury about it to this day. How does that fit in the story you are telling?

                  Your story is: “Hail fellow reactionary, Trump is your enemy, and affirmative actioning Major Hasan is just fine. “

                • X says:

                  Or instead of being predatory and attempting a decentralized power, we can retain strict forms of Christianity and scale down to small groups and be persecuted as the Bible instructs us will happen.

                  In the large scale centralized forms of organization, we will be quite vulnerable to the priestly masters.

                • jim says:

                  On current performance, persecution of Christians is clearly going to be highly effective – indeed it already has been highly effective.

                • X says:

                  Observe who boycotted the opening of the Jerusalem embassy. It was boycotted by the warmongering neocons, (almost all of them Jewish) who continue to be in a white hot fury about it to this day. How does that fit in the story you are telling?

                  Of course they need to feign that Trump is actually not on their side. They’re now playing the holiness spiral card of Trump going against the U.N.. Behind the curtain, they have been perfectly duplicitous. Dragging us into that proxy war and perpetrating 9/11 on us in conjunction with Mossad. Remember Bush Sr. was involved in the CIA and did research tracing their family involvement back to the assassination of JFK and grand daddy Prescott Bush’s Union Bank involvement with funding the Nazis. Also they were involved with funding the Bolsheviks:

                  Wall Street, Nazis & the Bolshevik Revolution by Prof. Antony C. Sutton

                  Your huge mistake Jim is that you hate leftists so much that you failed to realize that all the political parties are united behind the curtain and aligned with the Zionists.

                  Your story is: “Hail fellow reactionary, Trump is your enemy, and affirmative actioning Major Hasan is just fine. “

                  Jim I played American football when I was a younger man. It’s a team game but I hated so much to lose that I would will myself into being a dominant force to change the direction of the game if we were losing. I hate losers. And Trump is losing:

                  https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/civil-unrest/civil-unrest-for-2019-post-election/

                  When something is not going to work out, it’s insanity to continue doing it. I’m pivoting earlier rather waiting until it’s too late.

                • jim says:

                  > > Observe who boycotted the opening of the Jerusalem embassy. It was boycotted by the warmongering neocons, (almost all of them Jewish) who continue to be in a white hot fury about it to this day.

                  > Of course they need to feign that Trump is actually not on their side.

                  Your story about the Jerusalem embassy is as obviously insane as your story about 911

                  Of course the neocons are in a white hot fury, because they fear that Israel might become a Jewish state, rather than a progressive state. Observe the entirely unfeigned madness across the (disproportionately Jewish) left. Is every single twitter leftist trying to make Trump look good?

                  All the tall tales you are telling support the progressive side that you supposedly oppose. On the Jerusalem embassy, you stand against Trump, and with every warmongering radical leftist. On 911 you stand with those who think the Fort Hood massacre was a tragedy because it made affirmative action for Muslims look bad.

                  You are full of supposedly reactionary reasons for supporting every policy program of our enemies and opposing every policy program of our allies.

                • X says:

                  Your story about the Jerusalem embassy is as obviously insane as your story about 911

                  You were refuted with the evidence. You can choose to invent delusions to be in denial of the evidence, but no sane person should follow you.

                  Of course the neocons are in a white hot fury, because they fear that Israel might become a Jewish state, rather than a progressive state.

                  Occam’s Razor. No need to presume complexity which is entirely unnecessary and unable to coexist with other irrefutable evidence. The neocons sold out to the highest bidder. Power corrupts absolutely. I have no idea why you assume they give a damn about the plight of the commoners like us. All they care about is satiating their power lust. They align themselves with the Zionists bansters because if they do not then some other more ruthless elite from our tribe will replace them. Entropy does not have morals nor ethics Jim. You live in some fantasy unreality driven by your fanatical belief that if we could just freeze time at the 17th century, then we would have nirvana.It is so ridiculous. You seem smarter than that. So what’s up with that?

                  All the tall tales you are telling support the progressive side that you supposedly oppose.

                  No I just don’t like to preach losing strategy to the guys around here. You do. Because you want to satiate their fantasies and not tell them the truth about their plight, which is much more dire than you admit.

                • X says:

                  All the tall tales you are telling support the progressive side that you supposedly oppose. On the Jerusalem embassy, you stand against Trump, and with every warmongering radical leftist.

                  I use my brain stem and don’t allow the Zionists to program my brain with the propaganda they engineer. You’re letting them control your brain because if they can’t get some leftists to be vocally against something, then you automatically think that means you should be for it. But the chess is much more complicated than such simple pairings. We have to look holistically at the entire board.

                • X says:

                  You are full of supposedly reactionary reasons for supporting every policy program of our enemies and opposing every policy program of our allies.

                  You misidentify the chess pieces and assign blame to potential allies and give support to those who are enslaving you. But this is typical Dunning-Kruger effect. So maybe I should stop now.

                • X says:

                  Typo:can’t[can]

                  Jim it seems you’re confusing the map with the territory. Somebody handed you a map that lies and interrupt everything with that broken map instead of looking at the actual holistic territory of the chess board.

                  We don’t give a fuck what position the neocons take on Jerusalem. We don’t give a fuck that the leftists don’t want to blame 9/11 on Muslims. Yara and I look at the facts of the evidence and arrive at our conclusions based on the actual territory of reality. Jim you seem to drive your logic based on political shadows as if someone else’s shadow intersecting mine has any meaning whatsoever.

                  In short, your broken stuck clock can be correct twice a day.

                • X says:

                  Another typo: interrupt[you interpret]

                • X says:

                  Correction: such as @simon[@signal].

                  At least the whites who don’t agree to be cucked by the system.

                  Obviously I meant imprisoning the whites who don’t agree to be cucked by the system.

      • X says:

        Puritanism was never sustainable at large-scale, because it doesn’t export entropy in the small (c.f. my reply to Peppermint above), thus it can only export entropy when itself is still small and capable of innovating in other ways of exporting entropy in the large (e.g. the industrial revolution).

        Strictness must have a feral corollary. The yin without the yang is not complete and thus not consistent:

        https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/8#issuecomment-417968131

  14. vxxc says:

    Flee where exactly?

    Flee THAT?

    Who are you fleeing from?

    Conquer and kill them.

    Honestly if I meet half of you I’m going to – for your own good – punch you in the Balls. So you can remember where they are. THERE. RIGHT THERE.
    NOW MAN UP.

    And Happy Labor Day!

    • jim says:

      Conquest requires collective action. Collective action requires a synthetic tribe.

      Synthetic tribe requires a prophet. Where is our prophet?

      Conquest requires that we reward our warriors with pussy. The prophet is going to have to do something about the excessive holiness of pussy.

      Any effective military is necessarily masculinist. Recollect how, in 1933, suddenly Hollywood changed its tune on women, and first wave feminism mysteriously vanished overnight. Suddenly, everyone turned on a dime, realizing that they needed to cultivate, rather than demonize and denigrate, manliness and masculinity.

      There is a close link between winning the coming war, and solving the woman problem. What our elites did in 1933, needs to be done again by those opposing our elite.

      In 1933, foreseeing war, our elites threw feminism under the bus. Blue pilled nazis are not going to be able to fight effectively in the coming war.

      • The Cominator says:

        It just really requires a nucleus of military opposition to rally around and maybe a leader.

        Prophets are something different entirely. Thats when you are trying to impose a new religion…

        • jim says:

          Our leadership in 1933 figured it needed rather more. They realized that their state religion was alarmingly anti military, and turned it on its head.

          From 1933 to 1963, movies similar to “All quiet on the western front” vanished, and simultaneously violence against women was presented as OK, and disobedience by woman as abnormal, unwise, and self destructive. They prepared for war by radically amending the state religion in favor of males, masculinity, and warriors.

          Holy war is coming. You bring a gun to a gunfight, and a religion to a holy war.

          • The Cominator says:

            The feminism religion would have come back because unfortunately they were allowed to vote…

            If there is a right vs left war I don’t think you need to worry about that being a problem in the future. You may be on the extreme end of the woman question but there is probably no single point of unanimous agreement among the far right as much as the idea that letting women vote was a mistake (NRx doesn’t believe in voting too much in general, but female voting is far worse).

          • The Cominator says:

            And if the new prophet merely needs to be hardcore on the woman question and nothing else then Jordan Peterson will do.

            He may not even be right wing on other things, he may be intended as controlled op, he may be a lunatic like Vox Day says (but I think Vox Day is kinda nuts myself) but hes pretty hardcore on the woman question.

            • jim says:

              Jordan Peterson is not hardcore on the woman question. He is purple pill at best.

              Worse, he is in the pocket of our enemies. Under pressure, he disavows us as racists etc.

              • The Cominator says:

                He is trying to keep one foot in the Cathedral so tries to avoid overt heresies but where he has preached overt heresies it has been on the woman question and he doesn’t back off those.

                Jim hes not as hardcore as you no one is other then some Muslims but outside of you and and Muslims… I’m not sure who is more hardcore then JP. Hes all but endorsed shotgun weddings in his enforced monogamy talks. Nobody (besides you) ever even brings up the subject.

                • X says:

                  He is trying to keep one foot in the Cathedral

                  Ditto Trump. But Trump doesn’t have any choice. He was chosen to run the State, and a State must be a Cathedral.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Increasingly I’m of the opinion that, instead of decrying Puritanism, we need to get some of what they have. Total fanaticism. Absolute self-certain conviction. Respect nobody or nothing. Everything that stands in the way is of the Devil and needs to be brought to swift and terrible justice. Obsessive will to power. Each man under constant pressure to prove to others that he is worthy of Grace and a true member of God’s Chosen Few.

            Who cares if it produces socially destructive holiness spirals? The Moloch-system *should be* destroyed, *must be* destroyed.

            • The Cominator says:

              We need a faction like that but our whole movement by its nature cannot be like that.

              Reaction (and the right in general) is at heart a movement of cynics that want to be left alone but that realizes the left will never leave them alone and that even if the left is “killed” the movement will come back the minute the foot is taken off the zombie’s neck. People like that make bad fanatics.

              The really really fanatical right wingers tend to be converted leftists though inevitably they still have a distorted perception of reality. These can be our puritan shock troops though if anyone can learn to manage them (they should not lead themselves, converts should be “enlisted men” only).

              • Doug Smythe says:

                > Reaction (and the right in general) is at heart a movement of cynics that want to be left alone but that realizes the left will never leave them alone and that even if the left is “killed” the movement will come back the minute the foot is taken off the zombie’s neck. People like that make bad fanatics.

                Exactly, and it’s the essence of the problem. We want to be alone, and still do even though intellectually we know that we won’t be. Ideally, we’d all think along the lines of: “Hunting zombies is the highest purpose for which a man was made, and God has privileged us by appointing us for this sacred task; better to live one day gloriously hunting zombies than a hundred pointless years being left alone to vegetate”. I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon either, but I don’t see much hope for civilization if it doesn’t.

            • Roberto says:

              Yes, total fanaticism – in a 180 degrees opposite direction to Feminism. That’s the only holiness spiral the Right truly needs, but lamentably, is unwilling to actually pursue.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              This has pretty much been my tack from year zero.

              Joke: power for poz
              Broke: stop using power
              Woke: power for SHITLORD SUPREMACISM

              PS Althusser and Foucalt were the only real cryptofascists in academic history.

        • X says:

          I agree with Jim. C.f. my reply above to Peppermint for an example of a facet of what could become a new religion that is decentralized and predatory.

          Teaching sons that they can fuck everything that moves as long as they do not put their heart into it. Young men like that.

          But to have wife and a virgin, they need to work hard, study hard, and respect their religion. We need to fill in the rest what the religion should be.

      • Koanic says:

        I’ll be pulling prophet duty after I finish launching my Cathedral-disruptive technology startup.

        So the answer is: here, taking notes.

      • eternal anglo says:

        If feminism before 1933 was driven by a holiness spiral, then 1933 feminists really believed, indeed believed more enthusiastically and sincerely than every other feminist, that women are wonderful and need to be emancipated to save them from evil lecherous men. How were they capable of cynically abandoning this belief — how does a holiness spiral, a chain reaction of madness, plan for the future? Was it that the militant conquer-the-world faction of the left gained the upper hand over the feminist faction, the militant faction being less bluepilled? Or maybe the younger the holiness spiral, the more it resembles cynical manipulation, and then takes on a life of its own as it matures.

        • jim says:

          What women believe does not matter. It is always merely a shit test, and vanishes in a puff of smoke when they are called on it.

          What happened in 1933 was that, threatened militarily and ideologically by Lutheran descended and Jewish descended holiness spirals, threatened by hard power and soft power, Anglo left wing holiness, puritan descended holiness, stopped being about blacks and women, and went for economic issues. The New Deal was Puritan descended Anglos saying “We can do Nazism also”. Then, in 1963, went back to its roots, and started being about women, war on Christmas, war on the family, and blacks again, throwing the white male working class overboard.

          • eternal anglo says:

            >What women believe does not matter.

            Sure. But suffragettes and female first wave feminists were enabled by feminist belief among males, otherwise they would have received the 18th century rule of thumb treatment.

            Modern male feminists are obviously not cynical manipulators, but sincere, furiously true-believing white knights. Perhaps male first wave feminists were cynical manipulators, in which case it makes sense for them to be capable of backtracking on the bluepill to win a war. But if they were not cynical manipulators, but a holiness spiral, they would not have been capable of any such sagacity. You describe the switch as deliberate: “In 1933, foreseeing war, our elites threw feminism under the bus.” But that is crimethink! How sexist of you to suggest that men will fight better if women are spanked into obedience. Everyone knows that women are wonderful and are never unfaithful, and if they are it is your fault.

            Indeed I would suppose a feminist Anglosphere holiness spiral would respond to the hard and soft power of competing leftisms by doubling down on the bluepill, just as the modern left responds to electoral revolt against mass immigration by doubling down on Diversity and Inclusion. I understand that they were being out-holied by Marxists on socialism, and that drew them towards economic issues to compete. But why would that have made them any less insane on feminism? Why not go for both? “Do not listen to those sexist Nazis and Marxists, listen to us, because we believe women are twice as wonderful as they believe women are, and we believe it twice as sincerely.”

            “In a holiness spiral everyone knows where the spiral is going, and nobody wants to go there, but everyone wants to be the first to take one more step in that direction.” The holiness spiral is a runaway chain reaction of madness. The 1933 retreat from feminism is like observing a fire spreading through a building, but refusing to spread into a room that has a smoke detector in it. Mindless runaway processes are not supposed to be able to do that. So perhaps early in the holiness spiral, when the madness levels are relatively low, it is more like a Machiavellian conspiracy, and less like a fire.

            • jim says:

              > > What women believe does not matter.

              > Sure. But suffragettes and female first wave feminists were enabled by feminist belief among males,

              And with the New Deal, males suddenly stopped enabling them.

              > Modern male feminists are obviously not cynical manipulators, but sincere, furiously true-believing white knights.

              Holiness spiral has gone several more turns, and men are blue pilled. They think that being a nice guy, which is to say a white knight, a male feminist, will get them pussy. Needless to say, does not get them pussy.

              > But why would that have made them any less insane on feminism?

              The threat of hard power made them less insane on feminism. Suddenly priests realized that they urgently needed the warriors that yesterday they had been ridiculing and demonizing. Looking at Hollywood starting in 1933, obviously they were preparing for war to crush Nazism, preparing for a struggle of both hard power and soft power. Not only did feminism disappear from movies, and male authority over women appear, but warriors and heroes appear.

              • eternal anglo says:

                >And with the New Deal, males suddenly stopped enabling them.
                >Suddenly priests realized that they urgently needed the warriors that yesterday they had been ridiculing and demonizing.

                I understand that that is what happened. But I am asking *how* it happened, given that the 1930s left was as much a holiness spiral, a chain reaction of madness outside anyone’s control, as today’s left. Runaway fires don’t avoid smoke detectors, even if it would be good for them to do so.

                In the holiness spiral model, priests really believe that women are wonderful and do not need to be threatened with spanking in order to remain faithful. In order to realise that if they want warriors, must unemancipate women, the priests would have to think crimethought. Crimethought is unthinkable, because the first priest to suggest unemancipating women loses his holy status.

                Thus I suggest that the holiness spiral runaway chain reaction model becomes truer as the spiral turns. Early in the spiral, when the madness levels are relatively low, it is more like a cynical conspiracy, as opposed an echo chamber of fanatics. It starts with the salami slicer, and ends with the seven kill stele.

                • jim says:

                  > > And with the New Deal, males suddenly stopped enabling them.

                  > > Suddenly priests realized that they urgently needed the warriors that yesterday they had been ridiculing and demonizing.

                  > I understand that that is what happened. But I am asking *how* it happened, given that the 1930s left was as much a holiness spiral, a chain reaction of madness outside anyone’s control, as today’s left

                  FDR grabbed dictatorial control, and anyone who did not like got Muellered by J. Edgar Hoover. To this day, leftists still complain about Hoover under FDR applying a strong hand to control the holiness spiral.

                  Mueller and Hoover are the two longest serving FBI directors, and they both use politically motivated targeting to obtain political outcomes. Under FDR, anyone who kept on about feminism and such was likely to get the Mueller treatment, and lefties still recollect that with horror and rage.

  15. Alrenous says:

    The fact Carlyle Restorationist is called Carlyle Restorationist is prima facie evidence that they’re full of shit. If they were actually Carlylian, they would have no need to tell you. It’s like someone shaking your hand and introducing themselves as a human being.

    Though actually it’s a sophist technique, effective against folk with high agreeableness, who by default agree with everything they read. Occasionally an innocent accidentally mimics the technique, otherwise every name of form “I am X” would be proof of not-X.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      It’s amazing how much cognitive dissonance and ensuing rage is created when someone posts on a reactionary forum that the King has the right to shut down restaurants that are bankrupting the peasantry and killing them with CHD.

      No! The King has no such right: that’d be a violation of the property rights of Franky&Benny’s and we can’t have that! We’re anti-globalist anti-degenerates but I have a RIGHT to my over-priced junk food: I have a RIGHT to sing the birthday song – it’s not every day you turn 57, fascist!

      • pdimov says:

        The king absolutely has the right to do that. That’s what makes him a king. He also has the right to kill everyone unjustly claiming that restaurants are murdering people.

      • peppermint says:

        I think a ton of resources are wasted by Microsoft and Windows and Office, and OSX, should be banned.

      • Roberto says:

        But you’re not merely arguing that, hypothetically, the King has a right to close down the restaurants. Duh – a King with real sovereignty can do a whole lot of things, as Pdimov pointed out

        Rather, you are arguing that, once the Dark Enlightenment wins, the King *should* exercise his power to close down the restaurants – and while we’re at it, ban myriads of corporations, illegalize plenty of leisure facilities, castrate men for fucking whores, forbid people from flying abroad, severely beat up people who conspicuously consume alcohol, slaughter people for possessing some weed, ban the selling of various types of food, and who knows what other tyrannical intrusions you have in mind.

        I doubt there’s a single reader of this blog — leftist or rightist or whatever — who’d freely consent to live in your nightmarish, Big_Brother_on_Steroids, “no fun allowed!” society.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Roberto:

          I’m not here to get involved. We’re fundamentally allies. The trouble is, I keep getting name-called back in lol

          I’m saying the King would very quickly observe that the vast majority of people in white countries were living paycheck to paycheck whilst splurging huge amounts of money on overpriced junk food before ending up fat and sick.

          I’m saying the King would not regard this as ‘just one of those things’, and that the King would most likely take action to stop these predatory foreign institutions from plundering the nation’s wealth and health.

          What you’re saying is that atomised individuals are perfectly capable of making their own best decisions and if we just leave people alone, they’ll be fine. The fact there’s a wolf in the sheep pen isn’t something the King ought to care about because the sheep are perfectly capable of staying away from the wolf.

          What I’m saying is people need to be led, which is the entire reason we want a King in the first place.

          For the millionth time, it has nothing at all to do with ‘fun’. There are many ways to have fun and enjoy yourself, even to INDULGE yourself, without ending up poor&economically vulnerable whilst handing vast swathes of what ought to be your family’s future wealth to foreign corporations who hate you and want you dead.

          Peppermint:

          “I think a ton of resources are wasted by Microsoft and Windows and Office, and OSX, should be banned.”

          I see your agree&amplify and I agree&amplify. The computer revolution has been a complete wash-out. We generate more paperwork than ever before, the only entities that genuinely benefit from automation are the large corporations while small businesses are (at least in Britain) very much wedded to their bits of paper, hang files and clipboards; and meanwhile we’ve somehow acquired a huge parasitic industry fixing&replacing computers&software and selling access to impenetrable arcane software architectures.

          The computer revolution was predicated on the exact same Rousseauvian notion that you people still cling to: give a secretary MS-Excel and she’ll be ten times more efficient and generate twice the wealth. The reality is she’ll copy&paste numbers into her spreadsheet, add them up on a calculator, and paste the results into a new column before *printing it off*. Meanwhile the software and hardware and network support and anti-virus and anti-malware etc. etc. etc. people still need to get paid.

          Meanwhile, people waste hundreds of hours of their lives playing video games and watching cats behave like cats while signalling their virtue and status to their friends and family while passive-aggressively sending coded messages to one another.

          I see no particular reason to celebrate all this needless change.

          • jim says:

            > I’m saying the King would very quickly observe that the vast majority of people in white countries were living paycheck to paycheck whilst splurging huge amounts of money on overpriced junk food before ending up fat and sick.

            The problem is gluttony, not capitalism.

            You want us to outgroup capitalists – and in the past, calls to outgroup capitalists have always come from leftist outgroup members seeking to split the ingroup by pretending to be members of the ingroup, often Jews seeking to split the ingroup. You call yourself a Third Positionist, and the original Third Positionists were tools of Russian communists seeking to divide Frenchmen from each other, claiming to be French nationalists, while hating the French nation and working for enemies of the French Nation.

            Nor are they splurging huge amounts of money. The problem is precisely that food is cheap. People are spending huge amounts of money on land in ever smaller locations near power and away from diversity, spending huge amounts of money on increasingly worthless miseducation, and an explosively growing medical bureaucracy, but they are not spending huge amounts of money on food.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “The problem is gluttony, not capitalism.”

              Says who? There’s enormous pressure being exerted on socially non-confident people to ‘celebrate’ every conceivable occasion by giving money to these people, to the extent that it’s literally killing and bankrupting them.
              To pretend the capitalists don’t benefit from this is absurd.

              Go open a healthy restaurant that doesn’t juice up its menu with massive amounts of sugar, fat and salt and see what happens.

              Besides I’m not calling for the overthrow of capitalism, just for them not to have a get out of jail free card that makes them sovereign above the Sovereign, such that he can’t stop them doing what they’re doing.

              “You call yourself a Third Positionist”

              This is just semantics. Yes I’m sure your historical account is wholly accurate. The argument’s just the same as one I’ve used myself, which is equally disingenuous: “Bastiat sat on the left”.
              Fine, I’m happy with fascist. It carries a certain amount of unwanted baggage but fine: everyone knows what we’re talking about here: putting the nation first, not global capitalism and muh natural rights; and having the guts to actually make it happen. If the King isn’t going to do that, fine we’ll have a non-monarchical solution, because *someone* is going to have to sort this stuff out.

              “People are spending huge amounts of money on land in ever smaller locations near power and away from diversity, spending huge amounts of money on increasingly worthless miseducation, and an explosively growing medical bureaucracy, but they are not spending huge amounts of money on food.”

              Working class people are indeed spending a great deal of money on food, at least here in Britain. It’s possible it’s different in the States.
              As for the universities, I assume we’re on the same page. That stuff has to be stopped. Same with healthcare. I forget whether it was you or someone else, but someone once said “socialism for the poor, capitalism for the rest” in healthcare. Alternatively Bob Murphy’s system isn’t bad.

              Not important. Whatever the King/Fuhrer wants, happens and nobody has higher sovereignty to stop it.

              • jim says:

                > > “The problem is gluttony, not capitalism.”

                > Says who?

                Says a man who was fat, who cannot outstare a pizza and mountain dew, but is fat no longer.

                As a formerly fat person subject to gluttony, lust, and wrath, and still subject to gluttony, lust, and wrath, I can speak authoritatively on this issue.

                > Go open a healthy restaurant that doesn’t juice up its menu with massive amounts of sugar, fat and salt and see what happens.

                Everywhere I go I see people drinking zero sugar diet drinks, and every person I see drinking diet drinks is fat.

                Conversely, I juice up my meals with massive amounts of fat, largely butter, though I am also keen on fried pork belly, cheese, hot melted cheese over mushrooms, bacon and eggs, and I am no longer fat.

                The cure for my Mountain Dew problem was not zero sugar Mountain Dew. It was considerably less Mountain Dew.

                I sit down at a table with a bunch of people drinking Zero Coke, and because they are all drinking fizzy drinks I allow myself a Mountain Dew. Mine is full sugar Mountain Dew, theirs is Zero Coke. Everyone drinking Zero Coke is fat, and I am not fat.

                Yes, sugar is bad for me, and I should not drink it. But the problem is not evil capitalists secretly poisoning poor helpless me with sugar. Pretty sure that mushrooms fried in butter and liberally coated with melted cheese is good for me.

                Someone who is drinking Zero Coke is saying “I want to engage in gluttony without being fat”.

                Sorry. Does not work like that. Attacking capitalists will not make you rich, and will not make you slim.

          • Roberto says:

            >What you’re saying is that atomised individuals are perfectly capable of making their own best decisions and if we just leave people alone, they’ll be fine.

            Nope, that’s not at all what I’ve been saying these past 6 threads or so. That you consistently fail to grasp my argument, which is rather simple, points in the direction of crimestop.

            What I’m saying is that it’s in the interest of civilization, the human gene pool, the King, and society, that irresponsible people suffer the natural consequences of their irresponsibility. If gluttony weeds out or otherwise harms the gluttons, that’s good. If wastefulness weeds out or otherwise harms the wastrels, that’s good. If decadence weeds out or otherwise harms the decadent, that’s good.

            Whenever I point out that a free society (i.e. absolutely unlike the one you’re advocating) allows for Social Darwinism to come into play, you pretend not to hear what I’m saying. Whenever it’s pointed out to you that a free society incentivizes meritocracy — and thus, in the long run, good breeding — you just can’t hear what’s being said.

            You claim to not be an egalitarian, yet here you are, decrying “excessive” luxury as extremely anti-social while in the same breath denouncing junk-food restaurants for bankrupting the poor peasants (and the downtrodden workers too, presumably). It clearly bothers you, disturbs you, and upsets you that Bob can have a private swimming pool while Dan lives in poverty.

            Deny as you will, you seek to equalize them – everything you advocate is supposed to lead directly to that outcome, of preventing Bob from living in luxury and preventing Dan from living in poverty. In your ideal society, Bob and Dan will have the same standard of living. “For their own good,” of course.

            Your counter-argument boils down to, “Good decent white people won’t allow Social Darwinism to take place, because too much altruism and empathy.” You then proceed onward without for a second considering whether or not it’s possible to get those good decent white people on board with a program of eugenic liberty, such as by instituting a state religion that is pro-natalist for high quality people and anti-natalist for low quality people. You assume that it’s impossible, because you just don’t want that.

            Note how instead of saying, “We on the Right need to be in great health and great shape, so let us minimize our own junk food consumption,” you advocate for taking the junk food away from the various gluttonous low-lifers who pig out on it, i.e. you’re doing Bio-Leninism, artificially raising the status of those who are naturally and rightly low status, who will then forever depend on your continued “benevolence” in suppressing the “wolves.”

            That is the precise reason why people call you a leftist commie, and not “vestigial libertarianism.”

            Not all ‘atoms’ are equal, CR. Some of the atoms need to be removed, and some are less valuable than others. You are trying to convince Reaction that the bad atoms — the gluttons, for instance — must not be weeded out. Why?

            King, eugenics, civilization, and society, all benefit from pro-natalism for high quality people and anti-natalism for low quality people. Socialism, and specifically your kind of social maternalism, equalizes the high and the low, or worse, raises the low above the high. In contrast, meritocratic liberty by its nature allows the high to thrive and the low to disappear. You don’t grasp that, because crimestop.

            • pdimov says:

              Overeating is not even irresponsible. In the event of a famine, the “morbidly obese” will survive, while we the “healthy” ones will die.

              No famines today, you say? Not to worry, CR’s King will supply one.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                I can only imagine you two don’t know any working class people.
                I regularly see large numbers of people who are paid £8/hr spending £30+ each on meals three times a week. Those same people know they’re overweight and are getting fatter.

                Eventually they’re going to die and/or be in serious financial difficulty.

                If I was the King it wouldn’t take me more than a few seconds to conclude that something big needed to be done to change that.

                What I hear from you lot is “the King doesn’t have the authority to do that”, and I reject that entirely.

                What I hear from Roberto is just incompatible with historical empirical evidence. Our people simply will not allow people to starve in the gutter, no matter how much you get off on the thought of it.

                • jim says:

                  > I regularly see large numbers of people who are paid £8/hr spending £30+ each on meals three times a week.

                  Eating three times a week will not make you fat, and there is no better use of money than spending money on time with friends and family .

                • peppermint says:

                  > starve in the gutter
                  > get overweight by eating out regularly

                  pick one you raging homosexual

                  also feeding territory limited animals doesn’t make more of them, but feeding food limited animals does. Thus we can safely subsidize food for poor Whites, but not for poor Blacks.

                • javier says:

                  didn’t you leave

                • Roberto says:

                  I am working class. I know some people who “spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need.” The problem is not them being hapless victims of exploitative capitalists. The problem is impulsivity, high time preference, and low IQ.

                  And the solution to that problem is to let them face the natural consequences of their lifestyle. If they possess any bit of sense, they’ll stop spending money they don’t have on things they don’t need. Otherwise, they’ll suffer from disease, poverty, etc., and deserve absolutely no better.

                  >What I hear from you lot is “the King doesn’t have the authority to do that”

                  Liar. Not a single commenter here said that or implied that. We argue not about what the King can do, but about what he should do – or rather, what priests of the Dark Enlightenment should advise the King to do. The King who listens to my advice will secure himself the firm loyalty of the productive elites and the freeholders, and no rebellious underclass problem. The King who listens to your advice will be universally despised, and will never manage to stabilize his throne.

                  >Our people simply will not allow people to starve in the gutter, no matter how much you get off on the thought of it.

                  As Jim says: if people can be socialized to tolerate baby-murder (late term abortion), can be socialized to tolerate anything. Should not be impossible, or even difficult, to point out to redpilled white people, “Look, all the shitskins, faggots, trannies, junkies, and low-lifers in general are quitely eliminating themselves,” and receive appreciative feedback.

                  Pathological altruism can be excised from collective consciousness by a healthy state religion such as proposed by Jimian Dark Enlightenment. And the red pill is spreading.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Javier:

                  “didn’t you leave”

                  Yes and I was drawn back in by personal attacks.

                  I won’t make that mistake again but my real underlying error was to assume we were allies in any way.

                  In point of fact libertarian entryists (or at best former libertarians with hangover bad habits) are a menace.

                  Capitalism needs to be rooted out in all its forms.

                  Jim writes:

                  “Eating three times a week will not make you fat, and there is no better use of money than spending money on time with friends and family.”

                  This is utterly disingenuous. Millions of good people are being manipulated into destroying their wealth and health. Going to a capitalist temple to eat poison and pay globohomo 4 hours’ gross pay per person for the privilege is the *polar opposite* of ‘spending money on time with friends and family’.

                  Prioritising friends and family is a matter for the family home, where the woman acts as woman, not as entitled consumer, and where the man acts as man, not as slave to the corporations.
                  Paying for a meal in the context of ‘friends and family’ is like paying wives a salary for doing the housework.

                  If it were something eccentric perverts did, that’d be one thing but I’m talking about a mass phenomenon that could very easily be stopped.

                  You libertarians would rather the entire world went to crap than the bottom line of globohomo grew at an artificially slow pace.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What a long-winded way of coming out as a gleeful traitor.

                  The blue checkmarks absolutely love people like you Roberto.

                • jim says:

                  Roberto:

                  > > I am working class. I know some people who “spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need.” The problem is not them being hapless victims of exploitative capitalists. The problem is impulsivity, high time preference, and low IQ.

                  Carlylean Restorationist:

                  > What a long-winded way of coming out as a gleeful traitor.

                  “Class traitor” – a commie shibboleth.

                  A genuine reactionary would be unable to spontaneously think that thought, and would have difficulty comprehending it, because your boss is the leader of your local ingroup.

                  The call for class war always comes from outgroup members, members of group B, calling on members of group A to fight other members of group A.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Only just saw this, and I’m pretty much done to be honest, but this was interesting:

                  Peppermint:

                  “Thus we can safely subsidize food for poor Whites”

                  I’m glad you agree. We can do a lot more than that of course.

                  “but not for poor Blacks.”

                  There’s certainly a strong case for segregation. Blacks suffered much more under forced attempts at integration than whites ever did.
                  There’s nothing wrong with forming alliances with black nationalists. Absent external interference, there’s little that blacks and whites really have to fight about.

                  Keep on taking those red pills. Libertarianism by its nature necessitates your taking a side other than that of your people, and while for some that’s perfectly fine and they’ll end up gravitating to a Social Matter type reaction that looks increasingly like the GOP, others will want to follow the intellectual bread crumbs all the way.

                  It really shouldn’t come as any great surprise that the “liberté” part of the 18th century revolutions is just as toxic as the rest. If we only needed to go back to just after the Smithian revolution, the task would be so much easier, but unfortunately the Invisible Hand is a massive heresy.

                • Roberto says:

                  Having accused me of class treachery (for pointing out that dumb people who make stupid decisions should blame themselves and not capitalism), I’m just not sure you’ll ever convince anyone you’re not a commie. Kinda jumps the shark.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I just don’t care about your stupid labels Roberto. You want to throw millions of your own people under the bus.

                  If I’m a commie who wants closed borders, sexual traditionalism, cultural grace&beauty, a hierarchical social structure and the end to any notion of ‘rule by the people’ then I guess I’m a commie.

                  I couldn’t care less. It’s just a word.

                • jim says:

                  > I just don’t care about your stupid labels Roberto. You want to throw millions of your own people under the bus.

                  This claim presupposes that capitalists of Roberto’s own race, nationality, ethnicity, and religion, are driving the bus over their coethnics, and that therefore Roberto should outgroup his co-ethnics, and ingroup with people who outgroup him.

                  The Jewish Trotskyite (and almost all Trotskyites were Jewish) tells the peasant to outgroup the peasant next door who owns one more cow than his neighbor. Then he tell his fellow Jew “Haha, see, my fellow Jew, I have fooled the dumb peasant. The stupid ignorant peasant has ingrouped me. Now watch me torture his neighbor to death, and then torture him to death”

                  And his fellow Jew goes “ha ha, stupid Christians”

                  The peasant with one cow helps the two Jews torture the peasant with two cows, then the two Jews torture the peasant with one cow.

                  Then the Trotskyite tortures his fellow Jew to death. And then Stalin shoots the Trotskyite.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not class traitor: race traitor.

                • jim says:

                  He said that his fellow working class members frequently suffer from short time preference, not that his fellow whites suffered from short time preference. That emotionally impacted you as class treason. If it was race treason, would have emotionally impacted me.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Not class traitor: race traitor.

                  The “social ills” you bitterly complain about somehow mysteriously disproportionately affect the NAMs. Horrible diet, pauperism, drug use, sexual degeneracy, etc. Gee, it’s almost like… impulsivity, high time preference, and low IQ have something to do with it!

                  Moreover, large scale eugenics by means of having people truly earn the wages of their own sins is excellent for any race subjected to it; it is the constant removal of the atrophied and rotten elements from the national body.

                  IMO, it’s crucial that the DE religion incorporate the following:

                  1) Pro-natalism for high quality people = absolute patriarchy;

                  2) Anti-natalism for low quality people = the wages of their sins.

                  Anyway, it’s clear from the context that originally you meant class traitor – because you’re a commie.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim writes:

                  “[Roberto] said that his fellow working class members frequently suffer from short time preference, not that his fellow whites suffered from short time preference. That emotionally impacted you as class treason. If it was race treason, would have emotionally impacted me.”

                  I took it as read that he meant his fellow white working class members.
                  Do I especially care if ‘Stanis and Blagues are getting ripped off by Franky&Benny’s and Bella Italia?
                  Well I find it quite hard to imagine to be honest: I see them as more da KFC innit mon.
                  Do I want those parasitic companies filthying up my town? Not particularly, and since their appeal’s wider than just the stereotypes, yeah they’re on the list for physical removal too.

                  Do I feel solidarity with the working class? I feel racial solidarity with the white working class. I feel rage on *behalf* of the white working class, but not in-group member-type solidarity: like you I’m a dissident Brahmin through and through.
                  Do I feel solidarity for fellow lower-middle class whites?
                  I feel racial solidarity with them, and with upper-middle class whites and upper-class whites.
                  In terms of *class* solidarity, I feel less with them than with the working class, primarily because the Luggenpresse’s going after the working class not the middle class.

                  It’s not lower-middle class professionals who are being called “gammon” in the Independent and the Daily Mail, it’s ordinary people from the worst-affected parts of the country – places like Newcastle and Liverpool, where heavy industry was sacrificed in the name of Ricardian international division of labour and where service jobs were supposed to replace jobs that paid for a family and a family home, and in which previously respected artisan masters ended up on performance management for diversity-equality sensitivity issues.

                  I’m with anyone who’s with the “gammon” and I’m against anyone who’s joining in calling them losers and telling them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

                • jim says:

                  > > “[Roberto] said that his fellow working class members frequently suffer from short time preference, not that his fellow whites suffered from short time preference. That emotionally impacted you as class treason. If it was race treason, would have emotionally impacted me.”

                  > I took it as read that he meant his fellow white working class members.

                  Likely that is what he meant. And my observation and experience is that white working class members commonly have considerably shorter time preference than white middle class members, but considerably longer time preference than most black middle and upper class members, let alone black underclass members. What he says is consistent with my observation of class and race, and therefore would not strike any reactionary as race treason.

                  And only Maxists see class treason, because only Marxists want people to outgroup and ingroup on the basis of class.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “The “social ills” you bitterly complain about somehow mysteriously disproportionately affect the NAMs. Horrible diet, pauperism, drug use, sexual degeneracy, etc. Gee, it’s almost like… impulsivity, high time preference, and low IQ have something to do with it!”

                  Yes of course they do.

                  Why aren’t you and I going to Chiquito’s and spending $50 a head three times a week? For all the reasons you cited. We’re smarter, we take our own side more effectively, and we’re woke to the dangers.
                  The people getting suckered are all in for the government: if we get sick, free healthcare; if we get old, state pension – might just as well spend it because saving’s for mugs at 0.2% vs 3% inflation.
                  Indeed, an 18-year-old planning to save $20,000 a year genuinely IS a mug under the current system.

                  That’s all on the government and the central banks.

                  So far so good.

                  But why exactly does any of that prevent God-Emperor Trump from telling Chiquito’s to FO?

                  That’s the part you people are sketchy on. You wax lyrical about eugenics and piles of white bodies but you’re a bit thin on why the easier, more realistic alternative has to be off the table.

                  Either way I really don’t care, and if I get Beeteljuiced again I’ll just ignore it. You’re not even allies: you literally want large parts of my people dead.

                  Might just as well get yourself a Walmart Coca-Cola yarmulche with “I love Lady Gaga” written on it and be done with it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “white working class members commonly have considerably shorter time preference … and therefore would not strike any reactionary as race treason.”

                  He wants them to be left to starve in the interests of eugenics.
                  You’re siding with that perspective by denying the necessity of addressing the symptom – working class whites bankrupting themselves while shortening their lives so that globalist corporations can get rich.

                  What you’re saying is that nobody has any business interfering with this: it’s their fault and if it means they’re removed from the gene pool, so be it.

                  “only Marxists see class treason, because only Marxists want people to outgroup and ingroup on the basis of class.”

                  Which is why when you put words in my mouth, I clarified: race treason not class treason.

                  To call for the culling of white working class people in the service of global finance is race treason.

                  There’s no place for the concept of class treason in nationalism. Every part of society must serve the interests of the race before serving its own interests. That applies just as much to the workers as to the capitalists, if any such there be.

                • jim says:

                  > > “white working class members commonly have considerably shorter time preference … and therefore would not strike any reactionary as race treason.”

                  > He wants them to be left to starve in the interests of eugenics

                  If working class, not going to starve. Some whites might die early of obesity related diseases. White underclass can starve, or be enslaved, but, faced with that prospect, there would be zero white male underclass.

                • Koanic says:

                  > your boss is the leader of your local ingroup.

                  It would be nice to have a boss like that. Are you hiring?

                • Roberto says:

                  Letting high time preference, impulsive, low IQ hominids (disproportionately non-white) self-cull is somehow anti-white? Lol.

                  In reality, all races have members who are prone to various dysfunctions. Some races, like Africans, are especially dysfunctional in modern civilization. Also in reality, Aryans — and to be precise, Hajnal Line whites — have become world-conquerors civilization-builders industrial-revolutionists as a result of an *EXTREME* selective pressure to weed out the dysfunctionals – which (oh the bitter irony) as a result of civilization and industry, has been greatly relaxed, thus resulting in mass scale dysgenesis.

                  All successful races are successful as a result of *EXTREME* selective pressure for low time preference. If you care about the white race, you should want the best whites to breed plentifully and prosper *and the dysfunctional whites to be culled.*

                  In the same way, for the same reason, a Jewish Nationalist should seek to remove dysfunctional Jews from the Jewish gene pool, a Japanese Nationalist should seek to remove dysfunctional Japanese from the Japanese gene pool, and even — dare I say it? — a Black Nationalist should seek to remove dysfunctional blacks from the black gene pool.

                  This point is totally lost on you, because you really are an academic leftist.

                  Read this, CR:
                  http://www.xenosystems.net/hell-baked/

                • pdimov says:

                  >He wants them to be left to starve in the interests of eugenics.

                  You want to restrict the availability of food, which he opposes, and this in your mind translates to _him_ wanting to starve people.

                  Fascinating.

                  Are you a woman?

                • Roberto says:

                  Btw CR, you keep calling me and everyone else here “libertarians,” but personally I hold no principled opposition to there being some social safety nets to help out those who want to help themselves. But that’s not what we’re talking about. You want to ban literally everything in order to ‘protect’ those people who willingly make stupid self-destructive decisions and harm themselves (those who spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need). This is leftism 101. You’re a Marxist-Leninist in essence.

                • jim says:

                  Obviously society and the state should help those who are willing to help themselves, but run into some bad luck. Equally obviously, those disinclined to help themselves should be given death or slavery, or, at a minimum, denied reproductive opportunity by being placed in monasteries and subjected to discipline.

                • @jim on time preference: do people tend to have the same, short or long time preference on different things? I know a lot of people who carefully save money and develop their careers, then they smoke and drink too much and get fat, too. It is in fact typical in my circles. Low economic time preference but high health and visceral enjoyment related one.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  “Penny wise and pound foolish.”

                • javier says:

                  How can you know about personal attacks if you left?

                  There is this style of arguing where the arguer repeats their point over and over again until everyone is tired of refuting it, then declares victory. This is the method that you use. When we call you out for it, you cry foul and call it a personal attack.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You want to ban literally everything in order to ‘protect’ those people who willingly make stupid self-destructive decisions and harm themselves (those who spend money they don’t have on things they don’t need). This is leftism 101. You’re a Marxist-Leninist in essence.”

                  No it isn’t.

                  Socialism sure, if you don’t mind using the term in a misleading way (to refer to an ideology which is fundamentally nationalistic, anti-egalitarian and socially authoritarian), but I embraced it once before when it was hurled at me, and found that everyone *was* in fact misled so I wouldn’t recommend it if you’re interested in the truth.

                  Marxism? Absolutely not.

                  Putting a stop to the Poz is emphatically NOT egalitarianism. On the contrary, it’s a recognition of the fact that not everyone is capable of looking after themselves in the most basic ways, and that very large numbers (disturbingly large numbers – basically half the bell curve, ie. half the (white) population) require guidance in a wide range of basic activities.

                  You still haven’t provided a single supporting rationale for your opposition to giving low IQ high impulsivity people the guidance you don’t deny they so badly need. All you’ve done is to repeatedly assert that some future ultra-conservative society will willingly walk over people starving in the gutter, when history blatantly contradicts this.

                  If you’re genuinely indifferent to a mass cull of your own people, what’s so bad about cuckservatism, libertarianism or even globohomo?
                  Under globohomo everyone’s a consumption-production unit judged only by their benefit to GDP: what’s so bad about that, according to your values?

                  Or is this entire community just yet another incarnation of MRA/MGTOW?

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR writes “Or is this entire community just yet another incarnation of MRA/MGTOW?”

                  https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JfZKDrvUs-g/maxresdefault.jpg

                • Roberto says:

                  The genetically inferior should not reproduce or barely reproduce. The genetically superior should reproduce greatly. That which hinders dysfunctional people from breeding is good, and that which incentivizes quality people to breed is good. I want the genes of high time preference, impulsive, low IQ people removed – these are sick genes that harm civilizational prosperity. And I want the genes of low time preference, high IQ people to proliferate – these genes are beneficial to civilizational prosperity. We abort retards inside the womb, and should allow retards outside the womb to self-cull.

                  That’s all there is to it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “That which hinders dysfunctional people from breeding is good, and that which incentivizes quality people to breed is good.”

                  You’re over-reaching. Incentivising high quality people’s breeding is perfectly sound and healthy, but allowing monstrous corporations to create social hazards in society just so you can watch the unfit fall into the traps is neither sound nor healthy. You think it’s a recipe for an ongoing horror show but it’s actually far worse than that: it’s a fast track to the welfare state and redistribution.

                  History already ran your experiment in the 19th century and the outcome was the 20th.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “Socialism, and specifically your kind of social maternalism, equalizes the high and the low, or worse, raises the low above the high.”

              It equalizes nothing. What you’re saying is that people OUGHT to have the same capacity to avoid being manipulated by globohomo.
              Yes, that’d be lovely, but in the real world very large numbers of people *are* being manipulated by globohomo.

              Your solution is to cull them from the population: millions of OUR people. How is that any better than globohomo?

              I’ve been thinking about the capitalism question and when you stop to think about it, under capitalism if your corporation *doesn’t* sell overpriced poison to the plebs, preying on their insecurity and need to status-signal, capitalists will just pull their support and buy something else that *does*.

              Whatever the worst form of degeneracy happens to be, that’s what capitalism not just favours but in fact makes not only dominant but monopoly-dominant.

              Just look at pop music: the nexus of radio/tv, advertising and corporate production has given us something utterly grotesque and degenerate.

              Someone needs to put a stop to it, and if they try under conditions of capitalism, their backers will immediately jump ship. In fact it’s worse than that: most investors have brokers who have a fiduciary *responsibility* to pull their client’s capital out of dissenting companies in favour of more profitable globohomo ones.

              The whole thing is a massive failed experiment and we need to roll back not just to before the welfare state ‘solved’ the problems caused by laissez-faire, but in fact to before laissez-faire.

              • peppermint says:

                Americans desperately wanted entertainment that catered to their values, and the market has consistently refused for the past hundred years.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Because if anyone tries, the capitalists and their broker gatekeepers immediately tear away all support and reallocate it to more conventionally awful providers.

                  Capitalism is a race to the bottom of taste and quality.

                  There’s a reason why antique furniture’s so freakishly high quality.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Because if anyone tries, the capitalists and their broker gatekeepers immediately tear away all support and reallocate it to more conventionally awful providers.

                  This argument is literally straight out of Jacobin magazine.

                • javier says:

                  This guy is so divorced from reality.

                  Disney paid 4 BILLION dollars, with B, for Star Wars, just so they could propagandize with it, and try to make girls into boys. They have literally said to male fans, “this isn’t for you anymore, we don’t care if you hate it.” They told their entire market to fuck off and die. What kind of “capitalist” does that? If pure capitalism were driving these people, they would not be pissing off fans and hemorrhaging money left and right.

                  Clearly they are driven by religious zealotry, the need to spread their religion at all costs, and the agents of spreading that religion (SJWs, feminists, etc) are legally protected from being fired or punished for it. This is not “capitalism,” it’s rank government meddling. Get rid of discrimination laws, and all the poz disappears overnight. There’s no money in it.

                • Yara says:

                  >Clearly they are driven by religious zealotry, the need to spread their religion at all costs, and the agents of spreading that religion (SJWs, feminists, etc) are legally protected from being fired or punished for it. This is not “capitalism,” it’s rank government meddling. Get rid of discrimination laws, and all the poz disappears overnight. There’s no money in it.

                  That’s just the most recent incarnation, which is dramatically less palatable than any previous. Capitalism really does tend to lowest-common-denominator produce. Sometimes that’s a good thing, such as when everyone can have a superabundance of food, materially nice houses, and pretty sweet information tech. Other times it’s really horrifying, such as when the food is industrial-scale preprocessed or non-nutritious garbage, car-driven suburbs, and Google the advertising company raping your privacy into smithereens.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Javier:

                  “Disney paid 4 BILLION dollars, with B, for Star Wars, just so they could propagandize with it, and try to make girls into boys. They have literally said to male fans, “this isn’t for you anymore, we don’t care if you hate it.” They told their entire market to fuck off and die. What kind of “capitalist” does that? If pure capitalism were driving these people, they would not be pissing off fans and hemorrhaging money left and right.”

                  Are you saying the government ordered Disney to buy Star Wars?
                  Or merely that the government ordered Disney to poz it up?

                  I don’t think capitalists care about money at all. They care about power, same as everyone else. Up to a point, that power comes from money, but after a certain point there are more desirable forms of power to be had, and one of those is the status of True Believer.

                  Yara:

                  “That’s just the most recent incarnation, which is dramatically less palatable than any previous. Capitalism really does tend to lowest-common-denominator produce. Sometimes that’s a good thing, such as when everyone can have a superabundance of food, materially nice houses, and pretty sweet information tech. Other times it’s really horrifying, such as when the food is industrial-scale preprocessed or non-nutritious garbage, car-driven suburbs, and Google the advertising company raping your privacy into smithereens.”

                  Glad to see someone gets it, but I’m not sure I’d even put ‘sweet tech’ on the positive list. When you pin people down about WHY exactly smartphones are so amaaaaaaazing, they generally talk like multicultis defending immigration.
                  Whereas having a million Somalis in your country is great because vibrant range of restaurants, spending $700 on a telephone is apparently aaaaaaaaaaawesome because you can dial a pizza on a special ‘app’ instead of having to actually talk to someone (gosh how horrid that must have been in the stone age).

                  Funny how it all boils down to physical indulgence isn’t it!!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In fact I’m not even sure I’d put mass availability of housing on the positive list.
                  Yes it’s convenient to have lots of space. I like that as much as the next guy.

                  But isn’t there something tragic about people not seeing their parents for twenty years and then they die?
                  Or, worse, putting a parent into a care home and then finding out they were miserably abused and neglected by disinterested strangers?

                  There’s something to be said for multi-generational family homes with multiple siblings chipping in, and people sharing scarce food by learning to cook.

              • Roberto says:

                >Your solution is to cull them from the population: millions of OUR people. How is that any better than globohomo?

                You know full well that most of those culled from the population under my system would be NAMs. If some whites, Jews, or East Asians are inclined to behave like high time-preference niggers, let them have the same fate as the latter.

                Globohomo failed to put eugenic breeding in motion, because insane state religion. The primary objective of the DE is to come up with a healthy state religion, one redpilled on all subjects and, as Eternal Anglo wrote ITT, prioritizes above all else the Woman Question.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Except that muh entertainment-experience culture serves primarily women and many of the men are going along to get along, or rather going along to get some.

              • The Cominator says:

                You are blaming the capitalists for what the priests do CR.

                Problem is most of the capitalists are cowardly (there are exceptions ala Peter Thiel) and want to stay on the right side of the state religion.

          • peppermint says:

            A right-winger would reply that your bans aren’t like my bans, or agree with my bans, or at least comment on them. You only want to ban things to get power over buyers and sellers, and you only recognize my bans as an attempt to gain power over you, so you reply i see what you’re doing.

            These Carl threads are the most important threads here and will be studied for the next ten thousand years as a warning to future aristocrats/meritocrats not realy to never trust anyone who sounds like Carl because the future people who sound like Carl will first and foremost not sound like Carl but to watch what is suggested to them with the heuristic in mind to never give Carl power. As an honest man can’t be conned, a pious aristocrat can’t have leftists.

  16. BC says:

    >Nobody claims a plane hit the Pentagon, or that the Pentagon took any 911 damage in any way, shape, or form, so I fail to see what this is supposed to prove. It is as if you provided witnesses that the sun rose in the east.

    >There were three planes hijacked. Two crashed into the towers, one crashed in a field while passengers were fighting with hijackers. None came anywhere near the Pentagon, and only crazy people say such a thing happened. What your witnesses prove is what everyone already knows – that nothing happened near the Pentagon.

    Jim you feeling ok? There were 4 planes hijacked that day. 2 hit the towers, 1 hit the Pentagon & killed 125 people and 1 crashed in a field.

  17. signal says:

    It appears Jim has finally lost his mind.

    • alf says:

      The amount of time Jim sinks into researching arguments and debating strangers on the internet is insane. “Jim: debating strangers on the internet so you don’t have to.”

      • X says:

        All of you are insane.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Since you started posting here you’ve posted at least 10x as many comments as anyone else – including the host – which have had zero value and almost entirely consist of “read my blog”.

          You’ve been banned in multiple other fora that you apparently enjoyed participating.

          You post like a mental patient.

          • Nikolai says:

            But Steve how else would we have discovered that patriarchy is actually bad and that we shouldn’t build civilizations because entropy will just ruin them and that bitcoin will take over the world after the power goes out? [/s]

            In all honesty I’m surprised it took Jim this long to start deleting his comments

            • Yara says:

              Patriarchy is actually bad if you want to reenact Genghis Khan’s reproductive strategy in SEA.

        • alf says:

          No need for name calling just because you’re being rejected by the cool kids.

  18. Roberto says:

    Tl;dr:

    Troofism is run by the Cathedral, the Cathedral loves Muslims and hates Israel, therefore Troofism blames Israel for what Muslims did.

    • The Cominator says:

      Basically this.

    • pdimov says:

      Or counter-troofism is run by the deep state which blames Israel in order to associate troofism with antisemitism and divert attention from suspicious Israeli behavior (that has a different explanation.)

      In either case, does anyone here honestly believe that Osama bin Laden, who is/was not at all an intelligence asset, has organized the whole thing out of a cave in Afghanistan, with no state backing and no intelligence support whatsoever?

      • BC says:

        >In either case, does anyone here honestly believe that Osama bin Laden, who is/was not at all an intelligence asset, has organized the whole thing out of a cave in Afghanistan, with no state backing and no intelligence support whatsoever?

        He exploited a well known US vulnerability and had the backing of KSA. It was an exceedingly simple operation to pull off, but one that would only work once.

      • The Cominator says:

        His backing was the Saudis paying everyone off not to look at his operatives.

        Its a disgrace that Saudi Arabia still exists though at least Trump got Bush’s friends in the government arrested.

      • Yara says:

        >In either case, does anyone here honestly believe that Osama bin Laden, who is/was not at all an intelligence asset, has organized the whole thing out of a cave in Afghanistan, with no state backing and no intelligence support whatsoever?

        The notion is absurd on its face.

        • jim says:

          It is entirely easy to organize the whole thing, and in fact we have the full records of his organization organizing it. They were not particularly secretive, and did not need to be, because Robert Mueller, the man you appear to work for, ordered our security organizations to stop harassing Muslims.

          Send some suicide bombers to flight school. After they learn to fly, they grab four planes and fly them into stuff. Not hard.

          Also, Osama Bin Laden was not in a cave at the time, but in Pakistan’s equivalent of West Point.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          He didn’t end up in a cave in Afghanistan (or a house in Pakistan) until afterwards, and if it’s possible for Soros and/or the Kochs to wreak havoc simply by being super-rich then the same’s true for the Bin Ladens.

          The notion is not absurd on its face. The actual facts of the matter will become known in our lifetime but for now there’s a lot of guesswork.

          What we do know for certain is that the state used 9/11 as an excellent opportunity to do all manner of things that were proving to be impossible without a good excuse. Most of those things have tended to be completely evil, but it’s easy to understand the frustration of government at not being able to get anything done because of checks&balances and the necessity of preserving the illusion of ‘we the people’. Must be a sigh of relief to just say “national security” and be done with it.

      • Alrenous says:

        9/11 was a Saudi op, not an Israeli op. In either case it was aided and abetted by domestic traitors.

        I have demonstrated before on this blog that something appearing exactly like molten metal can be seen pouring out of the twin towers. They then produce advance demolition squibs while falling exactly as if they were intentionally pulled.

        However, pulling the towers was arguably the correct answer once they had been hit. They probably would not have collapsed naturally had the fires been allowed to burn out. However, bureaucrats are risk averse and hit the self-destruct button to avoid the risk of them toppling, striking buildings 2-3 streets away with a cannon fusillade. Indeed some buildings have enough integrity to roll – imagine the top of one of those towers rolling across the neighbouring buildings into the street on the far side. Bureaucrats imagined the same thing, and whacked that self-destruct button with a clear conscience.

        Of course you can’t sacrifice 3000 civilians in a democracy for any reason, no matter how disastrous the risk of not doing it. Hence the cover-up.

        Even if the official explanation was true, it points to the total incompetence of the American security forces. America doesn’t suffer damage because nobody attacks it, not because it is protected.

        • Yara says:

          Speculatively, I think it was likely both a Saudi and Israeli op, in which the Saudis crashed the airplanes into the towers (2 of them), the Israelis demolished the towers (3 of them), their American co-conspirators orchestrated the lowering of the defenses and the cover-up, and everyone bribed and blackmailed the shit out of protesting parties, with a few assassinations probably thrown in as well to make their intentions clear. It’s roughly how I would have done it if I had done it.

          And of course it wasn’t the first or even second Israeli attack/hostile intelligence op on US assets: both the transfer of uranium to kickstart the Israeli nuclear program and the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty were assisted by Americans running interference at the highest levels of government in order to facilitate their own political ambitions. I don’t know of any prior Saudi attacks, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they had happened, just not quite so brazenly. It would be an interested twist if the Saudis were more capable of such operations than the Israelis, but probably they’re just less hubristic and more cautious.

          • jim says:

            > Speculatively, I think it was likely both a Saudi and Israeli op

            We have the complete information about what happened in 911, because, protected by Robert Mueller, yes that Robert Mueller who is investigating Trump, they did not need much in the way of Operational Security, and did not have much in the way of Operational Security.

            If it was a combined operation, it was not combined with the Israelis, it was the Saudi funded Al Qaeda combined with Robert Mueller.

            But I doubt it was a combined operation. Robert Mueller did not want people noticing bad behavior of Muslims, because that would get in the way of moving millions of rapeugees to come to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democratic, so made it clear that noticing was a bad career move.

            Every time someone says “demolition” or “thermite”, or “Israelis” he is really saying “Pay no attention to Robert Mueller who is a fine upstanding person and absolutely not one of those horrible neocons.

  19. […] No perceptible global warming. The reason for the high drama is that science, technology, and industrialization was created by white male capitalists, an enormous achievement for which mankind should be eternally grateful. And people who hate whites, hate males, and hate capitalism want to destroy science, technology, and industrialization. Anyone who talks about Global Warming or Climate Change in ways that imply it is an important crusade hates you and intends you harm. Maybe he wants to lower your status. Maybe he wants to exterminate your race. But either way, he is your enemy. Whosoever talks catastrophic global warming hates you and is motivated by desire to harm you. […]

  20. pdimov says:

    >There is nothing difficult about flying a plane in a straight line steeply downwards into a solid object.

    True. What a human pilot would do is point the nose at the object, keep pointing until impact.

    I’ve no idea how easy is this to do with a 767, but I assume that it is.

    Now look at the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgve7yG7DG8

    What I see here is not straight line downwards into the building. I see downwards to a waypoint directly in front of the building, then a turn towards a waypoint behind the building, at the same height. That’s how autopilots fly, not humans.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Off camera that flight was headed south over the Hudson River – by the time it comes into frame it’s headed north having made a 180 degree turn.

      The pilot couldn’t just point the nose at the building and fly straight because he was going for the south tower – the pilot going for the north tower did exactly that though.

      From this you conclude that it was an autopilot? You’re nuts.

      • pdimov says:

        I’m not saying that it’s definitely autopilot; of course it’s possible in principle for a human to fly the plane in this manner.

        But I don’t agree that “you’re nuts” follows from what I see on the video.

        If you look at the Pentagon “video”: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Pentagon_Security_Camera_1.ogv

        you’ll see that the plane also hits the building from the right while flying horizontally close to the ground and not at a diving angle. (01:26)

        Could a human pilot do this? Sure, why not, if he’s good enough. But would he?

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Because Logan Airport is north of Manhattan and hitting the South tower with a straight path runs a high risk of routing through the North Tower. If you’re flying with computer controlled precision then the more efficient way is to fly east of the tower then turn right to hit it. If a human is flying the far easier way is to fly until you’re clear then approach it from the direction where there are no obstacles.

          Of course, that’s just what they want you to think! That the autopilots took routes that are easier for humans but less efficient is just more evidence that it was autopilot because every bit of evidence against the plane being on autopilot is actually evidence for it because they’re trying to trick you!

          The autopilot theory is also fucking insane but is a touch less insane / retarded than the “fake collision with the Pentagon with a jet that just flew off” line.

          • pdimov says:

            >If you’re flying with computer controlled precision then the more efficient way is to fly east of the tower then turn right to hit it.

            That’s assuming you control the plane from the start, not from the point it veered off course.

            >The autopilot theory is also fucking insane

            It may well be wrong, but insane? I don’t think so. Why is it insane? You set three waypoints and you’re done. Autopilots don’t care that

            New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”[16]

            and they also don’t care that other planes are in the way:

            At around this time, the flight had a near midair collision with Delta Air Lines Flight 2315, reportedly missing the plane by only 300 feet or 90 metres… Flight 175 did not respond, instead accelerating and heading toward the Delta plane.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              It may well be wrong, but insane? I don’t think so. Why is it insane? You set three waypoints and you’re done. Autopilots don’t care that

              ” New York Center air traffic controller Dave Bottiglia reported he and his colleagues “were counting down the altitudes, and they were descending, right at the end, at 10,000 feet per minute. That is absolutely unheard of for a commercial jet.”[16]”

              and they also don’t care that other planes are in the way:

              You know who also doesn’t care about that? Guys who are planning on dying by crashing the plane into a building. There’s also no reason to believe that the guys planning on dying would have any particular objection to a rapid descent. “Let’s fly planes into the WTC” “Great idea, but won’t we have to descend really rapidly?” “Never mind then”.

              That’s assuming you control the plane from the start, not from the point it veered off course.

              No – if you control the plane from any time before it’s north of Manhattan and you have an autopilot you simply set a single point north east of the tower then have it make a single turn and accelerate into the south tower because that’s the most direct route. If you’re a human you fly following the Hudson River because you can see that then make a 180 turn then aim at the building in front of you – otherwise you risk hitting the north tower.

              Of course, I raised this objection before and your response was that only an autopilot would be unconcerned about midair collisions.

              • pdimov says:

                >No – if you control the plane from any time before it’s north of Manhattan

                http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/docs/ua175_ground_track.png

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Thank you for that – I was misinformed about / misrememberd the actual track of the second flight.

                  Of course, there’s still no support for the autopilot theory – which is still crazy and retarded.

                • pdimov says:

                  Yeah, I’m having second thoughts. There are other pictures of the flight path that look decidedly autopilot-ish, but the NTSB one looks human, and it should be the authoritative one.

                  That said, I still don’t agree with your characterization.

                • pdimov says:

                  Turns out the crazy demented autopilot theory is well researched already, so for those interested:

                  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf

                • Yara says:

                  Whether or not remote piloting was in fact used on 9/11 is not an especially relevant question. If it’s false, then State Department proxies were heavily involved in the crashing of the airplanes into WTC 1 and 2. If it’s true, then some other intelligence agency’s (technological) proxies were heavily involved and State Department proxies played a more limited role.

                  What we can state with certainty is that the technology has been available since the late 1980s.

                  Personally, since the Snowden revelations, I have abided by a general principle with respect to government/corporate entities and their activities and behaviors: if it’s technologically possible, they’re probably doing it.

                  That’s the question I ask: not did they do it (it being remote piloting and/or hijacking), but could they have done it, and would they have done it. Factually, they could have done it. Whether you think they would have done it is up to you.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  That’s another retard level question.

                  Here’s something else they *could* have done – drop a 50 megaton nuclear bomb on the city.

                  Factually, they could.

                • Yara says:

                  >That’s another retard level question.

                  I tremble in awe of your relative genius.

                  >Factually, they could.

                  They sure could, but while Muslim goatherds piloting 757s into buildings is at least plausible, no Muslims country has nukes, so they would find it awfully difficult to blame it on a Saudi royal and set out to attack 7 countries in 5 years, none of them in any way related.

                • pdimov says:

                  Doesn’t even have to be remote. Depends on whether one considers it easier for an Arab to learn how to fly a 767 in such a manner versus learning how to set an autopilot. But remote setting of the autopilot is an interesting possibility because you then only need the Arabs to kill the pilots and then sit there and look stupid, something they are good at.

        • jim says:

          > Could a human pilot do this? Sure, why not, if he’s good enough.

          Or if he is not too worried about hitting the ground too soon.

          If autopilot, what happened to the passengers and crew? Why would they sit tight to be flown into a building? We know this is flight 77 because flight 77 was hijacked, and small bits of flight 77 were in the debris at the Pentagon.

          Four airliners were hijacked. (I earlier incorrectly said three) We know they were hijacked by Muslims because passengers and crew were in communication with the ground, and there was a fight on flight 93. We also have video of something about plane size and plane shape flying into the building at plane speed.

          We also have a detailed timeline of the hijackers preparing to hijack the planes, because they were not very stealthy and government looked the other way, and it is obvious that the reason that they looked the other way is because it is politically incorrect to notice Muslims doing bad things.

          The core of Troofism is “Muslims did not do it. Israel did it”. But we know Muslims hijacked those planes because of testimony from people being hijacked, and because we have detailed information of the entirely unstealthy Muslim preparations leading up to the hijacking.

          None of the “eyewitness testimony” is actual eyewitness testimony of Muslims not doing it, or planes not hitting the buildings. All of the supposed evidence that the towers were demolished by explosives is evidence of the opposite. Thus, for example, the owner supposedly saying that the building would be demolished by explosives is the owner saying that fire fighters had decided to retreat from the building because it was about to fall down, and so on and so forth.

          We have overwhelming evidence of Muslims, and precisely zero evidence of controlled demolition.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Since when was al Qaeda anything other than a tool of (((American Foreign Policy)))?

            Ryan Dawson has a lot of clarity to bring here. Not only were Bin Laden’s people protected, a la Michael Moore, but in fact the businesses affected by the collapsing towers had no difficulty finding a plentiful supply of alternative office space, courtesy of the family of the you know who who recently tried to starve the Palestinians.

            What a great PR stunt for the emergency services; what a great enabler for the destruction of civil liberties and the spate of Mid.East destabilisations; and what a great distraction for people with a sense of smell who might otherwise smell some RATS.

            • X says:

              Since when was al Qaeda anything other than a tool of (((American Foreign Policy)))?

              I wrote quoted as follows in my blog In T̶h̶e̶f̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶M̶a̶s̶s̶a̶c̶r̶e̶s̶ᵀʳᵃⁿˢᵖᵃʳᵉⁿᶜʸ We Trust:

              [James] Corbett reported that in the Arab world “Ana raicha Al Qaeda” has the colloquial meaning “I’m going to the toilet.” It’s implausible that ‘the toilet’ could be the name of an Islamic movement. It’s fiction.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Pure Alex Jonesery. Most people are perfectly content to have ‘al qaeda’ mean ‘the database’ and be done with it. It’s a difference that makes no difference.
                Arabic is notoriously ‘woke’ when it comes to vowels. Everyone knows deep down that vowels are vague and mutable but Arabs formalise that, which unfortunately has the side effect of introducing massive ambiguity into the language.

                What’s your interpretation of “Gibraltar”? We’ve all been told the rock of Jabr but I’m sure it *might* conceivably mean the butt plug of Europe. It’s plausible, for sure.

              • Yara says:

                You keep providing evidence to those uninterested in it, whether it’s true or not They are demoralized, by Yuri Bezmenov’s definition, whether by hook or by crook, and they don’t give a damn. In short, you are playing at dialectic in a field of rhetoriticians, the conversational equivalent of playing at swords in the age of gunpowder.

                • Roberto says:

                  You mean “evidence” like that 5 dancing Israelis hoax, or “evidence” like Larry Silverstein’s remark from the 2002 PBS interview in which he said that the FDNY had had to pull the contingent of fire fighters before WTC 7 collapsed?

                • Yara says:

                  5 dancing Israelis is a speculation backed by a speculatively legitimate police report.

                  Larry Silverstein did not give firefighters the order to retreat because the building was in no danger of collapsing whatsoever.

                • jim says:

                  The reason I have not deleted these barefaced lies, presented without evidence or explanation, and flagrantly contrary to readily available evidence, is that someone else already replied to them.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  [*This comment mangled by me in error*]

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  C’mon Jim please stop doing that to my comments when you agree – others should get to read them too.

                  (reposting)

                  Larry Silverstein did not give firefighters the order to retreat because the building was in no danger of collapsing whatsoever.

                  Larry Silverstein was not in fact the owner of the WTC complex, he was only its leaseholder and chief administrator.

                  LOL

                  So the firefighters followed his order because the building was in no danger of collapse and he was able to give the order because he wasn’t the owner of the building.

                  It’s fratacally retarded – every piece of your story is retarded.

                  They needed to demolish the buildings because there wouldn’t be enough outrage from just 4 hijacked planes and the deaths from flying them into buildings – if those buildings didn’t collapse, there’d be no war so let’s rig the building with explosive charges powerful enough to demolish them while never being noticed in a building that had barely adequate elevators for the offices in it! Surely no one would notice crews of workers putting in explosives for weeks – especially if they were all foreign workers! A month after the attack 4 WTC was demolished because it was too damaged to salvage. Couldn’t just do that with 7 WTC – nope! Better plant explosive in the building that was near impossible to hit with a jet and demolish it anyway because 7 WTC, now that was really why we went to war in Afghanistan.

                  Oh, did anyone mention that the WTC was truck bombed a few years before and people were pretty pissed about that? Maybe if you were going to just demolish the building with explosives you could fake a truck bombing more easily? Nah, that wouldn’t have the pizzazz!

                  Just a never ending cycle of stupid – every bit you look at is even more retarded than the previous bit.

                  (To be absolutely clear, the troofer story is absolutely retarded and is riddled with contradictions).

                • jim says:

                  > > Larry Silverstein did not give firefighters the order to retreat because the building was in no danger of collapsing whatsoever.

                  > > Larry Silverstein was not in fact the owner of the WTC complex, he was only its leaseholder and chief administrator.

                  > LOL
                  > So the firefighters followed his order because the building was in no danger of collapse and he was able to give the order because he wasn’t the owner of the building.

                  (Hard to recognize sarcasm on the internet, because there is so much genuine madness.)

                  Troofers do not even try to make sense, nor try to keep their lies straight. They have have positive proof of a two dozen mutually incompatible accounts of 911. They just throw out one easily disproven lie after another, hundreds of lies in rapid succession, too close together to be able to check more than a tiny fraction, in order to waste the bandwidth of their enemies and distract attention from the misdeeds of their friends.

                  And then they quite correctly say that though you have challenged point one, and point thirty seven, you have not even disputed the other thousand points that they made, any one of which, if true, is amply sufficient to prove their claim, and then they demand that you issue a detailed refutation of each and every one of the one thousand and two points of evidence that they confidently claim exists.

                • Roberto says:

                  >5 dancing Israelis is a speculation backed by a speculatively legitimate police report.

                  No, it is simply a lie. There is nothing to indicate they were dancing, nor is there any reason to assume they were sent by the Israeli Mossad to dance. I believe the Mossad has professional spies in its ranks, not dancers whose dancing is so wild as to be reported to the police (which is what your “speculation” amounts to).

                  >Larry Silverstein did not give firefighters the order to retreat because the building was in no danger of collapsing whatsoever.

                  Here is the transcript of Silverstein’s comment:

                  “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they’re gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible lose of life,” and just what I said to do was “pull it.” And they made that decision — to pull — and then we watched the building collapse.”

                  This is not an admission of ordering a controlled demolition. This is Silverstein recalling how he told the fire department commander, who had informed him by phone that the fire could not be maintained, to pull out of the building. So the fire fighters made the decision to pull, and as expected, the building collapsed.

                  Troofers also bring up the following video:

                  https://youtube.com/watch?v=j-_WYHwUtcI

                  They say that because he said there, “And the first design meeting was in April of 2000. And construction began shortly thereafter in 2002,” while supposedly “glossing over” the event of 9/11, that it somehow proves that there was a controlled demolition on the day of 9/11.

                  Obviously, it proves no such thing; at best, it can be argued that the collapse during 911 was not a setback to the renovation designs of WTC 7, which indeed had been planned prior to 911. There is no “WE DESTROYED THE BUILDING OURSELVES!” in any of it.

                  By the way, Yara – how could Silverstein’s supposed Mossad handlers / co-conspirators know that WTC 7 would be so severely damaged by fire as a result of the North Tower collapsing?

          • Yara says:

            >If autopilot, what happened to the passengers and crew? Why would they sit tight to be flown into a building? We know this is flight 77 because flight 77 was hijacked, and small bits of flight 77 were in the debris at the Pentagon.

            The airplanes are flown by humans at the pleasure of the airplanes’ computer systems. If you believe it impossible to program a computer to respond only to remote commands, you should say so — don’t beat around the bush.

            >and it is obvious that the reason that they looked the other way is because it is politically incorrect to notice Muslims doing bad things

            Yawn. They looked the other way because they wanted a galvanizing event to permit them to invade Afghanistan, which they promptly did within a few months. No one remembers, apparently, that Operation Iraqi American Freedom didn’t begin until 2003, and still had absolutely no effect on the CIA’s al-Qaeda propaganda marionette.

            >None of the “eyewitness testimony” is actual eyewitness testimony of Muslims not doing it, or planes not hitting the buildings. All of the supposed evidence that the towers were demolished by explosives is evidence of the opposite. Thus, for example, the owner supposedly saying that the building would be demolished by explosives is the owner saying that fire fighters had decided to retreat from the building because it was about to fall down, and so on and so forth.

            The airplanes hitting the towers and the towers coming down are logically unrelated events.

            Larry Silverstein was not in fact the owner of the WTC complex, he was only its leaseholder and chief administrator.

            You are lying about the firefighters’ order to retreat, because you cannot face the physical reality that absolutely ordinary fires with precisely zero impacts from airplanes and no burning kerosene cannot bring down a skyscraper, any skyscraper, anywhere, because to face this fact would shake your entire worldview to its core, not unlike a Christian contemplating the possibility that there is no God.

            • I don’t really want to get into this debate deeply, just one thing. One good sounding argument I heard was that what can and cannot bring down a skyscraper is based on its documentation, blueprint, materials used, and when they were constructed the constructon industry was pretty much a mafia who regularly falsified the documentation and used weaker materials in reality.

              Dunno if it is true but it would be nice to see some what can and cannot bring it down based on the actual materials found in the rubble and not the materials the documentation said they were supposed to be there. If we are assuming a lot of people are lying all over the place, include the builders in that. Don’t take any construction documentation at face value. Look at the stuff in the rubble.

            • Roberto says:

              >You are lying about the firefighters’ order to retreat

              Again:

              “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they’re gonna be able to contain the fire. I said, “You know, we’ve had such terrible lose of life,” and just what I said to do was “pull it.” And they made that decision — to pull — and then we watched the building collapse.”

              This is not an admission to ordering or authorizing a controlled demolition.

            • Roberto says:

              On a humorous note, it would be really cool if, say on April Fools 2019, the 87-year-old Larry Silverstein actually came out and said, “Yep, it’s all true – I personally ordered WTC 7 to be demolished after the CIA and the Mossad had told me about their planned psychological operation.”

              Larry, if you’re reading…

    • X says:

      There is nothing difficult about flying a plane in a straight line steeply downwards into a solid object.

      True. What a human pilot would do is point the nose at the object, keep pointing until impact.

      As I recently explained up-thread, you and Jim both seem to know aeronautical physics as well as the Muslims you ostensibly admire and their Neocon collaborators which you protect with your stubborn ignorance and cognitive dissonance.

  21. Steve Johnson says:

    Off camera that flight was headed south over the Hudson River – by the time it comes into frame it’s headed north having made a 180 degree turn.

    The pilot couldn’t just point the nose at the building and fly straight because he was going for the south tower – the pilot going for the north tower did exactly that though.

    From this you conclude that it was an autopilot? You’re nuts.

  22. TBeholder says:

    Also, all the melting glaciers turned out to be melting because there’s a volcano right underneath one (or the second greatest mantle plume, in case of Antarctic), so there’s also that.
    And in precipitate, lots and lots of fraud.

  23. pdimov says:

    >Not what that video shows. The narrator tells me that thermite mixed with sulfur cuts steel beams, does not show thermite cutting steel beams.

    Huh? From f.ex 8:30 onwards the video does show “thermate” cutting through steel beams, doesn’t it?

    • jim says:

      That is a cardboard box, not a steel beam. If cutting steel, the steel would be molten steel hot, and molten steel bright. And it just does not look like a steel box, and certainly does not look like a steel beam.

    • jim says:

      > From f.ex 8:30 onwards the video does show “thermate” cutting through steel beams, doesn’t it?

      No, it shows thermate cutting through something and whatever that something is, it is not a steel beam. The narrator then announces that because thermate cut through whatever it did cut through, therefore it can cut through a steel beam, but declines to demonstrate this on an actual steel beam.

    • Roberto says:

      It’s possible that Mossad was on the tail of the Islamists, just as the FBI and the CIA were. From this to conclude “Israel organized it” is far fetched.

      • pdimov says:

        Unz’s reasoning is cui bono.

        “I find it difficult to think of any country in the world that clearly gained as a result of the 9/11 attacks and America’s military reaction, with one single, solitary exception.”

        “Sharon was a notoriously bloody and reckless leader, with a long history of being willing to undertake strategic gambles of astonishing boldness, sometimes betting everything on a single roll of the dice. He had spent decades seeking the Prime Ministership, and having finally obtained it, he now had his back to the wall, with no obvious source of rescue in sight.

        The 9/11 attacks changed everything.”

        “The pattern of behavior is really quite remarkable. During the 1940s, even prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, the various Zionist factions assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East and Count Folke Bernadotte, the UN Peace Negotiator, and made unsuccessful attempts to kill President Harry S. Truman and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin, while even discussing the possible assassination of Prime Minister Winston Churchill. There seems considerable evidence that the Israeli Mossad subsequently played a central role in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy because of the enormous pressure he was applying to persuade Israel to abandon its nuclear weapons plans. Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky warned the American government that Israel was planning to assassinate President George H.W. Bush in the early 1990s due to the bitter conflict over financial aid, and apparently those warnings were taken seriously. As recently as 2012, the editor of the main Jewish newspaper in Atlanta publicly called for the assassination of President Barack Obama over his policy differences with Israel.

        The history of military and terrorist attacks is even more striking. One of history’s largest terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 was the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionist militants dressed as Arabs, which killed 91 people and largely destroyed the structure. In the famous Lavon Affair of 1954, Israeli agents launched a wave of terrorist attacks against Western targets in Egypt, intending to have them blamed on anti-Western Arab groups. In 1950, there are strong claims that Israeli Mossad agents launched a wave of false-flag terrorist bombings against Jewish targets in Baghdad, successfully using those violent methods to help persuade Iraq’s large thousand-year Jewish community to emigrate to the Jewish state. In 1967, Israel launched a deliberate air and sea attack against the U.S.S. Liberty, intending to leave no survivors, and ultimately killing or wounding over 200 American servicemen before word of the attack got out and it was called off.”

  24. The Cominator says:

    To be a troofer is to be on the side of the swamp, of muslims, of Robert Mueller and against our Emperor Donald Trump.

    The Phoenix memo did not speak of Israelis doing a dry run, James Woods did not speak of Israelis doing a dry run. They spoke of Arab Muslims doing a dry run.

    Freeh/Mueller had evidence on these people and there were field agents who wanted to arrest them all. Freeh/Mueller blocked their arrest. Was it Saudi bribery or PC driven incompetence I don’t know. But Muslims and the FBI/Justice Department leadership were guilty and Israel is innocent.

    A lot of the same people responsible for not thwarting 9/11 are involved in trying to overthrow our Emperor now.

    Which side are you on?

    • pdimov says:

      To use the word “troofer” is to be on the side of the swamp. Its classic modus operandi is to carpet-bomb with a multitude of crazy and crazier theories, thereby drowning the legitimate suspicions into a sea of insanity.

Leave a Reply