It is better to quickly research and verify their incompetent boobiness before laughing too hard. The joke's on you.

I was laughing about your use of 'boobs' to mean a foolish person. I'm not used to it being used in that context. Boob usually means something else in my brain.. 'an embarrassing mistake'.

Calm your tits, bro.

Ok, but there are more serious problems here than my florid word-choice, namely than an official commission was able to be so mammary-gland-like.

I know, it's very serious, but I was already convinced of 9/11 being an inside job years ago. It just seemed too perfectly convenient to be true.

But I do have 2 questions for you though:

1. You have said multiple times that you are ashamed it took you so long to discover that 9/11 was an inside job. But I'm assuming you knew enough about physics in 2001 to know that something was wrong back then. Why did it still take you so long? Was the physics not convincing enough?
2. The US used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Afghanistan. But why? What could they have gained from it? There is not much oil, and Afghanistan is known as the 'graveyard of empires', the Brits and Soviets were humiliated there too, why the heck invade it?

It's not the physics that was the problem. I knew, or at least strongly suspected, that the buildings were demolished, that was clear enough, but this was not sufficient to conclude it was inside job by itself (at least not for me back then). The reason is that even if the buildings were demolished, I couldn't imagine a vast conspiracy, so it caused cognitive dissonance, and it was easiest just to assume that the government had a demolition system installed in 1993, after the first bombing, to prevent the buildings toppling over onto lower Manhattan. That was the stated intent of the 1993 bomber, to destroy lower Manhattan using the falling-over towers. So maybe the government just installed an emergency demolition system, just in case there's another attack, and then used it.

This would explain the demolitions, and the cover-up, because maybe there's a similar system on the Sears tower, maybe in other places, you would obviously want to keep this a secret. Nobody would rent in those highrises if they knew they were packed with explosives. It would also explain the commission incompetence, they would be told "We need your help in this cover up", and they would agree. I still think this is how the demolition worked, it is the easiest way to have it happen without telling anyone the purpose. The people who did the demolition possibly had no clue that the attack was fake. They were just contractors told to bring the building down in case of emergency, and they did that.

So I figured the demolition system could have been installed and triggered without anything other than usual government stupidity. They didn't know the buildings were going to stay up in the middle of the emergency, maybe there was some pressure from the owner to demolish, due to some financial consideration. Who knows. I just couldn't make the leap from demolition to inside job. So I just dithered on this. I thought it couldn't be an inside job, because, like any good magic trick, it seems impossible to pull off.

Further, the other evidence about inside job, like the inside trading, the warnings to not fly on that day, that could have been people who had intelligence through CIA that an attack was brewing. It doesn't mean they planned it. There was no smoking gun, and it seemed to be impossible to organize something like that, nobody would agree to do it.

Then after the Boston bombing, I was sitting in the office and I started goofing off, and I looked at the internet sources for Boston, and they said there was a bomb drill at the exact same place and the exact same time! It was obviously true, there were a million witnesses to the drill announcement, pictures of officials and bomb sniffing dogs and observers, an official tweet, a ton of stuff. And this was something I could see was impossible statistically, you can't have a drill and an event coincide. The event was so clearly bogus for other reasons, the ridiculous suspect, the ridiculous injuries.

So then it was clear how to do Boston without any help, you just hold a drill, and substitute a real bomb for a fake bomb. Nobody knows, they just think they coincidentally had an event at the same time as a drill. The bomb, you can get that from your offices by ordering a bomb to be made for the purpose of defusing, you order two, defuse one, and send the paperwork duplicatively to the two supplying offices, so that you get to keep one bomb without having to make it.

So that's how you do Boston. Then I remembered vaguely the drills on 9/11 (I read about them in 2002--- what a freaky coincidence). So I thought "Suppose I am a government official, and I want to pull of 9/11. But I have to do it alone. How would I do it?"

Can't use a pilot, nobody would fly a plane into a building, so you need drones. I can't tell the pilots they are remotely piloting real planes into real buildings, so I need to pretend they are only doing a simulation of this. Then I need to switch the planes and the drones on the radar, so I need a drlll to do mucking around with radar (this I remembered happened on 9/11), and finally, I would need to get rid of the original planes.

So I thought, I can do it with three drills:

1. Put drones in the sky, to shoot down

2. Muck around with radar, false blips

3. Flight simulate flying into WTC and Pentagon.

Then on the day of the attack, you use drill 2 to switch the drone blips for the plane blips. The planes get shot down, and the drones go into the WTC and Pentagon.

I knew for sure a drill of type 2 was going on on 9/11. A quick google search for "drones 9/11" revealed that the underside photos were consistent with a drone, and I checked with my own eyes that this was true (you should do this too). It was not a jetliner, there was a slit down the underbelly, and a bump consistent with remote guided military planes. Truthers have said this for years.

A quick google for the simulation drill revealed there were simulations of crashing planes into buildings that day, so I thought "I nailed it!"

I didn't quite, because you can't shoot down planes like that, and there's the phone calls to account for. The proper answer is slightly different, and I got the rest from "Flight of the Bumble Planes" (an anonymous early truther article online). You need to explain the phone calls, and voice-morphing is a stupid explanation.

To make a long story short, you need exactly 4 drills:

1. Put drones in the sky (not to get shot down, to track)

2. Muck around with radar, false blips.

3. Fake hijacking on 4 actual commercial planes.

4. Flight simulate flying into WTC and Pentagon.

You fly the drones near the planes and switch the blips, pilot planes to target using unwitting pilots in drill 4. It's the same scenario, but now you have, in addition, an actual fake hijacking on AA and UA planes, with CIA agent Saudi hijackers, including Atta. When the simulation begins, someone stands and says "I have a bomb" half-heartedly, there's a fake hijacker in the pilot cabin telling the pilots to pretend they are hijacked, and turn off the transponder, and they know this is a drill, because this strange guy is sitting in the cockpit from the beginning (people reported that Atta was seated in the cockpit on 9/11, that was one of the anomalies people brought up). You order the plane to land at the nearest base (like Bumble planes) and transfer all the passengers to flight 93 (the planes were only a quarter full--- another anomaly). The passengers make actual calls, reporting the drll, then they are told to shut off their phones for a quick landing at a base, and then they are told that it's just a drill, they can relax.

By then the emergency starts, when the drones hit the towers, then you can justify the passenger transfers, you are not just the drill coordinator, you have emergency powers over the entire government. You are overlooking all American airspace from your bunker, and you can coordinate everything even though you are one person.

After the transfer to flight 93, you order flight 93 shot down, this flight has all the passengers. This is a dead match to the events, it fits everything, and it makes predictions about the exact drills you will find.

I should add, that after all these transfers, it seems the actual plane that was "flight 93" was flight 11, in terms of the actual plane that was shot down. The planes for flight 175 and flight 93 were reported in service after that day, and they seem to have landed (empty) in Cincinnatti. Truthers already know this, from ACARS data reported on Pilots for 9/11 Truth, it's reported in Loose Change, I just added the empty bit. The planes couldn't have passengers, because then it requires conspiracy to get rid of them.

Each of these drills can be easily justified as simulating some aspect of multiple simultaneous hijacking, that's what people were simulating on 9/11 (among other things). All you need to do is pull that little switcheroo on the day of the attack, and make the drone blips continue to the WTC and Pentagon. The shooting of flight 93 is justified by the other attacks. It is a rather ingenious plan, and the killer thing about it is that not even the president, or the advisors, nobody knows what happened! They are just weirded out that on the day you were organizing drills, a major attack also happened.

You plant intelligence suggesting this type of attack is brewing, it's really possible for one person. Then when the CIA is under pressure to say who did it, they find your bullshit, and they will say it was Bin Laden, from the made up reports you sent down with "Top Secret" all over them. From this point on, a cover-up organically emerges, because nobody knows what actually happened. You don't need any help, no illuminati, nothing. Plus, you were busily preparing for such an attack on the very day of the attack! Boy, are you a genius. You get a lot of power in the administration, people think you are some sort of little god.

There is no innocent explanation for the drills of that day, and the drills required to stage the attack match the drills that are known to have occured with precision, so I gained enough confidence to be certain. So I changed my description here to "truther".

It caused me endless paranoia for a long time, but what can you do? It's surely what happened. One has to think of the poor simulation pilots, what they were going through, or the folks who transferred passengers, or the fighters that shot down flight 93. Only the simulation pilots are sure the attack is a fake, the rest are just hopelessly confused with conflicting evidence. Government doesn't usually have events like this, where one person screws things up deliberately from the inside, they aren't prepared for it.

I later found corroboration of this story from a filmmaker who reported that there was a simulation, and that the simulation pilots were doing the attack thinking it was a simulation. I was stunned to find this, the fellow did not have the scenario I just described in mind, he imagined a wide conspiracy. That was enough for 5 sigma confidence for "I nalled it", assuming he is telling the truth, but also to admire the bravery of those who would speak up when they thought the whole government was taken over by illuminati. I at least was secure that it's just one crazy dude, maybe two, not a thousand illuminati.

The attack was not done to invade Afghanistan, or Iraq. It was done as a crazy ridiculous plan hatched in the mind of one person. So the invasions were a side effect that George Bush was scratching his head, he had absolutely no idea how this happened. He was probably just as paranoid and confused as everyone else. He probably prayed, and God told him Iraq did it. Whatever. He obviously couldn't accuse his own officials, he trusted them, and he rammed through whatever, because he decided that there was lots of Islamic fundamentalist evil afoot.

I don't think he was saying anything different in private than he was in public. He wasn't the one in charge of the drills that day, that was someone else. The internal deliberations regarding the invasions probably happened as they played out in public.

"And this was something I could see was impossible statistically, you can't have a drill and an event coincide."

It's throw away lines like that which undermine your whole argument Ron. It is also almost a stastical impossibility that your parents would meet, that you and I would be concieved at the exact right time for us to come into existance. Yet here we are. The world is full of events which mathmatically statistically impossible - yet they happen. So to use this as an argument for your far fetched fantasy is completely disingenous.

No, there is no analogy with the nonsense false things you give.

If a drill and an attack coincide, it is a fake attack, and you can be as certain of this as when you find two gamma-ray photons from the same direction in the sky at the same time, and conclude they were produced by the same event. Or if you find neutrinos within three hours of the detection of supernova 1987a, that these neutrinos came from the supernova. This is a fundamental tool of science.

It isn't complete certainty, but it's close enough. It's certainly good enough for science and for politics. There is no justification for a drill and an attack to coincide, period. There is no talking around this, it doesn't matter how many drills are being held. It is not just the drill time that coincides, it is the exact time, type and location, the drills anticipate the attack, and the preparation for the drill morphs into the response to the attack continuously.

It is an act of intellectual dishonesty to deny this, a coincidence of this type is, by itself, without any further evidence, enough to conclude the attack as done from inside. It didn't happen just once, it happened at Oklahoma City, in 9/11, in the London Bombings, in Oslo, in Boston, and a few more places with less salient coincidence, and it is impossible that more than one of these were an actual coincidence, and really, just from this, it is vastly unlikely that any of these are a coincidence.

You need to learn to differentiate between an impossible coincidence and an every-day improbable unique event. If a gun was shot at 12:57 PM in NY, then at 1:30 you find a recently fired gun thrown away a block away, and a person died of a gunshot wound recieved at 1:00 PM in the same neighborhood, you are justified to conclude that either that gun shot that person, or else someone is actively trying to fool you.

Ron you would be a good lawyer - as you just appear to talk in circles. Like I said - co-incidences exist in nature all the time. They're not impossible. In the Boston bombing case possibly terrible, tragic and heartbreaking but not impossible.

I do like your final paragraph however - "You need to learn to differentiate between an impossible coincidence and an every-day improbable unique event. If a gun was shot at 12:57 PM in NY, then at 1:30 you find a recently fired gun thrown away a block away, and a person died of a gunshot wound recieved at 1:00 PM in the same neighborhood, you are justified to conclude that either that gun shot that person, or else someone is actively trying to fool you."

Just like if a plane is hijacked, disappears of radar and is seen by hundreds of witnesses to fly into a World Trade Centre then that's probably what did happen.

Except in this case of 9/11, from the drills, you see that someone was actively trying to fool you. It is intellectually dishonest to maintain the official story.

I never talk in circles. It is impossible for coincidence in drill and event to coincide naively, as the drills are the means you use to stage events.

Ah but you are working from the basis that someone is trying to fool you. If your assumption is that there must be conspiracy then you will find evidence of that conspiracy. I can't claim to be objective either because I come from the point of view that there isn't a conspiracy. Which is why I am quite happy to see co-incidence.

There's a famous story that in the days before his assassination, President Kennedy made an offhand comment to an aide that if someone really wanted to shoot him with a high powered rifle from a window then there wasn't anything they could do about it. Then days later he was shot from a window with a high powered rifle. Was the assassination a suicide staged to look like an assassination? Maybe you could make that argument based on that offhand comment. Or maybe it was just a horribly ironic co-incidence.

I did not make any assumption! I said that the drills are EVIDENCE of inside job. They are evidence of inside job, because there is no other reason for drills and events to coincide, period.

If you hold a bunch of related drills for an unprecedented simultaneous hijacking, including flying planes into buildings, on the SAME DAY as a unrelated unprecedented simultaneous hijacking, involving flying planes into buildings, dude, sorry, you staged it! Once you have the drills, you can fake the hijacking, and there is no way in heck a reasonable person can accept this coincidence.

This story, attacks staged through the drills, is also consistent with all the evidence, while the official story is not.

The Kennedy thing is not comparable. If Kennedy had said "If someone wanted to shoot me, he would want to use a high-powered rifle, from, say, that book depository in Dallas, at around 3 PM", then it would be a coincidence of the type of 9/11. That's not a coincidence, that would be enough to conclude that Kennedy was tipped off.

You really need to do a review of the evidence properly, and please stop upvoting me when you don't agree with me, it's annoying as all heck.

Ron, I don't upvote because I'm agreeing with you. I up vote because I enjoy the debate. But I'm happy to desist if you like.

deleted comment

How the HECK would Al-Qaeda know about it? These drills were each top secret, and were (heroically) leaked in 2002, to the consternation of senior officials in the White House. Are you suggesting there are Al-Qaeda operatives in every branch of government, including sattelite imaging, airforce command? It's ridiculous conspiracy thinking, especially considering that Al-Qaeda was barely an organization to speak of, just a guy making videos and some vaguely CIA related training camps in Afghanistan.

The drills were just used to stage that attack. It's parsimonious, it requires no conspiracy, it could all have been done by one or two people in the bunker under the White House, without anyone else knowing ahead of time, and only a handful of others who know afterwards, none of whom would know the whole story.