Think about it. I’m saying the official story is so impossible that there would have to be a God who would have to have been acting on the terrorists behalf in order to for them to have been successful in the government’s version of events.
That's not exactly something you should be surprised at "going over your head" if you don't believe it's impossible that hijackers could have accomplished it with boxcutters. It's deceptively simple is the thing, that's what's terrifying about it. People have to psychologically cope with that possibility by creating puppet masters, thus exerting some semblance of control over chaotic events.
Sort of like what people do with faith and religion: create a lattice of control and reason over chaos for psychological security.
It's fine, but really what are you asking? It sounds like you've determined that since you believe an occurrence to have improbable odds that the only way to believe it would require religious faith.
But the argument to that would be that it's simply a belief that events that occurred are impossibly unlikely, seeing as how they plainly did occur anyway.
Whether or not you believe the official story is almost irrelevant, because every alternate theory requires similar, but different, types of coincidence, coordination, and synchronicity.
Dude, I get it. You’re saying the official story is true, and that coincidences happen and people create elaborate theories to help them cope with the idea of not being in control. Sure that happens.
What is unique about 9/11, is that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that what they are saying happened COULD NOT have happened, like objectively.
You reduced it to a few guys with box cutters. There’s way more to it than that! Did those guys with box cutters cause NORAD to fail to intercept all 3 planes?
I know that. It was a rhetorical questions. If you’re not interested in discussing the ridiculousness of the official narrative or substantively defending it, please move on.
It seems like getting answers to how it's possible for people to believe differently than you is a reasonable response to directly asking that question, but oh well. Have a good one.
I’m engaging with you. I’m sorry that, for some reason, you seem to find that threatening or offensive.
You’re initial response was premised on the idea that it was just some simple, totally possible plot of a few dudes with box cutters, that people reject out of fear of the chaos that governs our world. I’m saying that this is ridiculous, because it is a gross oversimplification of what actually had to occur that day. You haven’t addressed this point s single time.
Find me one documented instance ever recorded in all of human history where an individual or group of individuals had as much serendipity befall them as these hijackers. It’s literally Biblical level bullshit.
You're asking me to find something that happened which is impossible based on a guideline you have arbitrarily set to which I'm not even privy. It's like asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.
Are you trying to have a discussion with me or not? I can't figure it out.
Except I’m not asking you to prove a negative, so that logic doesn’t apply. Ok, without researching, can you think of any examples? Does anything come to mind?
Do you question any aspects of the official story?
I’m engaging with you. I’m sorry that, for some reason, you seem to find that threatening or offensive.
You’re initial response was premised on the idea that it was just some simple, totally possible plot of a few dudes with box cutters, that people reject out of fear of the chaos that governs our world. I’m saying that this is ridiculous, because it is a gross oversimplification of what actually had to occur that day. You haven’t addressed this point s single time.
Find me one documented instance ever recorded in all of human history where an individual or group of individuals had as much serendipity befall them as these hijackers. It’s literally Biblical level bullshit.
You're asking me to find something that happened which is impossible based on a guideline you have arbitrarily set to which I'm not even privy. It's like asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.
Are you trying to have a discussion with me or not? I can't figure it out.
Wouldn't/isn't NORAD constantly in some state of preparedness operation, or "wargames" as you say? What was the significance of the wargames occurring on 9/11?
57 comments
1 agent570358201 2017-09-13
Oh shit
1 getbanneddaily 2017-09-13
https://youtube.com/watch?v=eujCeBC4Lh0
1 ChadluvsZion 2017-09-13
Well can't it be said that if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, that god was on the side of the perpetrators? They pulled off a successful mission.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
I think it’s it would be significantly less requiring of divine intervention, so no.
1 ChadluvsZion 2017-09-13
I probably did miss your point. Honestly, I don't believe in divine intervention.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Me either. That’s kind of the point.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
You could be an atheist.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
That’s even more to my point.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Holy shit this post went over your head.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
Howso?
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Think about it. I’m saying the official story is so impossible that there would have to be a God who would have to have been acting on the terrorists behalf in order to for them to have been successful in the government’s version of events.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
That's not exactly something you should be surprised at "going over your head" if you don't believe it's impossible that hijackers could have accomplished it with boxcutters. It's deceptively simple is the thing, that's what's terrifying about it. People have to psychologically cope with that possibility by creating puppet masters, thus exerting some semblance of control over chaotic events.
Sort of like what people do with faith and religion: create a lattice of control and reason over chaos for psychological security.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Your are radically oversimplifying what is claimed to have occurred that day. I updated my original post.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
Why are you asking questions if you reject the answers instead of considering them?
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
What? I’m responding specifically to what you said, and asking follow up questions. How is a discussion supposed to work?
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
You didn't ask a followup question.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
You’re right. I meant to type “aren’t you oversimplifying”. Sorry
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
It's fine, but really what are you asking? It sounds like you've determined that since you believe an occurrence to have improbable odds that the only way to believe it would require religious faith.
But the argument to that would be that it's simply a belief that events that occurred are impossibly unlikely, seeing as how they plainly did occur anyway.
Whether or not you believe the official story is almost irrelevant, because every alternate theory requires similar, but different, types of coincidence, coordination, and synchronicity.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Not improbable. Impossible. The official story is impossible.
You’re downplaying how uniquely impossible this particular event was.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
You believe it's impossible.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Yes I believe it’s impossible. I thought it was implied that my thoughts were my own.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
I never said they weren't.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Dude, I get it. You’re saying the official story is true, and that coincidences happen and people create elaborate theories to help them cope with the idea of not being in control. Sure that happens.
What is unique about 9/11, is that there is a tremendous amount of evidence that what they are saying happened COULD NOT have happened, like objectively.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Aren’t you oversimplifying what happened that day in your response?
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
It's a massive, catastrophic event. You can't not oversimplify it in this format unless I write you a new Ulysses.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
You reduced it to a few guys with box cutters. There’s way more to it than that! Did those guys with box cutters cause NORAD to fail to intercept all 3 planes?
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
No, the men with boxcutters did not cause NORAD not to intercept the planes.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
I know that. It was a rhetorical questions. If you’re not interested in discussing the ridiculousness of the official narrative or substantively defending it, please move on.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
It seems like getting answers to how it's possible for people to believe differently than you is a reasonable response to directly asking that question, but oh well. Have a good one.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
I’m engaging with you. I’m sorry that, for some reason, you seem to find that threatening or offensive.
You’re initial response was premised on the idea that it was just some simple, totally possible plot of a few dudes with box cutters, that people reject out of fear of the chaos that governs our world. I’m saying that this is ridiculous, because it is a gross oversimplification of what actually had to occur that day. You haven’t addressed this point s single time.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
I don't find you remotely threatening or offensive. No worries.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Find me one documented instance ever recorded in all of human history where an individual or group of individuals had as much serendipity befall them as these hijackers. It’s literally Biblical level bullshit.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
You're asking me to find something that happened which is impossible based on a guideline you have arbitrarily set to which I'm not even privy. It's like asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.
Are you trying to have a discussion with me or not? I can't figure it out.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Except I’m not asking you to prove a negative, so that logic doesn’t apply. Ok, without researching, can you think of any examples? Does anything come to mind? Do you question any aspects of the official story?
1 NoYamShazam 2017-09-13
It is more about controlling the news and information than God.
But good point.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
I’m engaging with you. I’m sorry that, for some reason, you seem to find that threatening or offensive.
You’re initial response was premised on the idea that it was just some simple, totally possible plot of a few dudes with box cutters, that people reject out of fear of the chaos that governs our world. I’m saying that this is ridiculous, because it is a gross oversimplification of what actually had to occur that day. You haven’t addressed this point s single time.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
Find me one documented instance ever recorded in all of human history where an individual or group of individuals had as much serendipity befall them as these hijackers. It’s literally Biblical level bullshit.
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
You're asking me to find something that happened which is impossible based on a guideline you have arbitrarily set to which I'm not even privy. It's like asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.
Are you trying to have a discussion with me or not? I can't figure it out.
1 MegaLegBeats 2017-09-13
You’re being purposefully retarded at this point. If I told you that I jumped 1000 feet in the air the other day, would you say:
“That’s plausible, because the air must have blown in a certain way to make it possible. I mean it’s improbably, but not impossible”.
No, you’d assume I was lying because I’m making a ridiculous claim that is beyond reasonable possibility.
How is it possible that you don’t find the official narrative ridiculous? Are you familiar with it?
1 puzzling__evidence 2017-09-13
Then I guess go in order?
Wouldn't/isn't NORAD constantly in some state of preparedness operation, or "wargames" as you say? What was the significance of the wargames occurring on 9/11?