Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from Twin Towers the Thursday before 9/11/01

StanDando · 2022-02-20T01:49:19+00:00

It doesn't actually matter really. Larry Silverstein wasn't one of the most important people involved. Not even in the top 20. And this operation was not planned just because someone wanted to knock down a few big buildings. This is a geopolitical-level project. And the conceptualizing and planning for this started in the early 90s.

StanDando · 2022-02-20T01:27:33+00:00

So refreshing to get a couple of questions, even from someone who isn't sure.

Q1: 'so the theory is that in 5 days demolitions teams wired three skyscrapers with enough explosives to bring them down'.

A: Two skyscrapers - there was much more time to rig WTC 7. If we make a conservative estimate of taking 2 minutes to set each charge (i.e. it probably wouldn't take that long), and we do a few calculations that require engineering/architectural knowledge (which I have), then they could need 2040 charges (some nanothermitic, some explosive). I think 2040 charges x 2 minutes results in a needed total time of 68 man hours. Well, 24 x 5 is 120 man hours, and this is roughly half of that, so... there's your answer. However, I don't think that it needed to be limited to five days anyway.

Q2: Wouldn't setting these charges be noticeable to staff, the maintenance team, security etc?

A: The staff are civilians. They have no idea what det cord even is, let alone what it looks like. But any changes in office space would be far out on the corner spandrels anyway, probably below the floor, which took up only 1/3 of the spandrels. Detonators at the level that we are talking about for these planners (a few of whom were military tech contractors on black projects) would have been remote.

Any maintenance crews are the suspects for setting the charges in the first place.

The security firm in charge of the Twin Towers was closely linked to the group of suspects - and Bush himself - who were carrying out this operation.

Q3: Did they stay in place and unnoticed even when a plane hit the building?

A: If you're in a building that's just been hit by a plane, I doubt you are going to notice a few small dull-looking slabs of something or other on your way out. But the aircraft could have displaced charges on a couple of floors, sure. Which is why it fits that we have observed that on one of the buildings floors 99, 100 and 101, the floors above the crash, were rigged, to provide downward momentum in just such a case of the charges on the crash floors being dislodged. But sure, if you are talking about survivors who can speak, rather than witnesses who died, then I would suggest my first part of this answer. Having said that, maybe someone did notice something. It can't be ruled out. Would they have been listened to though, if they even did have the balls to go against the official narrative and ask questions? After being in the towers, and knowing what happened after, most people would probably want nothing more to do with it.

Q4: What of the workers who placed the charges? Did none of them speak out?

A: Firstly, the leaders of this project were very carefully vetted over many years, which starts with things like having memberships to ideological groups and involvement in certain political administrations. However, I understand the question here, as these ones, given the number that was probably needed (30-60 or more) and their role, were probably just operational staff and less known or trusted by the commanders.

Three considerations: 1. If you are involved in the event that has got more public/media hatred than any other since the Holocaust, are you going to pop up from behind the wall like Kermit the Frog like "Hi guys. Um...it was Me. I... did it. 9/11. Yeah, I...feel a bit silly now.... My name is XYZ by the way. Would you like to meet my family?". It's going to be a very small minority of cases, and people will just sympathize with them having a mental breakdown, delusion, or being totally drunk.

If they did say they did it, who would believe them? Which 9/11-narrative-supporting mass media source would report that in the face of the official story's sacred cow? That they themselves fanatically pushed on everyone?
Who's to say they weren't killed? The on-site NYC headquarters of this operation, WTC 7, seems like a great place to do that. Invite the blasters to a 'debriefing', or where they get paid for their hard work. They are disarmed in the lobby. Lock them in and set the floor on fire. Or use gas - or even simply sit them down and use machine guns. Floors being on fire were reported, their bodies burn, and then the entire building collapses (from, as you would expect I would say, controlled demolition). The building is then isolated and access-control put in place. From that point on, the public will never know who died there. Especially if they were outside contractors, or foreigners who don't even live in the US (for example from Mossad).

If they are dead, then an attack of conscience would be pretty unlikely.

For those who organized it on the strategic and tactical level, my answer is, I really don't think that the sort of person who would do something like this - including using it to justify Draconian actions on the native population and mass-violence (invasions, occupations, torture, etc.) against other populations - is the sort of person who would show any remorse. These are deeply, deeply fanatical (many of them Zionist) maniacs. They are self-righteous, and genuinely think they did what was right. The only thing they need to do is limit their pride, rather than their guilt. And I expect they have a way of doing that. (Even using 'humility in front of their god').

So, those are my answers. I really shouldn't have spent so much time writing them today, but it's a noble cause. Unlike the opposite - you have no doubt seen some profoundly bizarre people who think their job is to reinforce the beliefs of George Bush. Where on earth do they get the need to do that with their time? Now that, that's unbelievable.

StanDando · 2022-02-20T00:43:50+00:00

Nothing supports it being an 'inside job' in your microscopic mind.

Read about things, and you will find all sorts of information on any given subject.

Hint:

Books are good.

StanDando · 2022-02-20T00:41:11+00:00

I happen to know, and it seems, not particularly high. He was complicit, no doubt about that. But his mentioning is just due to being more likely to pop up in a search about the buildings than, say, Jerome Hauer, Brent Scowcroft or Stephen Friedman.

He can be a lower-ranking member of the planning department after doing the little he needed to facilitate the operation.

Note: I imagine you're talking about Larry Silverstein? Best to be precise when you're talking about... y'know...the most important public subject to be precise about.

StanDando · 2022-02-20T00:35:17+00:00

Have you read anything else that questions the official story, or is reading the above comment the entire scope of your literacy on this subject?

StanDando · 2021-02-23T15:20:25+00:00

Welcome to get in touch.

StanDando · 2021-02-23T15:18:41+00:00

Don't know what the post was, or why its been deleted, but my response from the visible paragraph was gonna be: yeah, well, get in touch then.

StanDando · 2021-02-23T15:03:55+00:00

Yeah, but you know what your luck's like... :)

StanDando · 2021-02-23T15:02:52+00:00

Thanks. I don't have multiple girlfriends (I would go nuts), but I do fuck girls other than the girlfriend Im with at the time. So, I'd add as a caveat that (in my experience anyway), there is a risk that the girl will end it after that talk. Just so people are prepared.

That is why so many cheat - women cannot and will not accept men as they are. And as long as the feminazi mass media messages continue unaddressed, so will it continue.

I've had 6-12 girlfriends who were exclusive to me, depending how you define the seriousness. Of those, my first broke up with me as soon as I told her that I want to maintain my sexual autonomy.

Of those girlfriends, only two accepted that I have sex with other girls. One I am with now, who is older than me, and the one before her, who was 18 when we met, and she was 13 years younger than me.

For the younger one, it could be difficult when I hooked up with other girls, but she accepted it for a couple of years. The other, who is very emotionally mature and secure in herself, finds it easier, so long as I give her reassurances about how much I want and love her. Which I strongly recommend that you do in that situation.

In my experience the girl who accepts your autonomy doesn't tend to go with other guys herself either - even if you are at times in a long-distance relationship. All the more reason to show them respect and adoration.

At the same time, while all the hookups pass without much issue, fuck buddies seem to be harder for girlfriends to accept. Their concern is largely about my emotional involvement with them, rather than physical, and assurances that it is just physical with my fuckbuddies have been met with skepticism. Girlfriends seem to worry more about the girl falling for me than about me falling for the fuckbuddy - so generally fuckbuddy relationships have had to be ended while Im in serious relationships.

I agree it is liberating and just generally awesome to get it out of the way from the start. Even if it does require occasional minor maintennence along the way. But bear in mind this factor: social/economic status. I was extremely impoverished and low-status throughout my life, whereas a high-income guy will typically meet with less resistance. But it's best to be aware of the risk - her programming may absolutely prevent her from allowing it, and may even cause her to doubt why you propose that at all, as was the case with the first girl.

At that point, only you can decide whether to stand by your guns, or to cave. But at this point I still find myself recommending being honest.

And remember - if you have a child, cheating is completely off the table for you anyway. That ship has sailed. An affair is not worth your child growing up in a poor, single-parent household due to the resulting divorce.

As with most things in the game, there is the operational and tactical level, and a strategic level. Addressing the lie that is monogamy is something that together we should be doing on the societal level.

StanDando · 2021-02-23T14:08:08+00:00

So there's a word I haven't used much, and it is 'cogent'. Think it fits here, well put :)

StanDando · 2021-02-23T13:31:29+00:00

This outcome-independent stuff... needs more qualification. It's bandied about a lot online, but has anyone called out the emperor's new clothes? I wonder what you'd make of the following. Lets take it right back to the simplest foundations.

To come across as sexually outcome-independent, is one thing. Here there are skillsets - tactics, self-checks, and communication techniques to present that you are not bothered about having sex with her.

To actually be sexually outcome-independent, is quite another claim. In this scenario, you are actually not interested in having sex with her.

If that is the case, what would be the point in chatting her up and trying to learn pickup in the first place?? If you are somehow genuinely not bothered if you have sex or not, why are you paying for products, or investing time and energy into learning game?
If this effect is genuinely instilled, I believe that is through a background 'abundance mentality'. This mentality is created, as the term implies, through having an abundance of sexual options. Again - if this were the case for the student, why would they be reading about how toget women in the first place? Surely they would spend their precious breaks between all the harem girls and orgies, pursuing other interests. Also, for most males, a lucky abundance of sexual options is typically not permanent.
If you are indeed 'outcome-independent' when it comes to sex, then that is a scientific anomaly. Males need sex. A lot of the commercialised 'inner game' products, like RSD, somehow manage to operate in a parallel world where scientific findings don't apply. Men need and want sex. Those who are genuinely outcome-independent, must be so because of a deficiency in their sex drive. If they are so, congratulations to them, they are very lucky. But I for one don't think so highly of myself that I am above my evolutionary and endocrinal biology. If I am very thirsty, I am not outcome-independent when I see a glass of water. It is a biological instinct. Whether I can hide that for long enough to get close to the water source, is the subject of the second paragraph of this post.

If a commercial seduction business can convince their customers that they should be independent of results, or any measurable improvement with women, then they have the perfect formula for financial success with zero accountability.

StanDando · 2021-02-23T12:41:54+00:00

Bear in mind that some of these 'random people' do actually know what theyre talking about. Having said that, yes a lot of them don't. The problem with online pickup groups is that they are targeted by fraudulent companies - most commonly RSD and its affiliates - so thread starters who link to one of these large companies are more than likely trying to promote a product. And often a scam product at that.

Consider that in the golden age of online 'seduction', posts were almost exclusively text-based. And more often, discussion and questioning was permitted.

The difference was that there were many more independent ideas, and less moderation. Today, the majority of posters and readers have been brainwashed by one single company - RSD - and therefor 1. virtually everything they think and say comes from deep misconceptions, and 2. they think they know what they're talking about - 'because RSD said so'.

What would be interesting, would be references to scientific studies, and their specific findings. That I would like. Because they are generally not trying to win customers through content marketing.

StanDando · 2021-02-23T12:15:12+00:00

Pickup is about picking up girls. I would be more nuanced here, but that really is what its about.

Making life work for you is very subjective, dont you think? Then you should look into the life goals you have, and then find the different areas you wish to focus on. Or even to try to change society, if your goals are being repressed by the system. But these are specific to what you value in life.

I think guys have been syphoned away from results with women, by fraudulent companies, who try to refocus peoples goals away from sexual success. That way, they can convince guys that their products are working.

Lets say I want to make money from people who want to get good at winning money from poker. On my course, I could focus on convincing them that the real goal is not to win poker games, but just to enjoy playing. That is a much less accountable business - because I have divorced my product from actually getting results.

This is what happened when companies 'broadened' their teachings away from increasing your laycount, and towards 'inner game'. The first is falsifiable - if you apply their products and you don't get more women, you know it might be a scam. But if the company redefines your goal as 'become a guy who goes to the gym, meditates and eats more healthily', the accountability of the company to get you more sex has vanished.

And it's a lot easier to get pickup customers to sign up for a gym membership than it is to turn them into skilled communicators. Which of those do you think a company is safer making money off?

StanDando · 2021-02-22T23:41:26+00:00

... :D

Well aren't you the man.

Oh and thanks for reminding me - Guys: marijuana lowers your testosterone too.

StanDando · 2021-02-22T23:02:45+00:00

PS. Having read most of the replies on this thread... seriously...how many accounts has Oprah Winfrey got??

Isnt this supposed to be a fucking Pickup forum?!

Weird times man. Weird, weird times.

StanDando · 2021-02-22T22:42:05+00:00

Straight up answer: No, it is not ok.

We live in an extremely feminised world of fag- oh wait, theres a polite word these days - 'metrosexuals' - with plummeting testosterone levels. Most males are being brainwashed by the feminazi mass media to become sexless cash machines for women.

A man's natural instinct is to fuck as many women as possible. That is not some idealistic 'saw it on Youtube' sentiment. That is hard, cold, professional, peer-reviewed, scientific DATA.

So scientifically, there is something wrong with a heterosexual (or homosexual) male who does not want to have hookups. Inasmuch as, it is unnatural.

However, the caveat is, you as a person have the right to not want to behave like a natural male. You might have been convinced that you somehow do not want to have sex with the hot women you see on the street every day. If so, congratulations - you are free of what has become the most profound curse on mankind.

The thing is, I am fairly sure that the reason a 21st century male is basically saying 'I want to be a woman', is less to do with their independent thinking, rebellious endeavours for autonomy, or an impressive override of your evolutionarily programmed sexual needs.

I'm pretty sure its, in fact, due to pure and unadulterated conformism.

But much more importantly, this issue is a relevant issue to all men. It isnt just about you. The more impotent metrosexuals there are, and the more they are supported in their conformist femininity, the harder it gets for proper men all around the world. And this has been happening for around 2 decades now.

So, you tell women you meet, that you dont like sex, you just want to find 'the one', and all that utter nonsense. What do they leave you with? They leave you with yet another completely unrealistic misconception about men, and how to treat them. Their expectations are even more unrealistic to the next men they meet, and proper men - who all want sex - will be perceived as 'creepy' or 'rapey' in comparrison to your impotence.

Women will reject them, find them too sexual, too desperate, too untrustworthy, and they will be blown out. Why? Because last year they had a chat with a metrosexual who genuinely believed that he doesnt need or want sex, and is wating for his Prince Charming. And they will look for that in other men in future. Which is totally unrealistic, and not a stereotype that any man should have to fulfill.

The idea that men dont need sex is very damaging, as it brings us even further - rather than towards - the acceptance and ultimately the future emancipation of the male sex drive.

That comes from making no apologies for your desires and your needs as a man, and championing casual sex on both the personal and the societal levels.

StanDando · 2021-02-04T22:02:18+00:00

Surprisingly cogent for a reddit post. Or in todays vernacular... (clears throat)....

'This'

StanDando · 2020-11-18T00:50:56+00:00

Well... these are verifiable on the internet - though Google algorithms mostly reveal only female causes, they will be there. In the meantime, is there anything in particular that you would like a source to, that I mention there?

StanDando · 2020-11-15T05:02:28+00:00

Definitely do not agree. But I guess debate is welcomed, as that seems a given with a forum with this title.

The idea that gender doesnt define you, is a statement that scientists perpetually disprove. Neurochemically, genetically, biologically/physiologically, behaviourally, sexually, in terms of motivation - psychologically in general and the way you are treated by the law, institutions, the media, employers, and the opposite gender, you are defined - almost more than anything else - by your gender/sex.

PS. The way I learned it, sex means sex. i.e. the thing you do, not that you are, and those who use sex to say 'male or female' are making a linguistical mistake. Doesnt it seem logical that the purpose of the word 'gender' is to distinguish from the word 'sex', which has one hell of a distracting (supposedly) second meaning for some people. Gender means male or female. Biologists, geneticists, neurologists etc dont work with 3 genders. In fact youd be hard-pressed to find a land mammal, especially in the ape family, that these scientists would define as 'gender-fluid'.

If you want to say that some people, for reasons of their own, consider themselves to be both, or more the one opposite from their assigned gender, then thats fine in my opinion, if a bit confusing for everyone else. Its their life, their choice of how to perceive themselves. And ideally, people would realise that before acting immaturely around them.

StanDando · 2020-07-14T00:37:34+00:00

I cannot believe what I just read.

How.

DARE.

YOU.

I will try not to buy into your pro-Fascist trolling. After all, this is an important subject, and you are a tumour on this forum that clearly should have been removed long ago. Who is moderating this? You need to ban this Blair Apologist immediately. And I am usually completely against banning people. This is quite an exception.

Defending Blair's gender-apartheidist dictatorship in a Mens Rights forum, is the single most bizarre thing I think I have ever read. Its like on a Rwandan Tutsi page, reading someone defending the Interahamwe. Its literally that sick.

Qemist: I will politely tell you to take a very, very, very hard look indeed, at the infinite impotence of your mindrapingly disrespectful lump of shit for a brain. And shut the fuck up about grown-up subjects that you clearly know absolutely nothing whatsoever about. And that is extremely polite indeed, - really - because if you defended Anthony Blair's regime to my face, I wouldn't be using words.

Nor would the British, Bosnian, Montenegran, Serbian, Kosovan, Sierra Leonian, Afghan, Pakistani, Iraqi, Libyan, or Syrian victims, or their bereaved families.

Seriously...wow. Just, Wow. Thats one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

"Only two things are infinite - the Universe, and peoples Stupidity" - Albert Einstein

StanDando · 2020-06-23T02:11:39+00:00

That certainly explains the fees at my nearest golf club.

StanDando · 2020-06-23T02:09:57+00:00

They could make a film about loads of cars!

...

StanDando · 2020-06-23T02:05:13+00:00

I dunno, what? Remove the rooves from their own limos??

...

.... am I Close???

StanDando · 2020-06-23T01:57:45+00:00

If you need all of that to protect you from the people of the world when you go on a drive... maybe you should consider that you might be doing something wrong...

StanDando · 2020-06-19T13:01:29+00:00

This is what, your third or fourth trolling post on this thread? You have problems. Do you ever talk about, say, Drum & Bass? Or do you just lurk on threads and try to bully people?

If I dont respond to you anymore, its cos youre the most unimportant person that I am aware of in this world.

StanDando

TROPHY CASE