[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Do you have a link to this death please?

Remember this is the same guy who thinks it takes an entire team of engineers to hit on the plan of flying airplanes into a building to destroy it.

Oh ok good stuff, saves everyone time then. Could I get a link to that post please?

Strange they're going to the trouble of killing demolition experts when the flaws with the plane + fires theory is so obvious that the silence of astrophysicists, who don't have any training in the subject matter beyond graduate level mechanics, can be taken as evidence truthers are correct.

Say you were tasked with using planes to bring down skyscrapers. If you were an engineer you would probably look for examples. You would find that the buildings would definitely absorb the impact and remain standing. So then you would have to consider the impacts of the fire from the fuel. Unlike NIST, you would have to make your considerations in the real world and consider the massive heat sinking effects of the massive steel core or the building. You would also encounter the fact that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fire. You are tasked with doing the impossible. Seems like an occasion for a lot of creative input from experts.

Hey man, you seem to have missed my request. You got that link for me?

They did that already, their findings are in the NIST report.

The NIST report was done by compartmentalized government employees. It was not peer reviewed. It didn't explain much of anything, just made a bunch of assertions after making some absurdly unrealistic assumptions, mostly ones to support higher temperatures.

The NIST report obviously failed to convince many people who think our own government or another group of insiders did 9/11 or that the buildings were demolished. So, on the surface, there is no reason the Tyson's of the world wouldn't step in an explain to us the science and engineering of why we should believe the government's assertions. They couldn't do so without repeating the same hand waving and unscientific assertions propagated by NIST and they don't want to be correctly challenged by like high school kids who have more of a grasp on things than NIST.

Yeah, I don't think we need to listen to a guy who is incapable of sourcing a single claim he makes. Run along and let the adults chat now, Deuces. PW has some fascinating theories about collision courses that we need to explore.

I agree with d2. How embarrassing to say you have all kinds of claims and then zero links to back them up

Literally zero

Damn Deuces, you just got credibility checked by PW. If you weren't sure the exact moment your posting career ITF hit rock bottom, I'm here to helpfully tell you that this is probably it. But having seen what you're capable of, I suspect this will end up being only a local minimum.

Funnily enough, I'm not even asking to a reference to something that is a matter of opinion or conjecture, where he might feel it takes too much effort to find a convincing enough source. I've literally been asking for the best part of a week for a reference to where the NIST report says what he claims it says, just so I can read the relevant part for myself.

Right. So it's pretty basic even if you don't have much or any knowledge of civil engineering, materials science etc. But nobody seems able to say what those basic claims are. It can't be something too difficult for you to explain or require pages and pages of analysis because the obvious explanation if that were the case would be that NDT or a typical physicist just don't understand due to lack of study.

So that's wrong and wrong, the draft report went through several rounds of public comments from subject matter experts before release, here's a link:

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/docume...

idk if deGrasse Tyson is on the list or not.

The perfect mixture of an accident and to not be ****ed with again. I honestly have no clue what level your on but i ebjoy your posts in an edgar allan poe kind of way.

Speaking of NDT...

Do you doubt my claim about the NIST fireproofing experiment? All it takes it a Google search on your part. If you are saying it didn't happen we can "wager" on it. One guy wagered against me for handles in 2016, if he wins I am banned if I won he is banned from the entire forum. He was thought of as one of the more intelligent and moderate posters and had a long history. Notice I'm speaking of him in the past as he lost the wager and had the honor to follow through on the terms.

We don't have to go so high stakes. But if you are saying there was no such experiment done by NIST and I can show you otherwise will you ban yourself from the politics forum until after the inauguration of the next U.S. president? And if I can't produce the link in, say, a few days, I will serve the same ban instead.

BTW the guy who lost, I tried to let him out of it by instead allowing me to write something of my choice as his subtitle. But he was too prideful and took the full terms. I was going to write "Deuces is my friend" as his under title.

Anything else might seem a little petty for such a high ranking wizard 😀

How is it we have so many conspiracy theorists in this forum? Surely the general population doesn't have this high of a percentage ? Does it?

I've long theorized that the remaining contributors to this forum lean towards an overrepresentation of mental disorders

I also think covid birthed a whole new breed and generation of conspiracy theorist

Tweedledumb, for the second or third time, I am not doubting they conducted such an experiment. I am skeptical that this experiment was the sole source of their conclusions and I suspect that they gave some justification for why such an experiment was useful in the context of their investigation.

I'm not going to bet you ****. You made a claim, you were asked to source it. I shouldn't have to bet that you can't source it, and if you want to be taken even semi-seriously as a poster here, I shouldn't even have to doubt your ability to source it.

I don't think I made the claim that is was the soul justification for the removing all fireproofing in the crash zone. One thing about logic and reasoning...it's difficult to prove a negative, in this case that NIST did not, anywhere, provide additional justification, more than the gun experiment, for the removal of all fireproofing in their collapse model. And if I were to prove that, like say I knew NIST had relied on that experiment as the sole justification, the proof I would have to submit would just be like the entire NIST report and all other related communications. DUCY?

Aren't you supposed to understand logic? You are calling everyone dumb all the time. Are you compensating for some kind of deficiency?

So we've covered proving a negative. Let's move on to sufficiency. I think the use of the gun experiment, as I described, is sufficient grounds to question the entire NIST report. Do you not agree? Is it your position that it is even possibly valid to use such an experiment, alone or in conjunction with other premises, to justify removing the effects of fireproofing totally from the collapse model?

Covid increased it but its a generational thing for people near our age bracket. Just like with boomers going from sex drugs and rock and roll to fox news hating immigrants, millenials and Xers went from nintendo to seeing high quality proof that we never actually reached the moon.

But depression and mental illness also plays a role. Kids being born now are going to be better equipped to handle this stuff.

Much as I am confident in your reading comprehension abilities and don't for a second doubt your synopsis of what is and isn't in the report, I'd like to read the relevant section of the report myself, just in case. Trust, but verify and all that. You know what would be really helpful to that end? A reference to where I could find the section of the report which you are using to draw the above conclusions.

It's relatively straightforward to show that something is or isn't in a report, at least in the context of this conversation. You could wait until someone claims it is in the report, and you ask them to provide a reference to where it can be found. If they keep being evasive and coming up with bullshit excuses, it's probably not in the report. A bit like I'm doing to you now.

Oh, and "it's difficult/impossible to prove a negative" is just a banal soundbite that dumb people use all the time because they think it holds some profound meaning in the context of syllogistic logic. It doesn't. You can prove "not P" directly - e.g. "the sky is not red, because it is blue". Or you could prove Q where Q is mutually exclusive with P - e.g. "Deuces has not ever been laid because he spends all his time cosplaying detective on the internet".