[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

How many millions of dollars has Russia loaned Trump? How many millions of dollars has Russia or Russian oligarchs spent on or at a Trump property?

No. And when I have to remind people that words have meanings it is because they are just grasping but don't want to admit they are wrong.

Here is what is wrong with you and the sheeple crew. You make assumptions that are, probability wise, perfectly fine. You assume that the NIST report, a government agency investigation a major structural failure, would be peer reviewed and would be an open, educational offering. Like 99.99% of the time you would be correct in making that assumption. Most people in government are just doing their job and getting a paycheck. While they might carry various levels of earnestness or care to their jobs, they are not bad people.

9/11 however, is a very closed and controlled narrative. You're assumptions do not hold up when it comes to 9/11.

You assume that the FBI or CIA would track the funding of the alleged hijackers to completion. That assumption is objectively and unquestionably wrong.

You assume there was no wider foreknowledge among elites of what was going to happen. The tremendous, unprecedented spike in put options right before the attacks, which was global phenomenon, proves that assumption wrong.

You assume the government has a case against KSM given that we went to war based on the belief that AQ did 9/11. You assume the accusation has a solid evidentiary basis because how could it not? The plea deal shows, without a doubt, that the government has no case against AQ.

The pattern here is the sheeple make assumptions based on historical norms. They are shown that those assumptions are utterly and totally false. The sheeple do not then accept this. It's like an animal who sees it's reflection in the mirror. No, they insist, what I believe is true. There is another bear/bobcat whatever in front of me and he is hiding somewhere. It is not true. When you see yourself contradicted again and again and again you have to admit that you do not have knowledge there. Maybe you do not want knowledge about this. Ok I don't blame you but don't be the disgusting coward who apologizes for state crimes because he is too scared to even verbally confront the state.

McCrackhead, that's a lot of words to address exactly none of the post you quoted. He basically explained to you why it is considered peer reviewed, and your only response is "no, you're wrong and I'm right", inartfully stuffed amidst half a dozen paragraphs of irrelevant verbal diarrhea.

We can only assume that, having been educated by someone who is more knowledgeable on the topic, you now understand better how peer review works but are too prideful to admit it.

I'm the only one trying to explain peer review to anyone, but I don't think you understand that. What the people with the super pretentious names are doing is trying to recover from an erroneous assumption that the NIST report was peer reviewed. It absolutely wasn't by any conceivable standard. So they've gone on to attempt to confuse the issue. They are like octopus who freak out and squirt ink when threatened but instead of ink they squirt ignorance.

Interesting. Could you share what makes you qualified to speak authoritatively or, for that matter, at all on this subject?

Apparently not enough to buy any policy preference or even neutrality. When Trump was president he

- gave Ukraine weapons
- militarily attacked Syria
- Sanctioned Venezuela

And did a bunch of others things which were extreme anti Russian measures. That's one way we know Trump wasn't a Russian Manchurian candidate. Those are facts and they are sufficient evidence that Trump wasn't following Russian orders or known preferences. You don't really need to know anything else. There are other ways to know it, but this is a pretty simple one. You should take advantage.

I don't need to because argument by authority is a logical fallacy. How do yo not know that?

I was thinking you were a little more educated because I didn't see you exactly sign off on Trolly's masturbatory theory of peer review. But now I'm back to thinking you are a poseur.

Establishing your qualifications to speak on a topic is not an "argument to authority", you simpleton. Much the same as saying "my math teacher told me this about math" is not an "argument to authority". Argument to authority is an informal fallacy when the authority in question does not have the credentials to speak on the subject but is an authority on an entirely different matter, for example: "Deuces, who is a grade A asshat with a PhD in intellectual masturbation, says xyz about peer review, so it must be true".

The fact you called it "argument by authority" serves for extra lols. No, an argument by an authority on a topic for which they are an authority is not a fallacy, big brain. Otherwise we literally couldn't have experts on any subject.

In any case, why are you so hung up on peer review? The whole report is publicly available, so anyone can "peer review" it. Are you suggesting that there were parts of the report that were made available only to the peer reviewers but not to the public?

In Deuces' world, literally anyone can claim to be an expert on any subject, and when questioned, can simply respond that to establish their credentials would instantly render all their claims fallacious. Did you perchance have an extra large dose of paint chips for lunch today, Deuces?

Nah Russians would do that to throw us off. Don’t be naive. They are masters of deception. The only people better are North Koreans

The Russians would throw us off the scent of their efforts to avoid certain polices by enacting those very policies? I think you are a master of self deception.

Russia did whatever it could to try and make it look like they weren’t exploited their asset, Trump

This culminated in the Russians invading Ukraine in an attempt to take over the nation.

To Putin, Ukraine is a bigger deal than anything else

Why is this hard to understand?

But we are not even saying the NIST paper is peer reviewed therefore it is correct. We are saying the NIST paper is peer reviewed therefore it is peer reviewed! If it doesn't satisfy your standards for peer review, fine. Nobody cares. It meets the science/engineering communities standard for peer review as do all the other NIST pubs I linked.

Yeah, but you know what you're talking about, so if we listen to you, that would be an appeal to authority.

This is what conspiratards actually believe.

Even if you could get Deuces to admit the paper was peer reviewed, he'd immediately claim that the reviewers are also in on the con. It's pure bad faith, Decues doesn't actually care one way or the other about peer review, it's just something for him to argle bargle about.

Exactly that. Their goal is not finding out what's true. Their only goal is to justify their beliefs. At literally any cost.

Ah, another "masturbatory theory". If I listen to you that makes me a poseur. Man, I'm grad we've got Dunces, I mean Deuces here to teach us all about this subject, all you PhDs just don't know wtf you're talking about.

You realize that this is the exact opposite of the the case, right?

Luckbox, what did you think of Dunces' take on "appeal to authority"? Even you must have thought that was comedy gold.

Lol, stealing my lines straight from the other thread, I see!

Let's call it an homage.

If they gave out doctorates for masturbation, I'd have one for sure.

I thought you were a PhD in biology or chemistry or something? (Serious question)

I haven't been paying too much attention but I'm under the impression that it might be time to get some backup in the thread.

The important things for you guys to know is that 9/11 is a complete joke and literally every single aspect of 9/11 points to there being a conspiracy-- stuff before 9/11, stuff after 9/11, and everything during 9/11. It's all such a joke that if you haven't figured it out by now you never will, hence the futility in these sorts of discussions.

What's going on with Deuces though? Where has he strayed? I've always maintained that the best thing to focus on is the actual physics of the "collapse" of the towers but that's the only area where you guys have to resort to magic to explain your ideas. And once you have people resorting to magic they are lost. For everything non-physics related you'll of course always come up with some sort of bullshit to explain away the myriad things that don't fit or make sense.