[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still think that AQ did 9/11 you should be in adult day care.
I have seen zero evidence for thermite in over a dozen years of this. The closest is metal oxide "microspheres" which are not exclusive to thermite (or nano-thermite or any of the other contrived thermite variants they've tried to invent over the years).
Not to mention, simultaneously cutting supports with super-nano-thermite or whatever would result in a totally different collapse speed/acceleration than was observed. That theory makes absolutely zero sense AND has no evidence supporting it.
What's the joke? Who's telling it to whom? You're sure you're not just using "joke" in a figurative sense?
If it was a joke, it wasn't a very good one I daresay. Dunces tells much better jokes, like his "appeal to authority" zinger and that other one he tells all the time about what a naturally gifted logical objective truthseer he is. Bring back Dunces McCrackhead and out with this other guy, I say!
None of these videos are perfect, but they illustrate a lot of things pretty well that most people don't know or understand about how the buildings collapsed that day. I recommend watching them.
WTC7:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMvCWFCo...
Twin Towers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Haf79y...
Twin Towers more complete physics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NkBfLBo...
The approach to the South Tower was banking and descending at the same time, not to mention going extremely fast (you know how with airplanes you can get places faster?). It banked twice on approach. The first banking, given the angle, needed to happen with fractions of a second of when it did or the tower would have been missed entirely. So yeah, when you are going that fast, hitting the right banking angle at the right time is difficult.
I assume your making a case that the planes hitting the world trade center were controlled and specifically targeted to hit the building?
You mentioned that you think that a plane hit the pentagon - which I agree with - namely because you said they found dna and such.
Are you saying that a plane with people inside hit the pentagon while empty planes hit the wtcs?
can someone give me cliffnotes
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.
Nobody thinks it's peer reviewed except people who assumed it was, found out it wasn't, and are desperately trying to save face thereafter. And maybe some propagandists who bank on the ignorance of the public. Peer review is not a difficult concept. Anyone can understand it. Again, this is me waving a piece of obsidian in front of you. I'm saying it's black and you are saying it's yellow. That's what these debates come down to because when you're assumptions prove false you cannot psychologically accept it.
You are saying you can peer review yourself and you don't even have to disclose your methodology. I'm fine with you saying that because it proves how craven you are and that you don't have a leg to stand on.
Sure. Some people think 9/11 was a government conspiracy and didn't happen the way it seemed to have happened. They have presented no evidence and are wrong. You're all caught up.
I've said it's not a government conspiracy. I've said that AQ didn't do it either and that two planes didn't bring down 3 skyscrapers. I've presented plenty of evidence. It's all been largely ignored.
This is what the sheeple have to resort to doing, just saying things which are observably and definitionally false. At least in years past, say in the skeptics forum, everyone could agree on certain plainly true facts such as that the NIST report was not peer reviewed. But I've noticed over time those who defend the propaganda framing have resorted to the technique of exploding glitter bombs of wrong. Then the person addressing all the wrong, as if it was a good faith debate, spends their time doing that and the core issue, like whether a building can impale itself without any loss in acceleration is possible, is neglected.
Cliff notes offer a barren silhouette of immaterial - just random lines and crescents on paper.
In here, we are extending far beyond the metaphysical world and more into coalescing different uniquarians, when those outcomes range from identifying cataclysmic events to seeing a redheaded Irishman sliding down on a taboggan - who could be approved of writing a compendium?
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.
So I write a paragraph in response to your earlier charge of me thinking "they're all in on it". You ignore that, addressing none of those points, and just reassert the charge. I guess that is you forfeiting without saying you are forfeiting.
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
You saying dumb things doesn't have the effect I think you intend. It doesn't rile me up. I'm not going to type on a discourse on logical fallacies just because you tried to induce me. Saying a math statement is true because a math teacher said so is appeal to authority. You disagree? Fine.
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.
That's not true. However, I don't believe in the value of experts. Experts are not curious thinkers. Their function is to justify power relationships, to work on issues set forth with a predetermined answer by those with a lot of money. And because of this misalignment or orthogonality with truth, experts often, and more so over time, don't know what they are even doing.
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?
The whole report is not really available, The input parameters for their models have never been released. In a model based paper that's significant. What are they hiding? We all know what they are hiding. Why some people can't bring themselves to admit it fascinates me.
My man, you are a shrink's wet dream. Or, at least if you had any money, you would be.
You saying dumb things doesn't have the effect I think you intend. It doesn't rile me up. I'm not going to type on a discourse on logical fallacies just because you tried to induce me. Saying a math statement is true because a math teacher said so is appeal to authority. You disagree? Fine.
That's not true. However, I don't believe in the value of experts. Experts are not curious thinkers. Their function is to justify power relationships, to
Please cite where it says input data was not released. Should be super easy to show us
Nobody thinks it's peer reviewed except people who assumed it was, found out it wasn't, and are desperately trying to save face thereafter.
Who? I don't see anyone who wasn't already a 9/11 conspiracy guy claiming the paper is not reviewed. It's obviously been reviewed like everything else NIST publishes. They didn't change any rules for this. It's been shown clearly.
And maybe some propagandists who bank on the ignorance of the public. Peer review is not a difficult concept. Anyone can understand it.
Sure it's not difficult.... but understanding that guys claim about free fall being some kind of universal limit without extra inputs or whatever was obviously wrong was not a difficult concept and you weren't able to figure that out either.
Sure it's not difficult.... but understanding that guys claim about free fall being some kind of universal limit without extra inputs or whatever was obviously wrong was not a difficult concept and you weren't able to figure that out either.
That's because you're an expert, so...
That's not true. However, I don't believe in the value of experts. Experts are not curious thinkers.
I'll grant Dunces that much - he is definitely "curious". Don't know about "thinker".
That's not true. However, I don't believe in the value of experts. Experts are not curious thinkers. Their function is to justify power relationships, to work on issues set forth with a predetermined answer by those with a lot of money. And because of this misalignment or orthogonality with truth, experts often, and more so over time, don't know what they are even doing.
We are talking about experts in STEM fields, McCrackhead. "Those with a lot of money" don't determine the value of pi, and "curious thinkers" can't change it.
The whole report is not really available, The input parameters for their models have never been released. In a model based paper that's significant. What are they hiding? We all know what they are hiding. Why some people can't bring themselves to admit it fascinates me.
Have you ever considered the (admittedly very far-fetched) possibility that all these people aren't in denial, and you're just wrong? Humour me and flesh out what that would look like.
….. The input parameters for their models have never been released. In a model based paper that's significant. What are they hiding? We all know what they are hiding. …
me.
Classic conspiracy theorists’ logical abilities. It’s not released, why, because they/we know the information is false. It is the only possible answer.
I have seen zero evidence for thermite in over a dozen years of this. The closest is metal oxide "microspheres" which are not exclusive to thermite (or nano-thermite or any of the other contrived thermite variants they've tried to invent over the years).
A group of scientists, including PhD professors in physics and chemistry, wrote a paper showing thermite in dust samples from ground zero. The paper passed peer review and was published in a journal. Other scientists have reproduced the findings.
There was a sheeple scientist in the skeptics forum who doubted the conclusions. He doubted the providence of the samples and said the red chips said to be thermite were actually paint. He finally decided to try to reproduce the results with a sample whose providence he trusted. He posted updates on his experiment in the forum. When he arrived at the definitive juncture he announced that he was not going to continue the experiment saying he didn't have time or something.
We went over this in the other thread Gorgonian. You might not find the evidence compelling. You are free to find a way to critique it. But to say you have seen zero evidence is just a flat lie.
If the truth is on your side you shouldn't feel the need to lie. I don't think you are advancing your cause by showing such desperation.
Please cite where it says input data was not released. Should be super easy to show us
This is common knowledge among those, both pro and con, who have gone into the details concerning the validity of the NIST reports. I won't be digging things up to show people who aren't debating in good faith just so they can simply ignore it or deny it while it's in front of their face. If you want to take the opposite position and cite something reasonable I will do you the favor of embarrassing you in return.
We are talking about experts in STEM fields, McCrackhead. "Those with a lot of money" don't determine the value of pi, and "curious thinkers" can't change it.
You think Heisenberg was up in Hitler's face telling him "It's not Jew science it's just science you idiot!". I don't think so. He was doing what he was told. In his case it might have saved humanity because the power structure in Germany was a bunch of deranged lunatics. But either way he was an expert serving power, just like all the so called experts.
You think Heisenberg was up in Hitler's face telling him "It's not Jew science it's just science you idiot!". I don't think so. He was doing what he was told. In his case it might have saved humanity because the power structure in Germany was a bunch of deranged lunatics. But either way he was an expert serving power, just like all the so called experts.
Ah, good ole Godwin's law, never fails. Ok, indulge me, what part of Heisenberg's work has been shown to have been incorrect due to having been influenced by political ideology? Way to undermine your own point, curious genius.
Anyway, the bigger point here is that it's obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that all your blathering about peer review is just that. You think there is a conspiracy and that the scientists are in on it. Whether they had their classmates mark their homework, or those in the next class, you'd just continue to claim they were all in on it. You don't accept any expert findings (except, of course, those that support your theories, like the thermite stuff above), because all the experts that disagree with you are in on it.
You are a delusional idiot, just like all the other so called delusional idiots.
Have you ever considered the (admittedly very far-fetched) possibility that all these people aren't in denial, and you're just wrong? Humour me and flesh out what that would look like.
If I was wrong about the buildings being controlled down it would have to be by way of some novel, never before encountered mechanism by which the plane impact brought some kind of mass structural damage to the entire building in like a shockwave which loosened every bolt or something super weird. But even then we have the building 7 problem. The fire hypothesis is ridiculous even with the temperatures claimed, and the temperatures claimed are not even remotely justified.
Again, you say "all these people" which, while it's true that a lot of people believe the government assertions, the world majority and the majority of NYC residents do not believe the government's version. And among the victim's families, those who have a personal incentive to find out the truth about why their lives are ruined, the skepticism is much higher. Consider their skepticism in light of the typical situation in which the victims family members are quick to accept the guilt of whoever the authorities finger. Were it not for the victim's families the government wouldn't have even launched the fake investigations they did.
You're falling into the same appeal to authority fallacy except you are citing the authority of the crowd, But even within that fallacy you have the facts wrong. You think you have the crowd but you don't. I have the crowd.
There referent of "all these people" are specifically the people you have said are in denial, the ones you call "sheeple", numbnuts. Congratulations on taking your usual dozen paragraphs in response a question I didn't even ask.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I even quoted the relevant part of your post when asking the question:
