[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

All things being equal I would agree. But the mechanism of demolition might not have allowed for that. Say they had people go into the buildings and pour thermite into down columns. You might not be able to do that in a way to remain inconspicuous and also ensure you leave the structure partially standing. The mechanism might have dictated all or nothing.

Plus if the buildings were partially intact there might be evidence of rigging which would be very difficult to sweep away. The way it went down it was like the buildings and all their contents were pulverized into into dust or dissolved. The total destruction of the buildings and their contents is itself a mystery which has never, that I know of, been explained in the official narrative. But if I were doing the attacks I would opt for that instead of leaving any evidence.

They were banking on the ruse of planes hit buildings, buildings go down to be very powerful and it was. There could have been another plane destined for building 7.

What does that mean? Not familiar with the acronym.

It's a sham group of a few nutcases and a whole lot of unqualified people that think 911 was a conspiracy. It stands for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. There's one or two structural engineers, I think most famously a walnut named Tony Szamboti (I think that's right) and then a whole lot of "engineers" (think "landscaping engineers, audio engineers, etc.). They all just fall in line with whatever absolutely batguano crap that Tony and maybe a couple of others dream up that sounds somewhat plausible.

I guess the answer(s) I'm looking for are something along the lines of:

What caused the towers to fall?

Who did it? (assuming it wasn't natural causes, again we've been given nothing to go on)

Why?

Just crashing jets into the buildings accomplishes it supposedly. War and insurance pay-outs etc were happening regardless at that point. Instead of wasting time and taking the chance to hide a demo just remove whatever you want and claim it was destroyed in the fires. Having 3 broken buildings sitting there is much more embarrassing/expensive and for longer--demolishing everything in 1 shot just ends up looking gratuitous and even kinda nicer in comparison. Like ripping off a band-aid--pure evil wants the Slow pull imo

Maybe the idea got shot down by the aliens on the physics/tech team or something. Supposedly they're more like inter-galactic hippies anyway 😀

If you go to their site, they have like 4 guys that they feature. Here's the first bio I could copy/paste before it flashed away to the next (they don' appear to want you to look too closely):

Architects are not structural engineers. They focus on design and appearance, not structure. This guy was inspired by Steven Jones, who is an absolute meme at this point (he stacked a bunch of cardboard boxes on top of each other to try to prove how the towers could not have collapsed. A stack of cardboard boxes. edit - actually maybe that was Richard Gage? It's been awhile, I'm not as sharp on my truther lore as I used to be.

And the collapses were not symmetrical. And this is one of their featured contributors. The others are no better. It's a loon farm.

https://www.ae911truth.org/who-we-are

Lol, so DM makes fun of the NIST people for shooting at fireproofing, but gets his info from a guy who stacked a bunch of cardboard boxes to show how the collapse happened (or didn't happen). Curious genius indeed!

I'm asking Deuces. Lucky has begrudgingly said he thinks someone used thermite explosives to collapse the buildings, that's as much detail as I can force out of either of them.

Of course, this is how cranks always operate: rigorous standards of peer-reviewed evidence for everyone else, cardboard boxes for the conspiracy nonsense.

Yeah, my bad, that was Richard Gage. But still, a part of AE911 as you can see here.

by Gorgonian P

Yeah, my bad, that was Richard Gage. But still, a part of AE911 as you can see here.

Deuces, has this guy published the inputs to his models? We need the dimensions of these boxes and the brand of sticky tape he is using to conduct a full and thorough peer review.

I thought you made a post stating that a bunch of al qaeda fools wouldnt have the skillz the fly the plane into the buildings? Maybe that was PW?

If the plane wasnt empty, did someone other than al qaeda fly it into the towers?

Supposed to have been super hard to make those turns

In your opinion, are these turns less likely than US reps taking control of a boarded commercial airliner drone style and bulldozing it into the world trade center?

True

Trolly is trolling. That's what he does. It's in the name. I doubt Trolly holds a PhD. Usually I take people at their word more or less, but he's never made intelligent posts that I've seen. And I'll give credit to anybody for intelligent posts or tough arguments. There is no compelling logic or reasoning to what he says. Then again it might take brains just to be so consistently brainless and craft that persona or whatever he thinks he is doing here. Maybe his aim is to be the avatar of bad faith online debate. He's well on his way if so.

If Trolly were a PhD and he was to associate himself with those notions of peer review in real life, to colleagues, then I would say at least he believes it. I don't think he believes what he is saying.

Yes. It is a flawed process because it is an appeal to authority which is why there is a plague of invalid papers stamped as peer reviewed causing an enormous controversy at the moment. Some have called it a crisis in science and in knowledge itself. Are you just totally unaware of this? Do I need to cite it? Do you ever get tired of being owned by me? I guess you would say that you're not getting owned. But if we put the matter to some anonymous peers...

I'm pretty sure Trolly is a PhD in biology, chemistry, or biochemistry, Hence I asked the question in the first place, I didn't pull it from thin air.

You pointing out parts of the peer review process that could use improvement, then invoking "a crisis in science and in knowledge itself" is like a 9 year old concluding that all of physics is fundamentally broken because he heard some adults discussing conflicting interpretations of quantum mechanics once. My time would be better spent trying to teach that 9 year old or even a labrador advanced calculus that trying to teach you basic logic, comprehension, or humility, so suffice to say you're wrong about "appeal to authority" and if you care to learn why, you can look it up yourself. I really couldn't care less if you choose to remain an ignoramus for the rest of your life, and I'm certainly not wasting my breath explaining anything to a pretentious asshat who never listens to anyone about anything because he is convinced he always knows better.

Anyway, where's that evidence I asked you to quote? You seem to constantly and annoyingly respond to posts completely out of chronological order, which I suppose is to be expected given how completely disjointed your thought process appears to be.

dk what all these posts discussing peer review are on about. NIST accepted public comments. many from fire unions saying "yes more fireproofing construction good job", others from engineers saying "your model didn't incorporate X", others from conspiracists saying "did you consider the buildings were detonated?". they didn't make significant changes to the report as a result, and it didn't undergo the peer review process that people usually mean when they say that phrase

Yeah I made a post saying that the explanation that makes more sense is that the planes were converted to drones. I also said you can call me crazy for saying that and, unlike with other arguments, I can at least see where you are coming from.

There is not a meaningful difference between your authority and thin air. You should provide reasons why you think Trolly is a PhD if you think he is.

Well that sounds like a smart 9 year-old if he is making those kind of inferences. Maybe a 9-year-old that smart could be right.

No need to try to teach me (and wouldn't that be funny). I took a philosophy of logic course in college, not required just for kicks. The professor, who had a PhD in it, told me I had a knack for logical thinking. That doesn't sound like much of a compliment, but coming from him it was a lot. Whoopsies! Appeal to authority! It's everywhere!

I'm switching from here to writing emails. And quite often I've had a few, not gonna lie. If you search for "Bazant" ITT it should come up as one of maybe 3-4 posts. Bazant's pile driver theory, which you've probably never heard of, is the working theory supporting the government's view. One problem with it is that it's physically impossible. It's funny how you believe the conclusions the government tells you about 9/11 but you don't even know on what they are based. There's that appeal to authority again. I'm telling you it's everywhere.

A survey of cancer researchers found that half of them had been unable to reproduce a published result. Another report estimated that almost half of randomized controlled trials contained flawed data (based on the analysis of anonymized individual participant data (IPD) from more than 150 trials).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicat...).

Whae does peer review have to do with public comments?

exactly

This is exactly what I predicted! Deuces immediately flips from demanding peer review to being immensely critical of peer review. The whole conversation was a bad-faith smokescreen from the start, Deuces doesn't give a **** about peer review or intellectual honesty.

Deuces is a charlatan whose only MO seems to be to "drown you in paperwork" by suddenly shifting focus from one thing to the next or subtly moving the goalposts, and then trying to disguise it in oceans of irrelevant verbal diarrhea. I'm done wasting any more time on that guy.