[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

So why didn't you just say this when it was initially pointed out to you that it was peer reviewed?

Typical dismissive type who never doubts authority, never doubts the motives of those who stand to gain tens of millions or even billions of dollars who also have track records of insane levels of inhumanity. Opinions are strong. Information is low. Defense of oligarchs is vigorous. Defense of the millions of people negatively impacted by oligarchs starting wars is nonexistent.

It's almost like you have the same morals as the oligarchs but lack the drive and success they have.

Typically a crime happens first then an investigation ensues. I did predict that there would be no weapons found in Iraq and that Mueller would post a goose egg on Russiagate. I think there were only 1 or 2 people prosecuted for lying to the FBI in attempts to smear Trump in Russiagate. I didn't predict the specific actions of specific individuals so I don't know if you want to count that. Wars of aggression are crimes under international law. The way the 2nd Iraq war was framed it was justified under the fact of Iraq having WMD. It turns out they didn't so it was a war of aggression. I predicted that, as did many. So I predicted a crime but it was kinda in progress at the time (but not yet proven to be a crime) so I don't know if I can get credit in your evaluation where, if you doubt authority, you have to predict the future or else you are insane.

Amazing, you got all that from the fact that I didn't know what project Luckbox was talking about. I guess it's high time we add "expert mind reader" to your already impressive list of accomplishments.

The Project for a New American Century is very salient to the 9/11 discourse. If you cared to know what other people, on every side, think about the issue you couldn't avoid it. But you don't and you don't know what peer review is so maybe you are some kind of anti-intellectual who just wants to live in their bubble of pure thought.

The very people who had been advocating for the exactly oriented massive military mobilization we got post 9/11 had just beforehand said what they wanted would require a "New Pearl Harbor" event where Americans were attacked. Some of these very same people then implemented the mobilization. These are the people who were rubbing their hands together like a greedy shopkeeper as the buildings fell. They also seem to be the architects of the propaganda in which your mind is mired. They went on television the same day and declared the attacks an act of war, sidestepping the terrorism label which they knew didn't convey enough fear for their aims.

I met an old guy years ago that had "proof" that fdr orchestrated pearl harbor so he would have a reason to declare war on japan.

Golf of tonkin is calling

I think a far more simplistic and much easier scheme to pull off getting thwarted doesnt lend credence to assuming that far more complicated one would more likely be sucessfully staged.

it's a pretty mainstream viewpoint which some retired admirals subscribe to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harb...

tl:dr we gave japan an ultimatum that they renounce all their territorial gains or face embargo

japan has no oil, no steel, can't even feed its own population - they previously got most of those supplies from the US and its allies so the embargo was very easily enforced

we knew we had backed them up into a corner

we'd already cracked their diplomatic cables

we indeed intercepted and decrypted cables declaring imminent attack - no alerts were given to the base

we sank a japanese sub attempting to enter through a gap in the submarine nets (an act of war) the morning of the attack - again, no alert was given to the base

we kept all our outdated and obsolete battleships unnamed and anchored at pearl harbor while our bleeding edge carriers were sent out "on maneuvers"

everyone knew aircraft carriers were the future - that's all we were building leading up to the war and if anyone still had any doubts left, a single british aircraft carrier wiped out the entire italian navy just one year prior, so the power of aircraft carriers and uselessness of battleships was widely apparent to all

read the wiki, it's not at all farfetched that we knew what was coming and allowed them to make first contact

entering the war in the pacific was wildly unpopular at the time, it was not seen as any concern of ours and the public was not supportive of it, if we send out a fleet to intercept or they see a prepared and fortified target it's possible they back down, which was not what we wanted

agree with rickroll

People assume if you don't believe the government's story then you think the government did it. That's not how things work. But our government is very opportunistic. If the oligarchs say "here's our chance" then the shills who populate our government snap to attention. Or maybe they get a dose of anthrax if they get ideas to do something different.

Anyone else think it was strange that 2 prominent Democratic senators were threatened with anthrax? It's beyond obvious why if you think about it.

Trolly why are you pretending to know what the evidence is for thermite being present? You can't be "above it all" and make definitive statements like that at the same time.

Scientists have shown thermite in the dust samples from ground zero. Those results have been replicated by several other scientists. Those scientists put their careers on the line. Another skeptical scientist suddenly abandoned his effort to debunk these claims with a sample he was satisfied was from ground zero. There were temperatures seen which are totally unaccounted for in the official story, both before and after the collapse.

This is not extremely thin evidence. I won't call it overwhelming, but it is certainly worth investigating further. And it could be pretty easily debunked but, to my knowledge, it hasn't.

Germany didn't develop the bomb. A popular notion is that Hitler's mandates contributed greatly to that failure because he considered nuclear science "Jew Science" and the Germna scientists had to work under that ideological constraint (to my point). Now before you start revving your engines about how Germany wouldn't have beat the U.S. to the bomb anyway and blah blah blah just save it - I don't care. I don't want to hear your counterfactual analysis. The point is we can all imagine Hitler saying that and we can all imagine that the German scientists were not going to take sides with truth over Hitler.

I've explained several times why I don't think that's the case. In fact, when I wrote the post doing so I honestly thought for a second that many people here, even those who pretend to hate me, might really get something out of it about how institutions work. I obviously forgot who I was addressing.

While I am not disputing the facts you laid out there (I am just working from the popular history of Hitler and science), you did seem to contradict yourself a little. Heisenberg was being harassed by the SS and it was a lucky connection that made it stop. So it seems like you are making my case for me. And we know what the Nazi doctors did. They did what the psychiatric professionals did here in this country a few years ago when they signed off on torture. They did what more powerful people told them to do.

FYP.

It's ****ing impossible to follow what you're claiming or what point you're making, because you respond in a totally nonlinear fashion, completely out of chronological order (apparently, being distracted by emails makes you respond to posts from days ago after responding posts from 10 minutes ago, lol), and you fire hose down every point you do actually make with a never-ending stream of verbal diarrhea, or "rhetorical flourishes" as you call it.

If you put your points in bullet point format, e.g. the below, I might entertain actually engaging with you on the merits of your case.

EXAMPLE:
1. Laws of physics violated:
a. A specific instance of a law of physics apparently being violated / source(s) / link(s) for additional reading.
b. Another specific law of a law of physics apparently being violated / source(s) / link(s) for additional reading.
2. Peer review not conducted:
a. This is what was done in terms of review.
b. This is what I believe should have been done in terms of review.
3. Parts of report not made public:
a. Inputs to models
i. Model 1 / link to relevant section of report / explanation of which inputs are not known.
ii. Model 2 / link to relevant section of report / explanation of which inputs are not known.
b. Any other parts of report not made public and why it matters.

You get the idea. Until you put your scatterbrained ideas into a digestible format, and then start responding to constructive questions in a constructive manner, the chances of me or anyone else here seriously engaging with you are about zero.

I never demanded peer review. This is why I don't think Trolly has a PhD. He doesn't really grasp details. Nothing I said is inconsistent with my position which is that peer review is flawed but still useful. But whether I think peer review is some gold standard or not has no bearing on whether the NIST reports were peer reviewed or not- that was the issue at hand.

Yes, one sentence or even paragraph of signal floating in an ocean of noise is pretty much the definition of impossible to follow, as I have been trying to explain to you seemingly to no avail. Now, if you take this point, and the rest of the points you claim to have made, and put them in a digestible format, for example the bullet point format I suggested, I'll entertain the idea of engaging constructively with the merits of your claims. Please cite sources for claims such as the sentence highlighted in bold above.

If you need help with where you can trim some fat from your prose, I can sure you that reminding you readers every other sentence what a logical truth-seer you are and what blind sheeple they are is neither the rhetorical flourish nor the compelling argument you seem to think it is.

Now I kinda feel like I should have realized how nutty you are at an earlier point. I don't know if you should be delving into this issue. It's seems like too much for you.

The addition of "being an insufferable tit" to your ever growing list of accomplishments is also well overdue.

I see despite being debunked a billion times, deuces still acts like the rate of collapse violates the laws of physics (it doesn't) and that the top portion of the building isn't only encountering a single floor of resistance at a time and would not have any reason to decelerate (the crushing mass increases over time while the crushed portion is always one floor).

Believe me when I tell you this has been explained to him hundreds of times. Just in case you ever had the idea to engage him assuming he would respond in good faith.

I just find it entertaining watching him fellate himself all day long, congratulating himself on how intelligent and red-pilled he is to have worked all this out while we simpletons live our little sheeple lives without the slightest clue. Of course he will never admit he is wrong - his delusions of superiority become completely untenable were he to do so.

Ironic really, since he keeps accusing everyone else of being so invested in believing their "version" of 9/11 because their whole identity depends on it, seemingly completely oblivious to the fact that he is the only one here who seems to be psychologically invested in any of this. Always projection with these guys.

Obviously I knew he was never going to proffer a cogent case in bullet point format, I just wanted to see what his excuse would be. Expectations weren't high, but I still thought that he'd manage something a little more creative than the complete non sequitur "you're too nutty to handle the truth" or whatever that was. Again, the irony and projection is strong with this one.

I'm not pretending anything. Lucky mentioned "nano-thermite," so I looked that up on the old google.com. What I found was underwhelming to say the least: a single paper in an obscure journal that only ran for five years.

In the spirit of honesty, here's their abstract (remember, I'm doing *your* work for you today, you're the one who should be making claims and then providing evidence. You're welcome):

https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2...

It's hilariously thin, there's no direct detection of thermite. There isn't a journal of repute in the world that would let you jump form anomalous DSC results to a claim that thermite was present. There's also was no control over the chain of custody, no discussion of how the samples were handled (were they cut using blowtorches? Could that have contaminated results?). Importantly, I can't find a single group anywhere verifying this in a non-Mickey Mouse journal. Seems odd for such a huge finding!

It doesn't even pass the smell test: why would the lizard people behind 9/11 not use conventional explosives if they're trying to pin the blame on a terror group? Why add the degree of difficulty of crashing a plane and setting off explosives simultaneously?

Anyway, looking forward to your next barrage of personal insults.

Correct. It's literally paint chips and welding residue. This was demonstrated ages ago. There are countless possible sources of iron oxide microspheres besides thermite, and the thermite hypothesis is completely incompatible with the evidence record. It's honestly a hilariously bad hypothesis with zero actual evidence.

I corrected a basic pop sci claim you made about Heisenberg. If you want to make another or broader claim, you can do so, but you were wrong on Heisenberg,