[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.
Any factually correct piece of evidence for a conspiracy theory (including identifying a motive) increases the chances it is true. Even the ridiculous ones like we didn't land on the moon or that Trump was behind his own assassination attempt. The problem is that the conspiracy theorists don't apply Bayes Theorem. If, without that evidence, the theory was a million to one shot, the evidence could very well simply turn it into a thousand to one shot. A less ridiculous conspiracy theory (eg the CIA was behind JFK assassination and/or there was more than one gunman) could theoretically have less strong evidence for it but still be brought down to less than 1000 to one because it started out as less of an underdog. (The original odds without the contradictory evidence, is usually very low because of things like the unlikelihood that large numbers of people would, without exception, keep a secret to their grave. Or other extremely unlikely things that would have to be true for the conspiracy theory to be right.) Sometimes the evidence can overcome original underdogness. When doctors looked at the covid germ and concluded it probably wasn't man made, smart people should have realized that the first cases being so close to the lab changes the underdog to a favorite. I wrote about these situations in my chapter on coincidences. But they don't occur often.
Some people who don't feel like writing a lot of words similar to the above capture the points well with the simple admonition "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
I don't think Deuces views his theories on 9/11 as conspiracy theories; he seems to view them as self evident, and the fact that so many people disagree is down to the fact that he is so red-pilled and they are all sheeple who can't handle the troof.
It’s funny, deuces only seems able to criticize others opinions about what happened but never able to explain what he thinks happened.
Deuces, if a bunch of dudes did wire wtc 7 to blow it up to make people afraid of something despite wtc 1-2 being hit by a commercial airliner and at the very least, destroying those two buildings and heavily damaging wtc 7, what do you think was the original assumption on when they were going to detonate it?
I don't want to get too heavily into physics because that kind of takes away of the fun and imagination but did they detonate it before the penthouse started to collapse or did they see the penthouse collapse and figured either that was a perfect time or just randomly picked a really good time? Or did they detonate it which caused the penthouse to fall for 5 secs before the rest of the building began to fall?
Why bother doing the demolition job after the plane crash?
The pile driver theory makes sense. Totally different structural set up to the bowling ball scenario. Would be an interesting thing to try and simulate in a 3d package like Houdini. In fact I’m sure such simulations have been done with more accurate software.
I think we've largely confirmed why physicists don't use written word blurbs as their primary tool. Stuff like "objects cannot fall faster than free fall without added inputs" might seem reasonable but fail under suitable rigor. I hate to keep picking on that one statement, but it's the only one clear enough to even bother evaluating. Armed with a bunch of folk theorems like that, it's not hard to show many things are impossible. The pr
That's not a statement I made. One poster came in here for a second and made some statements you guys started attacking like piranhas. I've made plenty of statements but I'm not getting direct confrontation on those statements.
That's not a statement I made. One poster came in here for a second and made some statements you guys started attacking like piranhas. I've made plenty of statements but I'm not getting direct confrontation on those statements.
It's hard to keep track of your statements relating specifically to the physics of the collapse because they're scattered across a bunch of posts and buried in other verbiage. I've got an idea, why don't you collate them into a list, maybe with bullet points?
That's not a statement I made. One poster came in here for a second and made some statements you guys started attacking like piranhas. I've made plenty of statements but I'm not getting direct confrontation on those statements.
Right. Your statements have not been clear enough to even evaluate. Despite the promises it would be very simple.
It’s funny, deuces only seems able to criticize others opinions about what happened but never able to explain what he thinks happened.
I admit I don't know what happened. I don't live in your willy wonka world of imagination where objects smash into each other but don't slow down. I'm constrained by facts and reason. I wish we had more facts regarding the attacks but no legitimate investigation of it ever happened so we don't.
I admit I don't know what happened. I don't live in your willy wonka world of imagination where objects smash into each other but don't slow down. I'm constrained by facts and reason. I wish we had more facts regarding the attacks but no legitimate investigation of it ever happened so we don't.
Can we get back to you being dead wrong about thermite? That was my favorite bit.
How much greater a spectacle of terror is the Twin Towers falling than just being gashed?
The pile driver theory makes sense. Totally different structural set up to the bowling ball scenario. Would be an interesting thing to try and simulate in a 3d package like Houdini. In fact I’m sure such simulations have been done with more accurate software.
The pile driver theory is absurd nonsense. They've tried, using obviously fraudulent assumptions about temperatures, to create a simulation. They can't get the building to fall no matter what inputs they use. No simulator with any relationship with reality can get those towers to fall. Look at the animation they made of Building 7. You see a bit of crumpling then the animation stops.
I admit I don't know what happened. I don't live in your willy wonka world of imagination where objects smash into each other but don't slow down.
Cool, when are you going to get around to using high school physics to show us that this is how it works? It seems that this is much more self evident to you than it is to others.
My recap is you said no one did spectrometry on samples from ground zero. I said they did. You were like yeah but...what was your objection to the papers showing thermite again?
Since you've forgotten, here were my prior posts:
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!
Also I almost never break out my "I have a fancy science degree and I know things" card, but it's absurd to me that you wouldn't do some kind of mass spec on these paint chips if you thought there were some trace explosives in them. There's probably a bunch of other spectroscopy measurements I'm not thinking of that would be easy to do to give you real chemical structure. This is extremely basic ****.
Just doing DSC, saying, "yeah, it looks like military-grade explosives, weird" and not following that up suggests you're either the laziest graduate student on God's blue Earth or you really don't want to know what the mass spec is going to tell you.
Here's a link to the paper in question, if you forgot that as well:
https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-...
You implied that someone had mass spec data on these samples, that it had been published. I'd like to see a citation.
Cool, when are you going to get around to using high school physics to show us that this is how it works? It seems that this is much more self evident to you than it is to others.
I posted a link to someone with credentials explaining it. You've been slandering my intelligence every since the first time you saw me disagree with any state propaganda years ago. So why would you want me to make a presentation to you when you can have someone with multiple advanced degrees from the most prestigious technical school in the country make the presentation?
Right. Your statements have not been clear enough to even evaluate. Despite the promises it would be very simple.
Ok I might have to backtrack a little. I said I thought that this discussion would turn into me waving a piece of obsidian in front of you guys, me saying it's black and you saying it's yellow. Instead it seems like I'm waving the obsidian in front of you and you are saying what obsidian I don't see it.
I don't know how it helps your cause to be constantly seen wriggling away from simple truths. You can engage with the Chandler video or not. I wouldn't if I were you. You're not the type who pursues truth above creature comforts. If you want to be reassured that AQ did 911 because they hate our blue jeans I'm not the right guy to be talking to.
Fight the good fight, dueces...
Ok I might have to backtrack a little. I said I thought that this discussion would turn into me waving a piece of obsidian in front of you guys, me saying it's black and you saying it's yellow. Instead it seems like I'm waving the obsidian in front of you and you are saying what obsidian I don't see it.
I don't know how it helps your cause to be constantly seen wriggling away from simple truths. You can engage with the Chandler video or not.
Again, your claim was people like NDT know the planes didn't collapse the buildings but remain quiet. If that were true you should be able to explain it clearly in a few sentences; otherwise why would you assume an astrophysicist must understand something so far away from astrophysics? It's high school level, until you're asked for details it seems.
There was really no need to absorb any 'state propaganda' to conclude the bldgs. came down from the damage we watched them take.
It was basically--watch 2 giant jets slam into buildings that morning a ~9am, huge fires etc and then a little while later watching them start to crumble right around where they were hit and fall down. Wow. 7 took some major damage burned all day and then came down too.
On the other hand though--I'd definitely bet the vast majority of people on the conspiracy side didn't get there entirely on their own immediately and without any external prompting. Dollars to donuts it started with getting stuff on the internet/wherever else and then locking into that take on things.
They were going to war regardless once those planes hit--whether they came down or not. But there is also some room to get into the conspiracy thing later wrt was it allowed to happen etc. and stuff and separate from any demo part of it.
I literally watched the second plane hit the tower and then I saw the puffs from inside the building. My thought was “wow they are really trying to take this building down, attacking it from the outside AND the inside”
My aunt telling me they shot a plane down with a missile instead of it crashing sealed the deal
Made the mistake and clicked on the genius's post. What do you know, he's pretending like I've never heard of the paper even though I just posted links to three threads of literally structural engineers dismantling his paper.
Like I said, he very much pretends like no one ever responds to his points. Yes, he wrote a dumb paper posted in a sham journal. And it's been destroyed quite meticulously.
I saw the puffs from inside the building. My thought was “wow they are really trying to take this building down, attacking it from the outside AND the inside”
My aunt telling me they shot a plane down with a missile instead of it crashing sealed the deal
Is this the type of critical thought that's needed to access what really happened, iyo?
Again, your claim was people like NDT know the planes didn't collapse the buildings but remain quiet. If that were true you should be able to explain it clearly in a few sentences; otherwise why would you assume an astrophysicist must understand something so far away from astrophysics? It's high school level, until you're asked for details it seems.
Did you think anything in the Chandler video was beyond high school physics, let's say AP physics?
I'm not exactly saying that people like NDT know exactly what happened. And I could see how some things I've said could have given that impression. But it's more so that they know not to open certain doors and clearly they have labeled 911 as such a door. They don't want to be associated either with the junk science propagated by Bazant and NIST or with the social repercussions of challenging powerful people and institutions. Some of them have probably delved into the issue and secretly agree with the demolition hypothesis and that AQ didn't do this. It's not like public intellectuals are all total frauds. Many of them want to know the truth of things. But we all have a self preservation instinct and that's why the scientists submit to power and rarely place their principles above power relationships.
If NDT always corrects people about misconceptions involving science and technology, why doesn't he comment on 911? Where are the public intellectuals who are clamoring to show people how the Bazant thesis is correct? They show up for the flat earthers. Correcting flat earthers is like their reason for being now. Ok so why not correct the truthers when such a higher percentage of the world believes the government is lying about 911 than believes the world is flat?
