[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Since df up there is still pretending he doesn't know why the model inputs weren't released, I'll paste the answer so he can pretend to not see it for the 8000th time in 10+ years or whatever it's been. Mostly for the benefit of those who are bothering to even engage with the barely sentient pile of rancid mashed potatoes.

"This information was exempt from public disclosure under Section 7d of the National Construction Safety Team Act because it was determined by the Director of NIST that release of the files might jeopardize public safety. The withheld information contains detailed connection models that have been validated against actual events, and therefore, provide tools that could be used to predict the collapse of a building. The information contained in the withheld files is sufficiently detailed that it might be used to develop plans to destroy other, similarly constructed, buildings.

In Michael Quick v. United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Civil Action No. 09-02064 (CKK) U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, Apr. 7, 2011, the court upheld NIST’s finding to withhold this information. "

https://www.nist.gov/world-trade-center-investigation/study-faqs/wtc-7-investigation

NIST

FAQs - NIST WTC 7 Investigation

Again, do you agree that pilots under extreme stress can in fact hit a target, contrary to your earlier claim?

Do you also agree that licensed pilots with access to commercial 727/747 simulators and the internet could figure out how to turn off a transponder?

Deuces does have a point about the whole transponder situation, to be fair. Looks pretty complicated...

I mean, really, how are you supposed to find the "Off" position with all that adrenaline coursing through your veins? Next, you'll be telling me that a driver who is about to crash has enough presence of mind to operate the brake pedal or something. Crazy talk.

You don't understand. They were cavemen. They don't even understand shoes.

Im not going to argue for or against anything but to be as humble as i can here, i think if you were to remove 'toasted cars" from your vocabulary and Judy woods opinion on the matter and instead and decided to "doyourownresearch" you'd find enough similar instances of the aftermath of car fires that look aimilar enough to what is being purported here.

From there, you could do a bit of research on how a fire can burn unevenly, especially with somethinf like a vehicle. But a story exists there, and it makes the story easier when youve got so many burnt objects to work with. Same with Maui. Judy is selling a product to pay her bills, and you are a customer.

I think youve got the capability to assess this on your own and reach a conclusion that is different.

Of course I believe what I am saying. In fact I challenge you to find a fact on which we disagree or an isolated opinion which you say is unbelievable, or even an opinion. For example, I find the fact that they found no planning of the attacks in the hijackers residences, or anywhere in all of OBL's paper, to be evidence of AQ not doing the attacks. People who believed the narrative, mind you, thoroughly expected to find evidence of planning. They didn't. I find that to be significant - not determinative but significant. Would you say that that is a crazy opinion? We both have to believe the facts of the matter. I think the fabrication of evidence would be difficult and ill advised. You think these people are saints or something and would never attempt fabrication. So when they say they found nothing I assume we both believe them. So we believe the same facts on this. You think, I assume, it doesn't matter that they pulled off this world changing event without writing anything down or leaving any paper trail indicating their intentions or communication of operational details concerning the act itself. I think it is evidence they didn't do it. Is this some looney idea I have? Something no one could really believe? that there should be some written evidence of a multi year terrorist hijacking campaign involving 20 people?

And of course we landed on the moon. The mission to the moon and the attribution of an act of terrorism are two totally different things. You're not going to get all the needed technical experts to lie for you about a moon landing. You might get people to be silent about certain things, but you're not going to get them to tell your story cohesively and convincingly and against their better judgement. In the Manhattan project you had scientists keeping their mouths shut for the cause of beating Germany. Keeping your mouth shut for a good cause is different than lying for a bad cause or one which the liar doesn't believe in. You can't credibly fake a moon landing and keep that **** covered up but you can break a bunch of stuff using unseen agents and then say some people who clearly hate us did it - that's easy. Apparently you don't even have to put that much effort into it. You just tell people yeah these guys were chatting a lot right before the attacks.

Can you elaborate? I bet you can't. You believe the assertions made by NIST are true, and so you just go around making assertions, including about some fallacy you think applies to my arguments.

The fallacy you cite is where you look at something that happened and then make unsupported conclusions about the cause. It's basically like saying If X were true Y could result, Y is true therefore X is true. It's looking at abnormally large footprints in the snow and concluding bigfoot is real instead of considering like someone was wearing snow shoes. But I'm not the one pointing at an outcome and saying therefore things are thus and so simply because if it were true it would be consistent with what we see. That's what you're doing. You're saying the buildings were hit by planes (we all agree on that) and therefore the people who were fingered for it must have done it. I'm pointing at the outcome saying it looks kinda like X might have happened, but in light of other considerations it likely didn't happen that way.

Actually I'm not even sure you guys are committing this fallacy. The government is, and this (and worse) is all over the Commission Report, but I don't even think you are familiar with the government's case. You're just saying stuff like that killing yourself at 600 mph in a massive aircraft you've never flown before doesn't impact your efficacy in maneuvering said aircraft. As evidence you cite the 12% damage rate of Kamikaze pilots. It's not fallacious on your part, these dumb things you say, just dumb and unconvincing.

I think taking selective areas that's favorable for your argument in something this complex and multifaceted isn't very compelling in my opinion when we can also discuss less friendly points of views that don't work with your argument. Like, Bin Laden's own videos, the financial and travel trails, AQ testimonies, a commission report that involved a dozen countries and 1000s of people.

Maybe we can take apart all of those claims but the idea that we should ignore all of that because we didn't find a memo called "how to hijack a 747 and crach them into the twin towers" isn't rational imo.

I was just curious about the moon landing because I find it interesting that each year goes by, more people appear to think that it didn't happen. I find that particular growing trend of thought to be a rather fascinating phenomena of human behavior.

Dunces, let's hear more about how adrenaline renders humans incapable of turning a switch to the "Off" position.

Also, would be good if you addressed Gorgo's post about the NIST model inputs, you bad faith clown.

Narrator voice: it would not, in fact, be good.

Even if we make him wear his little hat?

That Dueces or Btian James types will believe and repeat nonsense they hear does not seem super interesting. It's not like thry;re genrally reliable save for certain topics.

LMFAO it's literally just a switch with a label that says "OFF", how could international terrorists possibly have figured that out?

Deuces, my guy, you are an absolute moron.

The weird thing about 9/11 is everything is unfavorable to the official story. Bin Laden's own videos? The ones where he said he did it or the ones where he says he didn't? What someone like Bin Laden says really isn't that compelling either way. We know he is a terrorist looking to increase his profile. What we want is evidence. The raided his bunker. They have his papers and hard drive. They found NOTHING. And they were shocked too. They said on 60 minutes they were expecting to find the plans for 9/11. And I believe they were expecting that. I wouldn't have been. I would have cleaned up in the office pool because I'd be getting 10-1 that they find nothing.

I've quoted, many times now, the commission report saying that whoever financed the attacks doesn't matter. Do you want that quote from the report yet again? Do you want the part where they say the put options don't trace to AQ so they don't matter either? Why does nobody have a problem with that blatant fallacy right in the commission report? As far as AQ testimonies are you talking about KSM? The alleged mastermind of the attacks got a plea deal where he doesn't die. So that's not working for the official story either.

Again, the theme here is you haven't read the materials supposedly backing up this AQ narrative and you think there is substance to them but there isn't. Can we maybe focus in on one thing so you can see this? You can choose, but you mentioned the financing so let's look at that. You tell me why I should agree with the commission reports conclusion that whoever financed the attacks doesn't matter. That's going against all common sense and the strongly established, never questioned convention in criminal prosecution that if you finance a crime you are responsible for it. Are you questioning that whole idea?

That's not what I would expect do you have a citation? Less people over time think the Kennedy assassination was a wider conspiracy. People like Joe Rogan, idiots who don't know what they are talking about but get middle aged and suddenly want to wake up from their stupor of alcohol and drug consumption and figure things out, will spread some BS and young people will absorb it. I concede that most people believing in exotic conspiracy theories are moronic.

I'd seen some transcripts of expert testimony saying you need some code or some knowledge to manipulate the transponders as they are very important security measures. I don't know if you live in the real world of people but, typically, important security measures aren't super easy to manipulate. It's illegal to have them off when flying, But if that is wrong or misunderstood ok it doesn't boost your case, it just doesn't help mine but I don't need it.

The 9/11 hijackers wouldn't have dared do anything illegal.

Indeed, as seen in this still from the cockpit surveillance footage.

At first I thought you actually made a good joke. I laughed a little and I thought finally I could offer you some encouragement. But upon further contemplation...it's just not very smooth. It does have the illusion of being a good quip. I guess that's progress for you?

How about "The only case you've made here is the case against your being sane". Slightly better, but funny? meh. Keep working on it.

The point was the play on words, dumbo. Otherwise I would have just gone with the banal "you're a moron", best by test.

Sometimes the most obvious answer escapes Deuces. Nothing like a hanger full of airplanes with the transponders on mucking up the air traffic controllers job: A pilot may turn off the transponder to avoid cluttering air traffic control radar screens while taxiing on the ground or to reset it if it malfunctions. Additionally, in case of an electrical issue, turning off the transponder can help contain potential problems.

Yes but bro, turning it off requires some highly specialised training, much like flying a massive plane into a massive building or driving a car into a brick wall.

Transponders could be turned off very easily. Like literally a switch. Features making the process more secure were added in response to 9/11. This has also been explained to our df many, many times. His resistance to learning is considerable.

This is the part where anyone operating in good faith would say "Yeah, okay I guess the transponder thing was incorrect" and move on. Deuces is instead going to sputter and lash out with insults and behave like an absolute clown. He's wasted two decades of his life peddling this absolute crackpot ****, it's far too late for him to admit to himself that it was all a mistake.