[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Can't believe this shitty conspiracyderp thread is still going

Dunces McKrackhead does like to shite on a bit.

Several of the key sources are peer reviewed. But they are all open to criticism from anyone. They've not been debunked. No scientist has yet been craven enough to go against scientific truth. There was the one I keep mentioning from the Skeptics forum. I invite you all to read that escapade where he stops his experiment apparently right after he confirms the results of the supposed crackpot conspiracist scientists. I've linked to it several times over the years. In one case the journal was finessed into peer reviewing a key paper and refused to publish it after it had already been approved, but that was clearly political and not based on the merits of the paper, which stands.

You're just asserting falsehoods. Why do you bother when it just makes your case look weak?

He should publish something under his real name. He won't, but it could be of great benefit to the public good since there are more people who don't believe the official story than do. And worldwide it's not even close.

Let the world heal e d'a. Put your credentials on the line to backup the claims of the state here. I don't discard information. That is exclusively the tactic of you and the war-on-terror apologists. If not show me where I did this.

Yeah e'da, get publishing man, the **** is taking so long? I'm beginning to think Deuces has a point and you have something to hide.

I like how when Deuces gets schooled on one point he immediately changes the subject to another previously-debunked talking point. now he's back to not understanding what peer review is.

Deuces just talks in circles, but I expect that the way he debates is what a really dumb person thinks being smart looks like, so it probably works on his usual audience of knuckle draggers in his Facebook conspiracy groups or whatever.

Reach out to Neil Degrasse Tyson while you're at it d2. And mythbusters. The world needs to be educated and stop all this dumb conspiracy thinking. Just because there are trillions of dollars to be made by people perfectly willing to kill any number of innocent people to achieve their financial and political objectives doesn't mean they actually did this thing which gives them everything they want and did nothing for the people who those same people say did it.

And let's not forget it's not just the dumb people not believing the official story. A lot of PhDs and technical experts are also suffering from this. This 9/11 conspiracy sickness knows no demographic boundaries. Well, maybe the dumbest seem to be protected but, other than that, this sickness has ravaged the world. Will there be one PhD willing to demonstrate that there is no thermite in the dust? And actually go through with the experiment and not stop it at the critical point? All we need is one and the globe can heal. Imagine a country that doesn't think it gave trillions of dollars and killed a million innocent people over nothing but a bunch of lies. All it takes is one and we can have that. Just tell us why molten steel was pouring out of the building and why the super intense heat blooms under the collapsed buildings persisted for months on end. Just explain it to us and end this torture, I beg you.

Unfortunately no one got schooled on peer review, not even the ones who needed schooling the most.

Hiding your data and not submitting your work for verification means you work isn't peer reviewed. I am happy to stop the debate there with those who disagree.

Shouldn't YOU be the one reaching out to Mythbusters and publishing your ideas? You're smarter than all the experts, remember.

Honestly, the meanness here is unbelievable. You guys have the power to debunk the debunks of the official story and you cruelly refuse, choosing to let me and others live in a world where the CIA and politicians and transnational demons lie to us and commit false flag terror when we could be living in happy land with you.

Let is into happy land with you, please. I'll do whatever you want me to do, sign whatever I have to sign. I can see over the fences of my own delusions that happy land is big enough for all of us. Let me in, will you? All I need are the debunks. Clearly you have the debunks so you got them from somewhere. I promise I'll be a good citizen of happy land if you let me in. I won't start questioning things or think for myself or even use logic unless it is to make the masters of happy land money. I swear.

Who forced the Bush administration to invade Afghanistan?

The Taliban said they were willing to turn over AQ if the U.S. produced some evidence that AQ did it. That evidence should be available if you are going to invade a country with that evidence as a justification.

Rumsfeld wanting to attack countries based on their target richness is emblematic of the mindset of these people. They are different than you and I. Would you punch somebody just because they were punchable, without regard to any wrong they had done you? No. And here you see someone who clearly would. What else do you think might be wrong with such a person?

My hypothesis is whoever did 9/11 wanted us in the ME through any old pretext. They wanted next Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia and Sudan. Right down the list, eh? That's right, everything we've been doing since 2001 is premised on the attacks. Destroying Syria was about freeing people from Assad? I don't care what degree you hold if you believe that you are a functional moron.

An action happens. One party is decapitated as a result. Another party gets a significant portion of the world's wealth. And we have to bicker about who did it?

by ecriture d'adulte m

This is completely unlike 9/11 conspiracy bros. If you just asked physicists in the early 40s they would tell you nuclear weapons are possible. There has been

https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1517

Shtetl-Optimized

NSA: Possibly breaking US laws, but still bound by laws of computational complexity

in math/CS communities for decades on the degree to which the NSA and intelligence communities are ahead of the open world in applied cryptography. Maybe Snowden didn't have access to higher level ... See full post

That's a pretty low barrier, don't you think? Can we get someone whose PhD or masters thesis was approved to reject the theories I peddle? Again, you guys seem to think these people must exist but you never cite them or link to them. Meanwhile I have linked to papers and videos of highly credentialed people debunking the official collapse theory. David Chandler is probably my go-to authority because his explanations are very thorough and clear. He has two masters degrees from Harvey Mudd College, an institution so selective most people haven't even heard of it. It is harder to get in there than MIT and their graduates get higher salary offers than MIT grads. What experts do you have? Some anonymous NIST people making assertions they refuse to allow people to validate? Honestly, you are making an appeal to authority so you should at least name the authority.

😮no

No. I don’t think I have anything useful to say on the subject. You think people like me or NDT secretly agree with you that it’s obvious planes did not bring down the twin towers. But any actual physics claims people who held that view made were laughable and showed a lack of understanding of things taught in high school.

You're right I didn't choose a perfect analogy as the Manhattan project was a secret project but not a criminal conspiracy or a coverup thereof, the latter 2 which I think you are saying expect a whistleblower or leak if they happened. But let's get a little perspective because when you inform authorities about a crime in which you were complicit that's not referred to as whistle blowing or leaking. That's referred to as snitching, ratting, or, if no one has anything on you to squeeze you into talking, that's just being a totally insane suicidal idiot.

The authorities looking for snitches usually have a target in mind about whom they want information. What authority is going to ask "Tell me who did 9/11 and we will lighten your sentence."? What authority, when they catch a criminal and the criminal tells them "I know who did 9/11" thinks "oh boy promotion to bureau chief here we come!"? The authorities, no matter what they believe personally, when acting on behalf of their institutions are totally loyal to whatever state propaganda is prevailing (kinda like you but they get paid for it).

To put it bluntly enough for everyone to understand, there is zero institutional demand for criminal evidence relating to the perpetrators of 9/11 and hence no incentive for any snitches or whistle blowers. Life isn't an Aaron Sorkin TV show dude. The truth has no magical powers that supersede base primate politics.

So no one involved in or who knows those involved in the core terrorism crime is going to talk and if they did we would never hear about it. What about the coverup? There have been quite a few whistle blowers reporting apparent attempts to hide, destroy, or doctor evidence. One is Kevin Ryan. The company he worked for was contracted by NIST during their investigation and found that the floor assemblies wouldn't sag even at temperatures above the highest estimated temperatures of the impact zone. Their results were not included in the NIST report, having been replaced by some shady computer simulation. Kevin Ryan reached out to NIST about the discrepancy and ended up getting fired. He's a highly intelligent guy who has now written extensively and critically on the NIST reports. You think there was some legit reason why NIST chose to use computer simulations instead of the physical testing they paid for?

So Trolley let me get this straight:

You are expecting volunteered evidence of the worst crime in American history when there only large negative incentive for it.

But you don't expect any evidence to have emerged in the past 25 years enough to convict the hairy backed Arab killer who supposedly planned this whole thing?

even though we have broken our society on the assumed truth towards which that evidence supposedly points and a deep array of people have every incentive to surface this evidence?

TLDR Gorgo?

Deuces, no one is reading all of that overcooked sophistry, give us an executive summary or something.

Obviously we're just refusing to read it because we can't handle the troof.

There was only so be basic physics claim I saw itt and it was wrong, HS level and I showed a simple video of it being wrong. I don’t think designing skyscrapers and phase transitions in carbon steel or whatever relevant science that is needed here is super simple even with no specialized engineering training; you think that.

Not reading all that either, but I did see the name Kevin Ryan in that mess. He's a well known kook who was mad that NIST didn't try to mix metals together to try match the exact shade of yellow of the molten aluminum (and other metals) that was visible. Some pretty hilarious stuff.

Yeah, Deuces is all like "behold, peons, I have built a machine that goes faster than the speed of light", and anyone with a brain is like "no, you haven't" and he's like "you're not a physics PhD, how would you know? Call NDT, the mayor of Physicsville! Call Adam Savage!"

Stop being a lying scumbag. The only physics claim you made ITT was about collapse being faster than acceleration due to gravity and e d'a answered this in detail. For all the words you prolifically vomit out here, I haven't seen a single other concrete physics claim, probably because you know it will be easily debunked.