[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Deuces, remember our deal? I'm not unpicking whatever all that is, if you've got points you would like me to address, present them in bullet point format, with each point restricted to a sentence or two, and I'll respond.

It's impossible for us to believe you can understand NIST technical reports when you could not even admit they are peer reviewed. Not to mention the only basic physics claim itt was obviously wrong and you were not able to follow or correct it.

Out of curiosity I went back to find some of my old thrashings of old Deuces from 10 years ago here on 2+2. I was probably even more short-tempered back then hahaha

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/219/p...

This is just a random spot in the thread. I think it's kind of in the middle of it?

Anti-communism comes from a deep place in people, from a place of pre-programmed fear. It's a fear of not having enough. There is a biological basis for greed. It can probably generate from a number of modes of human living that dominated our past which, keep in mind, was a much longer lived in mode than our current mode. Building 7 was brought down by people who have infinite greed. These people are always vehemently anti-communist. They're not just like "let Cuba fail if they want that messed up system", which is a typical attitude of someone who has been propagandized against socialism and communism. They are like "we must kill Cuba totally and utterly to the point that the spirit of cooperation and equality that once manifested there has no possibility of ever reemerging in any head that ever populates the island". We have to scrape such people off or they will kill us all eventually. Not having a magic wand, maybe we could classify that level of conservatism as a psychological disorder and one day highly incentivize gene therapy. Keep in mind that anti-communism was the real ideology behind the Holocaust. The Jews were mainly a scapegoat, antisemitism used as a weapon against Bolshevism.

That urge or sentiment against communism, which you could also call pro-slavery, is alive and well. It might have been compatible with the sustaining of human life at points in the past, but not now in this modern technological and nuclear era. Now we have to cut out that cancer if we are going to survive. Whether or not we can do that within an existing human rights framework, I don't know.

I agree to disagree whether the NIST reports are peer reviewed. They were just published by the government as conclusions and assertions and the data used in their models was never disclosed. That's no different than if you or I published a paper independently. There are a million problems otherwise with the reports, but they simply weren't peer reviewed. I thought this was one thing on which we could all agree but, alas, there is really no limit on how far the pro oligarch side will bend definitions in an attempt to legitimize pure propaganda as science.

If you are in the physical sciences why don't you give the reports a read, as well as the criticism of the reports? Obviously you are interested in politics. I don't see why anyone interested in both science and politics wouldn't give the NIST reports a critical read. Woops but I always forget the real role of scientists in our society. Pursuing truth comes after paying the bills of course, and there are so many bills to pay. You pay the bills by serving power. Hitler used scientists to achieve his mass murder. Every time some monster emerges to exploit mankind there is the "scientific community" there to help them. Our psychiatrists signed off on the use of torture in the aftermath of 9/11 - despicable. It might have been better if peer review of the NIST reports on 9/11 was rigged instead of skipped altogether, but on matters of simply physics and engineering that might have been a bridge too far. Sure you can get scientists to look the other way or stretch their opinions, but I guess no one wants to be on record saying things which future generations will be able to see are just outrights lies or complete idiocy.

Show me where you thrashed anything other than the pathetic pinky finger between your legs.

That random spot was a discussion about the lack of sounds of explosions captured in the videos of the buildings going down. IIRC the opposition didn't stop to consider the sort of equipment used to capture the audio or the distance. They were using videos from miles away taken with year 2001 camcorders, which didn't even pickup the sound of the planes hitting the buildings, to "prove" there were no explosions coinciding with the collapse of the buildings. I think I reminded them that microphones have ranges and then they moved on to another subtopic. If I further recall accurately, there was no refutation of the CNN Ashley Banfield video in which explosions cannot only be heard (professional video equipment >>>> home camcorders) but the pulses of the explosions are timed at precise intervals, demonstrated graphically and timed by a 9/11 researcher (a holder of multiple masters degrees from Harvey Mudd college).

That debate is a perfect example of your understanding, based on a feeling, being exposed as preposterous under the slightest examination. You feel like there was no evidence of explosions but you don't objectively seek evidence of the truth because that could lead to discomfort.

Deuces, what's your secret to having so much energy to have a hard on for this thing for 20 whole years or more? Is it meth?

It comes from an appreciation of how Communist regimes behave.

Right, the ruling class will never forgive communists for feeding and educating people

Nah, I'm good chief. Keep going, though. Maybe your book will sell a few copies.

It's no different than any other NIST Technical Report or AMS Notices. Since you never actually read any scientific publications it strikes you as important, but it isn't.

Because it would be very heard for me to read. I'd get 5 lines in and there would be a reference to a result I am not familiar with, so I'd have to go read a paper cited by the NIST Report. But when I start reading that it would again cite something I don't know. So I'd have to again go read another paper and on and on. That's what happens if you you have no knowledge of structural engineering even at an intro grad level and try to read a structural engineering paper. This doesn't matter at all to you because you don't even try, The mistakes have to be so obvious even you, who can't follow any of the cited papers and who couldn't spot on obviously wrong high school physics level claim about falling bodies can spot them. But only you think that. Everyone else would have to crack open textbooks to get through any of those Technical Reports on any subject. But to someone like you, who understands nothing, it would be no different than reading a string of random words with no meaning. The time it takes is proportional to how many words. No actual thinking required.

Who are you trying to kid bro, we all know the real reason you won't read it is that you pay the bills by serving Hitler to commit mass murder.

I have to admit, I thought I had it cracked and the joos had done it with the space laser. Turns out the scientists were the bad guys all along! Gotta hand it to Deuces (((or is it Jewces?))) for the Keyser Soze-esque plot twist there.

This is very true. I read the damn things a long time ago. It was pretty far over my head, so I went and talked to actual structural engineers and read their comments on it and watched them destroy all the stupid conspiracy theories. I looked up as much as I could to keep up with the discussions and I learned a lot. I've forgotten all of that stuff now, and I'm not about to go through all of that again for this idiot that never learned a gd thing.

You say killing people who disagree is bad because it comes from fear but then you say we should kill people who disagree because you’re afraid? Trying to alter someone's biology has obviously been attempted.

But let's say you 've amassed a police state to successfully kill all of the anti-communists tomorrow. What is stopping you from that same fear reappearing in the next group down? Can I trust your word that you won't keep redefining a new enemy?

You'd have to reorganize society in ways such that these anti-communist types don't rise in prominence like they do now.

You recognize a bit of a contradiction. I think this kind of contradiction pops up in political philosophy. Take free speech. What if we said we can have free speech except for speech that suggests prohibiting free speech? On the one hand I'm protecting free speech, but it's at the "cost" of a little free speech which, in my banning, is a violation the principle of free speech. There is a parallel in the notion that in order for people to be free, you have to restrict actions which reduce freedom, which itself is a reduction of freedom. Similarly, at some point, even though we are not fans of killing, we might have to kill some people who would kill us all if we don't.

In reality that probably won't be an option. There is such a thing as a point of no return and we might have crossed it some time ago. Just as there was a point after which there was nothing you could do to stop the Nazis from waging war on Europe, a point much earlier in history than one would think, there is a point at which we cannot stop elites from killing and enslaving us. They are setting up systems where they can surveil us totally. They are setting up terror squads to crack down on dissent. Once they take cash away they will control our money and access to it. And it's as if people are totally unable to discern when they are being set up, that instruments of control are being positioned 360 degrees around them. They are having their attacks dogs execute people in the street with zero accountability. If they can do that, what can't they do? Considering AI, where do you think this is going? We have Palantir and other tech companies developing pre-crime threat assessment profiles on every American. With the infrastructure setup around us, what could we do if Trump started executing every political dissident? You going to go buy a gun? Not if you're on Santa's naughty list you're not. What are you going to do when they can't watch you anywhere and control your communications?

"I don't know anything because I don't know everything"
Lame excuse. I think most people who have just taken first year calculus based physics and maybe a few other higher level undergrad science courses should be able to follow along enough to judge the logical aspects of the paper if not the super technical aspects. For example, the absence of the actual collapse mechanism is something it doesn't take engineering skill or knowledge to observe or interpret.

At one point, NIST explains how they estimate the temperatures of the beams. They observed the paint on the beams was affected to varying degrees. They heated that same paint to varying levels, and then matched the deformity/discoloration of the control paint to that of the beams recovered from the impact zone. That's makes sense to me, at least in theory. The problem is they didn't have all the beams from the impact zones. They only had a few and, critically, these beams, judging by their paint discoloration, didn't reach nearly the temperatures needed to fulfill their model of collapse. So they then just made up much higher temperatures for the beams which they couldn't observe (because they were shipped off to China in short order). You don't need to know anything technical about engineering to know making things up to fit your model is not a valid methodology.

This is something actually in there they actually did. But this type of thing of all over the reports. Honestly you guys should read them alongside an expert's critique of them. You don't have to come back in here and say I was right, but you should read the NIST reports because it will be some extremely good entertainment. You will have to laugh at the brazenness.

You couldn't even figure out how bodies in 3 dimensions could fall faster than free fall. That's way way easier than any paper and is straight up high school level. You are not fooling anyone that you can follow any of the relevant technical aspects. You are only able to judge it because you don't need to understand it to say its wrong and not be able to answer even the most basic technical questions as to why. It does not seem like you could even pass those HS level classes you claim are required.

Do we ever learn what Deuces knows happened on 911 or does he just keep swinging from theory to theory on the conspiracy theory tree?

Much like Luckbox and playbig, he never will answer anything directly.

The one thing he did appear to learn over the last 10 years is not to make any concrete claims. Every time he did that he got absolutely demolished, so now he just does this vague bs.

No, you're just flatly wrong and you know it.

I assume with his “sheeple” and “if only you guys were brave enough to learn the truth” talk that his sense of intellectually superiority gets destroyed when he lays out his theories and has to justify them with facts. It must be a psychological defense at work that makes this go on for so many years.

And to keep that going someone like Neil Tyson obviously agrees with him but doesn;t say anything because of money. Not that it actually takes expertise to design sky scrapers, let alone fully understand how they collapse.

You keep referencing this and I don't know what you are talking about. I think maybe someone said some wrong thing, I didn't comment on it, and you are saying that my not commenting on it is me not understanding something. Is that correct?

There are logical and methodological layers underneath the technical layer. of a paper. You don't have to be a technical expert to evaluate these layers. The NIST report is rife with astounding errors in logic and methodology that require no engineering background to understand, but there are people with such a technical background who have explained them. This is why certain categories of government funded research require biostatisticians to supervise research, because people who know the mechanics of some subject, be it biology or engineering or whatever, have proven thoroughly that they don't necessarily have a clue when it comes to research methodology or how to evaluate their results or how to do experiments.

But you don't even have to be an expert in research methodology to criticize the NIST reports because their violations are so simple and brazen. They make up super high temperatures with no empirical basis in order to get their model to work. That's one thing they did which is demonstrable. They also completely omitted any consideration of the flow of heat from the impact zone to the rest of the building through the beam lattice structure. The paper is a complete joke and you just don't want to face that fact because, at the end of the day, most researchers do have at least one sacred cow in themselves and they will not sacrifice themselves for truth. On the other hand, come on this is an anonymous forum why not be a real scientist here?