[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Maybe he thinks it's okay since LandOLakes gets away with it in like half his posts.

I wouldn't know. That's another one I have on ignore.

You really like animations because they take liberties with reality, reality being your enemy here. I'm not interested in animations unless they are driven by a model whose data and parameters are published. Even hiding their data, the simulators at NIST couldn't get the towers to fall IIRC.

I'd prefer government publications or, failing that, something from a respected journal. I have zero interest in cartoons which have captivated your vacant head. The scientists, engineers, and architects who have published against the official story have put a lot on the line. I'm not going to take as a reference someone who is grifting. You probably live with your mother and don't understand the concept of skin in the game so I won't bother to try to explain it to you.

Right, because if you yield even "water is wet" as a premise you know you will be led down the path to truth and you don't want that. You want to live in a world where people in charge are looking out for you. I'm sorry son, but those people want to eat you. They look at you like a warm piece of meat. You think people who commit genocide, who abuse and kill and rape children wouldn't execute a false flag?

It's one thing to disagree with people. It's another thing to be terrified to accept any common premise with them. This is a psychological issue for you.

You've ignored the other contributing factors to the collapse of the building, which you obviously intentionally left out of your argument initially. Neither the buildings or their conditions compare, and we don't know what the hell else was going on with that building.

Why didn't you mention it was full of nothing but squatters, filled with particle board, the elevator shafts were packed with garbage, and the building was jerry rigged with makeshift electrical circuits? Maybe it was a menace that people wanted destroyed. You haven't researched structural comparisons to the twin towers. You see the word steel and your eyes bug out of your head. You're like "oh I got Deuces now hahaha" when, really, you're just hoping I don't look into it.

And I swear I didn't even cherry pick your terrible comparison. I just googled the first thing and, of course, the place was essentially torched top to bottom and it is described as concrete, not steel framed. Reinforced concrete is not steel framing, nimrod. There is a big difference. All it takes is one google search to have that explained to you. But, again, your problem is you don't want to know the truth. Actually your problem is you're conflicted between not wanting to know the truth and part of you wanting to know it. I was hoping Epstein files could push people like you over to social reality. It might yet.

Deuces: I don’t like things that clearly and straightforwardly explain things to people. I need to obscure my explanations in what didn’t happen in unproven facts and blantant lies in order to feel as if I am superior intellectually to all others who disagree with me. When that fails, I make up psychological conditions these large groups of skeptics to my theories must suffer because I won’t provide any semblance of proof for my beliefs.

I am an idiot but I command the room with my sleight of hand mechanics.

I thought you said we weren't supposed trust the government; that's what the 'sheeple' do I thought you said.

As an aside, illustrating the result of a scientific model with a pictorial graphic isn't quite the same thing as a Mister Magoo cartoon.

I don't trust the government because I listen to what it says, evaluate it, and understand it is bullshit. I was in here in the summer of 2016 saying Russiagate was made up from whole cloth. But maybe that is another case where I (not just me but a huge number of people) was right, the record showing we were right is clear and accessible, but those who believe Trump is or was a Russian agent, who believe the complete and total lies of the deep state. still believe this?

I want to argue against the "official narrative". The government has had full control over any evidence available and has spent millions of dollars on these sham investigations. My thesis, or anti-thesis, is that the government hasn't proven anything and that what it has claimed is demonstrably false or ridiculous.

Scientific? Like when tweety bird turns into Mr. Hyde? because nothing is too heavy handed and propagandized to raise Gorgo's brow. I bet right now he believes Epstein was a Russian agent.

Okay I just finished my errands and got out of the shower so now I am ready. Can I start a new thread for this?

The good faith truth seeker such as yourself doesn't trust govt so we need to abolish this govt for a larger more powerful central state to fix the problem and help these folks? I don't have that correct, right?

I honestly don't know what you have to teach outside of 911 but mentioning Danny the "Demolition Expert" dying in a car wreck ten years after a building #7 collapsed isn't very riveting. The explosives and not knowing the difference between steel and metal didn't do it either. Can you illustrate anything to show that someone like me would benefit under your preferred communist regime? - Assuming that you were kidding that you were going to have me kill myself like you said.

If I take your word that you are in fact arguing these things in good faith, then you must have some plan to help the bottom 99% of people in this world - assuming you decide against killing most of them for ideological purposes, of course.

I can't imagine a larger more powerful state than the one we've got.

I honestly don't know if you are ready to talk about such things. You are hanging on very tightly to very warped views rooted in cold war propaganda, like cartoon stuff where commies want to control everyone's life and be authoritarian and have this massive state. You haven't even realized yet that the massively authoritarian police state, where you are spied on constantly and dissent is criminalized, is the very state we have now. The propagandized communist nightmare is the capitalist reality. Can you even see that right in front of your face?

What we mainly need to stop this is for laws that implement democracy in our workplaces. I want more democracy, more popular will, more freedom from exploitation. Yes, you need a powerful state to regulate monied interests and businesses but a powerful state is more of a sought after feature of modernity than a feature restricted to communism or socialism. As I've asked before, can you really not look up and see the oligarchs looking down at you with a magnifying glass as if you were an ant on an ant farm? They want to control your very thoughts. Not by some secret technology but just by controlling information which you can or are likely to think about. They want to poke you and prod you and see if you can more efficiently carry food crumbs to them. Where do you think their power and money comes from? It comes from your hard work.

There would probably be no billionaires if the people who did the work in the company voted on salary scales. Jobs wouldn't go overseas when companies are profitable. Corporations wouldn't be buying up real estate and commodifying it, or, if they were we could simply make them stop by writing a law saying stop. Government needs to be big enough to control any business and not be susceptible to corruption. If watching us waste 7 billion fighting the Houthis - and losing - doesn't make you realize we need government to control businesses, and not the other way around, then I have about 100000 other examples to try to change your mind.

Circular. Define science.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

What's "actual" physics?

The mistake must be the "surprise" when things do not freefall at a rate greater than g.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

"A" room, not "the" room. The only room this prick commands is his facebook conspiracy dick sucking groupies. It's certainly not this one.

Deuces, you just proposed a bunch of democratic capitalistic ideas. I don't think you're being honest with me here, but you literally mentioned regulating corporations, more democracy on voter pay, scaled salaries based on worker input and stopping corporations from buying up and commodifying real estate and "probably" no more billionaires? So essentially a progressive tax that caps out to prevent the super rich.

What your advising isn't much different than the Nordic system. Deuces, are you bull shitting me here or sugar-coating things or what? Flip to the final page. I don't want to go back and forth with this.

All definitions are to some degree 'circular.' My definition certainly wasn't viscously circular.

Anyhoo, before moving on to me defining 'science', please give me your 'non-circular' definition of physics.

Thanks.

Another stupid lie.

No you wouldn't. You pretend those don't exist or just lie about them. The animating was a simplification for you, and a visualization so obvious you couldn't lie about it. So your solution to that is to pretend like you are too good for them.

Your entire game is to handwave everything away for stupid made up reasons and then pretend nothing exists. It's beyond old.

Because, you ridiculous buffoon, YOU ARE THE ONE THAT THOUGHT TRYING TO MAKE A STUPID GENERALIZATION TO ALL OTHER BUILDINGS IN HISTORY WAS A GOOD ARGUMENT.

It's been obvious to anyone with a brain that, get THIS, each case is different. But you, in your literally infinite stupidity, thought comparing the extraordinary circumstances of 911 to literally every building in the world in history was a great idea and made your case.

I didn't say or make any claims about "no steel-framed high rise skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire." YOU MADE THAT CLAIM.

Next time maybe try to make better arguments, dumbass.

And incidentally, your rebuttal, in addition to being irrelevant to your claim, is awful.

The two primary differences you are referring to, are either trivial or hurt your argument.

1) the building was full of flammable materials

So were the wtc towers. In fact, they were literally doused in jet fuel, which spilled down the elevator shafts throughout the building. Nearly everything in the building was flammable and had electrical wiring throughout (which you are using to imply is dangerous but only for the ignition of a fire, which the planes handled just fine). This is an absolute triviality to the argument.

2) some of the building frame was steel reinforced concrete which performs far, far better in fires than just steel framing.

To sum up: you made the claim and are now complaining that the buildings and circumstances are not comparable. This is a problem with your claim, not the rebuttal. And your arguments against the rebuttal are juvenile, ignorant, and irrelevant.

Gorgo, you get way too wound up. He's a massive clown. Like, to be honest, for someone with his vocabulary to be this stupid, he has to be mentally ill.

You are in the same ark, friend.

In other entertainment news, looks like billyshears has returned to the tag team.

Quite so. As is fully documented by mental-health professionals in three counties.

In this thread we learn an idiot thinks that squatters illegal electrical systems and trash in elevator shafts can cause a fire to destroy a high rise building but two 150;000 kg plans hitting high rises traveling @ 450 mph loaded with jet fuel and the subsequent explosions and fires can not because, er reasons and psychological mumbo jumbo.

This has become pathetic.

Two opportunities, twice failed.

For posterity, significant errors thus far ITT not acknowledged:

1. Surprise things fall at a rate of mere g.
2. Claiming "actual physics".
3. Failure to define physics adequately yet claiming its laws to prove some conspiracy theory.

Physics is the establishment of successful hypotheses, i.e. theories, describing and explaining phenomena in the natural world, in accordance with the scientific method, i.e. proven by experiment. Physics IS science, not a list of curricula that might be found on a course called physics.

So really the discussion should have begun with agreement on terms. Since nobody here seems to have the first clue what the terms mean.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Meh. Don't expect too much in the way of top quality information. Identifying basic errors to encouarge folk to return to school might be forthcoming.

Arbitrarily assigned teams makes you accountable for the guy who thinks free-fall ought to be faster. Damn gravity.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

More teamwork. Ok so what is "actual physics"? There is some not-actual physics we need to be aware of?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk