9/11: Science and Conspiracy

[Bumble_Bee_Tuna]

I do have some dearly held ideas.

My old dog was awesome.
My mom's pasta ***ioli is the most delicious on Earth.
Joe Rogan is a closet homosexual.
The Road Warrior is the greatest action movie ever
etc.

I'd impale anyone who disagreed, If I could get away with it.

But 9/11, in and of itself, is not something I'm attached to. That is, I have no inherent aversion to inside jobs existing - they've been done. I don't blindly support the U.S. government - they've done some twisted shit. So on and yada.

Instead, I'm offended, mostly, by the lack of originality exhibited by Truthers. It's offensive. It's lazy. Let's face it, you're working with a blank canvas. You can (and try) to come up with whatever you can piece together for your adventure. It's been almost 15 years.

All I see are Joos, controlled demolition, holograms and other such insipid, boring balderdash. Your lack of creativity is your biggest sin. But hey, not everybody was meant to write The Illuminatus Trilogy.

In all of your responses you have not once engaged in an actual discussion, so how is one to conclude that you are even capable of rational discourse? I do not believe (I could be wrong) that you have read, researched and delved into the evidence, or lack thereof, of the claim for the government's conspiracy theory, no matter how much one may claim they have on the internet. Your reactions (along with many others) when confronted with people who express opinions questioning the official narrative suggests you have not. In fact, what it suggests to me is that you may suffer from a deep cognitive dissonance which cannot allow for a crack in your edifice of thought.

Your argument is based on fallacies - ad hominem, red herring and straw man arguments - to compensate for your inability to engage in a rational discussion. For example, if there is evidence that suggests elements within the U.S. intelligence networks had foreknowledge of the events on 911, and elements within other foreign intelligence agencies such as Mossad may have had knowledge, what other evidence is there that is considered heretical and outside the bounds of "polite society"? Perhaps evidence suggests something even further - that "deep state" elements within the U.S. intelligence, foreign intelligence, and various corporations all had a part to play in actually allowing and/or creating these events to occur, as all of their interests converged on this geopolitical point in time for it benefited each benefited in different ways from this deep state event of our time.

If you automatically rule out these as "zomg conspiratards illuminatus" then you are thereby potentially closing yourself off to other alternatives that may provide another more plausible narrative of the events that transpired. Moreover, it may actually explain all the ensuing global wars, financial crimes and erosion of domestic civil liberties right up to this point of the American empire.

 

[DoomPatrol]

It's been 130+ pages and the conspiracy theorists still haven't presented a solid theory that shows the NIST model as false. I mean the idiots are still quoting AE911 as if they have any credibility.

 

[LawerDavis]

It was made intentionally because the US didn`t want to pay the debt :icon_evil:icon_lol:

 

[Bumble_Bee_Tuna]

It's been 130+ pages and the conspiracy theorists still haven't presented a solid theory that shows the NIST model as false. I mean the idiots are still quoting AE911 as if they have any credibility.

It's a good thing you don't have a monopoly on power. People who challenge the government's narrative will always continue until the next paradigm shift (See: Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas).

 

[DoomPatrol]

It's a good thing you don't have a monopoly on power. People who challenge the government's narrative will always continue until the next paradigm shift (See: Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas).

Why is it a good thing I don't have a monopoly on power? I don't even have power or want it.

I do agree that the "truthers" will continue to shift their beliefs and accusations when their original beliefs are disproven. They don't want the truth. They want to blame the shadow government. They have preconceived notions about everything before they look at the facts so it warps their opinions.

 

[gatchaman]

It's been 130+ pages and the conspiracy theorists still haven't presented a solid theory that shows the NIST model as false. I mean the idiots are still quoting AE911 as if they have any credibility.

The NIST model does not relate to the empirical evidence.

I ask you again to simply produce video footage of the WTC7 collapse with the NIST start point of the collapse and end point of the collapse indicated.

NIST won't, and you won't.

In contrast, I have provided side-by-side comparisons of the WTC7 collapse with known demolitions to show that they are visually identical.

 

[DoomPatrol]

The NIST model does not relate to the empirical evidence.

I ask you again to simply produce video footage of the WTC7 collapse with the NIST start point of the collapse and end point of the collapse indicated.

NIST won't, and you won't.

In contrast, I have provided side-by-side comparisons of the WTC7 collapse with known demolitions to show that they are visually identical.

Your last paragraph just shows how stupid you are. You can't compare the internal failure of WTC7 to controlled demos by looking at the exterior of the building. You don't even know what the fuck it should look like instead do you? Of course not because you're slackjawed drooling down your chin. Do you even understand structural engineering? Physics? Or did you just look at a youtube video and go "Durrrrr but they look similar! I don't understand the internal mechanics, but Durrrrr I'm a youtube expert! "

Have you even read the NIST report? The entire report is built on the empirical evidence. That's how they modeled and solved it. This topic has beaten so hard in this thread already.

The NIST WTC7 report is accurate. You can't point to a single fucking page and show that it's wrong. You're just making assumptions out of ignorance.

I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit. You don't know what it should look like during an internal failure collapse, so why are you judging it off youtube videos? You're retarded.

 

[gatchaman]

Your last paragraph just shows how stupid you are. You can't compare the internal failure of WTC7 to controlled demos by looking at the exterior of the building. You don't even know what the fuck it should look like instead do you? Of course not because you're slackjawed drooling down your chin. Do you even understand structural engineering? Physics? Or did you just look at a youtube video and go "Durrrrr but they look similar! I don't understand the internal mechanics, but Durrrrr I'm a youtube expert! "

Have you even read the NIST report? The entire report is built on the empirical evidence. That's how they modeled and solved it. This topic has beaten so hard in this thread already.

The NIST WTC7 report is accurate. You can't point to a single fucking page and show that it's wrong. You're just making assumptions out of ignorance.

I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit. You don't know what it should look like during an internal failure collapse, so why are you judging it off youtube videos? You're retarded.

Stating that I need an understanding structural engineering to understand the relevant physics to the collapse is an appeal to authority. All that is needed is an understanding of Newton's 3 laws of motion that we all learned in high school. It was a high school teacher who corrected NIST and showed that WTC7 was in free fall acceleration when the initial NIST report assumed that WTC7 fell at constant speed.



Calling me a stupid slackjawed drooling durr durr youtube expert, ouch.

As I suppose you fancy yourself an expert, please show me the visual evidence that WTC7 took 5.4 seconds to collapse. It's simply a matter of putting a dot at the beginning of the 5.4 seconds on the video and another dot 5.4 seconds later. You have admitted already that empirical evidence is needed to conclude that WTC7 has collapsed at all. Is not empirical evidence also needed to show that the collapse time was 5.4 seconds?

Appealing to your own imagined authority is not enough. I want you to show me the empirical evidence for your version, that is to say NIST's version, of the events. Let's start with the proposed 5.4 second WTC7 collapse time.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

In contrast, I have provided side-by-side comparisons of the WTC7 collapse with known demolitions to show that they are visually identical.

i can show two black eyes. does that mean their cause is identical?

have you ever heard a demolition? its unmistakable. more than 4 people would have heard more than a few "explosions" during 9/11. thermite is generally used in conjunction with other explosives during demolitions. that is also done for a reason. they dont just use thermite.

 

[DoomPatrol]

Stating that I need an understanding structural engineering to understand the relevant physics to the collapse is an appeal to authority. All that is needed is an understanding of Newton's 3 laws of motion that we all learned in high school. It was a high school teacher who corrected NIST and showed that WTC7 was in free fall acceleration when the initial NIST report assumed that WTC7 fell at constant speed.



Calling me a stupid slackjawed drooling durr durr youtube expert, ouch.

As I suppose you fancy yourself an expert, please show me the visual evidence that WTC7 took 5.4 seconds to collapse. It's simply a matter of putting a dot at the beginning of the 5.4 seconds on the video and another dot 5.4 seconds later. You have admitted already that empirical evidence is needed to conclude that WTC7 has collapsed at all. Is not empirical evidence also needed to show that the collapse time was 5.4 seconds?

Appealing to your own imagined authority is not enough. I want you to show me the empirical evidence for your version, that is to say NIST's version, of the events. Let's start with the proposed 5.4 second WTC7 collapse time.

Why don't you put the NIST model against a video of the building collapse and compare the phases. This stupid idea has already been debunked. In fact, NIST goes out of their way to explain the timeline in their Q&A.


NIST used the available physical and video evidence to make their determination, which is how a proper scientific investigation should go. So you are a slackjawed moron.

Answer this.

Assuming NIST study is the data available, what would that collapse look like instead of what we saw?

What do you think would have happened if debris hadn't damaged the building? Do you think it still would have came down?

 

[gatchaman]

i can show two black eyes. does that mean their cause is identical?

have you ever heard a demolition? its unmistakable. more than 4 people would have heard more than a few "explosions" during 9/11. thermite is generally used in conjunction with other explosives during demolitions. that is also done for a reason. they dont just use thermite.

If WTC7 collapsed into it's own footprint, like a tree in the woods, with no one to hear it, then would there be a need to test for explosive residues?

Would there be a need to preserve parts of WTC7 in case of tests that might be conducted later?

 

[gatchaman]

Why don't you put the NIST model against a video of the building collapse and compare the phases. This stupid idea has already been debunked. In fact, NIST goes out of their way to explain the timeline in their Q&A.


NIST used the available physical and video evidence to make their determination, which is how a proper scientific investigation should go. So you are a slackjawed moron.

Answer this.

Assuming NIST study is the data available, what would that collapse look like instead of what we saw?

What do you think would have happened if debris hadn't damaged the building? Do you think it still would have came down?

How does one debunk the idea of showing the duration of the NIST collapse sequence on an actual video of the WTC7 collapse? Why not just do the easy thing and show on the video footage the start and end of the 5.4 seconds?

Assuming that this computer animation from Phantom Menace is the data available and that Jar Jar Binks represents WTC7 then did WTC7 go over a waterfall instead of what we saw? Do we really need to go over the importance of supporting your conclusions with empirical evidence again?



How do you think that debris contributed to the collapse of WTC7?

 

[Bumble_Bee_Tuna]

Your last paragraph just shows how stupid you are. You can't compare the internal failure of WTC7 to controlled demos by looking at the exterior of the building. You don't even know what the fuck it should look like instead do you? Of course not because you're slackjawed drooling down your chin. Do you even understand structural engineering? Physics? Or did you just look at a youtube video and go "Durrrrr but they look similar! I don't understand the internal mechanics, but Durrrrr I'm a youtube expert! "

Have you even read the NIST report? The entire report is built on the empirical evidence. That's how they modeled and solved it. This topic has beaten so hard in this thread already.

The NIST WTC7 report is accurate. You can't point to a single fucking page and show that it's wrong. You're just making assumptions out of ignorance.

I'm so sick of hearing this bullshit. You don't know what it should look like during an internal failure collapse, so why are you judging it off youtube videos? You're retarded.

Yes. Have you? If so, answer me this "truther." Why is the computer model that NIST used classified? NIST rejected a FOIA request for the computer simulation data and the reason given was laughable: because it would "jeopardize public safety." Now go research and dig up this point to try to come up with another excuse and justification to completely take the government's case at face value and anyone who dares question it is an abominable "truther" as if name-calling those who you disagree with adds any more credence to a tenuous argument except for self-esteem.

While this may not seem like a big deal to most of the hive mind persuasion, it is to anyone who uses their critical thinking.

 

[TSO]

Why don't you put the NIST model against a video of the building collapse and compare the phases.

Because they never revealed their models details. They just said it worked and the sheeple listened.