|
CommieGIR posted:Hulsey is literally the only one who believes this and his study has been outright rejected by everyone else. This is literally "One study says something I agree with so they must be right!" fallacy of conspiracy theories. I'm not saying I believe it, I said I saw it and hadn't seen it refuted. If it has been then please, enlighten me. I thought that was the point of this thread?
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Of course they were, that was my point? To say that Bush's administration could have done what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11, I don't see how. Not anywhere near as easily and quickly as they did. You've shifted from "They had an agenda that required something like 9/11" to "9/11 was very helpful for that agenda". Which are two very different things. quote:I don't know, I thought it was pretty clear that was why I was asking in the first place? I don't know why you're being so hostile, like I said I'm not a 9/11 truther myself. I did however watch the entire presentation of that study, which to me with my non-background in the relevant fields, seemed to be a perfectly reasonable and well researched rebuttal of an earlier study. If someone could do something similar with this one, or simply point out any flaws in its own methodology or characterisation of the NIST study, then I would happily accept that. Disagreeing with you isn't being hostile. Questioning you isn't being hostile. I'm simply asking why you, with zero relevant background, think the study was an effective rebuttal. America's Frontline Doctors certainly seem convincing to me, a person with no medical training. I feel they are convincing, vaccines are dangerous. My basis is that they seem respectable and hold themselves professionally. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai seems very convincing to me on election security, as a person who knows little about election security. He has multiple MIT PhD's and he invented email.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:47
|
|
|
You might do well to investigate your feelings of fragility around these theories if you truly don't buy into any of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I've seen various 9/11 conspiracy stuff over the years and some of it can be quite compelling, but the thing that always gets me is the pieces don't fit together. No one can ever collect all of the individually extremely weird poo poo surrounding it and piece it into a coherent framework that explains why it fits as part of a conspiracy. This trueanon episode was interesting because all of the individual items sound pretty damning, but no one takes the next step to ask why it was done that way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_NHUShkl_E. Like, the manoeuvre the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon seems insane for a guy who was allegedly such a terrible pilot that his flight school was trying to have his certification revoked, but what does that mean? Was someone else, an expert pilot actually in the plane? If so where is any evidence to support that? Don't watch conspiracy theory poo poo. Because they're going to say "isn't this weird and unlikely?" and "this sure seems suspicious" about something when you, the viewer, actually have no loving idea whether it's actually weird or unlikely. You're just taking some absolute random loving idiots at their word that this stuff is actually suspicious, despite the fact that no expert has apparently thought these things were a big deal in twenty years of investigation. And we can't even comment on the specifics of what the gently caress you're talking about, because you're sourcing this poo poo from a Youtube podcast that's nearly five hours long. And no, don't give me a loving timecode. It's been two decades, someone important would have noticed by now if there was actually an incongruity in the piloting of the hijacked planes. Ouroboros posted:Of course they were, that was my point? To say that Bush's administration could have done what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11, I don't see how. Not anywhere near as easily and quickly as they did. Here's the problem right here, in bold and underline. You are not capable of determining whether this study is reasonable or well-researched. You're not qualified to discuss the science, nor are you able to assess the accuracy of their research or the rigor of their methodology. You just watched a presentation and thought it seemed good, even though you freely admit you have no knowledge of the science...that means you're just being won over by their charisma! To know whether the study is good or not, you would need to hear from other scientists who were not involved in performing the study and were given full access to the data and methodology used. In other words, it would need to be peer-reviewed. Which doesn't seem to have been done. There's no point in asking random internet posters to debunk a study that other experts haven't even endorsed yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I'm not saying I believe it, I said I saw it and hadn't seen it refuted. If it has been then please, enlighten me. I thought that was the point of this thread? A study doesn't always have to be refuted to be false. He's one guy, from a podunk university who disagrees with the scientific/engineering majority including major institutions like NIST and others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Here's the problem right here, in bold and underline. You are not capable of determining whether this study is reasonable or well-researched. You're not qualified to discuss the science, nor are you able to assess the accuracy of their research or the rigor of their methodology. You just watched a presentation and thought it seemed good, even though you freely admit you have no knowledge of the science...that means you're just being won over by their charisma! Exactly. I've watched presentations from experts on fields I do know about, that were incredibly unconvincing to a layperson. But accurate. And complete bullshit ones that were convincing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:03
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave? i dont know enough about structural collapse to be able to tell one report from the other, and i'm not going to spend hours reading them to find out all i know is that the building was real fuckin on fire so if someone tells me the fire had nothing to do with it i'm going to be real suspicious of their motivations, especially if their study is being sponsored by the literal "fire doesn't melt steel beams" people and they can't even come up with a realistic explanation for why fire wasn't the immediate cause (ghosts? a strong wind? an angry circus strongman?)
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Of course they were, that was my point? To say that Bush's administration could have done what it did in Iraq and Afghanistan without 9/11, I don't see how. Not anywhere near as easily and quickly as they did. I don't recall the exact term being bandied about at the time, but the idea as summarized during the early Bush administration was... call it "disaster politics." To wit, the GOP had seen the power in making wedge issues and opportunistic plays out of random events, and set in ready to very deliberately exploit the hell out of any such events as they emerged. This wasn't the first time someone had tried to blow up the WTC, this wasn't the first incidence of someone flinging planes into buildings. US foreign policy and actions were already fueling violent blowback. So they knew something was coming, because peaceful times never last forever (especially when you're the one stirring the pot up for trouble), and were ready to leap on anything. All it took was something to give them an excuse, and they "luckily" got a wildly dramatic one. It's disaster planning, but for moving as quickly as possible to gently caress people over after the disaster instead of mitigating it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:07
|
|
|
Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off? what's happening is that your self perception of yourself as an independent, rational thinker is collapsing under some fairly mild pushback if you weren't so invested in these theories being true, i don't think you would feel on the defense when the theories get ridiculed this is another essential component of conspiracy thinking - feeling shamed and then doubling down when you get external criticism of the idea you were intrigued by. its a feeling of "i couldn't have been so gullible... those people must just be assholes" anyway you are getting what you wanted, these ideas are being debunked. they're just not being debunked in the manner you would prefer, or as kindly as you would prefer Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Sep 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:11
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off? You haven't really even posted anything to debunk. All you've posted here is a bunch of random unsourced factoids from a five-hour podcast none of us have any intention of watching, and a non-peer-reviewed study you openly admit you don't understand. And even then, someone posted a link debunking the study and you ignored it. So that just leaves us with your open admission that you spend hours and hours watching 9/11 conspiracy stuff and think a lot of it has some merit, but you aren't a believer yet, honest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
I really don't know why you're trying to do an epic gotcha on what kind of person you have decided I am, since I was quite clear in my first post if you actually read it. Yes conspiracy theories are interesting and it can be fun to look at and discuss them, which is what I was trying to do lol. If you just think they're stupid and boring why are you in this thread other than to start a fight?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
you're very clearly on the defensive at this point because of wounded pride over some theories you bought into being roundly mocked. i'm not in a position to tell you what to do with your life but i urge you not do this debunking conspiracy theories means debunking conspiracy theorists. you may have identified yourself as "not a conspiracy theorist" when you first posted in this thread, but your posting has seemed to take a change in tone
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off? You still believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories for dummies 20 years after the fact. Nothing is going to convince you, why are you wasting everyone's time. At least the JFK idiots have a Hollywood movie.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 00:31
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:Ok lol I don't even know what's going on anymore. I come into a thread that appears to be about debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, make clear that I don't believe in them myself but note that it's interesting that in isolation some of them can appear convincing and give one or two examples, and now suddenly I'm a loving idiot because I clearly believe in all of this 100% and none of this should even be discussed. Genuinely what is the point of this thread if no one is going to debunk anything, they're just going to tell you to gently caress off? We were debunking what you talked about. Why are you taking it personally? Why did you perceive questions as being hostile to you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 01:22
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I mean if you go and actually read the report or at least just watch the video of the authors presenting its findings it's pretty clear about what it is; it attempts to explain why the NIST report in particular erroneously came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse and identifies the specific problems in NIST's methodology that led them to that conclusion. If you can show that "the most sensible conclusion" is scientifically wrong, which (and of course, I am not a scientist nor an engineer) seems to be what they have done, surely that warrants more than a handwave? It's not what was done. You fell for a decades old bullshit paper. So, I asked you what basis you had for believing that's what they had done. Then you got mad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
just for laffs i went back through the AE9/11T sponsored report and saw that they breifly addressed two other structural engineering reports, created for both sides of a lawsuit around the collapse of WTC 7, both of which also found that fire was essential to the collapse of the structurequote:Separate from the NIST investigation, two studies of WTC 7’s collapse were commissioned by opposing sides in the lawsuit “Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Center Company, L.P.” Experts working in connection with engineering firms Ove Arup & Partners (Arup) and Guy Nordenson and Associates (Nordenson) were retained by the plaintiffs. The engineering firm Weidlinger Associates Inc. (Weidlinger) was retained by the defendants. After evaluating NIST’s collapse initiation hypothesis, we reviewed the Arup, Nordenson, and Weidlinger reports and found the following: it is actually not extraordinary at all, office fires can easily get well over 1100*C if they are allowed to get fully inflamed and if the fireproof cladding is damaged from, say, a debris strike... i guess that fact is inconvenient for the conclusion the authors have been paid to discover so we just skip right past that without comment in this passage anyway yeah it's not just one report this report is trying to disagree with, but three of them, and its just using a ton of words to say "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" which is of course a cliche of irrational, blinkered thought, and then the conclusion at the end is just a wink-nod "we don't know what happened, but all of the columns must have simultaneously moved" because if they actually said "it was controlled demolition" any last bit of plausibility would be gone
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:I mean there are also publicly available memos from Rumsfeld pretty much the day of the attacks indicating he was looking for angles to tie 9/11 to Iraq. Now don't get me wrong, none of this constitutes evidence really, but it certainly does establish potential motive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 11:57
|
|
|
9/11 as an inside job to invade Iraq is really gold when there was, in fact, a whole bullshit conspiracy casus belli made up anyway. I'm sure those WMDs will show up any day now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 12:26
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:9/11 as an inside job to invade Iraq is really gold when there was, in fact, a whole bullshit conspiracy casus belli made up anyway. The fact that they made up a reason to invade Iraq proves they also made up another different reason to invade Iraq. Nevermind that it makes no sense!
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:9/11 as an inside job to invade Iraq is really gold when there was, in fact, a whole bullshit conspiracy casus belli made up anyway. For what it's worth, the hysteria about WMDs in the leadup to Iraq was no doubt augmented, if not directly by 9/11, then by the anthrax attacks that took place in its immediate aftermath. the threat of anthrax was arguably just as large as 9/11 itself in the minds of americans at the time
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
the anthrax attacks are also extremely suspicious based on a cursory glance of the evidence.
lurker2006 fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Sep 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
however, based on a deeper glance of the evidence, it is all pretty clearly laid out
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 01:20
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:however, based on a deeper glance of the evidence, it is all pretty clearly laid out (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 30, 2021 02:57
|
|
|
Wild that there are 911 truther goons in tool 2022. Genuinely surprised.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 05:17
|
|
|
there are always going to be truther goons. conspiracy theories and a lot of other extremely radical politics like the Big Lie are sourced mostly in a person feeling powerless in some way, and discarding whatever capacity they have for critical thought (if they have any) in favor of some narrative which feels good and empowering. you can't debunk it because you can't take away someone's emotional security blanket that only they know the real truth and everyone else is just a brainwashed sheep. like antivax bullshit isn't really about fear of science in most cases, its someone barking about what a badass rebel they are in about the tamest, safest way possible, because for whatever reason they really want everyone to know how extremely hardcore they are to fight the power like this so essentially, truthers are just emotionally vulnerable people looking for relief, and if i know goons, well...
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 06:03
|
|
|
How about this? 9\11 exposed the incompetence of the intelligence community, and all the "loose change, the CIA and the Mossad actually blew up the twin towers themselves" conspiracy theories were manufactured is a way to distract from the sheer scope of failure that absolutely no one was punished for. Better to be seen as sinister masterminds than bumbling capitalist stooges.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2022 11:04
|
|
|
Since this thread last came up I have actually shacked up and got engaged with a flight attendant which makes the whole 9/11 conspiracy stuff even more absurd. I know where she flies to every day, I know what days she has to spend the night away from home, I know most of the flight numbers because we work at the same dang airport. If one of her flights was reported crashed into a building, I would notice she never came home. I'd flip the gently caress out and demand answers, actually. Presumably the hundreds of passengers and crew on the 9/11 flights also had family and loved ones. Why the gently caress go through all the shenanigans with hijacking and/or slaughtering the people and then shooting a cruise missile? The giant CIA/Mossad coverup could just set up the controlled demolitions and go "terrorists set bombs."
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 13:29
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Since this thread last came up I have actually shacked up and got engaged with a flight attendant which makes the whole 9/11 conspiracy stuff even more absurd. I know where she flies to every day, I know what days she has to spend the night away from home, I know most of the flight numbers because we work at the same dang airport. If one of her flights was reported crashed into a building, I would notice she never came home. I'd flip the gently caress out and demand answers, actually. I really truly think some people never fully internalized that the whole world actually exists. Like the world exists from their perspective and they can conceptualize in a factual way other stuff does exist but it's not really part of their worldview. Like the way a tv show about a highschool will nominally have other kids other than the cast, but not really. I think right wing 4chan types verbalize the NPC idea but I think a lot of people secretly think it in a passive way, I think maybe it's one of the cognitive bias things everyone sometimes slips into at least some, but I think some people just never realize to think people on the plane don't just exist in a vacuum, the hearer only knows that one story about them so that is all the story that exists to them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:It's Jr who Qanons think couldn't have been taken down by a plane crash. JFK Jr was killed by George Bush Jr, like poetry
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2022 00:29
|
|
|
Mr. Fall Down Terror posted:just for laffs i went back through the AE9/11T sponsored report and saw that they breifly addressed two other structural engineering reports, created for both sides of a lawsuit around the collapse of WTC 7, both of which also found that fire was essential to the collapse of the structure Oh man those guys really do love their bad faith readings on WTC 7. Modern tall buildings are required to have sprinkler systems and a whole bevy of other stuff installed that compartmentalizes the fire so that it doesn't spread much. Compartmentalization combined with sprinklers are basically the bedrock of modern building protection nowadays because they're very useful in keeping the fire from reaching flashover (which can give you very high temperatures because your whole room is filled with ultrahot smoke). However, if you have no water to your sprinklers, a MASSIVE source of radiation and embers pelting the side of your building, and multiple buildings that just got hit by a plane.......traditional assumptions about fire spread go out the window really loving quickly because your whole building is on fire. For 7 hours straight. On 25% of your floors. Firefighting was largely not fighting fires inside the building because the occupants evacuated when the planes hit, before the building caught fire, which also contributed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2022 22:47
|
|
|
I was initially suspicious about how quickly they identified all 19 hijackers. Upon seeing the list of passengers, it was obviously a list every Muslim-sounding name on the flights.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Just got back from NYC for my honeymoon last week. Went to the WTC and found it a very very emotional experience. Although the merchandise stands are a bit jarring and perfect examples of American obsession with capitalism, I otherwise found it a solemn site. I noted there were posts with signs listing rules for the area, especially regarding public address. Has any 9/11 truther been able to break these rules and get themselves into trouble spouting these theories at the site for wider attention?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2022 20:07
|
|
