|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
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
|
|