|
Some architect/engineer can probably do better than me, but as far as 6 goes, the empire state building is built in an entirely different way and the plane that hit it was entirely different in a number of important ways.
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2021 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
lurker2006 posted:Can you explain the video evidence and eye witness testimony of numerous explosions occurring out of sync with the planes, one occurring before they had even hit? Specifically eye witness testimony of an explosion in world trade center 7? This all sounds very compelling! I can't wait for you to post all of this evidence for people to see and understand.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:The thing that nags at me is that if 9/11 did happen as stated, Bush and co are the absolute luckiest fuckers of all time. They had put a reasonable degree of effort into planning a policy agenda that they knew would only work in the event of an almost unprecedented black swan like 9/11, and it loving happened not even a year into his first term. But I guess that's the kind of insane coincidence that defines how our world is shaped, which is the reality conspiracy theories try to avoid. What do you find compelling about this? What agenda?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Ouroboros posted:To establish a more aggressively maintained imperial frontier in the middle east / central asia to protect the petrodollar, further privatise the military and feed the MIC, expand executive power with through the unitary executive theory, basically give a raison d'etre to the idea of a global capitalist hegemon in the post cold war era (and of course both Iraq and Iran were considered unfinished business for Bush in particular). The start of the podcast I linked goes into it in a decent amount of detail, but there is a particularly eyebrow-raising quote from PNAC (project for a new american century, an influential neocon think tank) that essentially states that their goals would require something along the lines of "a new pearl harbour" to secure public consent in the short term. 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. None of those things were new or needed a "black swan" event. They are long term goals of the GOP that existed prior to the Bush admin. They were already in process. 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? How do you know that's what they have done, given your lack of background? Because it fits with what you want them to have done?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
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
|
|