Israel was behind 9/11

[pdub]

you're grasping at straws.

I've made a strong case. Disprove my arguments. You haven't.

A building can fall like that.
The five dancing Isrealis was happenstance.
People heard explosions but it was from the fires within the buildings.

Disprove MY arguments.
You can't.

[Deleted User 104]

"A building can fall like that."

Reposting because you missed it or ignored it.

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/article ... 6-47-4.pdf

"Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? "

Could happen, but you're arguing a one in a billion chance when you argue that fires brought three buildings down on the same day.

"The five dancing Isrealis was happenstance."

No, you're just being lazy in looking at what I presented.

"People heard explosions but it was from the fires within the buildings."

Where is the evidence for this? There is none. Just a story that NIST came up with.

[japhy]

A Science Journal that argues against the NIST claims.

https://www.europhysicsnews.org/article ... 6-47-4.pdf

"Conclusion
It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities."

"A Science Journal that argues against the NIST claims", did they really? The disclaimer at the front of the article says, "nope, not ours".................................NOTE FROM THE EDITORS
This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors.

[DrPepper]

Lobs, that is not a science journal. That is a society magazine. The “news” in it is written by volunteers. (You can verify my first two sentences by looking at the left column of page 4). The article you are surely referencing (pg21) literally has a 9/11 conspiracy nut job as the final author (check his affiliation under the title and read is short bio on page 26). I don’t expect laypeople to know the significance of the last author. I didn’t look it up, but safe to assume that is not a peer-reviewed article in the sense that scientists use the term “peer-reviewed.”
It is great to keep an open mind and for people to make their own judgements. The caveat is that people need to know what they know and have multiple reliable sources.
There. I rebuked something and provided page numbers for you.

[Deleted User 104]

You can try to discredit because it wasn't "peer reviewed", so here's one that is. We should be considering the content over the source. The NIST reports contain factually incorrect information, so I cannot give credit to those.

Peer Reviewed example challenging 911:
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/htm

[DrPepper]

We should be considering the content over the source.

Why?

[Deleted User 104]

We should be considering the content over the source.

Why?

You're asking why we should follow logical arguments and scientific evidence over authority?

Here's another really good video that challenges NIST and other sources:

[PhDhawk]

you're grasping at straws.

I've made a strong case. Disprove my arguments. You haven't.

I can't argue against body language evaluations.

[DrPepper]

MDPI is a company capitalizing on government requirements for open access. There is nothing wrong with that, but I note their submissions have literally tripled in the last 3 years.

I don’t have time for this. You said:
“Peer Reviewed example challenging 911:
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/htm”

The journal you cited is literally called “Publications.” It is not a journal dealing with structural engineering or anything remotely close to that. It was only recently added to SCOPUS. It does not challenge 9/11 like you claim it does.

I tried to engage you, but Im just not going to use YouTube as a source nor waste more of my time when you make so many errors. I have a life to live, love to give, and hair that needs shortened tonight.

[japhy]

You can try to discredit because it wasn't "peer reviewed", so here's one that is. We should be considering the content over the source. The NIST reports contain factually incorrect information, so I cannot give credit to those.

Peer Reviewed example challenging 911:
https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/5/2/16/htm

Are you DC's sock? At least you are making me laugh so in spite of my getting hooked, nice work DC.

"Abstract: Beginning with an historical reminiscence, this paper examines the peer review process as experienced by authors currently seeking publication of their research in a highly controversial area. A case study of research into the events of 9/11 (11 September 2001) illustrates some of the problems in peer review arising from undue influences based on financial and political considerations."

In other words it is not a peer reviewed challenge to the NIST or SEI or ASCE reports. It is a peer reviewed whiny diatribe by a non-engineer about the peer review process and his specific complaints about bias being the reason why his articles aren't published in peer reviewed engineering journals.

But for the record, it was peer reviewed. And definitely consider "the content" if you want a laugh.

My question is what would the CV for the peer reviewer for this "article" look like. Do they also have to be a whiny non-engineer who can't get their rants published in peer reviewed professional engineering journals? Maybe an accountant who can't get their medical article on neurotransmitters published in a peer reviewed medical journal?

Maybe, just maybe, the accountant didn't get his article in the Journal because he doesn't know medicine.

Nah, it was probably just doctors who don't want to be shown up by an accountant who knows more about the brain than they do.

[Shirley]

"Nah, it was probably just doctors who don't want to be shown up by an accountant who knows more about the brain than they do."

^^^

[chiknbut]

I feel bad/sad for lobs. Still a good dude.

I feel bad/sad for many of you as well. Good people, but just poorly instructed on how to evaluate and think critically.

Lobs, you're a Party of 1. Everyone else is making fun of you and, yes, exposing your arguments. Nothing you have posted has not been shut down by several people on this board. Hell, Japhy is fucking eating your breakfast, lunch, dinner and late-night snack.

You're like the guy at the poker table who can't figure out who the sucker is.

[Deleted User 89]

I feel bad/sad for lobs. Still a good dude.

I feel bad/sad for many of you as well. Good people, but just poorly instructed on how to evaluate and think critically.

lulz

[defixione]

I feel bad/sad for lobs. Still a good dude.

I feel bad/sad for many of you as well. Good people, but just poorly instructed on how to evaluate and think critically.

Lobs, you're a Party of 1. Everyone else is making fun of you and, yes, exposing your arguments. Nothing you have posted has not been shut down by several people on this board. Hell, Japhy is fucking eating your breakfast, lunch, dinner and late-night snack.

You're like the guy at the poker table who can't figure out who the sucker is.

Dunning-Krueger

[chiknbut]

People said the same thing when I told them the weapons of mass destruction were a lie. Some of us can see through the b.s. better than others.

Lobs, there were a lot of people on this board alone, who doubted the Weapons of Mass Destruction thing. I would guess at least 35 percent of the country doubted the WMDs. You might even remember when Colin Powell floundered while addressing the UN to the point that even fewer people were convinced of the WMDs.

This wasn't anything you were privy to. You were not out on a limb. Sorry.

[Deleted User 104]

I feel bad/sad for lobs. Still a good dude.

I feel bad/sad for many of you as well. Good people, but just poorly instructed on how to evaluate and think critically.

Lobs, you're a Party of 1. Everyone else is making fun of you and, yes, exposing your arguments. Nothing you have posted has not been shut down by several people on this board. Hell, Japhy is fucking eating your breakfast, lunch, dinner and late-night snack.

You're like the guy at the poker table who can't figure out who the sucker is.

The numbers of people who agree have nothing to do with whether something is valid. Lots of people believed in Hitler too. I knew this would be an uphill battle, but I at the very least, have created some cognitive dissonance in people's minds about what really happened. If people want to continue to reject reality, well, they're idiots.

I was the "party of 1" back in 2002 as well when I argued against the War in Iraq. I've exposed most of the "evidence" people have presented against my arguments, but most are either too lazy to actually watch/read what I posted or just not intelligent enough to understand it. Paul1 and Tdub are the only two on here who have some intellectual honesty in questioning the government's story. I hope they will both continue to be curious and research. Sadly though, most of the others on here fall into the lemming category, including you. Given that you're a male feminist, it isn't surprising to me.

[Mjl]

Getting a post in here just so my name's there when this goes to the hof.

I thought 911 was the one thing that the Jews weren't falsely blamed for. Guess I was wrong.

Lobs - just because you don't read or don't understand the rebuttals doesn't mean you haven't been rebutted.

[Deleted User 104]

Getting a post in here just so my name's there when this goes to the hof.

I thought 911 was the one thing that the Jews weren't falsely blamed for. Guess I was wrong.

Lobs - just because you don't read or don't understand the rebuttals doesn't mean you haven't been rebutted.

Tell me what I've "not understood".

[Deleted User 104]

Another good source for those with curiosity.

[japhy]

People said the same thing when I told them the weapons of mass destruction were a lie. Some of us can see through the b.s. better than others.

Lobs, there were a lot of people on this board alone, who doubted the Weapons of Mass Destruction thing. I would guess at least 35 percent of the country doubted the WMDs. You might even remember when Colin Powell floundered while addressing the UN to the point that even fewer people were convinced of the WMDs.

This wasn't anything you were privy to. You were not out on a limb. Sorry.

You are a male feminist; boom, completely and unsurprisingly rebutted.