I'd also point out that the peer review NIST went through is vastly more transparent than anything you're going to see in a major journal, which would typically have 3-5 anonymous reviewers submitting anonymous feedback. Here we've got dozens of named independent subject matter experts publicly providing feedback on the draft versions of the report.

Of course, it's all a bit silly, if you think the whole thing was a massive conspiracy, there's no reason these peer reviewers wouldn't also be in on the conspiracy. Deuces doesn't actually give a rip if the NIST report was subject to review or not, he's just tossing out important-sounding phrases as a kind of magical talisman.

Trolly, why do you hate truth so much? You must be afraid your boss will fire you if you just admit the truth, yes, that must be it. See, if you just lived in your car like Deuces, you wouldn't have these problems.

FTR they all worked for an engineering firm deriving most of its revenue from govt defense contracts and were contracted to help NIST with the paper. if that makes them "fully independent" our models of the world differ

Well fine, by that standard practically every mathematician or high energy physicist "works for the government either through the NSF, DOD, DOE etc. I'm just treating the NIST 9/11 report as I would any other large government funded research. If you want to single it out politically, that's up to you. But we have others pretending like there are basic flaws anyone with a decent physics background should be able to spot while not being able to name them

I literally worked for the government in my past so I guess I hate the truth.

The NIST report was not written by one member of NIST. Your counter example is not analogous. This was in institutional undertaking and, to my understanding, an institution publishing it's own output totally sidesteps the peer review process. I'm happy to end the discussion of peer review and the NIST report here. You think peer review can include an institution publishing it's own paper. You probably also think you can become a notary public and notarize all your own documents because that is the level of logic you are using.

ecriture "I am my own peer" d'adulte

No as time goes on the CTs diverge more wildly. I don't know how to help you. Everything you are saying is the opposite of what is plainly observable, and I think I am making you dumber by inducing you to keep justifying your ignorance.

I'm just about done talking to you Trolly because you just don't respond to arguments that you know hurt your points. That's not really debating. It's not challenging. It's just trolling. And, yeah - shame on me - it's right in your name. NIST has never divulged how it came to the conclusions it did. That is not transparency. That would never fly in peer review, not that NIST even complied with peer review other than this aspect.

Plus I feel like you are setting me up for the ultimate troll. When the masters of mankind give you permission to realize AQ didn't do 9/11 you are going to execute the ultimate troll and say you've been saying that the whole time. And that will actually make me mad.

People understand how to conform to institutional objectives. They understand what will happen if they don't. Right now, for example, thousands of people in government are actively complicit in a genocide, an ethnic genocide involving the inhuman murder of tens of thousands of innocent people. Are they all "in on it"? A few people have objected and been fired or quit. One guy strongly objected and set himself on fire. But what do most people, 99.99999% of all people do? They align themselves with the program, whatever that is.

The day of the attacks they were characterized by multiple authority figures as acts of war in an obviously coordinated propaganda effort. Acts of war are not so much thought of as crimes, and initially there was no investigation into the collapse of the towers before outcry from the victim's families forced the government's hand. So even before the NIST investigation began there was already a strong signal that our war policy was set, along with the narrative. By the time NIST was making whatever you want to call its output, we were at actual war with Iraq and at war with "radical Islam". Exploring a demolition hypothesis was off the table, clearly. This was justified by NIST just ignoring most evidence of explosions and also setting the bar for acceptable audio evidence as that registering as loudly as the loudest type of demolition charges. It was never required for NIST to be "in on it" to just view the optics of the situation and figure out what their bosses wanted them to do.

Yes, your understanding of peer review is poor. Because you never actually read or are able to understand scientific articles you think the 9/11 report is remarkable but it's not. Here are a ton of boring NIST technical notes, published in a NIST journal. Any scientist would consider these peer reviewed and it has nothing to do with 9/11.

I understand you want to change the subject. That's how truther style threads work. We talk about something until it's obvious to everyone the conspiracy theory dude doesn't understand the basics of just the peripherals, even ignoring the main subject. So then the subject gets changed so you don't have to admit ignorance or actually learn anything. That's how you stay a truther.

Guys, how can you claim that Deuces doesn't admit when he's wrong? Look, he even admitted he used a word incorrectly once. That's once in 13 years of posting here, more than anyone else. Oh, and he's also the paragon of modesty and humility, if he says so himself.

****ing stable genius ITT.

You're done because you have absolutely nothing. It's obvious to everyone --even you-- that NIST did indeed subject their findings to a rigorous peer review process as any fool can confirm for themselves (link). Now that you've been caught lying, all you've got to fall back on are personal attacks and blather.

Just writing some words doesn't make what you're saying true dude. The current over-arching conspiracy narrative wrt covid/the vax is very much the same from person to person overall. Pointing out what amounts to some handfuls of outliers doesn't change that and that's just reality. And--the vast majority are not bringing any original thought to the table they're all just parroting what they've read/been fed from elsewhere.

Just like the maui fires--dew, the children, landgrab etc And most other conspiracies--before they eventually wrap back into the Big Conspiracy(one-world govt/the jooz etc). Which is also why a solid chunk of people that are paying attention can pretty reliably predict what people like pbnj2k are going to post before they even do

Since you seem like a super informed all-around hotshot--where do you think most conspiracies come from? Try to include some original thinking if possible.

You are lashing out with personal attacks because you've been exposed as someone who thinks an institution can peer review itself, furthermore that an institution can not disclose how it came to it's conclusions (as NIST has not) and then peer review itself. It's not that I want to change the subject. If you look at my posting I will go on for weeks talking about the same thing. It's just that we have reached a point where I am more than satisfied that your argument is exposed as laughable.

The model inputs were never released. Peer review is therefore not possible because there is insufficient information for a peer review. I think a child could understand this, and I think you understand this perfectly well. You think I'm trivial because I don't agree with the government's conspiracy theory. You put your guard down and now you said something extremely ignorant. No need to go further on this. It would be better for you if you just retracted your statements and said you were sick or something. Kanye is using the "my dentist plied me with laughing gas" excuse for his boneheaded lapses so that one is taken.

You are saying that NIST can peer review itself without even releasing the methods it used to draw it's conclusions. That right there identifies you as unserious. You like to be unserious, then drop little hints that you are a scientist. I don't know what you do but you don't know what peer review is, how it is administered or what the point is.

You are basically like a kid who started imitating Beavis and Butthead but did so for so long that it became their actual personality. Now when you try to be serious you are just lost.

I get your tone because I've read your posts for over 10 years and enjoy reading your opinions and theories on different matters. Generally speaking, i think there is plenty of shady **** that's gone on with the US govt and there has been multiple instances where I've said to myself that I thought you are likely correct on the matter, at least in my opinion.

But personally, I'd strongly disagree that the collapse of wtc 7 was caused by anything other than what NIST has stated.

Ok what is the "over-arching conspiracy narrative" wrt covid?

Or, to play my trump card here, consider JFK conspiracy theories. Do you have any idea how fractured the JFK conspiracy cranks are? There are so many different operators and motives and levels of institutional involvement it would be a project just to catalogue them.

You are just so flat wrong here. All you have to do is browse social media and casually, over time, note the popularity of all these different conspiracy theories to know that there are always a wide array and that they start to splinter off into even more like a damn fractal.


They can originate anywhere, from elites or from the lower classes. They are going to be influenced from the political culture of a given time, and that culture is influenced by the material conditions of that time. During times of rapid change conspiracy theories seem to be more popular as people are confused and trying to figure out why things are changing the way they are and who is responsible. In American history there was even a whole political party formed in opposition to the belief that free masons were controlling all institutions in society. People in the North thought the Masons were the reason they were being forced into factories and being made miserable. Or fast forward to the late 70s when wages started to stagnate. People were looking for who was doing that to them and when Bush started talking about a "new world order" that was like dropping a match on conspiratorial kindle.

Elites also craft conspiracy narratives, not to explain the world but to bend it their way. So when Hillary didn't win the election she helped set in motion the Russiagate conspiracy theory. Somebody had to be at fault and it sure wasn't her, so charming and lovable like she is. Or when the security state forbid media outlets from reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop story citing a conspiracy theory that it was Russian disinformation, that was an attempt to control, not explain.

Can you cite that the model inputs were never released.

How is it an attack? You said some stuff according to your understanding that was inaccurate and I pointed that out. I do think I had wrong link in the last post. Here is a link to NIST technical notes that are published by NIST and considered peer reviewed by the scientific community.

https://www.nist.gov/system/files/do.../iflapaper.pdf

You don't seem very knowledgeable about the review and publication process in scientific fields which is fine, most people aren't. If you want to say they are not peer reviewed and a child could understand why, that's also fine. I'm just pointing out the scientific community disagrees with you and this has nothing to do with 9/11. Though obviously you're making up your view on the spot to support a 9/11 conspiracy and not the boring peer reviewed NIST publications I linked which presumably you think are not peer reviewed. If you purposefully have a completely idiosyncratic view of what constitutes peer review that is different from the scientific community, you should have just said so. But to do that you would have had to have a better understand of this subject going in.

I don't feel like typing the covid stuff it's too frigging boring tbh. But you know as well as I that almost every single one is grabbing from the same small basket of options they were fed. There really aren't some massively different competing camps.

Ya, I still watch jfk stuff. About to watch a podcast right now actually Sure there are lots of different little things people dig into(you need to find a niche to service if you want to make some cash off of morons after all it's an industry of its own)--but the Vast majority of people fall into the cia/lbj with some mafia sprinkled in for many camp all essentially working together. That's kind of a terrible trump card to demonstrate the point. Finding a few cranks who go for the cuba/russia/shot from the ss guy etc stuff or pointing out some differences in possible other shooters/locations that still fall within the main story is not the kill shot you seem to think it is.

That's wild you think Hillary fooled the R party into agreeing with her and issuing warrants on russian soldiers lol I was hoping for something a little more insightful&adventurous not a phone it in--the masons? Whatever I'm kind of a softy C. Consider yourself lucky because I could've easily dropped an F for using bush/hillary as your only real top of the food chain examples

At least you are aware that a serious study has been done which says otherwise and you've familiarized yourself with that study. You are aware (even without citations because if you follow my posting you know I don't bullshit) of some of the egregiously faulty assumptions made by NIST in their model. You are also aware of the tremendous political pressure exerted on all institutions connected to government to support the war narrative.

If you know all that and still think the NIST report is valid then, while I certainly don't know what you are thinking, at least it looks like at least you are thinking.

It was sparked by Hillary but some in the security state ran with it. You don't know Russisgate is totally debunked conspiracy nonsense?

Here is an article in the Columbia Journalism Review saying it is. But don't let, like, information affect how you feel. You're always right about everything.

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/t...ent-part-1.php

d2 is the resident prover of negatives. Maybe he will go through the effort of posting a link to the report.

I am, but I feel that after showing that you're not particularly intelligent, not very well informed, not capable of onboarding criticism, not at all witty or charismatic, and generally not a very good poster, I've probably proved enough.

Did you actually read it? I wouldn't call it a thorough thrashing--it's fairly open-ended on some key points. It reads more like a post-game run-down than a debunking. How did you land on this as your trusted source? I'm curious.

Never claimed to be right about everything or even close to it lol so don't get too far out there over your skis bud. As far as conspiracies go--there's way more meat on the bone to get going with the Russia thing than there was with QAnon for example.

Why would anyone waste their time trying to explain peer review and publication standards to a conspiracy theorist? You may as well come over to my place and teach long division to my Labradors. They won't get it either but at least they're smart for their species.