Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
Using the fact that an astrophysicist didn't debunk 9/11 claims to support the idea of a conspiracy is certainly not a take I've heard before.
If you mean Tyson he is really more of a public intellectual than merely an astrophysicist. He is known as a very good communicator (personally I think that is well deserved). He talks about a range of scientific and technical issues affecting public policy. He was actually in New York and witnessed the immediate impacts of the planes striking the buildings. You really can't get more in someone's wheelhouse than Tyson and 9/11 controversy. Like if a huge asteroid was charting a path directly towards earth that would be more in his wheelhouse, but that's about it.
It's not just him not having a take. It's the reactions of scientists when asked about it. They almost all shut down the conversation with something like "it was a tragic terrorist attack and that's what we know". No one seems to want to sign off on this bizarre theory of mere mild fires collapsing 3 huge skyscrapers. This also seems to go for engineers. The most cited work in favor of the official theory is still a paper by Bazant which was produced a few days after the attacks and ignores building 7. This guy had no data or anything, just sketching out how it happened via pure thought in a paper which is not peer reviewed. The U of Alaska research took years and gathered a lot of data. Bazant just said here whiff my farts and that is still the main support for the official story as far as I know (I don't pretend to know it all).
We live in an age of "I bet you thought that but haha it's really this". On other controversial topics there is ample technical and scientific research constantly presented and the standard of a way of gaining knowledge. Climate change is a good example. But we have reacted to 9/11 more consequentially than we have to climate change. Where is that gold standard of so called Western civilization to demonstrate the truth of this highly consequential claim? I think the absence is significant.