[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Lol no, Deuces has been telling us that the towers collapsing under their own weight due to the airplane strike/fires defies the laws of physics we learn in high school. You'll have to ask him which ones. And Playbig kindly pointed out that the towers turned into fountains of dust, which is indicative of a directed energy weapon. So, controlled demolition or space lasers, yo.

Bad faith? I'm the avatar of good faith internet debate. Did I not start tearing into your weak ass wikipedia links? Understand that I've been debating this stuff for years now. What you're doing is not serious. Your asking me to grade a paper but consider and properly weigh that the writer has Down's Syndrome. I really don't know how to even do that.

It's kinda like with the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing report on Russia and Trump collusion. It's a hefty report. There is nothing in it that established any prosecutorial basis whatsoever. And it's like you guys keep citing the report and I'm like ok, I've read the report, show me where it establishes X. Crickets, then accusations that I'm ignoring evidence.

I will give you guys credit in that you have to be trolling me and I honestly can't be sure. Like you swear, convincingly, that there is evidence in these things to which you point. And I'm like Charlie Brown over here trying kick the football. But then I go back to thinking you just don't understand the difference between evidence and inferences or assertions.

I get even get you to understand that if there was any evidence in the Senate Committee report or the Wikipedia article that prosecutions would follow. So you shouldn't even have to go out and look for the evidence. We know it doesn't exist because of the reactions of prosecutors.

The outcome space looks like controlled demolition of some kind, the sheeple idea which is (unknowingly to you) referred to as the natural collapse hypothesis via fire, and I would add the possibility of some kind of damage being done which is by known mechanism but which wasn't controlled demolition. Had it not been for WTC7, I would have chalked up the collapse of the twins to some kind of wave like damage propagated by the plane impacts. But the similarities between the collapses of the skyscrapers hit by planes and the one which wasn't further suggest they went down via the same mechanism. And if they all went down by the same collapse mechanism, then they were controlled down.

I mean, we have to be constrained by the principle that super unlikely events don't happen. Otherwise we can just make up whatever we want and just go in circles.

Even his response is non committal and doesn’t provide his own alternate theory.

Plus, doesn’t outcome space refer to all the possible outcomes of a probability event? He does not appear to use that term correctly.

Deuces, you are a bad faith, lying POS clown who routinely ignores the responses to your posts and hand waves away any legitimate criticism of your positions. I know you are deluded enough to think you don't do this, but you do, and I'm far from the only person who thinks that.

For that reason, hell will freeze over before I waste any time responding to the merits of anything you have to say.

You forgot that playbig also believes airplanes can't land or crash into the ground because of the laws of physics.

Most of the stuff he says in an attempt to sound smart is total bullshit. He's an adult version of the kid who wrote an essay for his English homework then ran every other word through a thesaurus.

I have never heard the term being used to describe “one” or the “most likely” probability.

It's not a term I've heard before. I think the outcome space is that he confused it for "sample space", although that wouldn't make sense in context. But I agree that common sense would dictate it means "the set of all possible outcomes, regardless of likelihood".

If a crime happens but most of the evidence is swept away it can be the case that any practical opportunity to find out what happened was swept away with it. Do you dispute this? We have some knowledge of some of what happened. None of what we are told happened beyond what we saw makes much sense or is believable. It fails to account for the observations. The buildings were controlled down, the planes were a ruse. I think that is the main limit of our knowledge wrt to the fallen buildings.

There is also the issue of foreknowledge of the attacks which is demonstrated by investments which clearly knew what was about to happen. There has been peer reviewed research demonstrating this. It wasn't just the put options in the U.S. There was a global investment push to take advantage. The 9/11 commission supposedly traced the activity to California and then, in the typical sheeple circle logic, said that since the source wasn't in any way associated with AQ the source was innocent.

If I could dig up that quote for you would you at least admit that that logic is invalid? Can we agree on anything or are you terrified of agreeing to anything because then you might be put into some logic chokehold?

So you were told some lesson once about how fancy or less commonly used words were often used to create the impression of intelligence in order to mask a lack of substance. Eventually you lost sight of the nuance in the word "sometimes" and now every time you hear a word used by people who actually read books it sets of a trigger in your mind that someone is "trying to sound smart" and you get all butthurt.

Is this related to you not being able to read a few paragraphs without going into paroxysms?

What did your daddy do? Was he a coal miner? Did he grab you buy the collar and jerk you around every time you tried to use one of them "fancy dictionary words" around him? Did he throw all you novels in the trash while asking "you think your better than me???".

D2 has read the dictionary cover to cover multiple times so his vocabulary is massive and he takes pride it

If he sees someone using obscure words he feels threatened. It's classic Freudian gatekeeping.

I have a larger vocabulary than you, you little sesquipedalian donkey. I just choose words that fit; you choose words that think will impress your readers. Other than Playbig, I can't imagine anyone else here being particularly impressed.

Despite his best efforts, Deuces has yet to use any words I don't know, so I daresay I'm feeling pretty safe. Also, none of the words he uses are particularly obscure.

My point (which our resident analytical reasoning genius of course totally missed) was an analogy between him making up technical-sounding terms like "outcome space," which don't even make sense in context, and the kid using a thesaurus for every other word in his essay homework. Both are laughably feeble attempts to sound more erudite than they really are, and are completely transparent to their intended audience.

Congratulations. But like the song from The Color of Money says, it's in the way that you use it. You just don't have much that is interesting to say. You use insults the way you accuse me of using fancy words except you're trying to sound witty. The record would show that I don't actually use fancy words and also show the typical inaccuracy of your claims.

Back to the reading comprehension issue you seem to be having on a regular basis. I have criticised you numerous of times for rambling, bloviating, going off on tangents and just generally loving the sound of your own voice. I might have also mentioned on occasion that you have a fondness for the thesaurus, but neither your vocabulary nor its deployment has ever been my main criticism of your style. So your claim that I have "accused you of using fancy words" has about as much supporting evidence as your theories about 9/11.

As an aside, since we're psychoanalysing each others' upbringings now, I suspect you didn't receive much attention as a child, since every single one of your posts screams "look at me" in both form and content.

Finally, the difference between my trying to be witty and your trying to sound smart is that I am successful in my endeavours.

So are you saying I am consulting the thesaurus for some other purpose than using fancy words? This is the latest charge of that, but there were several others:

Story does not check out D2. It never does with you.

If I was trying to get attention I would be writing short, instigating posts in like what one might call...let me get my thesaurus...ah yes...an IkesToysian style of posting. I write longer posts because I'm more interested in substance and not so much on making it easy for people to engage with me.

Have you ever given a thought to sounding sane? being successful in that? because you're not. I've suggested that the planes ramming into the towers were remote controlled by GPS and I sounds more sane than you.

So do you hold the opinion that that we landed on the moon in 1969 with 1969 technology?

Playbig?

I so believe. What would really be the motive of even faking it? The Russians are supposed to quake in their boots because we made snow angels in moon dust? We already had nukes pointed at each other. As an intimidation move that would be like trying to make someone flinch while you already have a gun pointed at their head.

Holy ****. I explained that post literally not half a dozen posts above for the benefit of the hard of thinking, it was a ****ing analogy:

Additionally, I've mentioned your use of a thesaurus maybe a couple of times ITT, I've mentioned your bloviating, grandiloquent style probably over a dozen. What exactly doesn't check out, you bad faith waste of skin?

Exceptionally obtuse posting like this is one of the reasons you are impossible to deal with.

What part was unclear? I try to be witty and I am witty. You try and sound smart and you sound dumb. Your inability to parse basic sentences really is quite something.

What's clear is that you're an emotionally unhinged person. I tell you that you sound crazy and you retort as though I said I was confused about something and then start more spattering about my intelligence. It's like ok, we get it. You've alerted everyone that I'm not smart and I only pretend to be by my "grandiloquent" writing. Your frenzied concern that no one mistakenly confuse me as intelligent have been registered by now.

But can you say anything that's not beside the point? Do you think that court cases are decided based on IQ tests of the lawyers or something? You're constantly trying to make this about me instead of the topic at hand. I think most people here would recognize that as revealing a weak position. In this forum some people have been watching politicians try to pull off that trick since Nixon.

It's also obvious you have a great deal of insecurity about your intelligence. I'll give you a tip that can help, although I doubt you can accept it from me: You don't have to be as smart as your opposition if you're on the right side of an issue. Have you ever played chess? In chess, black is at a disadvantage because of how the board is structured. This disadvantage is accounted for in the scheduling of matches. When you uncritically believe every budget embiggening assertion made by the CIA and try to defend it, it's like playing the black pieces in chess. You're putting yourself at a disadvantage.

Back to our little reading comprehension problem I see. I have told you multiple times that I will no longer engage you on the merits of your 9/11 arguments because you are a lying clown who is either unable or unwilling to participate in a good faith discussion. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat this before it sinks in. You had your chance, you blew it.