>>12017588>>12017606>Basically all their knowledge is from how things work in perfectly controlled lavatory conditions, is what I mentOk, I'm as guilty as thinking up theories on the shitter as the next physicist, but at the same time, we can't pretend that the official theory of how it happened is holy scripture.
In any scientific procedure, we have back and forth, and a lot of criticism can be made, but this is political, so any deviation from the accepted story is not treated scientifically. It's only "rebutted" with someone saying "oh but they found in the report that it happened this way" while that person has almost certainly not read the report either, and is only deferring to an assumed authority.
This is not to mention that since we don't have much experience with world trade centres being hit by planes, we're going to be doing a large amount of work via numerical simulations. But again, as anyone else who's done numerical work knows, the underlying assumptions are critical, and the underlying assumptions should also be valid targets of debate. Again, this is political, so cannot be done.
I'm not arguing in favour of any one 9/11 theory, but what I am saying is to say that the NIST report is the final word is a huge departure from any kind of scientific conduct, but that is only what we do because to do otherwise would threaten the political consensus. This doesn't actually mean that there aren't reasonable objections about the logic of the official story, or that the NIST report itself should be considered fact.
