[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff
KSM got a plea deal. The guy who supposedly masterminded the 9/11 attacks is not getting the death penalty.
If you still think that AQ did 9/11 you should be in adult day care.
I corrected a basic pop sci claim you made about Heisenberg. If you want to make another or broader claim, you can do so, but you were wrong on Heisenberg,
We know his claim - the Nazis pressured scientists, ergo no expert ever can be trusted as an authority on anything, except of course the guy from his conspiracy club stacking cardboard boxes to show how the towers collapsed.
Also, guys, have we looked into the Titanic sinking lately? They say an iceberg sunk it, but the Titanic was made of metal and an iceberg is made of ice, and anyone who has studied high school chemistry knows that metal is stronger than ice. The official story is laughable and it defies the basic laws of chemical calculus, how am I the first person to notice this? I feel so red-pilled right now.
Also I almost never break out my "I have a fancy science degree and I know things" card, but it's absurd to me that you wouldn't do some kind of mass spec on these paint chips if you thought there were some trace explosives in them. There's probably a bunch of other spectroscopy measurements I'm not thinking of that would be easy to do to give you real chemical structure. This is extremely basic ****.
Just doing DSC, saying, "yeah, it looks like military-grade explosives, weird" and not following that up suggests you're either the laziest graduate student on God's blue Earth or you really don't want to know what the mass spec is going to tell you.
Look, I spent ten seconds and found a review of all the tools they could have used to pin this down but didn't for reasons:
also, we all know from science of ice baths that icy water would never kill anyone
and when is the last time your ice cubes even sank a plastic straw, let alone a metal stirring rod?
I corrected a basic pop sci claim you made about Heisenberg. If you want to make another or broader claim, you can do so, but you were wrong on Heisenberg,
You claimed Heisenberg did want he wanted, but also said it was a fortuitous connection that saved him from the SS. What actually would have happened counterfactually is not my point. The point is that if Hitler proclaimed nuclear science as "Jew Science" as is the popular notion, the scientists would have been constrained by that ideology. There are countless examples of this right up to the present. Scientists and other experts do not, in their actions, rebel against powerful people in pursuit of truth. All they had to do was show Galileo the instruments of torture and he was like my bad yeah the Earth is definitely in the center of the universe.
With most experts you don't even have to go that far. You just show them one example of someone getting fired for going against the grain and they will all get on board with torture or whatever. Not to mention the way our system preselects heavily on conformity and purposefully conflates it with ability in order to groom experts who are, above all, obedient. The idea that some NIST engineer wouldn't be able to read the narrative being broadcast on every news every day and see instantly where he is to fit into that is beyond absurd.
Also, guys, have we looked into the Titanic sinking lately? They say an iceberg sunk it, but the Titanic was made of metal and an iceberg is made of ice, and anyone who has studied high school chemistry knows that metal is stronger than ice. The official story is laughable and it defies the basic laws of chemical calculus, how am I the first person to notice this? I feel so red-pilled right now.
We can find a lesson in the Titanic disaster in the parallels between the failure of experts under the constraints issued by those with more power. The shipbuilders who made the Titanic were the best in the world. They were perfectly capable of building a safe ship. However, business interests dominated the project and, for example, limited the number of safety boats carried by the ship in order to make the ship appear more safe and aesthetically pleasing. There were a lot of project management lapses in the building of the Titanic which contributed to its sinking, all top-down in origin. Such lapses were imposed by the business interests, but in other scenarios they can be imposed by political interests intentionally. The NIST report is an intentional failure with the failures baked into the project management.
You claimed Heisenberg did want he wanted, but also said it was a fortuitous connection that saved him from the SS. What actually would have happened counterfactually is not my point. The point is that if Hitler proclaimed nuclear science as "Jew Science" as is the popular notion, the scientists would have been constrained by that ideology. There are countless examples of this right up to the present. Scientists and other experts do not, in
You said Heisenberg "did what he was told". That is wrong. The Nazi's DID declare much of theoretical physics "Jewish", especially relativity. Heisenberg did not follow along. As far as I can tell, I don't see anything he wrote on physics being wrong due to politics or political pressure.
During the late 1930's Heisenberg came rather close to becoming a victim of Naziism. He was not Jewish, nor was he politically active. While Heisenberg was not a Nazi party member, he was definitely a German nationalist and he probably detested Communism even more than Naziism. The thing that got Heisenberg into potential trouble was that he thought extremely highly of Einstein's work on relativity, and he mentioned this in his classes. To the Nazis, Einstein was the human incarnation of the devil himself. Einstein's values of pacifism, equality, socialism, humanism, and of course, his being Jewish, was the very antithesis of the Nazi idea of a good society.
Heisenberg had a Professorship at the University of Leipzig, but he expressed interest in moving to Munich when a position opened up at the University there. However, he was passed over, and instead another person who was a dedicated Nazi but a second rate physicist was appointed.
If you want to talk about other stuff fine, but you are wrong on Heisenberg.
We can find a lesson in the Titanic disaster in the parallels between the failure of experts under the constraints issued by those with more power. The shipbuilders who made the Titanic were the best in the world. They were perfectly capable of building a safe ship. However, business interests dominated the project and, for example, limited the number of safety boats carried by the ship in order to make the ship appear more safe and aesthet
Excellent line of argument - the company that built Titanic took shortcuts with certain safety measures due to economic considerations and hubris (thinking the ship was unsinkable) therefore something something something NIST is in on the 9/11 conspiracy.
This professor who told you that you were good at logic, is he in the room with us now?
Feynmans's work reporting on the challanger disaster is the nuts on these things.
You claimed Heisenberg did want he wanted, but also said it was a fortuitous connection that saved him from the SS. What actually would have happened counterfactually is not my point.
Do you know what the word "counterfactually" means? Your point is exactly what "would have happened counterfactually" (i.e. if he was not connected, it would have affected his work), because it did not happen factually (i.e. he was connected, so it did not affect his work).
Your penchant for grandiloquent posturing makes you look even dumber than you would just on the merits of your claims when you start using words you don't understand.
Also I almost never break out my "I have a fancy science degree and I know things" card, but it's absurd to me that you wouldn't do some kind of mass spec on these paint chips if you thought there were some trace explosives in them.
It's been done by PhDs. It's been cited. It's been reproduced. The main objections have not been on the procedures but on the providence of the sample. So you basically have a say all these PhDs juiced their sample like they are just villains trying to spread chaos or something. It's been discussed thoroughly across the internet. A scientist in the Skeptics forum attempted to debunk it and abandoned the effort suddenly at a critical juncture. We don't need to go through all that yet again in this thread like we are creating some kind of new cultural ritual where I cite science and you cite propaganda and then we all go to Whole Foods or whatever. I'd prefer to talk about the case against KSM, documents we know exist but aren't released, Saudi involvement, tracking the finances, etc.
Gogorian posted some utter nonsense trying to support Bazan'ts thesis. That's your side's argument and I'm cool with that. You are clowns when it comes to physics because you believe the top portion of the towers can crush through the remainder with no resistance while massive amounts of material are being laterally ejected hundreds of feet from it. That's ultimately the impossibility you are endorsing and that is a satisfactory stopping point on that.
Where? Cite it. Show me. I've spent about a hot minute doing your work for you, I'm done giving out freebies.
So far what we have is a bold truth-telling prof who finds bombshell DSC evidence of some kind of energetic material, does zero follow-up, and publishes it in a crap journal.
It's not remotely credible; any grad student would immediately hit on the idea of sending it off for a mass spec analyses at their university or at a forensic lab that does this kind of thing routinely.
I
You are clowns when it comes to physics because you believe the top portion of the towers can crush through the remainder with no resistance while massive amounts of material are being laterally ejected hundreds of feet from it. That's ultimately the impossibility you are endorsing and that is a satisfactory stopping point on that.
Who says they "crush through the remainder with no resistance"? As the tower falls, the falling portion gains mass, even if massive amounts of material are being laterally ejected. If anything, this additional mass will crush the floors below it quicker, not slower, assuming each floor offers the same amount of resistance. So, basically, what Gorgonian said.
What in the actual **** are you talking about, you lunatic? If you are trying to make some argument about basic physics that is supposed to be self-evident, you have failed miserably.
I'm bored today, so imma go on some more:
The main objections have not been on the procedures but on the providence of the sample.
No, my main objection is that their evidence does not show what you claim it shows, even if we take it at face value. But the chain of custody is also a huge issue.
So you basically have a say all these PhDs juiced their sample like they are just villains trying to spread chaos or something.
Honestly, if this was a deliberate hoax they would have done a better job faking the evidence --we'd have faked mass spec results, for example. I think these guys are authentic cranks who are so driven by motivated thinking that they can't see how absurd their claims are.
Excellent line of argument - the company that built Titanic took shortcuts with certain safety measures due to economic considerations and hubris (thinking the ship was unsinkable) therefore something something something NIST is in on the 9/11 conspiracy.
This professor who told you that you were good at logic, is he in the room with us now?
Do you really not get the parallel between experts failing due to power dynamics? You weren't kidding with the request for bullet points. You can only consume the most stripped down content. How did you go to school? Did you have to sit in the back and have a simpleton translator there just for you? Like when the class was discussing the American revolution, causes, eruptions, outside considerations like the European wars etc, was there an adjunct instructor for you with just like hand puppets of America and England to simplify things for you?
Do you really not get the parallel between experts failing due to power dynamics? You weren't kidding with the request for bullet points. You can only consume the most stripped down content. How did you go to school? Did you have to sit in the back and have a simpleton translator there just for you? Like when the class was discussing the American revolution, causes, eruptions, outside considerations like the European wars etc, was there an
Lol donkey, the "power dynamics" you have described basically apply to every single project/undertaking in the history of the human race which involves more than one person. Your parallels are so broad you could literally apply them to every single endeavor ever undertaken, which makes your point spectacularly moronic.
Yes, professionals make mistakes. Amazing ****ing observation. The fact that you are then using this as a reason to claim that experts are therefore always unreliable (apart from those that support your case, of course, like the guy with his cardboard box model - you never did confirm whether he published his inputs, btw) is why I am laughing at you.
We can find a lesson in the Titanic disaster in the parallels between the failure of experts under the constraints issued by those with more power. The shipbuilders who made the Titanic were the best in the world. They were perfectly capable of building a safe ship. However, business interests dominated the project and, for example, limited the number of safety boats carried by the ship in order to make the ship appear more safe and aesthet
Was it top-down when the boat struck the iceberg?
With most experts you don't even have to go that far. You just show them one example of someone getting fired for going against the grain and they will all get on board with torture or whatever. Not to mention the way our system preselects heavily on conformity and purposefully conflates it with ability in order to groom experts who are, above all, obedient. The idea that some NIST engineer wouldn't be able to read the narrative being broad
What happens when you inevitably find yourself on the other side of something from the rebel scientists?
One cool thing about poker is it teaches people to think in terms of probabilities. Of course only those who can learn are able to take advantage.
The constraints imposed by the business interests onto the Titanic project contributed significantly to the increased likelihood that the Titanic ship hit an iceberg and that more people died in that event.
JFC, this guy is like a more obnoxious and arrogant version of Sklansky, and those are pretty ****ing high bars to clear.
What happens when you inevitably find yourself on the other side of something from the rebel scientists?
Scientists rebelling from those with power are usually proven correct, like in the Galileo example. He did relent but he was initially a rebel.
Early on with the controversy over the origin of the SARS virus there were a few credentialed scientists who stepped up to make the case for the lab leak theory in spite of powerful people pushing the bat soup or whatever origin theory. Once you see that pattern you can almost blindly follow the rebel scientists, They are going to be correct. I don't know what the "official" government narrative is on the origin, but currently no one serious thinks the **** came from anywhere but that lab.
OK sheeple person, keep beveling whatever the government tells you about the titanic "disaster."
Deuces is just flat out ignoring the obvious fact that metal is stronger than ice, because to admit it would turn his whole world on its head. His boss will fire him and he will end up smoking crack out of a chicken bone in a tent on skid row.
