[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

If he meant all those things, why didn't he say them instead of posting something that made it looked like he missed the point altogether?

I ignored the racist / conspiratorial solutions that were put forward.

Instead I chose to focus on the supposedly quantified amounts.

If the data is made up, why would I care about rhe other arguments sklansky is making

That's another thing. I wonder sometimes, these people who think it was easy to plan and orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, have they ever managed a project more complex than making a sandwich.

Furthermore, they are halfway around the world. There is no scenario where they are brought in for questioning and then released because the American security state couldn't pin anything on them. They have no incentive whatsoever to cover their tracks, yet there isn't a single track.

You are right that it could have merely turned it to less of an underdog. I guessed that it turned it into a favorite because my memory was that even without the lab proximity doctor's thought the lab theory wasn't that big an underdog. The other objections you read here were, as you say, a bad example. To show this, suppose that the first cases were all lab workers or their families. But that doctors didn't know this when they proclaimed that the germ came from animals. I so, even they would switch their opinions.

The Wuhan lab was chosen to have china’s first bio safety level 4 lab because of its proximity to the origin of SARS, which they were un-coincidentally the first to find the geographical origins of. If this was an accidental leak, of a previously unknown virus that they illegally created, they got lucky it wasn’t an Ebola or Zika or Dengue virus that could not have emerged naturally in the region.

What's the forum consensus on the SARS II origin? Has it sunken in yet that it was leaked from the lab?

If so, I would guess that the discourse in the forum would show that initially those who supported the lab leak theory were ridiculed by the self appointed defenders of mainstream narrative here. Then as the lab leak theory gained more acceptance, they relented. Maybe they even started saying they supported the lab leak the whole time.

Was there a thread on that specifically or was it part of a massive covid thread?

I don't know the answer to your question about Covid, but I will make an observation. If someone, let's say a lifelong conspiracy theorist, makes enough outlandish claims without evidence, with each having on average say a 1/100 chance of being correct, they are odds on to eventually hit the bullseye and be right on one of them. This is evidence for nothing other than probability working as expected.

If there was work, it would compare the probability that the virus came from the nearby lab if there was no knowledge of the doctor's opinion, to the probability that it came from some lab of unknown distance given the opinion of doctors who only looked at the virus. It seemed pretty obvious that the first number was bigger. If the lab was not placed randomly but instead was where lots of germs were floating around, then that's an extra piece of info besides the doctor's opinion that I was unaware of.

You should have written this as part of your volcano post. When I first read it my immediate thought was that you must have gotten into Princeton after 2005 when they eliminated the analogy section of the SAT.

Really? It was entirely obvious to me what he meant, and I can barely spell Prinston.

Incredible that anyone over the age of 18 gives a flying **** about SAT scores.

I thought it was obvious. But I should have added it because you went to college back when most Harvard freshman couldn't integrate by parts.

Remember when Sklansky tried some stupid thing with the digits of pi just to show that a geometric series with |common ratio| < 1 converges and thought he'd made some amazing discovery? Good times.

Pretty much all my claims are falsifiable. Me saying AQ didn't do it and then KSM getting a plea deal puts another one in my win column.

I'm on record ITF saying Russia has no influence over or collusion with Trump. That's another win. I posted the Jeff Gerth article, but the absence of any meaningful convictions after all the millions and manpower spent fishing for any evidence also validates me.

I called BS on the Russian bounty charges. That's now proven a made up story.

I called BS on the Havana Syndrome hoax. The medical establishment went on to debunk it.

But all that's mostly Russia related. You can kinda do the same thing with Israel. The rape charges against Hamas have been proven to be utter BS. It's easy. You just find news stories reporting ridiculous stories with internal contradictions about our enemy du jour. They are always lies and usually debunkable.

But you’re wrong. Trump owes Russia tons of money and uses Russian banks to finance his life.

Your standards of evidence are "KSM got a plea deal, so Al Qaida didn't do 9/11, whoop whoop I was right"? Lol you. Based on that alone, I suspect the rest of your claims about what was proven or made up are total bullshit without even looking into it.

So, you have made a bunch of claims and confirmed them by thinking about it (very badly), and are now probably going round spreading this misinformation to people even dumber than you, then getting your validation from them nodding their heads in unison in awe of how intelligent and red-pilled you are.

Dave, what do you think my SAT score was and what school would you guess I went to? Hint: I used to know how to do integration by parts.

What are you talking about? The "pilots" trained at the airport on Venice, Florida only learning to take off but not land and left all kinds of tracks.

Why does there need to be forum consensus and why does that matter? Do you want to rail on the sheeple for believing the official narrative?

Just you. What are your thoughts on covid origins?

And trump wouldn't stop them turning the entire place into a parking lot either--he's most likely going to encourage it. Congress can also simply override either one of them and continue sending arms. And no matter what fairytales you want to tell yourself--they have your name plastered(as well as everyone else here) on them too whether you agree with it or not. So you can stop pretending you're dancing on some special pin above it all because you say so. You're just as soaked in blood as everyone else.

But I don't agree! Noted lol We're dedicating this next one to your contribution then cupcake. That's how it works citizen--ready to wake up yet? 😀

The lab itself was built in the 50s. It became Level 4 in 2018 after SARS partly because it was located near the origin point for SARS. The University of Hawaii or University of Washington already existed. They became premire places to study volcanoes because of proximity to them.

Yeah, there are practical reasons you're going to build a research lab in a major metro area and not a cave bat habitat.

if by "near the origin point" you mean in the same giant country? they chose wuhan because it's a centralized hub for the entire country and it already had an established virology lab with shi zhengli's team in place. she was there before SARS.

this is all a far cry away from your dismissive volcano analogy implying it was intentionally located right where they anticipated the prime threat area to be. UH & UW are way closer to active volcanos than wuhan was to SARS origin. by distance it's like locating a volcano lab in las vegas because mt rainier blew its top.

it's a misleading analogy in many ways. if UH was researching methods to induce large volcanic eruptions, published papers on these methods, bragged they could create a blast rivaling Tambora in a controlled environment, and other countries outsourced their most dangerous volcano inducement studies to UH, we'd all be more than skeptical if a hawaiian eruption subsequently covered the earth in darkness for a year

agreed. shenzhen is twice as big and way better proximity-wise.