[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
The whole pilot skill argument is just different versions of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. This has been explained to them for 20 years too, and they still don't understand.
Space lasers was Playbig's theory earlier ITT as well. Speaking of Playbig, he seems to have totally disappeared off the face of the Earth. Guess he finally got his heart's desire and got abducted by aliens or something.
Space lasers was Playbig's theory earlier ITT as well. Speaking of Playbig, he seems to have totally disappeared off the face of the Earth. Guess he finally got his heart's desire and got abducted by aliens or something.
He might have been a victim of DOGE and can't continue to carry water for those clowns.
Unlikely - even if that were the case, he'd find a way to rationalise that it was Obama/Biden's fault. Orange Daddy and his minions can do no wrong.
Wasn't he ATC? If so, it's possible DOGE got him.
Also, from the description of that book on Amazon, "Ground Zero and the surrounding areas were photographed countless thousands of times, yet no one really assessed all of the phenomena found in these photographs."
I find that statement a little sus.
That's the rumour, but spread by him as far as I can tell. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would ever put that clown in any position of responsibility, let alone something as important as air traffic control.
It's possible the top brain surgeon believes in god, would you trust him to operate on your noggin?
It's possible the top brain surgeon believes in god, would you trust him to operate on your noggin?
Probably. Playbig is a fair bit more kooky than just "believing in god" though, and he is a complete moron to boot. The only thing he's going to be the top is village idiot.
I'd argue if you're truly devoted to god it's not far from PB's stance on some things, just way less mainstream.
Youtube embed might not be working
The quality of that video is terrible.
Here's a much better one. It's long though. And no mention of space lasers by the way.
If you want an example of some of the weird **** that happened that day check out the toasted cars phenomenon at 57:15.
Dr. Judy Wood - Breakthrough Energy Movement Conference
Here's a 20 minute summary of the evidence for those who can't sit thru a two and a half hour video presentation.
Well if DOGE had PB fired then I don't want to hear anymore around here that DOGE efforts bear no fruits
I have no comeback for that
You can't have work peer reviewed without sharing your data. The NIST reports are simulation based models for which the inputs have never been divulged.
I don't consider it some kind of victory that I've reduced you to Trump level denialism. Want I wanted was for you to accept the truth, that would have been my victory. I wasn't too hopeful for that , but there is no reason to not accept the truth that the NIST reports are not peer reviewed. It's a plain truth. You could either acknowledge it, ignore it, or go Trump on it. I wouldn't have predicted you would go Trump on it. I would have thought you would ignore it. But what I think happened is initially you really did think the reports were peer reviewed. You took a hard stance based on your misplaced faith then when I pulled the rug out and you fell you were like no that didn't happen. But it did tho. There is no peer review with hidden data. Sorry Trolly.
Of course it's like playing whack-a-mole: knock down one of Deuce's bullshit claims and a new one magically springs up. Like how he was just toady telling us the adrenaline and fear of death would keep the pilots from flying into a building until I reminded him that kamikaze pilots managed to accomplish this task.
Correction : then I pointed out the 20% success rate of Kamikaze pilots. According to the Naval Institute, only 12% actually caused damage. You didn't remind me of anything. You thought you had some clever point but, per usual, it was a dud. But you keep trying and I admire that. You'll make a good point one day. So far maybe Kerowo is the single poster who has ever made any challenging arguments. He was also the poster rudest to me, so I'm not playing favorites here. You've utterly sucked for the entirety of the 9/11 debate. It's almost like you are secretly on my side, sending me softballs.
Ok, then by your standards the Higgs mass or the existence of quarks has not been peer reviewed either. You should point out that your views on 9/11 are the same level as quark denial.
Ok, then by your standards the Higgs mass or the existence of quarks has not been peer reviewed either. You should point out that your views on 9/11 are the same level as quark denial.
Are you saying peer review without data transparency is not a contradiction in terms? You might not be understanding the review part of peer review, the most important part of the peer review process.
If there is experimental data showing quarks exist and this data has been shared then those papers conferring the data have been peer reviewed. I wasn't aware that some scientific consensus on quarks had been formed without any data being showed to support the theory as you seem to be claiming. I don't know anything about the experimental evidence for quarks. I stopped formally studying physics (and science) after struggling to get a B in P chem. I found that I just didn't want to get too far away from things I could see and touch as units of analysis. But that doesn't mean I don't understand peer review. Not sure if you do it seems like you have some issues to work through.
Are you saying peer review without data transparency is not a contradiction in terms? You might not be understanding the review part of peer review, the most important part of the peer review process.
"Peer review" doesn't mean that every jot of raw data or the simulation data is sent to the reviewers. Mind you, even if NIST did that you'd still find something to nitpick about. You'd know this if you'd had any experience with a peer review process.
NIST in fact went far beyond the usual review process and not only invited public comments on their draft reports but made those comments publicly available. Of course you're going to tell me "that isn't peer review" and then you'll switch to some other long-debunked talking point about how trained pilots can't hit a target twice the size of a runway or figure out how to turn off a transponder.
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/docume...
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to admit that pilots under extreme stress can in fact hit a target, contrary to your earlier claim. you've already gone to the trouble of looking up how many kamikaze pilots hit their targets, so it should be an easy concession for you to make.
I cannot review the full datasets from cern or fermi lab on Higgs and quark masses. You obviously don’t understand peer review, I was just pointing that out
"Peer review" doesn't mean that every jot of raw data or the simulation data is sent to the reviewers. Mind you, even if NIST did that you'd still find something to nitpick about. You'd know this if you'd had any experience with a peer review process.
Well that's what the argument is about, whether NIST would allow even the opportunity to nit pick at their process. I get the sense you might have had some experience with peer review but still don't get it. NIST won't allow nitpicking, as you call it, presumably because one nit or pick could pierce their fragile illusion of rigor and validity.
NIST in fact went far beyond the usual review process and not only invited public comments on their draft reports but made those comments publicly available. Of course you're going to tell me "that isn't peer review" and then you'll switch to some other long-debunked talking point about how trained pilots can't hit a target twice the size of a runway or figure out how to turn o
Who are you trying to fool with this rank idiocy? It's actually kinda disrespectful that you think anyone here is dumb enough to accept what you're saying. That's not peer review and I'm happy to keep that as an endpoint to this debate on NIST and peer review. I'll take the win.
Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to admit that pilots under extreme stress can in fact hit a target, contrary to your earlier claim. you've already gone to the trouble of looking up how many kamikaze pilots hit their targets, so it should be an easy concession for you to make.
Allow me to educate you a little more about science, Trolly. There is this usual observance of standards of behavior called ethics. Because of ethics, experiments which end in people dying are kinda frowned upon. We can't really know how people react to certain death because even tricking people into thinking they are going to die would be unethical. But even if we could...you can't debrief or interview a dead person. And I never said people about to meet their ultimate end couldn't hit a target. I'm just saying it makes them less likely to hit their target. When you add up all the factors, immeasurable as they are, which figure to detract from the possibility of the "pilots" hitting their targets, you wind up with some supernaturally lucky terrorists. Just consider a guy being poor in Saudi Arabia. Going from that to immigrating against the preferences of the U.S. to keeping cover and then overcoming the entire plane with boxcutters (allegedly according to exactly 1 non witness and Bush administration appointee named Ted Olson) and navigating and then banking into the towers by making precision adjustments outside of the ability of human beings - that is quite the series of successes for a terrorist. 19 had such luck apparently. What are these guys? The luckiest guys in terrorism?
Allow me to educate you a little more about science, Trolly. There is this usual observance of standards of behavior called ethics. Because of ethics, experiments which end in people dying are kinda frowned upon. We can't really know how people react to certain death because even tricking people into thinking they are going to die would be unethical. But even if we could...you
JFC, you are one dumb mother****er.
The scientific method does not presume an objective reality, at least not one to which we have access. There is no authority on objective reality. Scientific reality, or our working approximation thereof, is a consensus. Peer review simply means that others can evaluate your work against the current standards of knowledge production to check the validity of the work. This requires knowing how conclusions were arrived at and verifying the logic and upstream outcomes supporting those conclusions meet consensus standards. You need the data for that process if data was in input.
Trolly thinks peer review is just telling people your assertions and publishing public comment on them. That's not peer review. You don't necessarily have to publish in a peer reviewed journal to submit to peer review, but you have to divulge you methods and data. Otherwise you are just asserting conclusions and that's not science.
The scientific method does not presume an objective reality, at least not one to which we have access. There is no authority on objective reality. Scientific reality, or our working approximation thereof, is a consensus. Peer review simply means that others can evaluate your work against the current standards of knowledge production to check the validity of the work. This requi
If I want to learn about scientific topics, I think I'll defer to, you know, the guy with a PhD in a scientific discipline over some random shitposter with a mental defect that blinds him to the fact that he doesn't know ****ing everything. Especially since the other guy with a PhD in a scientific discipline agrees with him and not you.
