[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
I have no idea why you're asking me, I didn't use the term (that I recall). If I had to venture a guess, it means that all you conspiracydonks keep talking about physics this and physics that without showing a shred of working or a single calculation.
Sorry, it wasn't you:
The flat-Earther, the 9/11 conspiracy dipshit, and the creationist guy all teaming up to form the Voltorn of untreated mental illness.
I'm puzzled at people asking what "real truth" and "actual physics" is.
Of course you're puzzled. Forget acceleration due to gravity, that only leads to "surprise" and "puzzlement".
Let's define physics. Shoot.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
We might need to start with geometry there, brofessor. You know - planes, discs, spheres, the difference between them - stuff like that.
Wouldn't acceleration due to gravity in your "model" depend on the distance from the centre of the disc? The acceleration vector also wouldn't be oriented "straight down", but rather down and towards the centre, wouldn't it?
We might need to start with geometry there, brofessor. You know - planes, spheres, the difference between them - stuff like that.
Geometry a prerequisite for physics... interesting but I think not.
He who claims the empirical authority of Science ought to define its terms. Then we will see who is capable of knowing the facts.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
Gotta play some pointless semantic games before we learn what a "globe" is.
Oh, no, I'm not confused by physics. I'm confused by the idea that someone who is purportedly attempting to discuss this topic with others would have to ask them to define it for them. It is very evident in this thread who needs help with basic physics.
And it's not me.
Oh, no, I'm not confused by physics. I'm confused by the idea that someone who is purportedly attempting to discuss this topic with others would have to ask them to define it for them. It is very evident in this thread who needs help with basic physics.
And it's not me.
Once "what" is established (total delusion from most here negates this opportunity) the who and why can be investigated.
Many so-called progressives jump to the who and why without addressing what happened. Chomsky for instance. Once the discussion moves beyond a criminal investigation and becomes political, the perpetrators are off the hook.
I'd remained a Chomsky devotee long after I should have, but when he dismissed the idea of the buildings being demolished based on that the expert opinion not aligning with that is when I started to doubt him. The reality, of course, is that very few experts have weighed in on the matter and those who have almost all come down against the official narrative. Chomsky, like the dolts in here, just assume there is this cadre of professionals who have endorsed the official story on the buildings, that all three were brought down by office fires when that is factually false, and in fact many credentialed experts have published papers which successfully challenge the official narrative.
Now we know Chomsky was like Epstein's best friend. I still don't totally dismiss Chomsky. His critiques of Israel are a cornerstone in the intellectual basis behind the movement to save the Palestinian people. Maybe his wife dying just broke him?
The islamic terror (recall that it was and is the British and later the CIA who developed jihadi networks to undermine sovereign governments) narrative was proposed ahead of any evidence to suggest it.
This is an important and overlooked point. The entire foundation for the 9/11 narrative was just taken off a shelf that day. And the Bazant "crush down" conjecture, serving as the basis for the mystification and hand waving purporting to explain how the buildings came down, was served up in a few days, also ahead of any evidence.
What do you call an "investigation" which says whoever funded the crime doesn't matter?
Spoiler
a coverup
Oh, no, I'm not confused by physics. I'm confused by the idea that someone who is purportedly attempting to discuss this topic with others would have to ask them to define it for them. It is very evident in this thread who needs help with basic physics.
And it's not me.
Yes it is son, yes it is.
You are "surprised" objects fall at a rate of mere g. Category 2 error.
Category 1 error, failure to define terms you are using. See the definiton I presented to you above. If you are in agreement we can then move to addressing your misconception around free-fall.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
I'd remained a Chomsky devotee long after I should have, but when he dismissed the idea of the buildings being demolished based on that the expert opinion not aligning with that is when I started to doubt him. The reality, of course, is that very few experts have weighed in on the matter and those who have almost all come down against the official narrative. Chomsky, like the d
To dismiss all Chomsky's work on the basis of this or that viewpoint would be silly. He is under no obligation to ruin his career and livelihood by speaking out about 9/11. He may well be compromised. It is an ad hom fallacy oft employed by the likes of our friends here, to dismiss a person entirely because they dont agree with a particular view. "That flat earther cannot possibly know anything" etc. They are terrified of guilt by association. A fear not unwarranted (cancel culture etc).
They also for some reason cannot differentiate speculation from fact. Such as
Fact: strange holes were photographed, perpendicular to the surface.
Speculation: perhaps the cause was from above.
"Ah so you are saying it was... yada".
It was false flag. That is surely uncontroversial at this point.
Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk
The flat-Earther, the 9/11 conspiracy dipshit, and the creationist guy all teaming up to form the Voltorn of untreated mental illness.
Labeling people who disagree with conclusions you can't backup in any way whatsoever as mentally ill is itself, if not a mental illness, some kind of emotionally based fallacy.
You choose to believe the CIA and NSA when they say that the communications among jihadists increased in volume in the time preceding the 9/11 attacks, and you obviously choose to believe this would be a solid basis on which to convict, if not individuals, a group of people inside a pretty wide net, for the crime of 9/11. I don't accept those naked assertions of the security state, a security state which serially lies to the American public in order to secure funding for projects which most people would label as evil, as actions motivated by amoral greed which result in catastrophic loss of human life and the forced underdevelopment of entire countries and regions.
Can you explain the mental illness in my having conventional standards for evidence when it comes to 9/11? I just don't see how you get there (assuming you really believe what you say which is a stretch to put it mildly). Me, I can see how you might accept the assertions of the security state. I would concede that many if not most of the people working for the CIA or NSA, or DEA or whatever, are decent people trying to uphold the law. I can see how accepting the assertions of the state is a default position you don't see any personal reason to reevaluate. Your life is ok so just go with whatever the prevailing narrative is being issued. While I think it is stupid to believe institutions which are continually exposed as lying to your face, I can see why you do. But I wouldn't label you as mentally ill. Somewhat delusional? Stubborn in your desperate attempts to maintain some illusion of normality? Yeah, but I can disagree with you without labeling you insane. What does it say about you that you think everyone who disagrees with you is insane or evil? because this is nearly across the board with the type of person you are. You think everyone who doesn't believe what you believe is either insane or a very bad person when that's just not the reality as evidenced in any number of ways.
The flat-Earther, the 9/11 conspiracy dipshit, and the creationist guy all teaming up to form the Voltorn of untreated mental illness.
A Flat-earther, a 9/11 Truther and an AntiVaxxer walk into a bar.
They each order and receive their drink. But the customers claim that the waitress has brought the wrong drinks to the table.
The waitress says she in fact has brought the right drinks to the table.
To confirm that she has brought the right drinks, the waitress calls the bartender over to the table to confirm she gave them the right drinks.
The bartender confirms that the waitress brought the customers the correct drinks.
The three customers are dumbfounded and the Flat-Earther cries, "What is this, some kind of conspiracy?"
So for the crime of doubting the official story, for not believing in total the government's conspiracy theory, you are now a conspiracy theorist. You are saying that there is a conspiracy to hold up the official conspiracy. Congratulations - you've joined the other side. Stay on an even keel true to first principles and you can see more, just don't let your imagination fly too
For starters, I am way to the right of you and its you guys who salivate about a govt of your liking taking control over everything and everyone that you dont like or want. It feels like the only lefty left in the world who isn't a rabid authoritarian sweetheart is microbet (actually there are two other I will throw in that basket but they dont post here much if at all) Also, you literally advocated having every anti communists kill themselves just so you could propose a bunch of regulated capitalistic ideals so I honestly dont know how good faith this experiment really is. You don't trust the govt so let's make them larger with total control and hope everything pans out. Explain how that's going to work out.
Secondly, you make good points about the corruption of the US but then you spend the majority of your time arguing the worst tidbits of it like building 7 and the construction dude or not reconciling the difference between metal and steel when you've got plenty of ammo besides it to work with. I'm tempted to create an alt account supporting an pro communist, anti west regime to show you just how its done. I guarantee you could garner a lot more support for that movement than what you've been doing here.
Also Dueces, did we either not land on the moon or is the earth flat? Do you remember the guy who mentioned several times that you were an undercover right winger trying to make lefties look bad? I mean, you're high fiving a flat earther over building related talking points that have a zero percent chance of actually being real. Wtf am I suppose to deduce from that?
For some reason, rather than discuss the topic at hand, some people would rather ask stupid fing questions like "what is real truth" and "what is actual physics"
