Randomness thread, part two.

[spoonitnow]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/up...rticle/2576760

A kindergarten teacher in Bainbridge Island, Wash., actively denies her male students the opportunity to play with Lego blocks in order to encourage her female students to play with them.

Karen Keller bars the boys in her class from playing with the colorful blocks, even going so far as to lie to them about their opportunity to play.

"I always tell the boys, 'You're going to have a turn' — and I'm like, 'Yeah, when hell freezes over' in my head," Keller told the Bainbridge Island Review. "I tell them, 'You'll have a turn' because I don't want them to feel bad."

Keller does this because she saw the boys in her class gravitating toward the blocks during their "free choice" play time while the girls flocked to dolls and crayons. Keller's solution was to deny the blocks to the boys, who wanted to play with them, in order to encourage the girls to play with them. The Review article offers no indications about how Keller gets the girls to play with something of which they have no interest.

Keller had originally tried to entice the girls by providing pink and purple Legos, "But it wasn't enough." So she requested a grant from her school to purchase Lego Education Community Starter Kits for three classrooms at the Captain Johnston Blakely Elementary school, where she has taught for seven years. She requested the grant without telling the school she would be denying boys access to the toys.

[aubreymcfate]

is there a word or term for the psychology behind people who try to rebel against a form but simply end up reversing it and therefore upholding the construct they found toxic in the first place? like dogmatic atheists, fascist liberals, etc?

[MadMojoMonkey]

is there a word or term for the psychology behind people who try to rebel against a form but simply end up reversing it and therefore upholding the construct they found toxic in the first place? like dogmatic atheists, fascist liberals, etc?

Hypocrite comes to mind.

[spoonitnow]

is there a word or term for the psychology behind people who try to rebel against a form but simply end up reversing it and therefore upholding the construct they found toxic in the first place? like dogmatic atheists, fascist liberals, etc?

Oxymorons? Get it?

[spoonitnow]

Also Trump just absolutely fucking dismantled Ben Carson, and he's not even finished yet.

AS GOD AS MY WITNESS, HE IS BROKEN IN HALF.

[spoonitnow]

Glad to see bipartisanship on important issues in Congress: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/ho...ng-veto-threat

[wufwugy]

What you tell a child and what you really believe can be two different things. I'm pretty sure the father understands that flowers are nice, but carpet bombing is more effective. What sense is there in telling a three year old: we're going to fly over there and when we're done, all that will be left of them will be a short burst of red mist.

true, but i dont think this is that kind of situation.

[wufwugy]

that gif is amazing.

blocking syrian refugees is a terrible idea. it's almost as if people dont know what causes the problems they care about and instead have stupid and wrong opinions.

[spoonitnow]

that gif is amazing.

blocking syrian refugees is a terrible idea. it's almost as if people dont know what causes the problems they care about and instead have stupid and wrong opinions.

Yeah you're right, we should just let terrorists have a super-easy way into the country.

[wufwugy]

it's the belief that that's an effective method for terrorists to get into the country that shows opinion without understanding.

[spoonitnow]

it's the belief that that's an effective method for terrorists to get into the country that shows opinion without understanding.

I've got trois words for you: Paris fucking France.

[wufwugy]

it is extremely reasonable to think that a proportion of terrorists come through as refugees. there is no evidence that it's anywhere close to the most effective ways. in fact it is one of the harder ways since it includes more scrutiny and getting in legally when you have money (terrorists are well-funded) is easier and leaves less suspicion.

not to mention that blocking refugees disproportionately blocks the suffering, those who need it most, and probably children.

not to mention that the real deterrence to terrorism on domestic soil is for security and law officials to do their fucking jobs. the next big factor is in assimilation, not this bullshit like in sweden where immigrants are treated with kid gloves by the native power and it's looking like it will eventually tear the country apart. blaming immigration is a scapegoat of the lowest denominator, especially since immigration is arguably the most morally good thing one can allow. it deters suffering more than most other things and it increases economic surpluses more than pretty much anything.

[a500lbgorilla]

What you tell a child and what you really believe can be two different things. I'm pretty sure the father understands that flowers are nice, but carpet bombing is more effective. What sense is there in telling a three year old: we're going to fly over there and when we're done, all that will be left of them will be a short burst of red mist.

The Dad was a pure operator. He both soothes his child and ingratiates himself to his community. "France is our home now", "But we have flowers", that guy is playing two games and playing them both well. Add in the innocent questions that this kid punctuates with "papa" and it's too good for fiction.

[a500lbgorilla]

BTW ong, here's PROOF that 9/11 was caused by obesity and not by terrorists

http://imgur.com/Q0mpbWk

[a500lbgorilla]

I've got trois words for you: Paris fucking France.

You know, if the terrorists are born in Europe, the can enter the US no problem.

http://travel.state.gov/content/visa...r-program.html

Why get you ass tallied and tracked when loop-holes abound?

[a500lbgorilla]

it is extremely reasonable to think that a proportion of terrorists come through as refugees. there is no evidence that it's anywhere close to the most effective ways. in fact it is one of the harder ways since it includes more scrutiny and getting in legally when you have money (terrorists are well-funded) is easier and leaves less suspicion.

not to mention that blocking refugees disproportionately blocks the suffering, those who need it most, and probably children.

not to mention that the real deterrence to terrorism on domestic soil is for security and law officials to do their fucking jobs. the next big factor is in assimilation, not this bullshit like in sweden where immigrants are treated with kid gloves by the native power and it's looking like it will eventually tear the country apart. blaming immigration is a scapegoat of the lowest denominator, especially since immigration is arguably the most morally good thing one can allow. it deters suffering more than most other things and it increases economic surpluses more than pretty much anything.

Yeah but, last paragraph I don't know. You can assimilate only so far. Some people will always yearn for a different culture. And while I agree domestic counter-terrorism is a definitive aspect of any action, you also need to choke out the source. And I have no idea if that's even possible.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yeah you're right, we should just let terrorists have a super-easy way into the country.

You mean like Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh?

Yeah... can't trust Americans. They're all terrorists.


lol
stereotypes

[wufwugy]

Yeah but, last paragraph I don't know. You can assimilate only so far. Some people will always yearn for a different culture. And while I agree domestic counter-terrorism is a definitive aspect of any action, you also need to choke out the source. And I have no idea if that's even possible.

im a big fan of the doctrine of original settlement. it seems to pretty much always explain the culture of a region, at least in that it's good as the majority explanation.

more specifically about assimilation, it happens regardless as long as the lay of the land is upheld. for example, when bad drivers from different countries are made to adhere to modern driving rules and norms, they inevitably converge. it's when people are given special treatment where they're not required to engage in normative behavior like natives that problematic rifts remain.

also the fact that law enforcement is incredibly good at finding the terrorist cells after attacks occur shows that they have the capacity to find them before and deter. they just dont have the incentive probably because the populace wrongly believes things like profiling are bad.

as usual, the answer is to let the market handle it. how wonderful would things be if companies were responsible for the actions of its immigrant sponsors? pretty goddamn wonderful, because they would be incredibly effective at finding a way to make a fortune off of bringing in as many low cost/high benefit immigrants as they could and as few high cost/low benefit ones as they could.

[wufwugy]

highly good rogan poddy with christina sommers. mostly on issue of the misandry of modern feminism and how it has invaded the university and some of mainstream culture.

[wufwugy]

south park's description that sjw's are like advertisements is fucking brilliant. outrage over things people say really isn't news; it's like ads masquerading as news. i hadn't thought of it that way before.

[spoonitnow]

highly good rogan poddy with christina sommers. mostly on issue of the misandry of modern feminism and how it has invaded the university and some of mainstream culture.

If you want to see feminists REALLY go apeshit, check out how they act towards her.

[a500lbgorilla]

south park's description that sjw's are like advertisements is fucking brilliant. outrage over things people say really isn't news; it's like ads masquerading as news. i hadn't thought of it that way before.

I think they're being played by the Ad-men. So many people pay attention to this noise that it generates great revenue.

Still though, this season has been a delight.

[wufwugy]

that certainly could be. however, the key revelation at the end of the ep imo shows that the writers are equating sjw and ads on some level

[a500lbgorilla]

The beauty of satire in saying one thing while meaning another is that there's a lot of room to interpret genius in happy accidents. But still, think about all this BLM noise on college campus and why the campus folded - because the SEC football team threatened to sit and that they might lose some other money. The SJWs only wield as much power as their established betters can profit from them. I think that's SP's angle. If BLM had to rebel on the merits of their beliefs, they'd fold like fools.

[a500lbgorilla]

highly good rogan poddy with christina sommers. mostly on issue of the misandry of modern feminism and how it has invaded the university and some of mainstream culture.

p good chat, especially when she gets into the religion of feminism - how she believes the cardinal rule of higher education was to give both sides fair play and how that's a nonstarter in scholarly gender studies.

[a500lbgorilla]

v good chat. She has like 3 or 4 genius throwout there comments that Joe Rogan can't even pick up.

[a500lbgorilla]

Goddarn, history was lame.

[a500lbgorilla]

Freefall collapse: I no longer think that the collapse speed was 'near freefall'. A portion of the collapse was approaching those speeds, but the initial collapse was slow enough for chunks of debris to get some 20-30 stories ahead of the tower top and this is evident from any (every?) collapse video.

Controlled demolitions dont destroy every single support structure, they just take out the key supports and gravity does the rest. Once floor 90 or so collapsed with the weight of 15 stories bearing down on it there was little chance that the rest of the tower would have stood, as with each floor collapsing the floor below it gets a bigger and bigger slam of kinetic energy from above. If the tower top had twisted out a little more and transferred enough of the kinetic energy outside of the column as it fell, we *may* have seen the lower tower survive, but once those first couple of floors caved a complete collapse was the only outcome imo.

Melted steel: Prove the the molten metal is steel. I presume you mean the flowing molten metal from the WTC just before its collapse? Kerosene can definitely melt aluminium, like this air france runway fire:



And several floors of the wtc were full of aluminium as they'd just been slammed by a boeing made from the stuff.

It was WTC7's collapse that first got my mind racing on conspiracy theories, but when you're forced to rule out controlled demolition (something that takes literally months of planning, kilometres of wire rigging etc) and the first hand firefighter accounts saying they were pulled from wtc7 a few hours before it came down because of structural stability fears (including creaking, groaning, raging fires, all sorts) then a natural collapse doesn't seem so unlikely.

Also, NORAD was a big thing for me for a while. Slow to act, ever changing official timeline of events, nothing made sense. But a government department showing signs of ineptitude isnt far fetched at all, unfortunately it's pretty standard.

EDIT: can't have this discussion without including this pic

Just wanna say, this is one of the best intellectual experiences a person can roll through - the opportunity to fall into some dogma and buy it completely only to pull yourself back out. I don't think everyone is capable of it.

As Danny Kahnemann says, "What you see is all there is." There's always the possibility that something out of sight and out of mind can completely upturn a deeply held belief. It rarely seems worthwhile to go looking for it.

[OngBonga]

Melted steel: Prove the the molten metal is steel. I presume you mean the flowing molten metal from the WTC just before its collapse?

No, I was referring to the thermal hotspots on the steel beams where it was still molten. The steel beams that got removed from the scene before an investigation was carried out. Because obvioulsy perfectly cut steel beams are a normal thing to have after a building collapse, and of course you don't want to leave them lying around as tripping hazards while investigators are trying to figure out what the fuck just happened.

[a500lbgorilla]

No, I was referring to the thermal hotspots on the steel beams where it was still molten. The steel beams that got removed from the scene before an investigation was carried out. Because obvioulsy perfectly cut steel beams are a normal thing to have after a building collapse, and of course you don't want to leave them lying around as tripping hazards while investigators are trying to figure out what the fuck just happened.

Forreal???

[OngBonga]

I mean "prove the molten metal was steel" is pretty bad. I'm assuming it's steel because we're told the building's supports were made of steel, not aluminium, or aloominum as the yanks wrongly pronounce it.

Sadly, because the evidence was quickly removed from the scene, "proving" the existence of molten steel is somewhat difficult. Now, why, might you ask, would a government remove important evidence from the scene? I'd only do that if I had something to hide.

[OngBonga]

Forreal???

For real what? They removed evidence? Yes, for real.

[a500lbgorilla]

For real what? They removed evidence? Yes, for real.

For real?

[OngBonga]

For real?

No, I'm making it up.

[a500lbgorilla]

No, I'm making it up.

For real?

[OngBonga]

So...

Fire caused steel to melt, thus rendering it unable to support the mass of the building, which then collapsed, and the government removed and recycled the steel before investigations were carried out.

But whatever they say happened obviously did, because tin hats aren't fasionable, right?

[OngBonga]

For real?

No. Yes. I don't know anymore.

[a500lbgorilla]

So...

Fire caused steel to melt, thus rendering it unable to support the mass of the building, which then collapsed, and the government removed and recycled the steel before investigations were carried out.

But whatever they say happened obviously did, because tin hats aren't fasionable, right?

http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvin...res-gordon.pdf

[boost]

They removed important evidence, therefore it is difficult to prove that the evidence is important.

Wait, what?

Also, people are fucking idiots playing at metallurgy on the merits of reading one statistic about steel: the melting point. Lots happens well before the melting point. If you bothered to actually research the behavior of steel as heat is applied you'd understand that the melting point (when a compound changes states from a solid to a liquid) has absolutely no relevance.

[a500lbgorilla]

They removed important evidence, therefore it is difficult to prove that the evidence is important.

Wait, what?

Also, people are fucking idiots playing at metallurgy on the merits of reading one statistic about steel: the melting point. Lots happens well before the melting point. If you bothered to actually research the behavior of steel as heat is applied you'd understand that the melting point (when a compound changes states from a solid to a liquid) has absolutely no relevance.

Plus material science is really interesting.

[a500lbgorilla]

[OngBonga]

They removed important evidence, therefore it is difficult to prove that the evidence is important.

Wait, what?

Also, people are fucking idiots playing at metallurgy on the merits of reading one statistic about steel: the melting point. Lots happens well before the melting point. If you bothered to actually research the behavior of steel as heat is applied you'd understand that the melting point (when a compound changes states from a solid to a liquid) has absolutely no relevance.

The vast majority of people are fucking idiots, and I'm no exception.

[a500lbgorilla]

The vast majority of people are fucking idiots, and I'm no exception.

Me neither.

[OngBonga]

They removed important evidence, therefore it is difficult to prove that the evidence is important.

The supporting beams of the building is obviously important evidence. I don't need to prove it's important evidence, its mere existence is enough proof of that. But why was it removed? Foul play would surely be suspected, and the condition of the steel beams would play a critical role in any investigation... assuming, that is, they weren't removed and recycled quickly.

[a500lbgorilla]

Ong, you gotta scope out some docus that say America never went to the Moon. There's an outside chance you'll buy into them like I did.

[boost]

The supporting beams of the building is obviously important evidence. I don't need to prove it's important evidence, its mere existence is enough proof of that. But why was it removed? Foul play would surely be suspected, and the condition of the steel beams would play a critical role in any investigation... assuming, that is, they weren't removed and recycled quickly.

In the instance of a clusterfuck, I'll bet on incompetence over conspiracy. Of course people do conspire, and luckily we don't need to make a bet one way or another, but we can use an imagined betting line to presume the appropriate burden of evidence for competing theories.

Again, I'm not sure why you're digging your heals in here. You do need to prove that the removed material is crucial evidence, at least if you want to be taken seriously. You say that steel beams are surely important, but I still don't know what you're basing that on. Did they remove all the steel beams? When they quickly removed them, did they think there was a possibility of survivors? If it does point to foul play, what sort of foul play? What would it take to rig the building, and is that a reasonable thing that could have been accomplished with few enough players to maintain secrecy?

You don't seem to be asking any of these questions.

[OngBonga]

You do need to prove that the removed material is crucial evidence, at least if you want to be taken seriously.

I'm not bothered if I'm taken seriously. The removal of evidence is just one factor that causes me to be suspicious. The collapse is another. The survival of a terrorist's passport is fucking ridiculous, I mean they should make planes out of whatever it is they make passports out of.

But to answer your question of why I dig my heels in... I don't really intend to, it's just I'm not buying their story, like ever. And as a consequence, I don't really believe anything I'm told on the news any more. I wish someone could prove me wrong, it's not nice to actually believe what I do. But at the same time, it seems so obvious.

[OngBonga]

Ong, you gotta scope out some docus that say America never went to the Moon. There's an outside chance you'll buy into them like I did.

There's an outside chance they didn't go to the moon and just faked it to "beat" the Russians.

[OngBonga]

I mean I'm not buying the fake moon landing story at all. But the motive is there, and it wouldn't surprise me. I don't dismiss is outright.

[a500lbgorilla]

There's an outside chance they didn't go to the moon and just faked it to "beat" the Russians.

There's no chance.

[a500lbgorilla]

I mean I'm not buying the fake moon landing story at all. But the motive is there, and it wouldn't surprise me. I don't dismiss is outright.

That's absolutely the point. Debate 101. Dumbasses like a500lbgorilla and OngBonga will listen to this nonsense and walk away thinking it's on the money.

That's the point. That's our weakness.

[OngBonga]

Nah, motive alone isn't going to cut it for me. The evidence to suggest the moon landing was fake just isn't very compelling. It's a great story, but that's all it is.

[a500lbgorilla]

You know cigs don't cause cancer right? And "global warming" is the greatest farce in history - like we could control the climate.

[OngBonga]

JFK is another matter, of course. But isn't it like fact now that he was taken out by dark forces within the government?

[a500lbgorilla]

Nah, motive alone isn't going to cut it for me. The evidence to suggest the moon landing was fake just isn't very compelling. It's a great story, but that's all it is.

Watch a documentary about how the crosshairs on the picture mysteriously fall behind the rocks or how the lighting is clearly back lighting and not that of the Sun.

[OngBonga]

You know cigs don't cause cancer right? And "global warming" is the greatest farce in history - like we could control the climate.

Weed cures cancer.

And of course we can control the climate. It didn't rain on the Beijing Olympics, did it?

[a500lbgorilla]

JFK is another matter, of course. But isn't it like fact now that he was taken out by dark forces within the government?

Aw damnit, gg.

[wufwugy]

There's an outside chance they didn't go to the moon and just faked it to "beat" the Russians.

yeah, an outside chance that has less of a probability of happening than discovering that einstein never existed.

there's a reason why no statisticians believe this kind of bullshit. conspiracies of the magnitudes you're talking about could never ever be kept a secret.

[OngBonga]

Watch a documentary about how the crosshairs on the picture mysteriously fall behind the rocks or how the lighting is clearly back lighting and not that of the Sun.

I'm not getting sucked in! I guess I don't really care a great deal if they did or didn't fake it, I mean it's not like thousands of people died to further an aggressive economic agenda.

[OngBonga]

conspiracies of the magnitudes you're talking about could never ever be kept a secret.

That depends on the perceived consequences of going public. I mean if everyone just thinks you're a crazy tin hatter before you die in a car crash in a year or two, maybe you'd keep things secret too.

[wufwugy]

ong answer me this, why is it so attractive to ignore mountains of opinion expressed by the most knowledgeable and credible experts the world has to offer, while paying close attention to opinions of people who have virtually zero credibility on the issues? at what point do you say "the consensus of multitudes of physicists and statisticians is better at examining issues specifically related to physics and statistics than a random bloke?"

[OngBonga]

ong answer me this, why is it so attractive to ignore mountains of opinion expressed by the most knowledgeable and credible experts the world has to offer, while paying close attention to opinions of people who have virtually zero credibility on the issues? at what point do you say "the consensus of multitudes of physicists and statisticians is better at examining issues specifically related to physics and statistics than a random bloke?"

If 99% of the people I met told me the sky is purple, I'd think 99% of the people I meet are either stupid or crazy. I certainly wouldn't believe the sky is purple, or that I'm stupid or crazy.

wuf, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that a lot of people who don't believe the crock of shit story are credible people... firemen at the scene, demolition experts, witnesses, fucking logic.

I mean WT7 fell and people just accept that was due to fire? Fuck's sake man, what were these buildings made of? Plywood?

[a500lbgorilla]

I don't think everyone is capable of it.

Forreal???

[boost]

I'm not bothered if I'm taken seriously. The removal of evidence is just one factor that causes me to be suspicious. The collapse is another. The survival of a terrorist's passport is fucking ridiculous, I mean they should make planes out of whatever it is they make passports out of.

But to answer your question of why I dig my heels in... I don't really intend to, it's just I'm not buying their story, like ever. And as a consequence, I don't really believe anything I'm told on the news any more. I wish someone could prove me wrong, it's not nice to actually believe what I do. But at the same time, it seems so obvious.

I've seen you retreat to this "I'm not worried about being taken seriously" corner several times on this forum. What is this? Clearly you do care on some level, otherwise you wouldn't be engaging. It's like this is a tick of cognitive dissonance.

Why are you shifting the goal post? Let's talk about the steel. If you want to go point by point, fine. But let's talk about the steel. In response to my attempt at debunking the molten steel smoking gun, you've just pointed to two other popular points of contention for conspiracy theorist. Are you satisfied with what I've said in regards to the behavior of steel under heat? Have you opened a google search on the topic? Or are you just tossing these other things out there as a defensive mechanism because you're uncomfortable with relinquishing a strongly held false belief? Let's talk about the steel.

[wufwugy]

If 99% of the people I met told me the sky is purple, I'd think 99% of the people I meet are either stupid or crazy. I certainly wouldn't believe the sky is purple, or that I'm stupid or crazy.

this doesnt address the question. im not asking what to think when people say things that go against established fact or against something in which you yourself have a credible opinion on. im asking why you ignore credibility.

wuf, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that a lot of people who don't believe the crock of shit story are credible people... firemen at the scene, demolition experts, witnesses, fucking logic.

ah i see what's going on here.

these are not credible experts on the issues you're presenting. the only people with expertise on the subject are physicists, (some engineers probably), and in a roundabout way statisticians. the people you have listed are either practitioners or the lay, and they really have no business opining on physical and statistical theory.

I mean WT7 fell and people just accept that was due to fire? Fuck's sake man, what were these buildings made of? Plywood?

i dont know, but i know better than to say that the multitudes of physicists who have said it makes sense are wrong.

[boost]

Yeah, this is a common misconception: highly experienced and elite practitioners are conflated with theoretical experts. A surgeon for example needn't be well versed in the scientific method, yet people hear "doctor" and think they are credible on anything from biology to the economy to physics.

[boost]

If 99% of the people I met told me the sky is purple, I'd think 99% of the people I meet are either stupid or crazy. I certainly wouldn't believe the sky is purple, or that I'm stupid or crazy.

To not consider your cognitive faculties to be faulty when confronted with overwhelming evidence to that fact is a serious hole in your game. But that's besides the point, because what you're doing is having this experience and then jumping to "they must all have been abducted and brainwashed by aliens."

[a500lbgorilla]

Boost, play werewolf.

[OngBonga]

I've seen you retreat to this "I'm not worried about being taken seriously" corner several times on this forum. What is this?

It's me expressing that I don't give a flying fuck what people on the internet think about me.

Let's talk about the steel.

Ok, let's. How was the steel at the bottom of the structure weakened to the point it could not support, even briefly, the collapsing mass above? Are we to believe the entire column of steel was heated to the point of catastrophic weakness? Why? The impact and fire is near the top of the building.

The resistance offered by the supporting structure of steel was very close to zero, as demonstrated by the speed of the collapse. That demonstrates that the enitre steel support was liquid, very close to liquid, or was being cut by thermite in timed explosions.

Or are you just tossing these other things out there as a defensive mechanism because you're uncomfortable with relinquishing a strongly held false belief?

More that I've exhausted myself with this over ten years ago, and don't really have the appetite to slog this out for however long we can drag it out for before we both realise that neither of us are shifting, ever.

[a500lbgorilla]

In the instance of a clusterfuck, I'll bet on incompetence over conspiracy. Of course people do conspire, and luckily we don't need to make a bet one way or another, but we can use an imagined betting line to presume the appropriate burden of evidence for competing theories.

Again, I'm not sure why you're digging your heals in here. You do need to prove that the removed material is crucial evidence, at least if you want to be taken seriously. You say that steel beams are surely important, but I still don't know what you're basing that on. Did they remove all the steel beams? When they quickly removed them, did they think there was a possibility of survivors? If it does point to foul play, what sort of foul play? What would it take to rig the building, and is that a reasonable thing that could have been accomplished with few enough players to maintain secrecy?

You don't seem to be asking any of these questions.

get

Yeah, this is a common misconception: highly experienced and elite practitioners are conflated with theoretical experts. A surgeon for example needn't be well versed in the scientific method, yet people hear "doctor" and think they are credible on anything from biology to the economy to physics.

t

Wait, what?

Also, people are fucking idiots playing at metallurgy on the merits of reading one statistic about steel: the melting point. Lots happens well before the melting point. If you bothered to actually research the behavior of steel as heat is applied you'd understand that the melting point (when a compound changes states from a solid to a liquid) has absolutely no relevance.

f

I've seen you retreat to this "I'm not worried about being taken seriously" corner several times on this forum. What is this? Clearly you do care on some level, otherwise you wouldn't be engaging. It's like this is a tick of cognitive dissonance.

Why are you shifting the goal post? Let's talk about the steel. If you want to go point by point, fine. But let's talk about the steel. In response to my attempt at debunking the molten steel smoking gun, you've just pointed to two other popular points of contention for conspiracy theorist. Are you satisfied with what I've said in regards to the behavior of steel under heat? Have you opened a google search on the topic? Or are you just tossing these other things out there as a defensive mechanism because you're uncomfortable with relinquishing a strongly held false belief? Let's talk about the steel.

in

To not consider your cognitive faculties to be faulty when confronted with overwhelming evidence to that fact is a serious hole in your game. But that's besides the point, because what you're doing is having this experience and then jumping to "they must all have been abducted and brainwashed by aliens."

homodouche.

[OngBonga]

i dont know, but i know better than to say that the multitudes of physicists who have said it makes sense are wrong.

As I recall, I was finding conflicting opinions from various people who called themselves experts. I haven't spoken in person to any physicist on the matter. But I have played this game where you find a credible guy who argues your case, and I'll find a credible guy who thinks it's bollocks.

I might be in a minority here, but it's a large minority, and there's lots of people in better positions than I am to call bullshit.

[Luco]

The hurried removal of steel to search for survivors was real. iirc they pulled a hot dog vendor out first, he was quoted as saying 'alright who ordered the two jumbos'

[a500lbgorilla]

As I recall, I was finding conflicting opinions from various people who called themselves experts. I haven't spoken in person to any physicist on the matter. But I have played this game where you find a credible guy who argues your case, and I'll find a credible guy who thinks it's bollocks.

Maybe figure out how they think and which one thinks right?

[wufwugy]

As I recall, I was finding conflicting opinions from various people who called themselves experts. I haven't spoken in person to any physicist on the matter. But I have played this game where you find a credible guy who argues your case, and I'll find a credible guy who thinks it's bollocks.

I might be in a minority here, but it's a large minority, and there's lots of people in better positions than I am to call bullshit.

it's not a large minority. the amount of experts who agree with truthism is such a small proportion compared to those who don't that it's statistical noise. ofc i dont even know if there are ANY experts who agree with truthism in the first place. show me a currently teaching physics phd researcher who agrees with truthism and we'll have our first expert. if you could find enough that something like >5% of all physicists agree with truthism, you would start having a case.

why do you continue to discuss physics when you don't have any credibility on the subject?

[wufwugy]

The hurried removal of steel to search for survivors was real. iirc they pulled a hot dog vendor out first, he was quoted as saying 'alright who ordered the two jumbos'

what bugs me the most (because i like statistics) is how these so called anomalies are totally explained by basic statistics. strange things happen all the time at a statistically insignificant level.