[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.
If you simply said "Despite the troop movements and reasonable people thinking Russia is likely going to invade, I think it's unlikely because blah blah blah" nobody would care. But you can't argue like that. Since you lack sophistication your opponents must be morons and kittens just blindly following Adam Schiff just high school physics must contradict 9/11 narratives.
You're never able to do what was done with the actually wrong high school physics claim about free fall being the fastest s
Yes, Deuces is completely unable to see that the reason people find him insufferable is not his views per se, but how he presents them, and how he responds (or, fails to respond) to criticisms of them.
If a crime happens but most of the evidence is swept away it can be the case that any practical opportunity to find out what happened was swept away with it. Do you dispute this?
We certainly have imperfect information of the crime and criminal here because of the destruction of evidence by the collision, fires and collapse of the towers. But we have a ton of evidence from the flight manifests, records, airport video, passenger telephone calls, tower victim calls, etc that donÂ’t support your crazier theories. Then, of course, we have all the forensic evidence held in the warehouses.
. We have some knowledge of some of what happened. None of what we are told happened beyond what we saw makes much sense or is believable. It fails to account for the observations. The buildings were controlled down, the planes were a ruse. I think that is the main limit of our knowledge wrt to the fallen buildings.
You have absolutely no evidence the buildings were a controlled fall or the planes were a ruse.
There is also the issue of foreknowledge of the attacks which is demonstrated by investments which clearly knew what was about to happen. There has been peer reviewed research demonstrating this. It wasn't just the put options in the U.S. There was a global investment push to take advantage. The 9/11 commission supposedly traced the activity to California and then, in the typical sheeple circle logic, said that since the source wasn't in any way associated with AQ the source was innocent.
Of course, we have foreknowledge of the attacks, they were planned by a group of terrorists. This wasnÂ’t a natural disaster that we couldnÂ’t account for. Certainly, enemies may have decided to profit off the attacks financially too.
If I could dig up that quote for you would you at least admit that that logic is invalid? Can we agree on anything or are you terrified of agreeing to anything because then you might be put into some logic chokehold?
You can dig up a quote but I donÂ’t see me denying anything because of a logic pretzel you think exists. If a California investor was cleared of being involved and just happened to make millions, sure I would want to see how they reached that conclusion and the facts supporting it, but we know thatÂ’s not what you will provide. You just have some random quote from someone that is untethered to any other facts or context.
I gotta defend Deuces here, I think it's accepted chess wisdom that white has a thin statistical edge? He's closer to the truth than normal.
I gotta defend Deuces here, I think it's accepted chess wisdom that white has a thin statistical edge? He's closer to the truth than normal.
Not due to the "structure of the board", and lord only knows what he meant by "scheduling of matches" to compensate for it. But he has realised he has said something moronic and is playing the "I was trolling" card now, so we will never know.
Did you know that the dealer gets to act last in poker to make up for the disadvantage of getting his cards last and missing out on the chance of getting all the good cards dealt out before he gets a hand?
It's not definite. It is highly liklely and currently believed to be correct.
scheduled to be proved eitehr way in 2043.
So say my dad invites me to a bridge tournament in two days.
I would be scheduled to play in the tournament, but I can't use that verb if say there is a dress code, that i am scheduled to wear a suit?
(I am trying to learn)
It's not quite what you mean but you could have a clothing schedule and it could be correct.
This is why I specified a practical advantage, which is inarguable. Strict advantage, maybe not.
It is arguable. The bias in results could be as a result of people incorrectly believing black is at a disadvantage and playing for a draw while white is playing for a win.
Although if so, we could say that black is at a practical disadvantage because players believe it is.
It is arguable. The bias in results could be as a result of people incorrectly believing black is at a disadvantage and playing for a draw while white is playing for a win.
Although if so, we could say that black is at a practical disadvantage because players believe it is.
White has the advantage, uncontroversially
Not due to the "structure of the board", and lord only knows what he meant by "scheduling of matches" to compensate for it. But he has realised he has said something moronic and is playing the "I was trolling" card now, so we will never know.
I think saying structure of the game would be better than board but in a broad sense you could consider them somewhat synonymous. Since structure of the board could easily also include pieces in place with white's first move implied.
I think saying structure of the game would be better than board but in a broad sense you could consider them somewhat synonymous. Since structure of the board could easily also include pieces in place with white's first move implied.
Sure, if "structure of the board" means "rules of the game" and "scheduling of matches" means "alternating who gets white" then Deuces is not quite the moron that the words he actually used would have us believe.
Btw, I wouldn't really pick on this so much if he hadn't been attempting to be condescending towards me when he said it. But as it is, the irony of his trying to show how much smarter he is and shooting himself in the dick yet again is rather delicious.
I think it's conjectured and very likely true, but not proved. I don't even know that it can be proved unless/until chess is at "solved", whatever that would look like (may or may not be a brute force solution like an endgame tablebase, I don't know enough about how these things work).
I would actually personally find that a much more interesting discussion than the 9/11 conspiracies.
It is arguable. The bias in results could be as a result of people incorrectly believing black is at a disadvantage and playing for a draw while white is playing for a win.
Although if so, we could say that black is at a practical disadvantage because players believe it is.
I think you got it there at the end.
You missed off " but people in glass houses built on a swamp during a flood ..."
I mean come on:
Btw, I wouldn't really pick on this so much if he hadn't been attempting to be condescending towards me when he said it. But as it is, the irony of his trying to show how much smarter he is and shooting himself in the dick yet again is rather delicious.
