[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Oblate spheroid afair

Spamouflage
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spamouflag...

People don't realize they are being targeted, brainwashed, and manipulated online. All the rise in conspiracy theories, anti-American hate, etc... are intentional by foreign actors.

The primary reason people believe conspiracy theories is because it's empowering. They know something other people don't know. And because those that believe them don't understand how the systems they're discussing actually work. In other words, they lack basic knowledge, so they are more susceptible to information that "connects the dots" for them. 99.9% of conspiracy theories can be explained away w/ just ONE good question that the believer didn't consider.

Congratulations - you might actually only be the second or third biggest idiot here.

What is the reason you chose this less accurate method over the correct equation that would allow you to insert observer height?

There's going to be quite a bit of carryover with the Nazis, though. Even guys like Brian J and Knight are going to enjoy the IP thread.

I meant conservatism. But ok I can see how someone might take that the wrong way so I shouldn't have said it like that. But I'm on the record saying that, because of how they process fear, many conservatives are a fundamentally different type of person, a different breed. I have some friends whom I've been able to convince of this and we speak of conservatives as a different breed. It has nothing to do with ethnicity.

You have to admit, Stalin wasn't going to be put out by some flimsy, CIA originating "color revolution". You weren't going to kidnap that guy like Maduro. You can admire him for that, can't you?

I don't condemn Hamas. They are people fighting a brutal manifestation of white supremacy. I'm not going to judge people suffering unspeakable tragedies on a daily basis any more than I would judge Nat Turner. The country I know, the whites of America, would behave with far less regard for human life if someone group of people was doing that to them. I have zero doubt about that. The Palestinian people are faced with an existential question. They know they could lose everything, not just their lives but all record of them ever having existed. And the people who have the means and the will to act that absurdly evil are right there doing it. No, not going to blame concentration camp victims for trying to escape and fight back.

What a shocker, Dunces is a Stalin and Hamas fan. I would say I didn't have that on my bingo card, but I'd be lying.

I just can't get over the idea that what's his nuts (I'm not going to look up his name) is arguing against the earth being a globe by trying to say it doesn't fit the formula for a parabola in the same forum that he claimed to be an engineer.

Man, I thought df-deuces was something.

I'm wondering where he gets his error bars from. Again, they can't possibly be correct, because the error will increase with distance from the point of tangency (for a fair while, anyway).

In fact, it's pretty easy to work out the error. If you scale down the circle to be a unit circle and define the parabola to be y=-x^2 + 1 so the point of tangency is at (0,1), the difference between the y coordinate of the circle and the y coordinate of the parabola for a given x coordinate in (0,1) is -x^2 + 1 - sqrt(1-x^2). The plot of this function is below:

Or, as an error relative to the value of the x coordinate:

So basically, up to about a 30% error across the quarter circle.

I mean, obviously it is within 0.03% for some very short distance. If he presses the point I'll scale it up and work out exactly what that distance is in miles, but hopefully I've made my point.

I think the bigger issue is that across any distances where the parabola approximation is "good enough", a straight line approximation would be just as good or better, and that's what we're trying to prove/disprove.

ETA: A picture being worth a thousand words, here's quite just how shitty an approximation a parabola is for a circle:

Using the wrong formula as an approximation when they are both so absolutely dirt simple just betrays a complete lack of knowledge. There's just no reason to ever use an approximation, especially with modern tools and the internet. It's a dead giveaway that he has no idea what he's talking about.

I still don't even quite understand wtf we're trying to work out. Is it distance to the horizon or something? I was just pointing out that there is no world in which you can use a parabola as an approximation for a circle. For the minute distances where the error is negligible, you would get roughly the same error using a straight line as an approximation for the circle.

Ironic really - what he's trying to prove is outside the error bounds of his methodology by explicit construction. He has defined the error bounds to be such that he gets the same results whether it's a straight line, a circle, or the random curve he has chosen to approximate the circle (presumably because distance squared is easy to understand and remember), to within his acceptable error.

I never even considered this and it makes it even more hilariously stupid.

The error is going the opposite way, but pretty much, yeah. The vertical distance from the blue curve to the red curve is roughly the same as the vertical distance from the red curve to the orange line for small values of x:

The only difference between the error calculation between the parabola and the circle and the line and the circle is the -x^2 term, which is tiny for small values of x. Flipping the sign plotting them together:

(unsurprisingly, the "error" between the line and the circle is itself a circle).

In other words, for fairly small angles/distances, the circle is roughly the midpoint between a parabola and a line. So any acceptable error for the parabola must also by definition be acceptable for the line.

ETA: Maybe he's got a coefficient in his parabola which makes it a better approximation. If he gives me the coefficient, I can re-calculate the error margins. Hard to know since he won't give us anything concrete.

Billy, if you're reading this, I'll put it in terms you understand - if you claim that you don't notice the difference between a parabola and a circle using your methodology, you are by definition saying that you also don't notice the difference between a straight line and a circle using the same methodology - the very thing you're supposed to be proving/disproving. The error margins are basically the same in both approximations for the distances with which you're working.

I'd very likely be fighting alongside with Hamas if I was born into that. Actual resistance becomes a personal survival strategy when you reach that level. And they far surpassed that point imo.

But in good faith I don't think you being particularly straight up when you backstep on the "breed" comments or wanting everyone who isn't a commie to kill themselves lol. In the same day you literally advocated for wanting to help Americans to asking that 99%+ kill themselves. Its essentially impossible to assume such mistakes, and again, I think you should just argue the actual issue.

...Like I can't just pretend that Nut Nut just coincidently has the worst economic proposals for the good of mankind through a dozen threads and argue that into perpetuity.

I don't hate you, and don't know what I've said that would make you think that I do.

I rejected the 'official' 9/11 narrative years ago. And nobody has never needed 'social permission' to challenge the official 9/11 narrative. Nor has anyone ever needed 'permission' to challenge the findings of the Warren Commission.

I agree that the guvment lies to us all the time. But that fact by itself doesn't validate any particular alternative narrative. It doesn't even necessarily mean that the official narrative is false.

No 'pretending' required. Threads morph into new topics all the time. This has been a Flat Earth thread for a week or so. But now that you're back to share your [strike]psychobabble[/strike] evidence with us, we can shift back to 9/11 stuff.

It should go without saying that Trolly and I don't belong to each other's fan clubs, but I'm confident Trolly would stand up against antisemitism whether it was 'unpopular' to do so or not.

Define 'like.'

Sent from my tin-can using a string.

What are you, still in high school mentally?

Why are you so concerned with authority and popularity? It is as though you have no sense of your own personal will. Not to be sexist, but personally I don't see how making yourself into a function of some oligarch's mind is compatible with being a man. I suppose there are different conceptions of manhood, but I always see people like you as kinda like Dracula's Renfro. You get some reward from master which is enough to get you by but you give up your free will. That always seemed like such an unacceptable bargain to me. I see that bargain as more like volunteering to be Reek from Game of Thrones.

You and Trolly and others here, you swallow everything the CIA puts in your mouth and you let them control you. Do you see yourselves more like a Renfro or a Reek? because there is no way you can be so delusional as to think you are the master of your fate or the captain of your soul.

If you think that you know very little about people. Trolly does what the authority tells him. And if it were the 1930s someone like Trolly would absolutely, without question, join in the state sponsored persecution of the Jewish people. It seems only people like me, or Victor, people of our general ilk, who have it in them to resist the mob.

Trolly is going to go out and vote for a party that just committed genocide in Gaza. And he will only call it a genocide depending on the political calculations of that party, not his own evaluation. A protestor who set himself on fire in protest of of the genocide in Gaza, Aaron Bushnell, said that how you would act in Nazi Germany is how you are acting right now. I find that a very powerful condemnation of everybody in Trolly's political class, the neocons, who comply with large scale murderous atrocities while proclaiming themselves to be good. Their identity is they are smart and good, and this perception does not change as what they do results in unanticipated calamity and intentional human atrocities. And that's why they can't go against any narrative, let alone the totally and completely transparently false 9/11 narrative, because it threatens this fundamentally illusionary identity of theirs.

The government lies to us, ultimately, in order to rob us and disempower us on behalf of an elite class who hold vast sums of concentrated capital. How much capital or money hinged on the interpretation of the 9/11 attacks? A trillion dollars? More even? If the government controlled all the evidence and blocked the interrogation of that evidence, what more would you need to know that this is a spot where the government is going to lie 100% of the time?

The whole point of demonstrating the falseness of the 9/11 narrative is to get political will behind a real investigation undertaken in good faith. Whether you believe building 7 completely collapsed at near freefall acceleration via human intentionality (the only way that could happen btw) or because of some localized fire inside it, you should be able to recognize that the government blocked, sabotaged, and corrupted the investigation of this terrorist event. And why would the government do that unless the narrative they (meaning the oligarchs who control it) wanted was a false one?

nOt bEiNG sExIsT

Wow, you got all that from me asking Vic who likes him? Wild, you should take this show on the road.

I mean, I didn't read it, but still, looks like a lot.