Sociopath Community

Jada said: 

That happened, and happens sometimes.

After 911 I don't trust NIST. Any ass knows a house of cards wouldn't even fall like that if it were on fire, let alone a steel frame building.

Do you reckon that the majority of engineers in the world with relevant expertise would come to the same conclusion and therefore verify your theory?

 

If so, your theory would be scientifically verified.

 

 

And I'll tell you this, a steel frame building has never fallen from a fire, in all of history, and never will happen, but we're expected to believe Tower 7 is the 3rd building to ever collapse from a fire, while the twin towers were the first two In history to fall from a fire. Meanwhile the the WTC including tower 7 were heavily reinforced unlike other buildings.

Wasn't it hit by a plane too?

"majority of engineers in the world"

 Once again your are looking to the consensus. Instead of looking to the consensus. look to the engineers and scientist that have no conflict of interests.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Jada said: 

That happened, and happens sometimes.

After 911 I don't trust NIST. Any ass knows a house of cards wouldn't even fall like that if it were on fire, let alone a steel frame building.

Do you reckon that the majority of engineers in the world with relevant expertise would come to the same conclusion and therefore verify your theory?

If so, your theory would be scientifically verified.

And I'll tell you this, a steel frame building has never fallen from a fire, in all of history, and never will happen, but we're expected to believe Tower 7 is the 3rd building to ever collapse from a fire, while the twin towers were the first two In history to fall from a fire. Meanwhile the the WTC including tower 7 were heavily reinforced unlike other buildings.

Wasn't it hit by a plane too?

It wasn't hit by a plane. 

 3 towers fell down that day. Most people don't  know that.

I remember seeing tower 7 fall that day. It fell down on it's  own footprint without any structural resistance like a controlled demolition.

Some scientists or engineers had to say what they needed to save their careers.

"majority of engineers in the world"

Once again your are looking to the consensus. Instead of looking to the consensus. look to the engineers and scientist that have no conflict of interests.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

I think consensus is a misnomer.

I could show the evidence to any structural engineer with relevant expertise, and one of four things could happen:

1) They are part of the conspiracy and will lie.

2) They confirm that thermal expansion cannot contribute to a building falling down in buildings like the twin towers.

3) They don't have sufficient relevant expertise to answer and tell you.

4) They don't have sufficient relevant expertise to answer and give you a wrong/misinformed answer.

What fraction of all randomly selected engineers, say, from Germany or from Russia are part of the global conspiracy and will lie? Or would it be more likely that they'd all confirm that thermal expansion cannot contribute to the twin towers falling down?

Suppose I carried out the study I outline above. What do you reckon the results will show? According to the ae911 website it seems like there are a bunch of engineers who think there is fault in the story.

One can easily fabricate the appearance of a consensus, given sufficient resources. However, true consensus? That's much harder to fabricate.

Science is at odds with itself as it should be. Verification in this case was never necessary.

What do you mean? Science is not at odds with itself, for the most part, insofar as well established theories go. Theories that are not well established are a different story.

It wasn't hit by a plane.

3 towers fell down that day. Most people don't know that.

I remember seeing tower 7 fall that day. It fell down on it's own footprint without any structural resistance like a controlled demolition.

Some scientists or engineers had to say what they needed to save their careers.

My suggestion is to ask Dimitri from Russia.

Jada said: 

"majority of engineers in the world"

Once again your are looking to the consensus. Instead of looking to the consensus. look to the engineers and scientist that have no conflict of interests.

https://www.ae911truth.org/

Suppose I carried out the study I outline above. What do you reckon the results will show? According to the ae911 website it seems like there are a bunch of engineers who think there is fault in the story.

 

 The truth does not mind inspection. The more structural engineers that look, the better. Many people on the ground heard several explosions. The building fell at the acceleration of gravity. That alone is proof enough. Demolition, instant removal of the main structural supports all at once.

Yes, many engineers have looked at the evidence and concluded that the claimed jet plane collision and jet fuel fire could not have taken down the building.  Unrelated engineers with no conflicts of interests, just pure scientific curiosity.

It was an inside job to push war on the middle east. The whole thing was total bullshit, this is the government we are dealing with here. The deep state. This is what Trump is fighting.

To liyang / jada

i was just falling asleep last night and I got this idea for an “algorithm” that could be applied to an app — but I’m not an engineer

unfortunately for me there were two parts and I have wholy forgotten the other one 

i remember my dad used to patent algorithms I so wish I could discuss with him

anyway I wonder if my idea is truly novel and if I could take it to a certain level of sophistication I could then “sell” it to the app as a feature of their app 

firstly, I’m not sure if I have the level of mathematics understanding but I would love to discuss my idea in private if it doesn’t mean I get scooped — and this learn a little more about the math in broad strokes 

so, secondly, I searched Google for how do I know my algorithm does what it sets out to accomplish  and I learned I could ask programmers and search the “prior art” — and that most likely my algorithm is not novel and already exists 

Thirdly how sophisticatedly does it have to be set forth to get a patent 

The truth does not mind inspection. The more structural engineers that look, the better. Many people on the ground heard several explosions. The building fell at the acceleration of gravity. That alone is proof enough. Demolition, instant removal of the main structural supports all at once.

Then we agree on the method and have a common framework to agree on the truth of the 911. That makes us both scientific realists. That might be something interesting to look at, putting the problem in front of highly skilled engineers, say, on a structural engineering forum, and studying what they say. I agree with you that its quite possible that 911 was an inside job, in the scientific realist sense.

However, I would say that it could be that 911 was both an inside job and the result of terrorism, or it could be that the truth doesn't even exist because we're using language to talk about things that have no real correspondence with reality. After all, how do you know that you aren't just imagining 911 happening in the first place, as a brain in a vat?

Your search for truth might be for nothing because your assumptions about the world could be wrong. Everything we do is contingent on a axioms we cannot justify.

so let me get this straight

you don't know if your idea is new, or if you could change it in such a way that it's commercially useful

and you don't know if you know enough math for this algorithm that you forgot half of

but you did see something on Google about "prior art", think this thing may already exist, and you want to know how sophisticated it needs to be

are you fucking spun out

sorry was replying to the boomer before Jada rudely cut me off

significantboner said: 

so let me get this straight

you don't know if your idea is new, or if you could change it in such a way that it's commercially useful

and you don't know if you know enough math for this algorithm that you forgot half of

but you did see something on Google about "prior art", think this thing may already exist, and you want to know how sophisticated it needs to be

are you fucking spun out

 Welcome to my world