pretzelogik

I implore anyone with any curiosity about September eleventh to visit the below link and review the video content that was broadcast that day with fresh eyes: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911#/ Below is a frame grab from the NBC feed in the 9:00 -9:10 am segment (mentioned above), supposedly taken from a helicopter: This shot is impossible. For the foreground (the hardware and text on the helicopter equipment) to be in focus as it is, the WTC in the distance would have to be totally out of focus and vice versa. This effect can ONLY be achieved by layering two video clips, one containing the foreground and one containing the background. The 9/11 imagery presented on that day is full of such anomalies, including missing floors and windows of buildings, hand drawn imagery, impossible shadows, visible layer masking lines, etc., all of which can be verified at the above link. The imagery that was broadcast as live (I believed it was at the time) was created in advance and provides the most complete and direct explanation for the physics in question.

As I said before, I haven't drawn conclusions about nuclear power. There are too many issues with the evidence provided for the bomb for me to ever be taken in by that hoax again, and I derive absolutely no benefit from you believing in it or otherwise. It was a relief for me to let go of the notion that a single psycho with his finger on a button could vaporize my family remotely, thank goodness. But since the idea that power and the bomb are inextricably linked in the minds of many and you seem to be very well informed on the nature of this source of power, perhaps you could help me resolve a couple of engineering riddles. From what I can gather about Fukushima, it was a general power failure that stopped the cooling systems of the reactors that melted down, so the reactors rely on external power for the most fundamentally critical aspects of their performance and safety. Interruption of that external power is catastrophic, to say the least. Evidently, this has happened elsewhere, as well. Why build a perpetual power machine (where "a tiny fuel pellet less than 0.2 cubic inches will provide the energy equivalent of approximately 2,000 pounds of coal" - according the the nuclear power course curriculum, recommended above) and not have the power it generates cool itself, first and foremost? I mean if these machines are generating 375,000MW of power, surely they could cool themselves. Since you work in industry, maybe you could offer an explanation, I could not find one. The other curious thing: almost all of the nuclear reators in the world are situated in areas that already have fully integrated electrical grids, very few are in remote areas where the demand and convenience would make more sense. Apparently they are still working on getting small reactors to Antartica and such, but at present it's still a bridge too far. Perhaps it's just a question of money. BTW, is your job top secret or anything? Are you at liberty to discuss what you do? Can you bring doughnuts into the control room?

Tineye reveals this image to be associated with the Cherenkov reactor, thus the blue light. I found it on a Raw Science article page which describes the apparent blue glow of Cherenkov radiation. The same article also featured an image of the Oak Ridge Lab's Molten Salt reactor which, when subjected to ELA via Fotoforensics showed signs of digital manipulation. That article can be found here. (You're welcome for sourcing the image) http://www.rawscience.tv/the-best-reactor-youve-never-heard-of/ The few additional images associated with the blue glow that I looked at also showed signs of digital manipulation. The image above appears to be an entirely digital creation (a rendering or cartoon), as opposed to a manipulated photograph. Perhaps you could direct me to some images of the Cherenkov reactor that are not manipulated. Is this state propaganda? Perhaps. Does it mean nuclear power is a fantasy? My verdict on that is still out. I find it supicious that unadulterated photos seem to be in short supply. If in fact, the nuclear power story is accurate and the deterioation of uranium or plutonium over time generates heat that can be harnessed to spin turbines, it does not follow that striking pieces of these metals together would vaporize a city.

This could be another opprortunity to use the groovy animated Straw Man graphic that was posted earlier, but it is rather large. The problem is not understanding but reliance on narrative in drawing conclusions, which is a matter of faith, not science. I do not need faith in the computer, I have experience. There is need for entangled particles or spooky action at a distance to describe a machine that is a function of mechanics and binary logic. The speed and efficiency of these machines have been increased in a linear fashion over a number of decades in a way that can be traced without any reliance on what could be described as supernatural phenomena. Contrast the computer with the atom bomb, an once upon a time event that is riddled of plot holes and must be taken on faith. The entire hoax was stage managed by the state; they created it and provided the demostrably contrived evidence for it. It's ironic that on an anarchy forum there is such unwavering trust in the narrative provided by the state when it comes to the bomb. Or other such unverifiable, institutionalized science. I don't know if you have heard the news but the latest papal encyclical on climate change has once again put the church and state (and science) in lock step with yet another justification to fleece the flock. It's as old as history. As the state is a religion itself, there should be no surprise in the new public alliance. In many cases (especially in large institutions where unverifyable and complicated experiments that have to do with the origin of the universe and such are performed) scienctism is simply doing the bidding of the church/state. I do not confuse scientism (Berkeley, Royal Society, NASA, big bang, dark matter, etc.) with the scientific method or scientists who discover innovative solutions to problems in the real world.

It comes down to believing something based on credentials and consensus. If I were receiving umpteen billions of dallars in government grant money to produce results favorable to the cause of my benefactors, I would publish a lot of reports as well. But popularity and documents do not make something so, otherwise there would be no atheists. I am an atheist regarding scientism (as opposed to science and the scientific method) and have no more confidence in any the narratives that issue from the hallowed halls of Berkeley, MIT, NASA, the Royal Society, et al. than I do in climate change. Hint - they are all in. Also, the relationship between the black robes and the white coats is historically a lot more cozy that we have been led to believe. i mean, the fact that the Vatican owns the most powerful telescope in the world could only be a demonstration of the church's commitment to the dispersion of unbiased scientific discoveries, right?

I'll keep you advised. In addition to the Higgs Boson curfew and travel restrictions there will be Easter Bunny captial containment and burning bush communications censorship. I am sure there will be many other fanciful stories and the laws they foster being issued by the men in white coats or black robes or what have you emanating from the marble edifices erected in homage to the triumvirate gods of religion, state and science. But I repeat myself.

So, if I am understanding correctly, the message here is that there is no difference between that which happens in reality and is readily verifiable by the senses, and reports about what happens in reality that can be verified by reading the reports. I am not sure how much stock I would put in government reports (cough CPI...). I would prefer to have a look at these particles colliding with my own eyes, thank you.. And seriously, did you even look at the rockoons? A Gieger counter tied to a rocket tied to a ballon is how we kow about the Van Allen Belts. The ones the astronauts could see or couldn't see through their closed eyelids...

I am curious as to how one goes about veriying anything that is decreed by the high priests of big science, what with their particle guns and gold foil, cyclotrons, large hadron colliders, rockoons, red shift radio listening devices (thank goodness for that pigeon poop), etc. (The rockoons are my favorite!) There is an entire world of academic research that is funded by the government (not a reliable repository of trustworthiness) to produce results demanded by the particular pysop of the day, whether it's nuclear weapons, global cooling, acid rain, global warming, climate change, ebola, ad infintum. These psyops come and go as needed and are maintained through the Hollywood/military industrial complex, which includes news broadcasts. A lower third graphic picturing the word: "Live" on a TV screen in no way indicates that the footage being shown at that instant was not created in advance. Later these "news" reports become what is commonly referred to as "history". Reference any current high school textbook in regard to September 11, 2001 for confirmation of this. As far as hot/cold wars are concerned there is ample evidence of collusion between the leaders of the fictions referred to as nations. Mutually assured destruction is simply an exit strategy for winding down the hoax. There is never any doubt among those who orchestrate and conduct the wars in their various "theaters" what the new paradigm will be once the explosions stop. War is a tool to thin the herd to manageable levels and dramatically reconfigure social convention in short bursts, as opposed to Fabian style. It's a win/win! For the parasites, that is...

Can you direct me to where I can witness an atomic explosion? I understand the evidence of these super weapons (the topic of this thread, lest we forget) was only witnessed by their supposed creators, who also documented and distributed the recordings of said events. Otherwise known as a conflict of interest. Somehow the contrived footage and images (some of which even contain material drawn by hand!) is conveniently sidestepped at every turn. BTW, the following link describes a recent example (among many others throughout history, as science is nothing if not political) of the corrupt peer review process. Of course, it's mainly those danged Asians, the murikans would never do such a thing...

Person 1: Here's some figures on a piece of paper Person 2: Do you have any actual evidence in reality? Maybe something we can verify? Person 1: Here's some literature so you can study it. Person 2: Study what, the government story, backstopped by government subisidized institutions? I thought this was an anarchy site... Person 1: It is sorta, except when it comes to science stuff like A bombs and Apollo, then we're all in! Government would never lie about science stuff.

Fotoforensics ELA (Error Level Analysis) reports indicate the Daily Star images are composites comprised of at least two layers. Fotoforensics provides some basic tutorials for an understanding of how it works. Viewing uploaded photos that are confirmed to be unaltered is also helpful. MSM is not our friend.

Are the above "historical" images of the Nagasaki "explosion" authentic?

Pro what, the benefits of using sunscreen? There is bit of a disconnect with definitions here: A phenomenon that can be independently observed and experienced by anyone who cares to step out of doors and do so is not the same as a fantastical claim made by the same people providing the evidence for said claim, namely images and a narrative which was also created by the claimants.

I spent four years in divinity school studying the theory and practice of the holy trinity and found no reason to doubt that God exists and works in mysterious ways. Ad vericunium is not an argument, but I have heard that challenging logical fallacies does little to help win friends and influence people.

Congrats, I hope those credentials serve you well. Perhaps part of your future curriculum will address the fundamentals of advancing an argument.

Please share, I am curious.

Tha definition does pop up at the top of a google search for the definition of evidence. Unfortunately, it could also be used to validate the bible. There is a huge body of work verifying the bible. The scientific method includes empiricism as far as I understand it. When I mentioned evidence I was referring to corpus delecti. No one can be tried for arson unless there is proof that something was burned, regardless of testimony. Here is a prediction I am 100% confident will be borne out: we will never see another nuclear explosion. Nor will our children, or their children or children's children. How many generations will pass before this legendary doomsday technology achieves the mythological status of the bilical ark of the covenant? Would we still be believing in nuclear bomb capability if it was claimed to have been used by King Richard the Lionheart?

There seems to be some miscommunication on this thread about the definition of evidence, versus theory. Evidence simply exists, whether it is described in a particular language or not. When it comes to evidence of the bomb and its destructive potential there is video evidence, aftermath, eyewitness accounts and nuclear fallout. All of these can be and have been called into question. The veracity of those making claims about the evidence can also be called into question when conflicts of interests are apparent. The evidence that has been presented in support of the atom bomb explosions would not pass muster in even the most basic of low level courtroom trials. As far as the math and scientific theory goes, that is an entirely different subject but should not be considered as evidence.

The first thing that occurs to me when I see an article like this is to question its veracity. Just because it is in a MSM publication does not mean it is true. More elaborate (although not necessarily more repulsive) false stories are generated by the media on a regular basis. This is likely another part of an ongoing effort to curtail freedom of speech, drum up support for a tiered internet or both. The real takeaway of the article is the last line: "It shows that there is still a long way to go for technology companies and social media networks who work with police to identify and prevent these crimes."

The shock wave, not the heat, is what supposedly rocked the Enola Gay which was 31,000 feet above the blast. I am not sure how much math is required to make the assumption that if a shock wave would move an airplane 31,000 feet above the blast, it would have some noticeable effect on clouds that were much closer. Of course considering steel melts at 1510° and the heat wave is some 6+ times this temperature, there would be a noticeable effect on the clouds from the heat, as well. Granted, these figures are provided by the state, who also created the videos, who also created the entire nuclear weapons narrative, which is what is in question here. The point is that the evidence is in conflict with itself, so at least some of the narrative must be suspect. As far as basic history goes, whatever basic means, for the most part it means stories handed down by the state. As the state is another branch of religion (though it does not self identify as such), the stories handed down by the state are on par, in terms of truth value, with those found in any religious text. And I do think many people do take pleasure in believing in such stories. Some of the stories also cause a great deal of anxiety. The goal is to achieve certainty about the environment in which we live and breath,which is most reliably accomplished through sense perception and logic and is oppositional to belief. It is the attainment of certainty or knowledge that allows for the best possible outcome when interacting with that environment.

Thanks so much for your concern for my credibility. I am afraid there is little hope of rescuing it though, as people are free to down vote simply on the basis on whether they disagree with a premise; evidence and conviviality notwithstanding. Also, thanks for your input on one possibility of static clouds pictured in the footage of atomic explosions. I still prefer Occam's Razor on this one: the simplest explanation for clouds which appear to be unaffected by tremendous heat and pressure of a nuclear blast (10,000 degrees and a shock wave that could rock the Enola Gay 31,000 feet above the blast according to legend) is most easily explained by video compositing. The cloud video layer is unaffected by the blast video layer because the layers are only interacting on film. In the boat scenario referenced above, the cloud remaining and being held in shape and position (virtually?), while the 10,000 degree high pressure wave makes it dissipate and the low pressure wave causes it to reappear in it's original form seems more farfetched. To complete the boat analogy, the boat in the storm would be disassembled by the wave, and emerge reassembled on the recession of the wave. And you are right, I would be very surprised to witness such a phenomenon.

This one resonates with me:

Two philosophers walk past a bar....hey, it could happen! I was wondering why that baseball kept getting bigger... then it hit me.

Are photographs evidence? An analogy: I have a car I am selling for $10,000.00. A buyer shows up with a stack of 1000 $100.00 bills. I take out my counterfeit marker and begin the process of verification. First bill positive, second, negative. Third, negative, fourth negative fifth positive and so on. At what point would you decide to wait for the next buyer? Would you check all one thousand bills or stop after the first or second negative? Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

Indeed, ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy. There is not an argument being presented, per se, as a negative cannot be proven, but the goal is to call into the question the claims made by those identified by descriptors to which the ad hominem exception was taken. Courts of law (not that the court system should be considered a rational standard, but it is part of the same entity making the nuclear claim) routinely dismiss testimony when it can be shown that there is a conflict of interest or if the character of the witness can be called into question. Identifying those contributing to the aforementioned book as having direct ideological and financial ties to the state is not so much an ad hominem as it is an illustration of conflict of interest, as none of the descriptors is inaccurate. The argument being made here is that the still and moving image evidence of the nuclear claim is created through compositing as opposed to unadulterated capture of events in real time. Imagery is one half of the evidence of the claim, the other being narrative. If those creating the narrative have a conflict of interest and the narrative conflicts with itself, the reliability of the evidence of the nuclear claim is tenuous.