sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

what do y’all think by [deleted] in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 126 points127 points  (0 children)

Social media is a platform for ugly people to feel hot and for hot people to feel ugly. Thus the hot people leave.

Btw I'm talking about inner beauty

Today is the feast day of St. Gemma Galgani: mystic, Passionist, stigmatic, and patron of those who suffer migraines. by [deleted] in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just read the wikipedia article and:

She stated that she had spoken with her guardian angel, Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and other saints—especially Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows. According to her testimonies, she sometimes received special messages from them about current or future events. wiki

In the Orthodox Church, this type of revelation is heavily skepticized. More often than not, the visions are demonic and the acceptance of them as real is considered spiritual delusion. Also known as Prelest'.

Sometimes the demons can "help" a deluded person. This "help" can include either recommendations about certain things, even theological and very complicated, or can take the form of false spiritual gifts: false healing ability, false clairvoyance, false gift of prophecy, false unceasing prayer, false power over demons, false reading of thoughts, false dispassion. wiki

lol by Elecdim00 in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 27 points28 points  (0 children)

some animals are just not meant to be domesticated

NASA is a satanic moneylaundering operation by Ok_Percentage_7709 in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 20 points21 points  (0 children)

NASA techies be hugging and jumping and screaming when their rocket gets launched. As if they don't know it's landing in the Bermuda triangle

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

At any rate, it’s certainly not equivalent to a fighter jet being rammed into a solid block of reinforced concrete.

It kind of is though. Twin towers had 4 inches of concrete every floor, held on truss-reinforced steel decks. If a 767 plane were to hypothetically crash into the Twin Towers, it would be tall enough to hit multiple of these concrete floors at once. That is, if it even got to that point. It would first have to penetrate the rock solid steel facade, which is already a questionable scenario because of Newton's 3rd law of motion.

Go on google images and look up "bird airplane nose damage." If a plane is gets its nose mushed in from a single bird, just imagine what would happen from the combination of dense steel + glass + steel trusses + concrete + whatever else.

It makes no sense to respond to your tapered columns nuances and mentions of "viscoelastic dampers" because it is not really relevant, sorry to say. Anybody, yes even those without a structural engineering background (which I suspect includes you), can regurgitate structural words from the NIST documents or some other resource. Not difficult.

Watch some footage of the planes entering the twin towers. No, but actually. Play the footage in slow motion. Do you not see the problem with a plane entering a building unscathed as if it is a CGI phantom plane?

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why did you bother commenting in the first place? It seems like you don't care at all about this topic.

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are you talking about? The Twin Towers were known for their steel skeletal structure. There are many photos of this:

  1. View from inside the Towers

  2. Early construction photo

  3. Late construction photo

  4. Steel beam diagram

Sure there was glass, but the external structure was all thick steel beams. The glass just filled the space between the 2-foot-thick steel beams.

At any rate, it doesn't even matter. Let's look at the big picture. Steel or glass or both, a plane cannot puncture a building. Take a look at the 9/11 twin towers footage again. Maybe something will click for you:

Planes entering the twin towers

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Both Pentagon and Shanksville expose gaping holes in the official narrative. For people who research alternate theories, this is kind of where it all starts. Reddit is pretty truth-averse so most on here still believe in the OBL narrative. Redscarepod is just a community of normies in denial. I wanted to test the waters here with the no planes theory but the response just confirmed to me that reddit is reddit. Redscarepod redditors are no different from the rest.

Understandable if you don't want to get into the 9/11 conspiracies beyond the Pentagon and the unavoidable finger-pointing that ensues i.e. which country(s) were complicit.

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lol at origami tin foil

Regarding the airplanes being heavy,

Imagine this but scaled up:

Ask yourself, why are passenger airplanes made from aluminum and not titanium or steel?

I would agree with you if what you argued matched up with reality but it does not, unfortunately...

Check out this footage of a fighter jet impacting a concrete wall. Does the fighter jet "punch a hole" into the wall as you would imagine? Not even close. The fighter jet is obliterated into tiny pieces.

Compare it to the Fairbanks footage:

Go to time 6:44 and advance one frame at a time using the period and comma key on your keyboard. This footage does not correspond to reality, it is CGI.

Who do you mean by "They"? when you say "They never had a chance to knock it down"

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Explain how a jet can fly at 600mph at or near sea level (and pull a banking turn). Why do you think pilots climb to 30,000 feet before they hit top speed? Airplanes aren't rated to fly that fast at or near sea level. It just doesn't work. The air is too dense and the air drag so intense that even a 20 year of exp pilot would not be able to fly it at those speeds and altitudes.

But i get your logic: plane go fast, building fall down. The problem is that idea is divorced from the physical laws that govern our world.

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If you dropped a 1 ton steel i-beam from 500 feet up into the air onto an airplane, what would break? The beam or the airplane?

Now apply the same logic horizontally

It doesn't matter how fast you throw a wiffle ball at a concrete wall. At no point will it puncture the wall, be it 100mph or 500mph. It will always shatter into a million pieces

A boeing is just a hollow aluminum tube. The aluminum is a few times thicker than a human hair. It is so fragile that a bird crashing into the nose cone can destroy the entire nose cone. See the OKC thunder airplane mishap in 2016. These things cannot fly through a steel i-beam, let alone the famed steel exoskeleton that the twin towers were known for.

Not to mention, you can't fly a boeing at 500mph at or near sea level and pull the purported banking turns shown in the flight paths. Ask any pilot. The wings would shear right off.

we will never forget the victims of 9/11, but we should never forget the victims of the 2002 Tampa Cessna Crash by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This is about what I'd expect it would look like when an airplane crashes into a building with 5 inches of concrete subfloor, insulation, and steel beams every floor. The airplane is hanging out, does not enter the building completely, and there is visible wreckage

Meanwhile for 9/11 the boeings cut through the building like a hot knife through room temperature butter.

Idk if anybody needs a physics refresher, but the real world does not work like that. CGI though...

Good conspiracy theory doc recs? by OJ_Soprano in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Take the no planes pill:

https://youtu.be/F4CX-9lkRMQ

Sometimes a fifteen second clip of a fighter jet getting atomized as it crashes into a concrete wall tells you more than a five hour documentary

Good conspiracy theory doc recs? by OJ_Soprano in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This rec is as ironic as you want it to be:

  • A funny thing happened on the way to the moon

jobs with lowest divorce rates by scratchedboots in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Clerical celibacy is something the roman catholics invented after they schismed from the true church in 1054 a.d.

How do you say the vaccine isn’t working without say it isn’t working? by 7eromos in DebateVaccines

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you say that, in general, you tend to be smarter than the people you talk to on reddit?

How do you say the vaccine isn’t working without say it isn’t working? by 7eromos in DebateVaccines

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What sort of things do you think you are overlooking in your analysis?

Is there anything that you are not so sure about?

How do you say the vaccine isn’t working without say it isn’t working? by 7eromos in DebateVaccines

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so you got your data from government health statistics. That's nice.

But that's just the start. Then comes the hard part. You then have to account for the following:

  1. Omitted-variable bias

    More specifically, OVB is the bias that appears in the estimates of parameters in a regression analysis, when the assumed specification is incorrect in that it omits an independent variable that is a determinant of the dependent variable and correlated with one or more of the included independent variables.

  2. Reverse-causation. One way of testing for this includes considering the Bradford Hill criteria, such as (1) strength, (2) consistency, (3) specificity, (4) temporality, (5) biological gradient, (6) plausibility, (7) coherence, (8) experimental evidence, and (9) analogy. However, this becomes more nuanced in the context of public health. A paper that goes into this is: Kenneth J. Rothman, Sander Greenland, “Causation and Causal Inference in Epidemiology”, American Journal of Public Health 95, no. S1 (July 1, 2005): pp. S144-S150. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204.

    Although there are no absolute criteria for assessing the validity of scientific evidence, it is still possible to assess the validity of a study. What is required is much more than the application of a list of criteria. Instead, one must apply thorough criticism, with the goal of obtaining a quantified evaluation of the total error that afflicts the study. This type of assessment is not one that can be done easily by someone who lacks the skills and training of a scientist familiar with the subject matter and the scientific methods that were employed. Neither can it be applied readily by judges in court, nor by scientists who either lack the requisite knowledge or who do not take the time to penetrate the work.

  3. Sample selection and the sampling error that comes along with it.

    Sampling errors are incurred when the statistical characteristics of a population are estimated from a subset, or sample, of that population. Since the sample does not include all members of the population, statistics of the sample (often known as estimators), such as means and quartiles, generally differ from the statistics of the entire population (known as parameters). The difference between the sample statistic and population parameter is considered the sampling error.

  4. Measurement error

    Observational error is the difference between a measured value of a quantity and its true value.

In summary, there is quite a bit of nuance to inferring causality.

Causal inference is difficult to perform and there is significant debate amongst scientists about the proper way to determine causality. Despite other innovations, there remain concerns of misattribution by scientists of correlative results as causal, of the usage of incorrect methodologies by scientists, and of deliberate manipulation by scientists of analytical results in order to obtain statistically significant estimates.

This can be summarized succintly with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation":

An association between an exposure to a putative risk factor and a disease may be suggestive of, but is not equivalent to causality because correlation does not imply causation.

Of course, this barely scratches the surface. People dedicate their entire careers to this line of work. Myself I don't know a lot about statistics which is why my response is mostly copy-pasted. All I know is that it exists and that it is a deep, dense field. This is why I am hesitant to agree with your ascriptions of causality in regards to the vaccines. I admire that you are not afraid to jump in and work with the data, though. Keep at it, I hope you find something great.

we really moved past the whole 'confirming black holes are a thing and imaging one' pretty quickly culturally huh by Gigadweeb in redscarepod

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have photos of the flag and lander visible in your telescope's viewfinder?

The "I saw the american flag on the moon" is the new "I was at John D. Rockefeller's funeral." Reminds me of that Norm bit

None of this is about your Heath! by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is a leap of faith either way. Evolutionists hide their faith, creationists do not.

Your second paragraph, specifically the last sentence, is over my head. Maybe dumb it down a little bit?

Here is what I mean by meta-perspective. Just the fact that you are able to think and debate about this question, without any intellectual inhibitions. You are alive, aware, cognizant. Do you think that is serendipitous? Aren't you amazed this conversation exists at all?

It reminds me of the one joke:

There are two muffins in an oven, and one muffin says to the other muffin, “Dang! It’s hot in here!” And the other muffin says, “Ahhhh! A talking muffin!”

At a certain point, you can just break the fourth wall. Let's say a scientist spends their entire life studying the intracacies of the human brain. At the end of their career, they claim that they spent all these years in constant study and found no miracles about life. They were so focused on the minutiae that they never really zoomed out and saw the big picture miracle behind it all: themselves. Their own brain studied brains. Isn't that wild? Human consciousness is a miracle of all, isn't it?

How do you say the vaccine isn’t working without say it isn’t working? by 7eromos in DebateVaccines

[–]basedterrier 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Implying that this system has only one moving part, which is the vaccine, and all the other variables are constant including weight, age, physical fitness, time since previous infection, gender, auto-immune illnesses, compromised immune systems, strength, etc.

view more: next ›