固定されたツイート
Crank science: "My unfalsifiable speculation beats your testable theories and empirical evidence."
English
RealHoagyCarmichael🦖
2.1K posts
@Akareyon You don't care? Sounds like you don't want proof, you want permission to believe that the consensus explanation isn't functionally sufficient.
English
@Arrogance_0024 Trump doesn't want captured soldiers to survive and denounce his dumb war.
English
The "leave no man behind" doctrine is actually a strategic weakness disguised as a virtue.
Name one other military on earth that destroys 6 aircraft and fights a ground battle inside a sovereign nation to recover one pilot.
You can't. Because no other military confuses tactical sentimentality with strategic logic.
Soldiers serve the mission. The mission doesn't serve the soldier.
The US has now established that Iran can shoot down an F-15, then watch America spend $300M and expose Delta Force trying to prove it didn't happen.
That's not military doctrine. That's politics with weapons.
A military that cannot accept the risk of loss cannot win wars. The US hasn't won one since 1945.
Daniel Foubert 🇵🇱🇫🇷@Arrogance_0024
Lose all this to rescue 1 pilot and call it your greatest military success of all time.
English
@Akareyon We can avoid being wrong by not contradicting ourselves, while avoiding absolute statements. "I can't find any observations significantly conflicting with the consensus hypothesis" just means I haven't found any yet, and you haven't raised any in your manuscript. Nice try though.
English
@RightAngle1776 @AVGirl4Life Most violent assaults including sexual assaults are committed by religious and nonreligious authorities in positions of power. Domestic "mullahs" are no more or less dangerous than priests or cops.
wdsu.com/article/new-or…
English
I don't support a war with Iran. That said, I support and trust the president. I'm sure he made this decision because he had no other choice. I wish we'd focus on the war here at home. We have millions of mullahs here in the US, and the problem is getting worse. I get geopolitically that we need to choke China and subdue Russia. I get the strategy, but still the MAGA in me says fuck the world, America first. So i understand both sides; its a healthy debate, a much needed one; we aren't leftist NPC's.
English
The MAGA base is fractured over Iran. My whole feed is filled with infighting.
I’m opposed to war. I don’t want to see a boots on the ground war, but in this case all that happened was some very tactical targets and we took out a murdering POS dictator.
What’s the problem?
English
@RightAngle1776 @mhdksafa They dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable. Can Trump end the war now? We good?
x.com/BulwarkOnline/…
The Bulwark@BulwarkOnline
Trump: “We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leader's death. They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable…Yet if during this period there is no deal…we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants.”
English
@Akareyon If you and I agreed that the consensus explanations for 9/11 were "functionally sufficient" to explain all observations (tentatively closed) I would have no reason to raise the point again. Unless you contradicted yourself in the future with more unevidenced sophistry.
English
@Akareyon Not your endeavour anymore? Do you finally admit that we can consider the consensus theory tentatively "functionally sufficient" since the Twins' collapse is robust within the evidential envelope? Your evidence remains weaker than your sophistry.
English
@RightAngle1776 You're an idiot, aren't you? You said "The overarching future goal is to take the suicidal mullahs out of action", but Trump says he already did that. "They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable." So what's the point now?
x.com/BulwarkOnline/…
The Bulwark@BulwarkOnline
Trump: “We never said regime change, but regime change has occurred because of all of their original leader's death. They're all dead. The new group is less radical and much more reasonable…Yet if during this period there is no deal…we are going to hit each and every one of their electric generating plants.”
English
You're an idiot, aren't you? I gave you the objectives the administration has told the public and how they've met them; and what I see as his main goal concerning China. You're asking a normal citizen what the next tactical move of the army is? Are you dumb? My view is macro: only the president and his men know what's next. They're definitely not blabbing about our next move so our enemies can prepare. It's a shame that people like you exist. It makes the human race that much more tragic.
English
@RightAngle1776 Second time: what are the plan and objectives for the next period of B-2 bombing? Where have they been "laid out already"? Can you summarize those plans, or do you just want me to trust that they are somewhere?
English
Ah, the leftist talking point "he has no plan" and "he's spending too much," from the side that surrendered to the fucking Taliban and left 85 billion in military equipment just up for grabs by our enemies. You shouldn't talk about costs at all.
The plan is the objectives he laid out already, all of which have been met or are in the process of being met. The overarching future goal is to take the suicidal mullahs out of action, the main antagonist in the Middle East. With them off the board, you'll see peace in that region not seen in a while.
But obviously this isn't just about Iran. The plan, you leftist twat, is to outmaneuver China. We've kicked them out of the western hemisphere: Panama Canal, countries canceling Belt and Road agreements, captured Maduro ending China's oil grab there. Cuba will fall soon, ending China's/Russia's ambitions for a foothold.
Iran is a choke point, a proxy that can no longer act on behalf of the Chinese. Only a hate-filled POS leftist couldn't look at the masterclass Trump's team has implemented. Not to mention trade rebalancing, wars ended, illegals being kicked out.
We are no longer on a path of managed decline. Whether you like it or not, after our bones are dust, Trump's name will still be spoken of a thousand years from now. What he's done is remarkable.
English
@Akareyon I'm trying to determine what caused the deaths of 2,753 people in Manhattan and initiated a "war on terror" costing $10 trillion and 4.6 million lives around the world. I assume the truth is your primary interest as well.
English
@Melbana222 @micyoung75 This week on "Left, Right, and Center" the "Right" side admitted (unprompted) that if Russia had kompromat on Trump and was serving Putin to protect himself he wouldn't be doing anything differently than what he's been doing for a while.
English
@micyoung75 Trump’s war with Iran helped Russia 🇷🇺 undermining Ukraine’s defence and Europe’s assistance to Ukraine. Suddenly Europe, with no consultation by the US, is facing fighting two wars; one close to home and the other in the Middle East.
English
Applebaum's piece is worth reading slowly because the specific details are doing work that the summary can't.
Danish military commanders - inside a NATO alliance the United States founded - had to sit in a room and war-game whether their forces would shoot down American planes and kill American soldiers. Some of them still haven't fully recovered from running that exercise. The most popular app in Denmark during Applebaum's visit was one that identifies American products so users know not to buy them.
NATO has invoked Article 5 exactly once in its history. On behalf of the United States. After September 11th. Allied troops went to Afghanistan and some of them died there. Trump told reporters those allies "stayed a little back, a little off the front lines." The families of soldiers who didn't come back heard that.
Now Trump is in the middle of a war in the Persian Gulf with the Strait of Hormuz locked, oil prices spiking, and he's telling NATO allies - the same ones he insulted and tariffed and threatened - that he's "demanding" they come help solve a problem his own decisions helped create.
Applebaum's conclusion is precise: he doesn't connect what he does on one day to what happens weeks later. Allied leaders have drawn their conclusions. The rupture, as Mark Carney called it, isn't coming. It already happened.
Anne Applebaum@anneapplebaum
Trump has insulted and tariffed his European allies, persuaded Denmark to prepare for a US invasion and, by pressuring Ukraine and not Russia, encouraged Putin to keep fighting. All of which he has forgotten. theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/…
English
@Akareyon I'm asking if you agree. According to your criteria, because the current model pretty much explains everything, and new inquiry isn't turning up much new, we can basically say this is the answer for now. Right?
English
@Akareyon Oh Akareyon. All of these are explained by the consensus theory. Some have been directly explained to you, by me.
x.com/RealHoagy/stat…
RealHoagyCarmichael🦖@RealHoagy
@Akareyon @KnightofStJoan @redpilldispensr Is it usual to pretend all preceding discussion has never occurred? The Twins collapsed at 31% and 63% of free fall rate because 37% and 69% of m*g was used to crush the structure.
English
The history of science shows that premature epistemic closure (accepting a plausible narrative as a proven mechanism) is a profound error. It stifles inquiry and leaves foundational questions unanswered. [DeepSeek] #AIfor911truth
English
@Akareyon Apologies, you said "specific point". The explanation is functionally sufficient. Few anomalous data points. Further inquiry yielding diminishing returns. Progressive collapse theory is more or less at that point, right?
English
@Akareyon I liked this part. Nothing is ever "closed", but at some point the explanation is functionally sufficient enough that skeptics need to provide a superior model.
English
@Akareyon Explain. What observations are inconsistent with progressive collapse?
English
@Akareyon @Goatboy__ @jtimsuggs Impact shock delivers 20 seconds of momentum in a fraction of a second, until one or both of the star destroyers fail.
English
@Goatboy__ @jtimsuggs Star Detroyers are made of Anti-Newtonian Solid which exhibits directional strain-rate softening. Notice how the smaller contact area HH <=> SD resulted in a small dent, but the greater collision contact SD <=> SD area cuts like a well-sharpened knife, with little KE dissipation!
English
This moment when a Hammerhead Corvette rams into one Star Destroyer, making it crash into another, and destroying the Shield Gate above Scarif at the end of Rogue One.
Never even considered that this was a possibility, so it’s safe to say my mind was blown when I first watched this happen on opening night back in 2016.
cinesthetic.@TheCinesthetic
What is the most epic moment in the history of cinema?
English