4 ms·
> Manhattan Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs Won't point out all the double agents for the KGB that
by EdwardDiego 3y ago
> Manhattan Project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
Won't point out all the double agents for the KGB that infested western spy agencies, (and vice versa) it's more of the same, really, and there's too many names to type. And those are only the ones we know of...
But yep, the NSA is a good counterexample, however also a poor one as they primarily operate in the signals/digital space, where passive monitoring is the default, and where paper trails are far easier to not leave.
As a thought experiment, extrapolate from the NSA to "the Bush administration did 9/11, jet fuel can't melt steel, it was a controlled demolition" conspiracy theory that implicitly requires government agents lining massive skyscrapers with explosives without being noticed, without anyone having a moral crisis, especially no-one in the "crash a plane allegedly filled with American citizens into a building in New York" division.
And you'll quickly see how the NSA's quiet operations in the small don't scale to the level of competent and silent government required for faking a moon landing, or ensuring no-one knows about aliens amongst us etc etc.
- swader999 3y agoHow did building 7 fall?
- EdwardDiego 3y agoNIST wrote an extensive report.
- colordrops 3y agoThe NIST report had very basic important information like speed of collapse found to be incorrect by high school teacher David Chandler.
- EdwardDiego 3y agoAh, a high school teacher who makes YouTube videos. Well, I'm convinced. Who needs engineers and scientists eh?
- colordrops 3y agoYou can be a dismissive snob, but NIST actually changed their report based on his feedback.
- EdwardDiego 3y agoOkay, so the final report is correct then thanks to him, but the conclusions didn't change, IIRC? I dismissed him out of hand, I'll admit.
- EdwardDiego 3y agoOkay, so the final report is correct then thanks to him, but the conclusions aren't? I dismissed him out of hand, I'll admit. I'm just really unsure why the idea that heat reduces the strength of steel enough, and that the failure of the columns located in the hottest area of the fire then caused a cascading failure across other columns, is considered less likely than massive conspiracy. It's the usual swiss cheese model of disaster.