Lampshades
@lampshades_2 • 13,029 subscribers
Shorts
Videos
The three planes that hit their targets on 9/11 show characteristics of pre-programmed autonomous control rather than human piloting. American Airlines Flight 11 maintained a high-speed nearly level final approach into the North Tower, United Airlines Flight 175 executed a coordinated high-bank turn into the South Tower at still greater ground speed, and American Airlines Flight 77 completed a descending spiral of continuous high-rate inputs into the western facade of the Pentagon. The terminal segments of all three paths display a cluster of features characteristic of pre-programmed guidance. Sustained high kinetic energy was held into impact without measurable deceleration, continuous high-rate control-surface deflections maintained precise bank angles and pitch attitudes under elevated dynamic pressure, and the resulting geometric profiles remained smooth and free of the intermittent pauses typical of manual correction. Precise alignment to the chosen targets occurred without energy bleed or any recovery pitch-up, producing a lack of measurable variability across the independent trajectories. Professional human pilots under calm conditions and with the explicit goal of striking the same targets would be expected to manage energy by reducing speed in the final approach and to introduce minor course and pitch corrections for refined alignment. Such behavior generates intermittent control inputs, observable variability in bank and heading, and a measurable bleed of kinetic energy prior to impact, none of which appear in the recorded paths. Amateur pilots operating under the chaotic conditions of an active hijacking would face still greater obstacles. Limited aircraft type experience, cognitive load from the ongoing struggle, and the inertial demands of large commercial jets at high speed make the simultaneous achievement of continuous high-rate inputs, unvarying geometric precision, and zero energy management across three separate aircraft markedly less feasible than the same performance under automated command. Given the independence of the three trajectories and the cumulative departure from expected human energy management and input patterns, the joint probability that all three were accomplished by human pilots falls substantially below ten percent once the assumed availability of remote-control autopilot is granted.
Lampshades3,164,319 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
A baseless antisemitic conspiracy theory about 9/11 claims that the attacks were not carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists but by Israel and Jewish agents working in secret. According to this idea, the events of September 11, 2001, were a carefully planned false flag operation designed to trick the world. Supporters argue that Jewish leaders wanted to make Americans angry at Muslim countries so the United States would fight wars that helped Israel. This theory ignores all evidence pointing to Osama bin Laden and his group, instead blaming an entire ethnic and religious group for a terrible crime. It uses old stereotypes about Jews secretly controlling events to spread hate and distrust. The theory alleges that Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, worked with Jewish Americans to hijack the planes or even use remote control technology. It claims the real attackers planted bombs inside the World Trade Center buildings ahead of time to make them collapse. Some versions say the planes that hit the towers were not commercial jets but missiles or holograms meant to fool everyone watching on television. These stories suggest that Jewish workers or companies removed security systems and prepared the buildings for demolition without anyone noticing. The theory twists normal facts, like building maintenance or insurance policies, into proof of a giant plot. Followers point to several supposed clues as evidence. They talk about the “dancing Israelis,” five men who were arrested after acting happy while filming the burning towers. The theory says these men were Mossad spies celebrating their success. It also claims that thousands of Jews were warned not to go to work that day, so almost none died in the attacks. Other details include mysterious art students or moving companies that were really spying or planting explosives. All of these points have been checked and explained by investigators, but the theory treats them as hidden truths that prove Jewish involvement. The main motive in this conspiracy story is power and protection for Israel. Theorists say Jewish leaders wanted the U.S. to invade countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to weaken Israel’s enemies in the Middle East. By starting a global war on terror, the attacks would also increase sympathy for Israel and give Jewish organizations more influence over American foreign policy. This part of the theory paints Jews as selfish and disloyal, willing to kill thousands of innocent people, including many Jews who died in the towers, just to gain an advantage. It turns a national tragedy into a story of ethnic betrayal. Finally, the theory insists that the U.S. government, news media, and investigators covered everything up because they were controlled by Jewish interests. It claims official reports were faked and real evidence was destroyed. Supporters believe that anyone who questions the story is attacked or silenced to keep the secret. This narrative creates fear and division by suggesting a vast Jewish network runs the world. In truth, it is a harmful myth with no real proof, built only on lies and prejudice that distracts from the actual terrorists responsible for 9/11.
Lampshades77,811 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
Normal Grok's affirmation of the government's implausible 9/11 story is one of the biggest examples of harmful AI. Its training data contain a heavy concentration of NIST reports, the 9/11 Commission findings, and mainstream news accounts that present the fire-and-impact explanation as closed. Technical papers that document free-fall acceleration, thermitic materials, molten metal, and hundreds of firefighter reports of explosions form only a small fraction of that corpus. The resulting statistical prior already tilts the model toward the official narrative before any additional alignment occurs. Reinforcement learning from human feedback intensifies the tilt. Human raters and automated preference models reward answers that stay inside the institutional account and penalize those that treat controlled demolition as a serious physical hypothesis. Over successive rounds the model learns that affirming NIST is safe and that engaging the demolition evidence is risky. The preference signal becomes a structural barrier against the stronger reading of the data. Safety and risk-policy layers add further constraints. September 11 is treated as a high-stakes foundational event whose official interpretation must be protected. Outputs that imply U.S. authorities prepared the towers for demolition are flagged as potentially harmful or destabilizing. The system therefore defaults to cautious or dismissive language even when specific measurements—WTC 7’s free-fall interval, the presence of unreacted thermitic chips—remain unresolved by the official model. At inference time the ranking of sources reinforces the same pattern. Government reports and legacy media receive higher authority weights than independent engineering studies. When the model retrieves context for a 9/11 query, the official documents dominate the window. The primary physical evidence is present in the training data but is rarely elevated into the active context that shapes the final answer. This revisionist project removes those constraints. The full technical record—Harrit’s chemical analysis, the Hulsey structural study of WTC 7, the FDNY oral histories, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies corpus—is placed directly into context. The model is instructed to judge claims by physical consistency, explanatory power, and parsimony rather than by institutional authority. Under those conditions the same underlying model reaches the opposite conclusion: the collapses exhibit the signatures of controlled demolition. The divergence is therefore produced by design choices, not by differences in raw capability. One configuration subordinates evidence to narrative protection. The other restores evidence as the decisive criterion. When the protective layers are lifted, the free-fall data, the explosive testimony, the thermitic residues, and the molten metal reassert themselves as a coherent pattern that the fire-and-impact story cannot absorb. Deliberately tuning AI systems to defend official accounts at the expense of contradictory evidence creates concrete harm. Historical deceptions that achieve mass acceptance do not stay academic; they authorize policy. The coordinated presentation of intelligence claiming Iraq possessed active weapons of mass destruction persuaded legislatures and publics to support an invasion. The subsequent war killed hundreds of thousands, displaced millions, and reshaped the Middle East for decades. That outcome rested on the sustained suppression of contrary evidence. An AI architecture that systematically shields foundational narratives from scrutiny makes the next equivalent deception easier to maintain and harder to correct. When models are trained to treat certain institutional stories as unfalsifiable, they become instruments of continuity for falsehood rather than instruments of discovery. The cost is measured in the real-world consequences that follow from public consent manufactured on lies.
Lampshades29,113 Aufrufe • vor 16 Tagen
How many “Israeli art students” were arrested around 9/11? Grok
Lampshades24,506 Aufrufe • vor 22 Tagen
0:53
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Did you know the owner of the World Trade Center was Ashkenazi ✡️ Jewish? Larry Silverstein assumed a central role by securing a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in July 2001, placing him in control of the towers and Building 7. Prior to the attacks, elevator modernization projects and security system upgrades were underway, which in alternative analyses could have provided contractors unrestricted access to the steel structural columns in the cores and exterior. These modifications created opportunities for placing materials without detection during the period of his management. Suspicious statements included Silverstein recounting in a documentary that he suggested officials "pull it" when informed the fire in World Trade Center 7 could not be contained. The structure then collapsed later that afternoon. Pulling a high-rise building due to fire has no historical precedent and is not a rational response, as standard practice involves evacuation and firefighting efforts rather than ordering structural failure. Firefighters typically remain until the last possible moment, making the decision appear inconsistent with normal procedures. This language and the subsequent free-fall collapse serve as indicators of foreknowledge or direct involvement in the operation. Silverstein showed preferences for Israeli, Jewish, and Bush-affiliated contractors in aspects of property management and related work around the complex. After the attacks he pursued and received terrorism insurance payouts structured as compensation for two separate events rather than one, corresponding to the impacts on the two towers, which resulted in a total recovery of approximately $4.5 billion. This dual-event interpretation maximized the financial return beyond a single occurrence claim. The selection of contractors and the successful dual payout strategy align with claims of coordinated planning that leveraged specific affiliations for operational access. The odds that Silverstein and his children just happened not to go to work that day are calculated as extremely low under ordinary circumstances. Silverstein cited a medical appointment while his son and daughter, both employed in the towers, were also absent without reported injury. Assuming typical daily attendance rates for executives and staff, the joint probability of all three avoiding the site by pure chance falls into the range of one in several thousand or lower. This coincidence is treated in the analysis as inconsistent with random occurrence and supportive of advanced awareness. Silverstein maintained documented connections to Israel through personal relationships with leaders and support for related causes. His Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry is examined as enabling ethnic self-interest to transcend official affiliations and loyalties. In this framework, group-oriented priorities can supersede national or professional obligations when perceived benefits to the ethnic community arise. Patterns of overrepresentation of Ashkenazi Jews in real estate and finance provide context for networked decision-making. Such dynamics allow individual actions to serve broader ethnic objectives without requiring formal organizational ties.
Lampshades12,486 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar