1
Just Chat! / Re: Why can't I see my signature?
« on: 20/05/2016 01:46:34 »Hi, After how many posts i can see my signature
What's so important about your signature?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Hi, After how many posts i can see my signature
In a society of lies telling the truth is an act of treason.
It is an act of patriotism when you're defending your country for honor.
Interesting RD (hope you're doing well)....No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode [7], a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism.
Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.
....but it doesn't work. My simple easy to understand graphical analysis of WTC7 that definitively concludes intentionally placed energetic materials brought down the building has been sitting there empirically unassailed in any way shape or form (with over 50,000 views) for about a year and a half and to date none of you (Dr. Calverd, Bored chemist, Dr. Smith, Don_1, PmbPhy, CliffordK, JP, evan_au or any other members here) can seem to manage to even address it let alone break it or show any aspect or feature of it to be incorrect by simply copying and pasting even one of the many simple animations (formatting guided by Dr. Calverd) along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any kind of simple cogently elucidated explanation of some perceived error or needed correction, nor have any of you provided any other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the buildings videographically documented destruction that supercedes it.... yet here you are, continuing (at least it appears to me) to personally attack people, make derisive remarks and post insulting links that include references to people being cranks, mental instability, paranoia, nutty conspiracy theorists etc.
The analysis (of WTC7) is either correct or it's not, it's just as simple as that. If no one can break it or show some aspect of it to be incorrect in the above described manner.... then it is in fact proponents of the official narrative like you that are actually exhibiting all the mental defects you are attributing to others here.... it is proponents of the official narrative who continue to irrationally argue against Isaac Newtons immutable Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body.... it is proponents of the official narrative who flatly refuse to recognize the veracity of a simple high school level graphical empirical analysis.... it is proponents of the official narrative who are in complete denial as to what really happened and who delusionally continue to refuse to accept reality.... and it is proponents of the official narrative who revoltingly continue to maliciously attack people with cowardly name calling and invented stigmatizing labels like "mentally unstable conspiracy theorist nut case" amidst the endless repetition of the same suspiciously formulaic unscientific nonsense mixed with insults over and over again without ever providing any empirically verifiable support for their point of view or any rationally structured objection to the empirically verifiable data cited by others in support of their views either.
That's the definition of mental instability my friend, and unless or until you or someone else meets me over there and clearly refutes some aspect of that analysis, it remains correct.... and as long as it remains correct, it is in fact proponents of the official narrative that are the nutty mentally unstable tin foil hat science denier cranks....
....so come on and bring it. I challenge any and all of you, come on and prove me to be an idiot.
Interesting RD (hope you're doing well)....No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode [7], a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism.
Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.
....but it doesn't work. My simple easy to understand graphical analysis of WTC7 that definitively concludes intentionally placed energetic materials brought down the building has been sitting there empirically unassailed in any way shape or form (with over 50,000 views) for about a year and a half and to date none of you (Dr. Calverd, Bored chemist, Dr. Smith, Don_1, PmbPhy, CliffordK, JP, evan_au or any other members here) can seem to manage to even address it let alone break it or show any aspect or feature of it to be incorrect by simply copying and pasting even one of the many simple animations (formatting guided by Dr. Calverd) along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." followed by any kind of simple cogently elucidated explanation of some perceived error or needed correction, nor have any of you provided any other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation for the buildings videographically documented destruction that supercedes it.... yet here you are, continuing (at least it appears to me) to personally attack people, make derisive remarks and post insulting links that include references to people being cranks, mental instability, paranoia, nutty conspiracy theorists etc.
The analysis (of WTC7) is either correct or it's not, it's just as simple as that. If no one can break it or show some aspect of it to be incorrect in the above described manner.... then it is in fact proponents of the official narrative like you that are actually exhibiting all the mental defects you are attributing to others here.... it is proponents of the official narrative who continue to irrationally argue against Isaac Newtons immutable Law of Conservation of Energy as applied to a falling body.... it is proponents of the official narrative who flatly refuse to recognize the veracity of a simple high school level graphical empirical analysis.... it is proponents of the official narrative who are in complete denial as to what really happened and who delusionally continue to refuse to accept reality.... and it is proponents of the official narrative who revoltingly continue to maliciously attack people with cowardly name calling and invented stigmatizing labels like "mentally unstable conspiracy theorist nut case" amidst the endless repetition of the same suspiciously formulaic unscientific nonsense mixed with insults over and over again without ever providing any empirically verifiable support for their point of view or any rationally structured objection to the empirically verifiable data cited by others in support of their views either.
That's the definition of mental instability my friend, and unless or until you or someone else meets me over there and clearly refutes some aspect of that analysis, it remains correct.... and as long as it remains correct, it is in fact proponents of the official narrative that are the nutty mentally unstable tin foil hat science denier cranks....
....so come on and bring it. I challenge any and all of you, come on and prove me to be an idiot.
....if we inflated the balloon inside a box we can clearly see the space that was in the box is now inside the balloon.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
The towers of the world trade center collapsed because molten aluminium, being explosive, caused the upper support structure to fail. It is simple physics. However, shame on me for spoiling all that fun you are having.
The prima facie analysis continues to stand empirically unassailed in any way....
....and for as long as it continues to stand empirically unassailed it is considered to be correct, and for as long as it continues to be considered correct it will remain empirically established fact, and for as long as it remains empirically established fact it will continue to be true that the building was brought down by intentionally placed energetic materials.
Interesting interview all about the chemisty of 9/11...
You are really awesome in your new-old glasses!)
I'm pretty sure most of optometry is a scam. I used to wear big astigmatism glasses for 20-70 (6/18 metric), then flimsy toric soft contact lenses, then smaller but deeper hard contact lenses; I was told the hard contacts reshaped the eye somewhat. The lenses were a pain so that suggestion gave me the idea that I could squeeze my eyeballs into sharpness, and so I did with my thumb and forefinger several times until they were left permanently sharp.
Multiple documented precedent setting examples of these tactics having been employed over a span of at least fifty years. All the information anyone needs to aquire a good understanding of the False Flag process is right here (along with a number of other informative accompanying links describing other documented examples).
Operation Northwoods....
The spectacle of terrorism is being deliberately promoted by mass media.
Do you have any evidence for this? I don't mean anecdotal evidence, or appeals to "common sense", I mean do you have citations to any academic studies that support your assertion?
No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode [7], a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism.
Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.
It's a good idea to check for snakes and scorpions before lying down. Once you are on the deck, they will avoid you, but if you just flop down on top of them, they get very upset.
If you ever watched a dog sleeping in the cold, they will ball up in a circle to conserve body heat. Another possible answer is as they circle, they spiral downward into their resting circle, with little waste of motion. This action may also adjust the sleeping surface to allow the best insulation R-value.
Can you tell us more about these anomalies that science has been ignoring?