61
Just Chat! / Re: Did the US Government plan and carry out the 9/11 attacks?
« on: 24/04/2016 02:25:28 »
Artificial terrorism: FBI behind terrorist attacks www.youtube.com /watch?v=jCMvmhWTivs
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.
Well even Noam Chomsky is rather terrible in this regard I quote him "Even if it's true,(that 9/11 was an inside Job) Who cares, it's a distraction from the other issues happening in the world" No joke he said that. Who cares.
History cares. How 9/11 will be teached to your kids will make a difference. How 9/11 or the emergence of artificial terrorism affects our life and our ways of thinking is critical to common knowledge. The suppression of truth by popular propaganda is an evidence that the media industry is a proponent of the official narrative.
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.
And we mustn't forget academic silence, the most despicable form of betrayal and intellectual cowardice imaginable....
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.
Quote from: Theodore RooseveltPatriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.
POIS solution
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.
Pssst, hey Drifty.... You hear that sound? It's TheNakedSilence!
I must admit I don't understand ttp or other trade deals ad well as I should....
NAFTA seemed like an attempt to mitigate these problems, while bringing countries like Mexico into the fold in a slow but reasonable way, while allowing at the same time, the US to remain compete with Asia. Am I just wrong about this?
Economics is not really my area. But how do we incorporate third world countries into the global economy without exploitation of workers in those countries or without forcing first world workers to accept equally low wages while living in a country with first world standard of living costs for food, shelter, transportation and education. No one on either side of the political argument has ever explained this well.
Petrol prices are at an all time low. Recently I was discussing the low petrol prices that we were experiencing, with my son. I expressed the opinion that this was just a temporary trend and that petrol prices would soon reach an all time high, as has happened so many times in the past, a low in prices and then a high. I was therefore surprised when my son suggested that this was a trend that was not going to reverse and that low petrol prices would continue to be a feature of the market. On considering this, I suddenly realised that he was probably right, the reason for the low petrol prices being the trillions of tons of natural gas that were being retrieved in the US, this was something that was not going to change any time soon. Unfortunately, side by side with this vision of an unexpected bounty in the form of low petrol prices was a vision of God's own country, devastated by fracking; the underground water systems of some of the most beautiful and fertile lands on earth, being exhausted because of the millions of cubic tonnes of fresh water involved in the fracking process, and the rest of the unused water being polluted for untold millions of years, by the deadly chemicals used in fracking that are pumped back into the earth.
Is it really worth it ? Is there no other way ?
Basically I am wondering if it is possible to convert light into electrical energy, and I'm not talking about solar energy. I'm talking about any form of light. If so, how?
It's hard to decide from Lame Duck on down. This is a long, but I think interesting, article from the Canadian perspective, with a focus on economics. http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2016/01/31/donald-trumps-beliefs-and-policies-the-potential-consequences-for-canada/#.VuzfCo35Nes
I agree with the author that Trump's proposal to roll back globalization and raise tariffs will be a disaster.
The issue with the wall in Mexico is case in point. He will supposedly force Mexico to pay for it by raising tariffs and screwing NAFTA. Tariffs are just passed on to the consumer, and 40% of the contents of Mexican imports is made by US workers which includes things like aerospace, autos, electronics, machinery and precision instruments. But he's willing to throw a monkey wrench into a large interdependent network of supply chains that combine materials and labor from the US, Canada, and Mexico to solve an immigration problem, one that according to multiple sources is actually improving - the number of illegal Mexican immigrants is declining.
And while his supporters cheer the idea of bringing back manufacturing jobs to the US, they blindly assume it will be with the relatively high wages of the past, sans unions.
I'm also concerned that Trump plans to use the military essentially like mafia goons, which is also mentioned in the article above. The other day he suggested using military intimidation to force Mexico to pay for wall. How exactly? "Gee, Enrique, it would be such a shame if something were to accidentally happen to your country. We'll be back on Tuesday to collect the wall payment."
After any of the presidential debates, when you read the fact checkers the next day from multiple sources, it's clear that all politicians are guilty of exaggeration, outright lies, or just getting things wrong (Cruz on single payer health care makes me crazy). But Trump is especially brazen and scary in this respect His willingness to claim he never said things that he is on video saying verbatim (not 15 years ago, but the month or week before) is really quite stunning. Or claiming that protestors were thugs who attacked his supporters, who were only defending themselves, when nearly every piece of evidence is to the contrary.
Not to mention banning reporters who have criticized him, or having them roughed up, and announcing he plans to change the libel laws and sue journalists who write negative or unfair things.
It's not going to be pretty, if he does win the election. The only wild card is the amount restraint on his actions, and whether he will have any cooperation from congress, either from democrats or republicans.
On the other hand, sometimes I think it's all bull sh1t, not much of anything will happen, and he's just infatuated with the idea of being president.