So you're legitimately saying 9/11 was an inside job? K
Legit as heck, because the arguments are s o l i d as heck.
I mean, no, not really, but whatever. Just needed clarification because I thought at first you were talking about it in jest. Dunno why I thought that, but I did.
Letting them know only they see my illusion would be the nice thing to do. Nice. But...no.
You're not really proving yourself right here, you're just proving Aphoristic wrong. Something that really isn't that hard to do because... Occam'r razor is, at most, a suggestion and not a hard rule.
That's fine, as long as doubt is cast. But, it seems you thought that I was using Occam's razor as a proof?
Did you read the fucking interview? No, of course you are just going with that cherry picked line...
He's not saying anything unusual. The bold line right there explains the rest of your post. I'll go further and say that nobody likes people looking deeper to see if they screwed something up. Why? Because they probably did mess up something minor. That's not abnormal. So of course they are going to be less than helpful in the investigation. Honestly, you're trying to twist the words of a guy who in the first couple questions explains that he believes the report is a success at explaining the events of 9/11.
Also, Foxtroting scroll down. There are sources such as "911truth.org" "ae911truth.org" "patriotsquestion911.com" "911research.wtc7.net" and you're telling me these are good sources for information? They're conspiracy sites. They lack any real credibility.
Edit: And yeah, Occam's razor isn't anything more than a suggestion, but jaedrik is actually trying to say it's on his side here. No, it isn't. It's never on the side of the conspiracies.
I did read the interview. I'll maintain the way that washingtonsblog characterizes and summarizes it is honest and accurate. Keep in mind the point they are refuting: "I. The 9/11 Commission and Congressional Investigation Into 9/11 All Disproved Any Conspiracy." Again, anyone interested to judge for yourself, please read: www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/8-reasons-911-not-inside-job.html and web.archive.org/web/20070108233707/http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html and, the other half of the 'set up to fail' quote: historynewsnetwork.org/article/11972 Not to mention the tons of links unmentioned by either of us. I'd like to forward you that it is not only these people, but countless other officials who feel, much more strongly than they, something is off about the 9/11 commission. So, the whole darn thing is wrong by association with "truther" websites? This is what I mean by casting my doubt: question authority. Your broad labeling and outright dismissal bespeaks a closed mind--though not necessarily a bad thing. I hope that you'd broach the topic further, and with more honesty and less emotionalism.
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
I don't think you understand that casting doubt on something doesn't prove the conspiracies correct. The point you mention is obviously refutable, there's probably flaws in the investigation much like there are flaws in anything. That doesn't however prove whatever your conspiracy is. You can doubt things without jumping to the opposite extreme.
How about you lay out for me what you think happened with 9/11?
How about you lay out for me what you think happened with 9/11?
Reason: false flag / complicit behavior, ultimately to justify war in the middle east.
Method of tower destruction: a 'cold directed energy weapon system' used to dustify the structures with minimal debris. Minimal seismic impact, contrary to all controlled demolition of this magnitude, and complete survival of the bathtub. Dissimilar metals melted together. Cool ground zero while objects glow as if hot / melted, random combustion. Seemingly randomly burnt cars in curious ways and places. Unburnt paper. Many other material-specific effects. Inexplicable holes in glass of nearby buildings. Excess of tritium found, but none of the necessary ionizing radiation from a nuclear explosion. Thermite is iron oxide and aluminum cladding powder, easily explained naturally. Jet fuel literally cannot explain these things, nor could spray-painted nano-nuclear mini-thermite, or any combination of these things.
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
How about you lay out for me what you think happened with 9/11?
Reason: false flag / complicit behavior, ultimately to justify war in the middle east.
Method of tower destruction: a 'cold directed energy weapon system' used to dustify the structures with minimal debris. Minimal seismic impact, contrary to all controlled demolition of this magnitude, and complete survival of the bathtub. Dissimilar metals melted together. Cool ground zero while objects glow as if hot / melted, random combustion. Seemingly randomly burnt cars in curious ways and places. Unburnt paper. Many other material-specific effects. Inexplicable holes in glass of nearby buildings. Excess of tritium found, but none of the necessary ionizing radiation from a nuclear explosion. Thermite is iron oxide and aluminum cladding powder, easily explained naturally. Jet fuel literally cannot explain these things, nor could spray-painted nano-nuclear mini-thermite, or any combination of these things.
The evidence all points to a cold direct energy weapon. When all signs point towards Rome, is it not obvious where the roads lead? So? I'm honestly not too concerned with the method because, regardless, it was a false flag. I'm a little surprised that everyone just went "what a story, Jaedrik." I didn't think you guys were that... Oh, I don't know the word. Close minded? Dismissive of alternate views? Undiscerning? Your consensus does not change my mind. How about some evidence to the contrary instead? I'd believe that. After critical examination, of course.
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
boy the illuminati really fuckeded up when they used their secret technology to destroy a building instead of just doing it normally using technology that already exists
to me the evidence all points towards people reading too much scifi. like why would they bother? even if i ignore the issues with the so called evidence people give for the building collapsing oddly, what would be the point? the building wouldn't have even needed to collapse to have significance as a terrorist attack. but youre telling me that they not only orchestrated the collapse but also used their secret laser technology that makes the building collapse in a way that doesnt align with the law of physics itself?
the biggest hole for me in all of this, aside from the extravagant correlations, is that if the secret ruling society was actually that fucking stupid then there's no way they could've taken over the world unless satan himself was in charge.
Sci-fi? No doubt there's many black budget projects from the military, and no doubt they have advanced weaponry. Saying they have something like this is not absurd. Would you not rather use a foreign technology that was assured to confuse and disrupt opposition, along with COINTELPRO and other PSYOPS, rather than the bloody obvious thermite or nuclear weaponry? Besides, like I said, none of those conventional weapons could've had the effects observed at Ground Zero. We don't have to question how dumb they are, we know what is. Besides, you're denying it right now, so obviously there's not much problem with using this new technology? And... Is there such a thing as settled science? Geocentrism was a settled science back in the day. It's no absurd suggestion that a military with a huge-ass budget would have weapons that seem to 'defy' the laws of physics. Maybe even General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't the most accurate models? Or are the priests of 'mainstream science' too sacrosanct to question? Defying the laws of physics? If it defied the laws of physics then it wouldn't have happened. Yet it did. If all the evidence points to a near impossibility, then, well, what are we to conclude? I don't even have to say there's a secret ruling society, though. Say Russia and China and whoever else has this sort of weaponry too? Say they have MAD with this new weaponry? I don't make the claims you seem to think necessary to my position.
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
jesus christ jaedrik i swear you couldnt read a cereal box without misconstruing half of it.
i handwaved the scifi shit because it wasnt even important to what i was trying to get across.
My point is WHY would they use this secret technology if it so "obviously" reveals itself as a contribution? Why even destroy the building if you could push your agenda otherwise without it actually collapsing? Hell, why not actually sneak thermite or whatever into the bulding and then play it off as part of the terrorists plan all along?
What i find difficult to fathom is the idea that whoever supposedly orchestrated this managed to fail to make it 100% believable. There are all these extraeneous possibilities meant to supplement the plane crashing into it, but its possible to do that in ways that could actually be blamed on terrorists anyway.
What all this "points towards" is that whoever supposedly was behind 9/11 was actually trying to make a convoluted puzzle that leads back to them. Theres no reason for it unless they just want to tease you.
No, I think the Bush administration would have a much more difficult time covering up their involvement if they didn't have the unbelievability of a future weapon backing the towers' destruction. Otherwise, I think the questions would've been done by a more unified opposition. The administration and the intelligence agencies obstructed of investigation, very likely conducted counterintelligence operations in any scenario, were vastly inconsistent in their reporting and accounts... Divide and conquer, discourage the opposition with COINTELPRO / PSYOPS which is easier the more divided they are.
I really think people would be more willing to believe they helped terrorists coat the tower in spray-thermite-nukes or whatever, and the story would've been pushed by the opposition much faster (or have them all killed, not a pretty sight. It's nearly always better to divide and conquer). Divide and conquer, and now we have many more factions than we otherwise would have. There's the controlled opposition who pushes the thermite narrative, there's the faithful authoritarians who, in believing their government wouldn't do such a thing, rightly question the inconclusive thermite narrative. There's those who, so confused by everything, ignore everything and move on with their lives. I don't think there'd be as much confusion and division among the disinterested masses if it was as obvious as a conventional weapon would've made it. And, again, none of this discredits the fact that none of the other destruction methods comport with the evidence. Regardless of how improbable this all seems, and I think a deal of your doubt comes from sheer refusal to see the scenario's rightful plausibility, it must be true, or some other possibility must be true which is equally as ludicrous sounding.
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
Your consensus does not change my mind. How about some evidence to the contrary instead? I'd believe that. After critical examination, of course.
That is not where the burden of proof lies. This is the same reason no one takes your libertarian views seriously. You post no actual scientific (or even just logical) reasoning for your views despite the obvious deviations from the general consensus. You can't come on here and proclaim the existence of invisible aliens in our toilets and tell us to prove you wrong. That's not how burden of proof works. Until you can present an un-biased source that supports your claims, you can't expect us to prove you wrong.
Would you not rather use a foreign technology that was assured to confuse and disrupt opposition, along with COINTELPRO and other PSYOPS, rather than the bloody obvious thermite or nuclear weaponry? Besides, like I said, none of those conventional weapons could've had the effects observed at Ground Zero. We don't have to question how dumb they are, we know what is. Besides, you're denying it right now, so obviously there's not much problem with using this new technology?
That's implying you're correct, which is a bit much to imply at this point. There's a science behind metallurgy. There's a science behind thermodynamics. There are scientific communities in both of those fields who have reached a consensus on what happened to those towers. I'm honestly amazed you've delved this deeply into something that is so obviously scientific without bothering to learn how the science behind it actually works, or that global warming is actually happening but that's an argument for another day. It's almost as if you're deriving all of your opinions on this subject from the views of other people without bothering to fact check them.
And... Is there such a thing as settled science? Geocentrism was a settled science back in the day. It's no absurd suggestion that a military with a huge-ass budget would have weapons that seem to 'defy' the laws of physics. Maybe even General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't the most accurate models? Or are the priests of 'mainstream science' too sacrosanct to question?
That's not how science works though. You can't just question science without some sort of understanding of how things work. There are reasons why some guy without a high school education can't publish research and expect the greater scientific community to take it seriously. You can't just walk into a hospital and start diagnosing people, and then get mad and blame doctors and modern medicine when one of them dies. Just because science could be wrong, doesn't mean you are right. Also why would the laws of physics remain the same even if we had weaponry that defied them? Is the physics not separate from the weapon itself? Could we not update our understanding of physics without disclosing the existence of the weapon?
No, I think the Bush administration would have a much more difficult time covering up their involvement if they didn't have the unbelievability of a future weapon backing the towers' destruction. Otherwise, I think the questions would've been done by a more unified opposition. The administration and the intelligence agencies obstructed of investigation, very likely conducted counterintelligence operations in any scenario, were vastly inconsistent in their reporting and accounts... Divide and conquer, discourage the opposition with COINTELPRO / PSYOPS which is easier the more divided they are.
Then why would they even push the narrative of "there were no explosives on the plane, only jet fuel"? What would stop them from saying that there were explosives on the planes? Is that not way more easily explained away than if they were discovered to have used some sort of super weapon to destroy the towers. It seems like a huge gamble. One that, if you're correct, obviously didn't pay off because at least some people now know about it. Are you telling me the U.S. government chose to bank on the average person dismissing conspiracy theorists like you because they don't believe them? Doesn't that seem like a really poor argument? "Oh, I knew you wouldn't listen to me, the government expected you not to listen to me." Isn't that kind of circular logic. You're defending your argument with your own argument.
Regardless of how improbable this all seems, and I think a deal of your doubt comes from sheer refusal to see the scenario's rightful plausibility, it must be true, or some other possibility must be true which is equally as ludicrous sounding.
That doesn't make sense. You can't claim to be right just because the established narrative might be wrong.
Last Edit: Apr 6, 2016 17:07:43 GMT -5 by pachiderm
Seriously, just because you don't believe that's how the towers should have fell doesn't suddenly disprove that they fell at all. Can you show us how the towers were supposed to fall? Is there another example we can look at to compare? Oh wait, there's two examples right there given that both fell in the same way that day. Saying that it's impossible is clearly wrong given that it happened twice.
You also don't seem to understand that the idea of cold energy is impossible. Heat is energy. Cold is just a low amount of heat. Cold energy is an oxymoron. You'd have better luck calling it some bullshit dark matter weapon.
Last Edit: Apr 6, 2016 17:39:34 GMT -5 by Aphoristic
Your consensus does not change my mind. How about some evidence to the contrary instead? I'd believe that. After critical examination, of course.
That is not where the burden of proof lies. This is the same reason no one takes your libertarian views seriously. You post no actual scientific (or even just logical) reasoning for your views despite the obvious deviations from the general consensus. You can't come on here and proclaim the existence of invisible aliens in our toilets and tell us to prove you wrong. That's not how burden of proof works. Until you can present an un-biased source that supports your claims, you can't expect us to prove you wrong.
"Your source is biased, therefore cannot speak the truth, or contain scientific evidence, or logical reasoning, or otherwise provide anything of value to this discourse."
Would you not rather use a foreign technology that was assured to confuse and disrupt opposition, along with COINTELPRO and other PSYOPS, rather than the bloody obvious thermite or nuclear weaponry? Besides, like I said, none of those conventional weapons could've had the effects observed at Ground Zero. We don't have to question how dumb they are, we know what is. Besides, you're denying it right now, so obviously there's not much problem with using this new technology?
That's implying you're correct, which is a bit much to imply at this point. There's a science behind metallurgy. There's a science behind thermodynamics. There are scientific communities in both of those fields who have reached a consensus on what happened to those towers. I'm honestly amazed you've delved this deeply into something that is so obviously scientific without bothering to learn how the science behind it actually works, or that global warming is actually happening but that's an argument for another day. It's almost as if you're deriving all of your opinions on this subject from the views of other people without bothering to fact check them.
"You are ignorant of all these sciences, have done no research on alternate possibilities, you have no opinions of your own, and you're disagreeing with authority. You are wrong." This is ironic.
And... Is there such a thing as settled science? Geocentrism was a settled science back in the day. It's no absurd suggestion that a military with a huge-ass budget would have weapons that seem to 'defy' the laws of physics. Maybe even General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics aren't the most accurate models? Or are the priests of 'mainstream science' too sacrosanct to question?
That's not how science works though. You can't just question science without some sort of understanding of how things work. There are reasons why some guy without a high school education can't publish research and expect the greater scientific community to take it seriously. You can't just walk into a hospital and start diagnosing people, and then get mad and blame doctors and modern medicine when one of them dies. Just because science could be wrong, doesn't mean you are right. Also why would the laws of physics remain the same even if we had weaponry that defied them? Is the physics not separate from the weapon itself? Could we not update our understanding of physics without disclosing the existence of the weapon?
"You can't question the scientific orthodoxy, and I will ignore those that you've presented who do, because you're not a part of the scientific orthodoxy. Which you have to become a part of to question." This is a strange dogma. Oh, and Judy Wood was part of the scientific orthodoxy. Still got her Ph.D. Alas, they seem to kick out dissenting voices and destroy reputations with alarming regularity. No, I don't think they want to expose its existence more. Not to mention the fact that, despite so much evidence to the contrary, the scientific orthodoxy does not change its base assumptions about, for example, the nuclear convection model of the sun. You're asking people to give up their funding, too, or for people in the know to throw all the useful idiot scientists in the establishment on their heads.
No, I think the Bush administration would have a much more difficult time covering up their involvement if they didn't have the unbelievability of a future weapon backing the towers' destruction. Otherwise, I think the questions would've been done by a more unified opposition. The administration and the intelligence agencies obstructed of investigation, very likely conducted counterintelligence operations in any scenario, were vastly inconsistent in their reporting and accounts... Divide and conquer, discourage the opposition with COINTELPRO / PSYOPS which is easier the more divided they are.
Then why would they even push the narrative of "there were no explosives on the plane, only jet fuel"? What would stop them from saying that there were explosives on the planes? Is that not way more easily explained away than if they were discovered to have used some sort of super weapon to destroy the towers. It seems like a huge gamble. One that, if you're correct, obviously didn't pay off because at least some people now know about it. Are you telling me the U.S. government chose to bank on the average person dismissing conspiracy theorists like you because they don't believe them? Doesn't that seem like a really poor argument? "Oh, I knew you wouldn't listen to me, the government expected you not to listen to me." Isn't that kind of circular logic. You're defending your argument with your own argument.
Your comments are another version of Mousey's objections. Further, you mistake my argument. My argument is that they (the Bush administration and the USA's intelligence agencies) benefit the more mystery and division there is in the opposition, and that using this mysterious weapon fits their tactics well. The necessary second part of that is these benefits and counterintelligence tactics make the gamble lesser than if they helped destroy the towers through some other means.
Regardless of how improbable this all seems, and I think a deal of your doubt comes from sheer refusal to see the scenario's rightful plausibility, it must be true, or some other possibility must be true which is equally as ludicrous sounding.
That doesn't make sense. You can't claim to be right just because the established narrative might be wrong.
But, I'm not. I'm claiming to be right about the methods because, surprise, all the evidence points to it. That is the base, and you are reversing the order of my reasoning. THEN nothing else as yet presented adequately explains the manifest phenomena of the event.
Seriously, just because you don't believe that's how the towers should have fell doesn't suddenly disprove that they fell at all. Can you show us how the towers were supposed to fall? Is there another example we can look at to compare? Oh wait, there's two examples right there given that both fell in the same way that day. Saying that it's impossible is clearly wrong given that it happened twice.
You also don't seem to understand that the idea of cold energy is impossible. Heat is energy. Cold is just a low amount of heat. Cold energy is an oxymoron. You'd have better luck calling it some bullshit dark matter weapon.
You've made the same error as Pachiderm by reversing my reasoning. This is an improper methodology, as you point out, but I assure you that I do not hold it. Those same two examples agree with what I'm saying. Why, because the scientific orthodoxy says mythical dark matter exists? What a curious devotion to the dogma of the scientific establishment. Electric Universe theory explains this in a far more elegant and simplistic manner, and solves all sorts of paradoxes and problems that general relativity, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics inevitably encounter because, surprise, they are mutually contradictory in some cases and do not agree with observed phenomena. Even the Casimir effect, acknowledged by establishment science, seems to violate these laws of thermodynamics. Seems to? Or, rather, is there some model out there that explains these things better? There is. And, hey, Einstein, ever heard of magnets? How the Foxtrot do they work? What's a field, hmm? The cult of Quantum and GR are far behind Maxwell, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Tesla, and so on, not to mention their modern standard bearers. Question authority.
A Weltanschauung of Joie de vivre. "Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough." - Frédéric Bastiat Always looking for le mot juste.
Have you ever seen a map of Rome? All roads do not lead to Rome.
My fault for mixing analogies in the first place, but I don't see the point of you taking it literally.
My point is that no, not everything is pointing towards fictional aliens technology, just like all how all roads don't lead to Rome. Also I've been in a fire before, like a legitimate house fire. It started on the second floor, the first floor wasn't on fire. It wasn't hot, because that's not how heat works. That's not how fires work. Of course the ground at the twin towers would be cold, because the fires weren't on the ground, and just because certain parts of the building was hot doesn't mean all of it was on fire. Ice lasers is even more stupid than the lizard people conspiracy theory.
Letting them know only they see my illusion would be the nice thing to do. Nice. But...no.
"Your source is biased, therefore cannot speak the truth, or contain scientific evidence, or logical reasoning, or otherwise provide anything of value to this discourse."
Here's how bias and conflicts of interest work. You suggest that the scientific community should rethink how thermodynamics and metallurgy work and provide some research to support this claim. Your views are taken seriously. You suggest weapons based on technology that does not currently exist and suggest that these were the true cause of a disaster that the community is already pretty sure they have figured out, oh and the reason why these weapons have to exist is because metallurgy and the laws of thermodynamics don't work the way you think they do. Your suggestions are dismissed as a crock of shit because they exist merely to support your already ludicrous claims.
You are ignorant of all these sciences, have done no research on alternate possibilities, you have no opinions of your own, and you're disagreeing with authority. You are wrong." This is ironic.
"This makes me right."
"You can't question the scientific orthodoxy, and I will ignore those that you've presented who do, because you're not a part of the scientific orthodoxy. Which you have to become a part of to question." This is a strange dogma. Oh, and Judy Wood was part of the scientific orthodoxy. Still got her Ph.D. Alas, they seem to kick out dissenting voices and destroy reputations with alarming regularity. No, I don't think they want to expose its existence more. Not to mention the fact that, despite so much evidence to the contrary, the scientific orthodoxy does not change its base assumptions about, for example, the nuclear convection model of the sun. You're asking people to give up their funding, too, or for people in the know to throw all the useful idiot scientists in the establishment on their heads.
And Ben Carson is an accomplished neurosurgeon. I can find nothing on Judy Wood that is not related 9/11. I won't claim her degrees to be imaginary (although that's possible as well), but I will say that it is very possible to have multiple degrees and still not have any idea what you're talking about. I can find no links to her research on her website and the only link (to her dissertation) leads here theses.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/restricted/LD5655.V856_1992.W662.pdf
But, I'm not. I'm claiming to be right about the methods because, surprise, all the evidence points to it. That is the base, and you are reversing the order of my reasoning. THEN nothing else as yet presented adequately explains the manifest phenomena of the event.
But all of the evidence doesn't point to that. There exists not, enough evidence to do anything more than mildly suggest that the government had a hand in destroying the towers. You are overplaying your hand here. Even if what Judy Wood says is correct there's a serious leap from looking at photographs of the tower collapse and ground zero and reaching a conclusion on how it happened. And an even bigger leap to "cold directed energy weapon developed and tested in secret by the U.S. government."
Last Edit: Apr 7, 2016 9:11:55 GMT -5 by pachiderm
Seriously, just because you don't believe that's how the towers should have fell doesn't suddenly disprove that they fell at all. Can you show us how the towers were supposed to fall? Is there another example we can look at to compare? Oh wait, there's two examples right there given that both fell in the same way that day. Saying that it's impossible is clearly wrong given that it happened twice.
You also don't seem to understand that the idea of cold energy is impossible. Heat is energy. Cold is just a low amount of heat. Cold energy is an oxymoron. You'd have better luck calling it some bullshit dark matter weapon.
You've made the same error as Pachiderm by reversing my reasoning. This is an improper methodology, as you point out, but I assure you that I do not hold it. Those same two examples agree with what I'm saying. Why, because the scientific orthodoxy says mythical dark matter exists? What a curious devotion to the dogma of the scientific establishment. Electric Universe theory explains this in a far more elegant and simplistic manner, and solves all sorts of paradoxes and problems that general relativity, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics inevitably encounter because, surprise, they are mutually contradictory in some cases and do not agree with observed phenomena. Even the Casimir effect, acknowledged by establishment science, seems to violate these laws of thermodynamics. Seems to? Or, rather, is there some model out there that explains these things better? There is. And, hey, Einstein, ever heard of magnets? How the Foxtrot do they work? What's a field, hmm? The cult of Quantum and GR are far behind Maxwell, Steinmetz, Heaviside, Faraday, Tesla, and so on, not to mention their modern standard bearers. Question authority.
Can you explain what the fuck you are talking about without linking to a 3 hour video nobody is going to watch? I want to know how you are explaining this "cold directed energy" shit.
If you are talking cold fusion, that would be flat out impossible to have happened. The idea of cold fusion is that you have fusion without requiring the high heat. That doesn't get rid of the radiation it would cause. If there were some cold fusion weapon at the WTC, it would have had a huge radioactive impact and been detected by everyone just like other nuclear disasters.
Or are you saying Mr. Freeze did 9/11 with a cyro gun or something? I don't see how that makes any sense in explaining anything either.
Antimatter? That would be very bright and noticeable. Dark matter? Dark energy? Neither of those really do anything. So come on, give me something to go on here.
For those who don't know, BREXIT is name of a poltical movement that focuses on BRitain EXITing the European Union. The European Union initially began as a trade agreement between many European nations after WWII. Initially it was France, the UK, Germany, and several other well-off countries, but over time poorer countries came into the mix and started to take its toll. The straw that broke the camel's back is Turkey joining in, and that alone makes things controversial. In the words of Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independance Party (UKIP):
You're a bit late with the whole "right now polls are being cast" thing. The voting is done and the results are in favor of leaving.
That aside, please. It costs the average Brit like what, a pound a week being in the EU? What a huge financial burden. It's like they forget the perks of being in it. Could really disrupt some people's work if they have to travel between the countries. The whole argument that the EU will consume them and they'll lose their identity is absurd. The EU has almost no power to begin with. The only reason people are at the point where they want to leave is the idea that it will prevent migrants from coming into Britain.
I'd bet on them not even leaving after this since parliament still has to decide to follow the referendum, and they'll get away without following it if they push the "look at how the pound is doing after this vote! we need to stay to prevent a crisis!!!"
Never mind that last part, Cameron is resigning so I'm assuming that they'll follow the vote. Well, good luck to them. Every economist predicts they'll do worse without the EU.
Last Edit: Jun 24, 2016 3:32:09 GMT -5 by Aphoristic
Usagi: vanguard is actually okay
Nov 15, 2021 7:10:56 GMT -5
marvel4fanboy: Anyone know the base walking speed, and sprint multiplier, in the old COD's? Very hard to find this info
Oct 18, 2022 14:42:31 GMT -5
Usagi: mw2 is actually okay
Nov 15, 2022 8:41:10 GMT -5
khofax: Hi hope you’re doing well, so I have a special request, I saw the board you made on call of duty zombies and I have some questions.
Apr 27, 2023 13:31:35 GMT -5
khofax: I have been assigned a riddle in the scope of a competition for charity and I am quite sure it has something to do with COD BO 1 Zombies, here is the riddle: Three groups at a time, they leave. Packs of 6 or 7. They run. They run at 325. They die. More of
Apr 27, 2023 13:33:30 GMT -5
*
khofax: …More of them join the battle. But who has the edge right now? Get me and your side will dominate… for the next four minutes at least. Seven
Apr 27, 2023 13:35:28 GMT -5