OT: I live in the US and I voted today!

kurth

@cian said:

@kurth said:

>

It was written well. Do you know that the term 'conspiracy theory' was invented by cia to confuse and confound people such as yourself....a degrading term so people wouldn't research and investigate the kennedy assassination.

This isn't actually true, though it's fun that there's a conspiracy theory about the origins of the term. The CIA used the term in the report, but there's no evidence that they tried to make it a common term. It only came into common usage in the 80s.

>

https://duluthreader.com/articles/2016/05/12/106462-conspiracy-theories-disinformation-agents-and-the ...so you never heard about operation mockingbird ?? The term conspiracy theory was in the public sphere from the late 60's. Funny , this cia doc is almost memoryholed. But I was there. I was in dallas when kenney was shot, and I was a young radical in the 60's. You ?

America is one big conspiracy. Look at benghazi. First, official sources....obama and clinton, said people were enraged because of an anti muslim film.

While I could point to a number of conspiracies that are real (Iran-Contra being a very easy example here) and there are countries where it's impossible to understand events there without believing in conspiracies (Turkey, Pakistan and Italy), Benghazi was not a conspiracy and it kind of points to the limitations of a conspiratorial way of thinking. The story in Benghazi was that the CIA had captured a militia leader and were torturing him in their base, and the guy's militia attacked the embassy (where the CIA were based) to try and get him back. The cover up was because this story was incredibly embarrassing (and also because the CIA probably lied to Hillary Clinton about it initially).

we were robbing kaddafi's weapons .....some have been been found in syria. Al Nusra was usa all the way. And they're al qaeda. Read seymour hersh
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/wild-conspiracy-theory-truth-behind-biggest-threat-war-terror-narrative

Yes , we created al qaeda.

This isn't really true. The US helped make Jihadists a more potent force in Afghanistan by providing training/resources, but the main source of them were the Gulf states and the Saudis. Certainly the use of them in Afghanistan was incredibly cynical (and in retrospect very dangerous), but the US were using an existing resource. I think if were to point the finger at a single source for Al-Quaeda it would be the Saudi government (who keep power by making deals with Salafists) and various Gulf state billionaires.

The state/justice department actually came up with the name Al-Quaeda in an indictment for the original WTC bombing when they were trying to put together a conspiracy charge. As an organization there's not much evidence that Al-Quaeda really existed until after 9/11, which made Bin Ladin a star (he was not hugely significant in the ME prior to that - and there are some amusing stories about him getting his ass kicked in the Sudan in the 90s by other Salafists).

Yes it is.

'When al Qaeda was formed?
1988, Peshawar, Pakistan
Al-Qaeda/Founded
The name stayed. It has been argued that two documents seized from the Sarajevo office of the Benevolence International Foundation prove that the name was not simply adopted by the mujahideen movement and that a group called al-Qaeda was established in August 1988.'

'Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia'

""The White House, propelled by national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, began thinking about covert action to support the armed Afghan resistance, which was three months old. Brzezinski knew the CIA’s ability to do that was “extremely limited.” It had the barest grasp on who the resistance leaders were and what they thought. It also believed strongly that the Soviets “would be most reluctant to introduce large numbers of ground forces into Afghanistan.”" .... https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/07/history-trump-cia-was-arming-afghan-rebels-before-soviets-invaded/

The CIA did ally with Al-Quaeda in Syria, which is amusing because the Pentagon were simultaneously trying to destroy them. At various points in Syria Pentagon forces were fighting with CIA forces. Also Al-Quaeda forces are being used by the Saudis (who are being supported by the US in various ways) in Yemen.

you're fudging

We also did 911.

There is zero evidence for this. 9/11 was the plan of Mohamed Atta, who shopped it around to various groups in the ME to get funding. Bin Ladin liked it and provided funds (both directly, and also by giving them access to Gulf state money), though he didn't really do it in any meaningful sense of the word. The Salafist wing of Saudi intelligence, which exists because the Saudi royal family has an arrangement with the extremists in order to keep power, provided them with resources to get them into the US and flight training (and also helped cover up what they were doing). The CIA, because they work closely with Saudi intelligence, helped cover up what the Saudis did (not realizing that they were planning a terrorist attack on US soil) because that's kind of what the CIA had been doing for their embarrassing allies for 20-30 years. After 9/11 I think they realized that this had the potential to be a huge scandal, which is why the official report has some pretty major holes in it... A lot of this has slowly come out in the last 20 years thanks to the law suit brought by 9/11 families against Saudi Arabia, though it's got very limited coverage in the US press.

Univ of Alaska last year released a peer reviewed paper based on a finite element study that wtc 7 didn't fall because of office fires. Controlled demolished.

The first sentence is true. The second sentence is false. They made no claims about what caused it to collapse, and when interviewed have simply said they think there needs to be more investigation as they think it has important implications for the design of high rises. In other words they think there is some hitherto not understood structural issue, and that engineers/scientists should investigate it (This is actually very common whenever a big engineering failure occurs). They've been pretty explicit that they don't see this as support for the controlled explosives hypothesis.

I refer you to

https://whowhatwhy.org/tag/sarasota/
....and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Springmann
demonstrates both saud arabia and the usa were involved. As for israel's involved, it's extensive, including running atta's cell in hamburg. The dancing israelis the art students the arrests etc. And as well, nobody else could have shutdown norad. Cheney is on record stalling incoming fighter jets. And there's 1000's of pieces of 911 evidence. The pentagon attack hit exactly at the office of oni who were investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars. 39 of the 40 investigators died.

...and in other words your wrong about the finite element study. They i.e hulsey didn't say what your extrapolating them to mean. They explicitly didn't say 'controlled demolition' because there is no other alternative scientific explanation. Show me where they have been explicit that they don't see this as support for controlled demolition ?? Give me a link, or I call that not true. They said they found a simultaneous failure in every column. Btw the way, the first half of my life, I worked in industry and did research in a top ten university in me.

https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/90893-university-study-finds-fire-did-not-cause-3rd-towers-collapse-on-911

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

Also peer reviewed doesn't mean it's necessarily true. It just means they don't make any obvious incorrect arguments. In science and engineering you will typically find multiple theories flying around, with one gradually reaching consensus. Not being a structural engineer I couldn't tell you if this is a controversial theory, or even one that holds up to further analysis.

....like I said I did research in me at a top ten university in the first half of my life. In engineering, you rarely ever have multiple theories flying around. It's not theoretical physics. Most scientist , engineers, and architects won't touch this because it's career-ending.

This is your, and americans problem....you have no use for truth.

Possibly, but I think your problem is you believe anything that confirms your biases, and disbelieve anything that contradicts them. I have no problem with analyzing conspiracies, and I find the work of Peter Dale Scott, or interesting even if I often disagree with him. But if you're going to analyze them you have to apply the same level of skepticism that you'd apply to anything else.

good, then read my responses, including links. They prove just about everything you said...wrong.

king_picadillo

Pro-Tip: Gents, it is proven, you can’t win an internet debate/argument (pick your flavour) unless you end it with “point-blank, PERIOD!”

reasOne

anytime i ever lose in life... it’s rigged!! so much fraud, so much! 🤣

Fingolfinzzz

The turd is getting flushed

kurth

@king_picadillo said:
Pro-Tip: Gents, it is proven, you can’t win an internet debate/argument (pick your flavour) unless you end it with “point-blank, PERIOD!”

you can't win....if you don't know the facts and base your posts on 10 minutes on google !

ExAsperis99

@kurth said:

@king_picadillo said:
Pro-Tip: Gents, it is proven, you can’t win an internet debate/argument (pick your flavour) unless you end it with “point-blank, PERIOD!”

you can't win....if you don't know the facts and base your posts on 10 minutes on google !

You need a lifetime of delusion and bitterness to reach this level of truth, apparently.

Which makes me ask, are you quite sure that you're not tainted by the all-seeing cabal that pulls the strings? How do you know that your Chinese menu of conspiracies has not been fed directly to you?

And one further question: Knowing the truth as you do, what are you doing about it?

kurth

@ExAsperis99 said:

@kurth said:

@king_picadillo said:
Pro-Tip: Gents, it is proven, you can’t win an internet debate/argument (pick your flavour) unless you end it with “point-blank, PERIOD!”

you can't win....if you don't know the facts and base your posts on 10 minutes on google !

You need a lifetime of delusion and bitterness to reach this level of truth, apparently.

Which makes me ask, are you quite sure that you're not tainted by the all-seeing cabal that pulls the strings? How do you know that your Chinese menu of conspiracies has not been fed directly to you?

And one further question: Knowing the truth as you do, what are you doing about it?

that's funny. I've got two sons probably your age, but they sound smarter. "Chinese menu of conspiracies" jajaja. So naive. When you're in an earthquake, what do you do about it ? You get out of the way. But in short, my solution is you don't participate in a fraudulent electoral processes. I stand with ralph nader. I've said before I live in mexico. It has a real democracy. In the last presidential election, there were 7 political parties , not 2. One man one vote....no electoral college bullshit. The winning party who took the presidency and the congress is only 5 years old. But it's also refreshing because nobody here is stupid enough to believe their government !

cian

@kurth:
What has Operation Mockingbird got to do with anything that you've mentioned? Yes I've heard of it, fail to see the relevance. Do you have evidence that the CIA created the term?

I was in dallas when kenney was shot, and I was a young radical in the 60's. You ?

Were you were personally involved in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, or did you personally witness something related to said conspiracy? If not, so what?

Also, if you're going to cite Seymour Hersh, then cite him directly rather than through the notoriously unreliable Zero Hedge. I stated in my original response to you that the CIA was funding the Al-Quaeda (or Al-Nusra as they renamed themselves later on).

Your source for Al-Quaeda's history is Wikipedia. Seymour Hersh (one of the best journalists in the US) has written quite a bit about Al-Quaeda (he's one of my sources for the name stuff), as has Ahmed Rashid. They are good places to start. Noone to my knowledge has ever been able to find the name Al-Quaeda used before the US indictment (it's also a weird name to use 'the base'). And Bin Ladin's activities prior to 9/11 are well documented at this point. Prior to 9/11 he was a relatively insignificant figure who had a habit of claiming operations that he had no hand in.

Bin Ladin was the face of the Bin Ladin corporation (his father's company) in Afghanistan, where they were subcontracted by the Saudi government to build fortifications for local rebels. He was a fairly minor figure until 2001 (the 90s WTC stuff put him on the map to some degree - he was really minor prior to that). Also, you don't trust the US media, but you're citing the Washington Post?

I thought there was some good stuff in Russ Baker's Family of Secrets, but a lot of it was unsubstantiated, or easily debunked. His work since then has unfortunately been pretty bad. I don't take people who seriously who only find facts that confirm their prior beliefs, which he is extremely guilty of. So no, I'm not going to accept whowhatwhy as a credible source - sorry.

And as well, nobody else could have shutdown norad.

NORAD wasn't shut down. They were holding an exercise, which is not particularly unusual, but that didn't stop them from responding. Their response was chaotic and incompetent, and they certainly tried to disguise that afterwards (even the 9/11 commission criticized this). And they may have shot down US93, in which case they probably had to fake some things to cover that up.

Cheney is on record stalling incoming fighter jets.

Do you have a source for this because I have never heard that version of events. He authorized the pilots to shoot down the planes, which seems like the opposite of that.

The pentagon attack hit exactly at the office of oni who were investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars. 39 of the 40 investigators died.

Source? And why would they use such an incredibly complex, and difficult, plan to shut down an investigation that they had been successfully stalling for decades, and would continue to stall on for another 2 decades through normal bureaucratic and political procedures?

The Israeli dancing students thing has been completely debunked - and these days is mostly cited by anti-semites.

Looking more closely at the civil engineering study you reference. First of all I see no evidence of peer review. Secondly the main authors have expertise in bridges, and don't seem to have any tall structure expertise. So it doesn't look very credible.

Btw the way, the first half of my life, I worked in industry and did research in a top ten university in me.

Unless your research was specifically on tall structure civil engineering, I fail to see why that matters.

...and in other words your wrong about the finite element study. They i.e hulsey didn't say what your extrapolating them to mean. They explicitly didn't say 'controlled demolition' because there is no other alternative scientific explanation.

This is literally not how science works. Absence of an alternative explanation does not make your preferred explanation true. You would require evidence of a controlled explosion.

In engineering, you rarely ever have multiple theories flying around. It's not theoretical physics.

At the level of did this building collapse due to fire, or structural issues, it's very common to have multiple theories. Even when just doing modelling different groups will have different interpretations and can come up with different results (my brother in law is a civil engineer who does a lot of modeling and their results are often quite different to competitors. He would claim better). None of this stuff is black and white.

Most scientist , engineers, and architects won't touch this because it's career-ending.

That's certainly an interpretation. Do you have any evidence for this statement? An alternative explanation might be that most of them won't touch this stuff because they think it's insane. Or even they won't look at it because they don't find it personally very interesting.

ExAsperis99

@kurth said:

@ExAsperis99 said:

@kurth said:

@king_picadillo said:
Pro-Tip: Gents, it is proven, you can’t win an internet debate/argument (pick your flavour) unless you end it with “point-blank, PERIOD!”

you can't win....if you don't know the facts and base your posts on 10 minutes on google !

You need a lifetime of delusion and bitterness to reach this level of truth, apparently.

Which makes me ask, are you quite sure that you're not tainted by the all-seeing cabal that pulls the strings? How do you know that your Chinese menu of conspiracies has not been fed directly to you?

And one further question: Knowing the truth as you do, what are you doing about it?

that's funny. I've got two sons probably your age, but they sound smarter. "Chinese menu of conspiracies" jajaja. So naive. When you're in an earthquake, what do you do about it ? You get out of the way. But in short, my solution is you don't participate in a fraudulent electoral processes. I stand with ralph nader. I've said before I live in mexico. It has a real democracy. In the last presidential election, there were 7 political parties , not 2. One man one vote....no electoral college bullshit. The winning party who took the presidency and the congress is only 5 years old. But it's also refreshing because nobody here is stupid enough to believe their government !

You make a lot of assumptions about me. Would you have assumed that I worked with Sy Hersh before he left The New Yorker?

Not everybody has the luxury of abandoning their country to live the life of a cynical expat, though that is certainly one reasonable response to American atrocities. But it also kind of absolves you of the heavy lifting of civic life. I plan on staying in the nation I accidentally was born into and helping to abolish the Electoral College, or at least making it irrelevant.

king_picadillo

Forgot to mention you also must be wearing fleece, cartoon emblazoned pajama pants in public for this technique to work.

kurth

@cian said:
@kurth:
What has Operation Mockingbird got to do with anything that you've mentioned? Yes I've heard of it, fail to see the relevance. Do you have evidence that the CIA created the term?

because cia controlled the press, and who knew what when.

I was in dallas when kenney was shot, and I was a young radical in the 60's. You ?

Were you were personally involved in a conspiracy to murder Kennedy, or did you personally witness something related to said conspiracy? If not, so what?

>
I my first recollection of 'conspiracy theory' was in '71. You said it wasn't used until the eighties...bs. And anyone who watched oswald being gunned down on live tv in the police basement knew something wasn't right. And it turned out I knew the umbrella man.

Also, if you're going to cite Seymour Hersh, then cite him directly rather than through the notoriously unreliable Zero Hedge. I stated in my original response to you that the CIA was funding the Al-Quaeda (or Al-Nusra as they renamed themselves later on).

google seymour hersh and syria. Do I have to do your learning for you ?

Your source for Al-Quaeda's history is Wikipedia. Seymour Hersh (one of the best journalists in the US) has written quite a bit about Al-Quaeda (he's one of my sources for the name stuff), as has Ahmed Rashid. They are good places to start. Noone to my knowledge has ever been able to find the name Al-Quaeda used before the US indictment (it's also a weird name to use 'the base'). And Bin Ladin's activities prior to 9/11 are well documented at this point. Prior to 9/11 he was a relatively insignificant figure who had a habit of claiming operations that he had no hand in.

I just gave you the wikipedia article that says the name was from the eighties and they found documentation in sarajevo. It means 'base', in terms of 'information base'. It was a list of all the indoctrinated idiots willing to blow themselves up. Brzezinski organized it.

Bin Ladin was the face of the Bin Ladin corporation (his father's company) in Afghanistan, where they were subcontracted by the Saudi government to build fortifications for local rebels. He was a fairly minor figure until 2001 (the 90s WTC stuff put him on the map to some degree - he was really minor prior to that). Also, you don't trust the US media, but you're citing the Washington Post?

it's quite effective when you're able to use the propaganda sources against themselves

I thought there was some good stuff in Russ Baker's Family of Secrets, but a lot of it was unsubstantiated, or easily debunked. His work since then has unfortunately been pretty bad. I don't take people who seriously who only find facts that confirm their prior beliefs, which he is extremely guilty of. So no, I'm not going to accept whowhatwhy as a credible source - sorry.

not true. They had a documented money trail to the royal family. Please you're using a 'kill the messenger' argument. If the saudis weren't involved why has the deep state continually blocked the victims from judicial process ? And why do the saudis threaten anybody who tries.

And as well, nobody else could have shutdown norad.

NORAD wasn't shut down. They were holding an exercise, which is not particularly unusual, but that didn't stop them from responding. Their response was chaotic and incompetent, and they certainly tried to disguise that afterwards (even the 9/11 commission criticized this). And they may have shot down US93, in which case they probably had to fake some things to cover that up.

Norad was effectively shut down. Only elements within the govt could have done it. Able Danger was a planned distraction. And yep, we agree, they shot down flight 93 and have lied about it ever since, including present members of govt.

Cheney is on record stalling incoming fighter jets.

Do you have a source for this because I have never heard that version of events. He authorized the pilots to shoot down the planes, which seems like the opposite of that.

>
this is being memoryholed as well, but it is what it is.... http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/9-11-report-testimony-altered-to-hide-cheney-roll-in-pentagon-hit/article/425008

The pentagon attack hit exactly at the office of oni who were investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars. 39 of the 40 investigators died.

Source? And why would they use such an incredibly complex, and difficult, plan to shut down an investigation that they had been successfully stalling for decades, and would continue to stall on for another 2 decades through normal bureaucratic and political procedures?

https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Media/in_the_news/Sept11Remembrance.pdf?ver=2015-12-02-065357-983&timestamp=1449057343207

The Israeli dancing students thing has been completely debunked - and these days is mostly cited by anti-semites.

you're wrong. A recent cia release verified everything. That's mossads trick. Make it all antisemetic. As well there was arrests of over 60 israeli spies saying they were art students, immediately prior to 911. An interesting photo online shows some of these students who had a project in one of the towers ...with a room full of fuses.

Looking more closely at the civil engineering study you reference. First of all I see no evidence of peer review. Secondly the main authors have expertise in bridges, and don't seem to have any tall structure expertise. So it doesn't look very credible.

jajaja. really...do you know how to use finite element on a cray ? ...very credible to you, who doesn't know diddly about engineering

Btw the way, the first half of my life, I worked in industry and did research in a top ten university in me.

Unless your research was specifically on tall structure civil engineering, I fail to see why that matters.

jajaja. Guess you're unfamiliar with the scientific method

...and in other words your wrong about the finite element study. They i.e hulsey didn't say what your extrapolating them to mean. They explicitly didn't say 'controlled demolition' because there is no other alternative scientific explanation.

This is literally not how science works. Absence of an alternative explanation does not make your preferred explanation true. You would require evidence of a controlled explosion.

lots of evidence of controlled demolition. Go to architects and engineers for 911 truth.

In engineering, you rarely ever have multiple theories flying around. It's not theoretical physics.

At the level of did this building collapse due to fire, or structural issues, it's very common to have multiple theories. Even when just doing modelling different groups will have different interpretations and can come up with different results (my brother in law is a civil engineer who does a lot of modeling and their results are often quite different to competitors. He would claim better). None of this stuff is black and white.

nist didn't even mention wtc 7 collapse in their first report. I wonder how many structural engineers expertise in skyscrapers are working with them ? How many said it was fire ? ....a whole shitload is how many. If your bnl's modeling is different, it's because their input data is different. It's quite simple. First the govt tried to ignore the wtc 7 issue at all, because they easily camouflaged it with two jets. Now they have no response, hoping people will continue living inside their cocoons.

Most scientist , engineers, and architects won't touch this because it's career-ending.

That's certainly an interpretation. Do you have any evidence for this statement? An alternative explanation might be that most of them won't touch this stuff because they think it's insane. Or even they won't look at it because they don't find it personally very interesting.

stephen jones . Most scholars know where not to tread. Censorship is prolific in academia.

LinearLineman

Wow! Slam, bam, boom! There sure are some smart folks here and I admire them.

I, on the other hand, not being as dedicated to researching a bottomless pit, rely on those smarter than I am. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson. This quote of his has been my pole star for fifty years.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”.

But that’s me. Remember Greenspan? Now there was a genius!

kurth

@LinearLineman said:
Wow! Slam, bam, boom! There sure are some smart folks here and I admire them.

I, on the other hand, not being as dedicated to researching a bottomless pit, rely on those smarter than I am. Like Ralph Waldo Emerson. This quote of his has been my pole star for fifty years.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”.

But that’s me. Remember Greenspan? Now there was a genius!

no man...I admire your music. But I said when I had two sons of my own, that'll I'll try to leave them with the best map I could make.

cian

@ExAsperis99 said:

You make a lot of assumptions about me. Would you have assumed that I worked with Sy Hersh before he left The New Yorker?

I would never assume that about anyone, but that's very cool. Were you a fact checker, or a researcher, or something else?

The book he wrote recently about his life was amazing. Highly recommend if you haven't read it.

kurth

@ExAsperis99 said:

@kurth said:

@ExAsperis99 said:

@kurth said:

@king_picadillo said:
Pro-Tip: Gents, it is proven, you can’t win an internet debate/argument (pick your flavour) unless you end it with “point-blank, PERIOD!”

you can't win....if you don't know the facts and base your posts on 10 minutes on google !

You need a lifetime of delusion and bitterness to reach this level of truth, apparently.

Which makes me ask, are you quite sure that you're not tainted by the all-seeing cabal that pulls the strings? How do you know that your Chinese menu of conspiracies has not been fed directly to you?

And one further question: Knowing the truth as you do, what are you doing about it?

that's funny. I've got two sons probably your age, but they sound smarter. "Chinese menu of conspiracies" jajaja. So naive. When you're in an earthquake, what do you do about it ? You get out of the way. But in short, my solution is you don't participate in a fraudulent electoral processes. I stand with ralph nader. I've said before I live in mexico. It has a real democracy. In the last presidential election, there were 7 political parties , not 2. One man one vote....no electoral college bullshit. The winning party who took the presidency and the congress is only 5 years old. But it's also refreshing because nobody here is stupid enough to believe their government !

You make a lot of assumptions about me. Would you have assumed that I worked with Sy Hersh before he left The New Yorker?

Not everybody has the luxury of abandoning their country to live the life of a cynical expat, though that is certainly one reasonable response to American atrocities. But it also kind of absolves you of the heavy lifting of civic life. I plan on staying in the nation I accidentally was born into and helping to abolish the Electoral College, or at least making it irrelevant.

whoa amigo....perhaps you should read your original post and then talk about making assumption(s) ..and then you continue hpocricizing yourself in this post. Sad...maybe it's early onset alzheimers ?

""You need a lifetime of delusion and bitterness to reach this level of truth, apparently.

Which makes me ask, are you quite sure that you're not tainted by the all-seeing cabal that pulls the strings? How do you know that your Chinese menu of conspiracies has not been fed directly to you?""

Being american is like being in a cult. No...it 'is' being in a cult. You're a cult member. Like a big scientologist. I had the luck to deprogram. I wish the same for you. I'll repeat what I've said before....patriotism is a mental disorder. But being a republican or democrat is an outright psychosis ! And it doesn't make a difference who's the president of the usa. If he had any power he would have built the wall. I'm waiting for that wall.....we need it to keep the dangerous hoards trapped north of it. You have seen....in all the photos of the border...that the razor wire is on your side....right ?

yowza

@kurth You ARE trolling now and looking more ridiculous with each post

marmakin

I am:

-Thrilled to see the orange turd get flushed even though he will try to clog the toilet on his way out 😂
-Super sick of wild improbable conspiracy theories that dominate both the mainstream right and the radical left. They actually hurt our ability to solve problems and make improvements.

kurth

@marmakin said:
I am:

-Thrilled to see the orange turd get flushed even though he will try to clog the toilet on his way out 😂
-Super sick of wild improbable conspiracy theories that dominate both the mainstream right and the radical left. They actually hurt our ability to solve problems and make improvements.

an abona fide cult member. I hope your numbers grow .... cause china has at least 95% of their population completely brainwashed as well, and alot of true believers will need to volunteer in wwiii, which Biden will probably start when china invades taiwan. So you won't get time to solve those problems you couldn't solve anyway because all the money is fake, and improvements....jajaja the ruling class has got you corona checkmated bro.

@yowza ...and exactly which part led you to that brilliant conclusion...because usually when people have no argument , they accuse someone of being a troll to weaselout. It's a pathetic strategy.....and have you seen the razorwire on the border, dude ?

ExAsperis99

It must be such a burden being the only one not brainwashed or programmed.

JohnnyGoodyear

Gentlemen, I am surprised you failed to recognize our old friend the sea lion.

LinearLineman

“Patriotism is a mental disorder”. That sounds pretty spot on to me.

@yowza, I respectfully disagree. @kurth presents a very interesting perspective (and he likes my stuff). We can’t, IMO, be dismissive of other perspectives Just because it doesn’t fit our personal world view. Debate it, yes, dismiss it, no.

So long as it is presented in a cogent, (Interesting), and civil way, for me, it is a valued addition to the conversation. Otherwise we’re at risk of just going uh-huh, uh-huh to each other.

yowza

@kurth said:

@yowza ...and exactly which part led you to that brilliant conclusion...because usually when people have no argument , they accuse someone of being a troll to weaselout. It's a pathetic strategy.....and have you seen the razorwire on the border, dude ?

I did research some of your links and easily found other evidence debunking many of your points but I’m not going to tit for tat as my time is too valuable to waste trying to argue with someone with no basis in reality. When you use opinion journalism and conspiracy theory for your “facts”, you’re really no better than a conspiracy theorist.

You are trolling because you obviously have this constant need to get the last word in and try to convince us all how brilliant and superior you are and how all of the rest of us are idiots because we don’t have the inside story like you do. Now I know what the forum ignore button is good for. Bu bye

yowza

@LinearLineman said:
“Patriotism is a mental disorder”. That sounds pretty spot on to me.

@yowza, I respectfully disagree. @kurth presents a very interesting perspective (and he likes my stuff). We can’t, IMO, be dismissive of other perspectives Just because it doesn’t fit our personal world view. Debate it, yes, dismiss it, no.

So long as it is presented in a cogent, (Interesting), and civil way, for me, it is a valued addition to the conversation. Otherwise we’re at risk of just going uh-huh, uh-huh to each other.

It’s the arrogant attitude of “I’m the only human alive who can see the real truth and the rest of you are idiots” which I can do without. That sounds just like something Donnie dipshit would say.

I like your stuff too @LinearLineman but that seems beside the point here.

Liquidmantis

@LinearLineman said:
So long as it is presented in a cogent[...]

Therein lies the rub.

LinearLineman

@yowza, haha, glad you like my stuff, too.

I would agree, but I was once an arrogant prick who thought I knew it all, myself. Now I’m just an arrogant prick. Empathy!

@Liquidmantis, you mean this particular debate hasn’t been cogent?

ExAsperis99

I think we can all agree that given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast hell to heaven so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast

CracklePot

Try to deprogram the American cult and you end up with Qanon.
The ignorance runs too deep and the resistance is too strong.
We are just a bunch of humans, after all.
We believe in what we say we know, but actually know very little.

tahiche

@kurth said:
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2020/11/heres-our-historical-analogy-menu-rome.html ...it's really quite simple. The usa is coming apart at the seams...probable karmic revenge for tearing apart dozens of other countries over the last half a century. When's the last time you protested a foreign invasion by your govt, instead of trump ? Let's hope, when Biden declares war with russia, or china, or both, he doesn't reinstate the draft. There's no more safeharbor canada to run off to.

What iOS version are you using?. You should update 👍

SpartanClownTide

If your country (regardless) wants you to believe they're (you're) the good guys it's probably (certainly) bullshit. I think there's enough egregious examples of US shenanigans out in the open to put pay to the idea that somehow it's always been a force for good.. Same is certainly true of The kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and whoever else is still dangling on there. The whole lot's a bloody racket and nationalism is a dirty great trick to keep the plebs from turning on the robber barons.
I can't seriously comprehend this idea that there's some level of equivalence between business as usual corporate cronyism and a fully fledged mafia state propped up by religious mania and rabid tribalism. Neither are great but at least with the former there's some sliver of hope things aren't going to get dramatically worse. Domestically what happens in the US does affect other countries, it's not all about foreign policy.

cian

@kurth said:

What has Operation Mockingbird got to do with anything that you've mentioned? Yes I've heard of it, fail to see the relevance. Do you have evidence that the CIA created the term?

because cia controlled the press, and who knew what when.

According to both Seymour Hersh and the Church Commission the CIA had 50 domestic journalists (half of whom were freelancers) and a few hundred foreign journalists. They also ran front magazines, like Rampart.

This is obviously very different to your claim that the "CIA controlled the press". Maybe you should read more carefully?

I my first recollection of 'conspiracy theory' was in '71. You said it wasn't used until the eighties...bs. And anyone who watched oswald being gunned down on live tv in the police basement knew something wasn't right. And it turned out I knew the umbrella man.

Okay, well assuming you're correct and that the term conspiracy theory was used widely in the 70s - do you still believe that the CIA invented the term? Any evidence for this?

google seymour hersh and syria. Do I have to do your learning for you ?

Me: Patiently describes how the CIA helped fund and train Jihadists (including what was Al-Quaeda) in Syria, drawing upon several sources (including Seymour Hersh, but also the excellent Patrick Cockburn).
You: You should know that the CIA funded Al-Quaeda. Google Seymour Hersh.
Me: WTF dude?

I just gave you the wikipedia article that says the name was from the eighties and they found documentation in sarajevo. It means 'base', in terms of 'information base'. It was a list of all the indoctrinated idiots willing to blow themselves up. Brzezinski organized it.

It's a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The reference they use (which your clearly haven't bothered to check) is some site called 'history commons'.

For the initial indictment of Al-Quaeda they needed a name. Some have claimed (and I find this quite persuasive) that prosecutors essentially came up with the name Al-Queada based upon the creative misinterpretation of some documents they found in Bosnia (among other places). US intelligence has always had quite odd Arab interpreters, possibly because many of them Lebanese christians who fled during the civil war. It's been years since I read him, but I think Jason Burke's book had quite a good section on how Al Quaeda was named.

Also Islamic Jihadism is a Saudi creation. The CIA may have aided and abetted at various points, but the Saudis are the ones who are responsible.

it's quite effective when you're able to use the propaganda sources against themselves

So you believe the CIA controlled media when they agree with you, but not when they disagree with you? That seems convenient.

not true. They had a documented money trail to the royal family. Please you're using a 'kill the messenger' argument. If the saudis weren't involved why has the deep state continually blocked the victims from judicial process ? And why do the saudis threaten anybody who tries.

Yes some of the stuff was good, some was not. You're really not very good at nuance are you. Also I referred to the Saudi connection in my original response to you. So again, not sure why you're lecturing me about it.

Norad was effectively shut down. Only elements within the govt could have done it. Able Danger was a planned distraction.

I mean it wasn't. It was functioning. They had an exercise at the same time, but the military have exercises all the time. And NORAD was still able to respond. The evidence is pretty clear that NORAD failed because they had never really planned for anything like 9/11, and their response was a little chaotic. They were set up to intercept foreign fighter jets, not domestic passenger planes. NORAD didn't do a particularly good job on 9/11, but then I think only someone with little experience of the US military would find that surprising.

And yep, we agree, they shot down flight 93 and have lied about it ever since, including present members of govt.

I don't agree that they shot 93 down. I think it's a possibility. Also not sure one can simultaneously believe that the US government planned 9/11, but also shot down one of the planes.

Cheney is on record stalling incoming fighter jets.

Do you have a source for this because I have never heard that version of events. He authorized the pilots to shoot down the planes, which seems like the opposite of that.
>
this is being memoryholed as well, but it is what it is.... http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/9-11-report-testimony-altered-to-hide-cheney-roll-in-pentagon-hit/article/425008

This doesn't support your argument. This is an account of a rather confused response, and a cover up to make the response look better than it was. Which is pretty consistent with what happened on 9/11 (who can forget Bush's slack jawed response when he was first told about the attack).

The pentagon attack hit exactly at the office of oni who were investigating the missing 2.3 trillion dollars. 39 of the 40 investigators died.

Source? And why would they use such an incredibly complex, and difficult, plan to shut down an investigation that they had been successfully stalling for decades, and would continue to stall on for another 2 decades through normal bureaucratic and political procedures?

https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Media/in_the_news/Sept11Remembrance.pdf?ver=2015-12-02-065357-983&timestamp=1449057343207

There is no mention in this article of them doing a financial audit on the Pentagon.

The Israeli dancing students thing has been completely debunked - and these days is mostly cited by anti-semites.

you're wrong. A recent cia release verified everything. That's mossads trick. Make it all antisemetic. As well there was arrests of over 60 israeli spies saying they were art students, immediately prior to 911. An interesting photo online shows some of these students who had a project in one of the towers ...with a room full of fuses.

Right... So this CIA release is where exactly?

Looking more closely at the civil engineering study you reference. First of all I see no evidence of peer review. Secondly the main authors have expertise in bridges, and don't seem to have any tall structure expertise. So it doesn't look very credible.

jajaja. really...do you know how to use finite element on a cray ? ...very credible to you, who doesn't know diddly about engineering

You said the report was peer reviewed. This appears to be false. Again you have failed to state why we should believe the analysis of a guy who's an expert on bridges? They are very different areas.

But kudos for dropping ancient knowledge from your days programming Cray computers in, what, the 90s? Not sure how it's relevant though.

Btw the way, the first half of my life, I worked in industry and did research in a top ten university in me.

Unless your research was specifically on tall structure civil engineering, I fail to see why that matters.

jajaja. Guess you're unfamiliar with the scientific method

Hmm. So what was your research area? What did you do in industry? You seem to be dodging the question.

...and in other words your wrong about the finite element study. They i.e hulsey didn't say what your extrapolating them to mean. They explicitly didn't say 'controlled demolition' because there is no other alternative scientific explanation.

This is literally not how science works. Absence of an alternative explanation does not make your preferred explanation true. You would require evidence of a controlled explosion.

lots of evidence of controlled demolition. Go to architects and engineers for 911 truth.

And this evidence has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal somewhere?

nist didn't even mention wtc 7 collapse in their first report. I wonder how many structural engineers expertise in skyscrapers are working with them ?

I mean you could probably just look at the report to find out how many were involved if you're interested.

How many said it was fire ? ....a whole shitload is how many.

So you're saying most civil engineers consulted thought it was a fire. So that would make the NIST report pretty credible.

If your bnl's modeling is different, it's because their input data is different.

No it's often because your model is different. I'm sorry, but what is your background? That's a pretty elementary thing in modelling.

It's quite simple. First the govt tried to ignore the wtc 7 issue at all, because they easily camouflaged it with two jets. Now they have no response, hoping people will continue living inside their cocoons.

I feel we must both have a very different understanding of what the words 'quite simple' mean.

Your Quite Simple:

• The government blew up the WTC towers with explosive, but then disguised it by flying two jets into some (but not all) of the buildings, shot another plane down over a field and flew a fourth one into the Pentagon to hopefully kill some accountants.

Most scientist , engineers, and architects won't touch this because it's career-ending.

That's certainly an interpretation. Do you have any evidence for this statement? An alternative explanation might be that most of them won't touch this stuff because they think it's insane. Or even they won't look at it because they don't find it personally very interesting.

stephen jones . Most scholars know where not to tread. Censorship is prolific in academia.

Steven E. Jones is a nuclear physicist who went on to make a lot of very controversial statements in an area in which he had no expertise. He didn't try to get any of these arguments into a peer reviewed journal (and didn't seem very interested in doing so), and there was a lot of criticism of his scholarship. After considerable pressure from within the university from his colleagues he retired early.

I don't think that's censorship.