nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

Well but to me thats like saying Orcs should be more like elves. Ya know.

w
v

Well, if you consulted your Tolkien, you’d see that orcs were decended from elves; their bodies and minds twisted by the evil Melkor…

The point being, the orcs were forced to be who and what they are. They had no choice.

Unlike the orcs, the dems have a choice – they just choose to be greedy.

=====================

Well its true, I’d never heard of Melkor/Morgoth. Interesting story. Especially the song-creation part.

For a celebrity chef this guy had some good vids on politix:

zn wrote:

WV, what did you get out of the West Virginia one?

..

====================

Well, I really liked his approach. He prettymuch nailed the southern half of WV, which is where he was.

The upper half or norther half (where i live) is a little more like…oh…Pennsylvania.

In some ways, i actually like southern wv more than where I live. Its kinda like the difference between…say….Old Country Music and New Country music. Ya know. Like the difference between Johnny Cash and Shania Twain. There’s a difference.

w
v

Mackeyser wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

wv wrote:

After all these years, I dunno what to think about 9-11. I really dont. I dont trust the official version anymore, but i dont trust any of the alternative versions either. I ‘lean toward’ the official version but I am not totally convinced. I wish there were sources on this i could trust.

Another example of wv-ram not-knowing-somethin.

Anybody on this board a 9-11 agnostic, like me? Just curious. I know at one time Mack was, but then he moved toward the official theory. …where the hell is Mack, btw?

w
v

I don’t trust the official story in this sense:

It didn’t really deal with government’s failure to prevent it, or its role in indirectly provoking it.

(Blowback)

I think they got who did it right. And I’ve never believed the Alex Jones bullshit about it being a false flag. It just never made any sense that the powers that be would blow up their own key installations, especially not major seats of economic, military and political power.

Not that the government is beyond major operations to provoke wars. But if they’re gonna do them, they’re gonna make sure it’s overseas and doesn’t result in major losses to their own key assets.

Plus, it’s really not that hard to persuade enough Americans that we need yet another war. Our history shows this. Why take all of that risk, blowing up key assets at home, in the centers of power, when there are so many other ways to start a war and get a buy-in?

Matt Taibbi wrote some really excellent pieces concerning the Truthers back in the day. He dealt with much of the above.

I am here.

Wish I had the money because I’d buy the site and make it both mobile friendly and not take forever to load. I have FiOS running 150mbps with usually 14ms latency to anywhere in the world…and this site loads like Compuserve from the early 90s. And…mostly I’m on my phone and this site doesn’t do well on the phone, so I tend to avoid the aggravation. I love that there IS a site and love the people…but it’s kinda like not visiting friends who don’t live too far away, but the only road is completely torn up with construction so it takes forever and in my computing vehicle, it difficult to navigate.

All that said, I’m just a text away if anyone needs to reach me. I can DM anyone who is interested.

As for the 9/11 stuff, a few things.

The engineering is sound on the post mortem. NO ONE blew up any buildings with shaped charges. The buildings were brought down with fire and the unique construction of the buildings is what led to their collapse.

Al-Qaeda did it. Osama Bin Laden planned it with the express goal of catching us sleeping and then bankrupting us in fruitless overreaction. He’s basically succeeded in that. We’ve lost our way of life, our freedoms and nearly bankrupted ourselves turning our entire country into a prison state.

As for it being a government inside job. It wasn’t. That said, it’s not like that equation wouldn’t balance. It’s hard to argue with folks who assert that it was…not based on the buildings (many believe the government colluded with the Saudis), but based on what happened after. If you believe in the deep state, then NOTHING was better for the deep state than 9/11. While even the CIA and FBI had checks and balances, once basically everything got rolled into Homeland Security, those checks basically went away and any questions became “unpatriotic”… which is as fascist as it sounds. So, even though it wasn’t even close to a government job, this theory is like a puzzle piece whose shape matches perfectly…only when you look at the actual picture…you can clearly see it’s not the right piece. Many can’t get past the fact that there is more than one piece that fits very well if not perfectly.

As for peer-review, I tend to focus on the specific bits. Like the original Popular Mechanics “take” as an effort to debunk was real crap. It was the engineering team from Purdue, iirc, that properly modeled the physics of the collapsing buildings. Now, when you got the Popular Mechanics articles, it is basically a summation of the Purdue Engineering Dept findings. When I saw their paper, I INSTANTLY stopped questioning because they nailed the physics. Period, end of story. But I understood what to look for when someone was going to try and talk about the physics such as why the melting point of UL rated steel mattered and why it wasn’t a function of the melting point (which the fire even with a “flueing” effect didn’t get hot enough to melt the steel), but rather the point at which steel loses a certain percent of its tensile strength.

So maybe because I understood a) the foreign policy basis for why it was a Saudi-based terrorist org that would and did pull this off and b) the physics, that I didn’t really feel the need to read any peer-reviewed analyses.

We really have all the facts in front of us. And while people doing the analysis is crucially important, unlike in some instances like Lockerbie or Flight MH17 that crashed in Ukraine and was shot down by a Russian missile, we don’t really need it for now, but posterity.

For Lockerbie and MH17, we need these analyses because there are crucial pieces which had to be interpreted by experts coupled with the fact that the public doesn’t have access to all the pertinent facts.

Also, I love you guys bunches and I’ll make a greater effort now that I’m back on my ‘puter to jump in.

======================

Well, I still…dunno, Mack. I mean…YOU could be working for the Lizard-people.

You could even be a lizard LORD.

Btw, what do you think of my point that the Debunkers are mean to the conspiracy-folks ? I dont see much respect shown on any of the internet sites. I dont think its helpful to insult the skeptics.

w
v

Man, this looks like damn good food…

any comments on this? i started it at the 2:50 mark.

if you listen from the beginning though, Ray’s main point imho, is his lack of trust for official sources. Because they LIE. He says he trusted the Warren report people back during the JFK days. Now, he cant trust the way he used to.

zn wrote:

wv wrote:

Well all of that sounds perfectly reasonable, boys.

But then i watch that tower no.7 going down. It wasnt hit by a plane. And it just drops like a rock. And some sciency folks say it absolutely could not happen that way, because of fire.

So wv-ram remains in a quandary and perplexity. I’m used to it, though. I still havent figured out how the Rams let Jerome Bettis go. I mean tell me ‘that’ wasnt some sort of conspiracy.

w
v

Well first off all the issues with tower 7 were answered. https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

And, again, the entire world is full of skeptical by nature and by profession scientists and engineers trained to understand these things, and there’s no broad-based outcry. Or even doubts. Or even a resistant minority among them.

People who do not believe climate change is real make similar claims. They claim to have sciency sounding people on their side. But they have not convinced the vast majority of people trained in all the relevant fields that they have a case.

And they have other, similar incidents to compare it to.

Since 9/11, at least two steel-framed high-rise buildings have collapsed following blazes — the Plasco Building in Tehran, Iran on January 19, 2017, and the Wilton Paes de Almeida Building in São Paulo, Brazil, on May 1, 2018.

Tehran fire: Twenty firemen killed as high-rise collapses: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38675628
50 firefighters killed in Iran as burning high-rise collapses: http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-high-rise-20170119-story.html
Brazil fire: São Paulo building collapses in huge blaze: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-43960778
Blazing building collapses in Sao Paulo: https://www.reuters.com/news/picture/blazing-building-collapses-in-sao-paulo-idUSRTS1PEAM
.

==========

My understanding is that study was not peer-reviewed. Yes? No?

w
v

Well all of that sounds perfectly reasonable, boys.

But then i watch that tower no.7 going down. It wasnt hit by a plane. And it just drops like a rock. And some sciency folks say it absolutely could not happen that way, because of fire.

So wv-ram remains in a quandary and perplexity. I’m used to it, though. I still havent figured out how the Rams let Jerome Bettis go. I mean tell me ‘that’ wasnt some sort of conspiracy.

w
v

nittany ram wrote:

“A monopoly is forming in agrochemicals and GMO crop species that will leave the farmers of the world with no real choices about how to grow their crops if they want to be profitable…..”

Well, I’m not going to defend the business practices of Monsanto or Bayer, but if farmers around the world were forced to use GM crops we would see better outcomes in terms of costs, sustainability, yield, land use efficiency, nutrition, environmental impact…

——————

Well i hear Monsanto genetically modified tower number 7. And thats why it wilted like Bulger in 2009.

w
v

zn wrote:

<
That’s the stuff I don’t buy. The science on this is pretty clear I think.

…

================

Well i used to think it was clear, but now i have doubts. There are plenty of sciency people that dont buy the official version. And i do not have the background to know. So…I have to ‘trust’…who? I dunno.

So thats where I’m at.

And Mack has gone awol.

w
v

From the wiki article.
—————————————
“In November 2007, Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs in several conspiracy theories and asked this question:[17]

How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?

32% “Very Likely”
30% “Somewhat Likely”
30% “Unlikely”
8% “Don’t Know/Other”
———————————————