EPTArt reflects life which reflects art.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9779
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Art reflects life which reflects art. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 26 2018 08:27 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/artfcity/status/956613086563225600 Art reflects life which reflects art. Is that thing solid or just plated? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On January 26 2018 08:27 WolfintheSheep wrote: This is why people don't take your arguments seriously. So, take half a second and answer: What happened to the Taliban after 2001? You answer that and you know why they're growing opium now instead of stomping it out. There's no coincidence and no conspiracy. Totally unforeseeable consequence right? Like in Iraq, who could have saw that coming, or in Libya, or a whole long list of US foreign interventions making shit worse at the point of conflict, regionally, and domestically while coincidentally enriching a frequently recurring group of contractors and industries. Meanwhile the people we send to fight these fights are killing themselves faster than their enemies are killing them because we don't provide adequate care. They'll tell you because we can't afford that AND a 13 billion dollar war machine and the choice is obvious. At some point it takes more credulity to believe the official story than the "conspiracies". | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On January 26 2018 08:31 GreenHorizons wrote: Totally unforeseeable consequence right? Like in Iraq, who could have saw that coming, or in Libya, or a whole long list of US foreign interventions making shit worse at the point of conflict, regionally, and domestically while coincidentally enriching a frequently recurring group of contractors and industries. Meanwhile the people we send to fight these fights are killing themselves faster than their enemies. At some point it takes more credulity to believe the official story than the "conspiracies". You do recall that Afghanistan and Iraq are two different nations and one was actually invaded for a fairly good reason, right? Edit: Nevermind, I forgot that you think 9/11 conspiracies are plausible as well. Well, scrap that then. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On January 26 2018 08:34 WolfintheSheep wrote: You do recall that Afghanistan and Iraq are two different nations and one was actually invaded for a fairly good reason, right? Edit: Nevermind, I forgot that you think 9/11 conspiracies are plausible as well. Well, scrap that then. What was the good reason Afghanistan was invaded? as to the 9/11 thing I agree with an ever growing community of structural engineers and architects that say that the official story for Building 7 doesn't add up. That's an excellent example of where the credulity lay with those buying the official story by a reasonable measure. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 26 2018 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote: What was the good reason Afghanistan was invaded? Why don’t you fill in the blank for us? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
There wasn't one is the point. On January 26 2018 08:39 WolfintheSheep wrote: I would like to point out that some people did not believe GH was the resident conspiracy-theorist of this board, so thank you at least for clearing that up for everyone. People can read their questions/concerns for themselves and see if they can find satisfactory answers For a lot of reasons I don't speculate on what actually happened, but imo the evidence shows that what we were told isn't complete/accurate. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On January 26 2018 08:53 WolfintheSheep wrote: I'm sure it was the secret society that did it. Totally nothing suspicious about lying about there being no evidence of explosives until having to admit you didn't look and refusing to look now that your caught, related to a building of which you lied about the way it collapsed only to have to admit it collapsed in a way literally ONLY ever seen in controlled demolitions without any model that can recreate it that doesn't exclude existing structures or manufacture mysterious forces from thin air. + Show Spoiler + WTC 7 COLLAPSE AT FREE-FALL ACCELERATION IS NOT EXPLAINED Technical Statement: After initially denying it, NIST was ultimately forced into a public acknowledgement in their final report on WTC 7 that the building fell at full free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, during which time it traversed the vertical distance of eight stories, or just over 100 feet. However, there is no attempt in the report to confront the implications that there could not have been any structural resistance during this eight-story fall at gravitational acceleration. Since every other skyscraper in history that has fallen in the manner in which WTC 7 did was an explosive controlled demolition, and since there is abundant eyewitness testimony of explosions and molten iron as well as chemical evidence of incendiaries found in the debris pile, one would expect NIST to at least consider the possibility of explosive or incendiary use and test for them, according to the National Fire Protection Association investigation standard NFPA 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which is strictly followed by the FDNY. Incredibly, NIST continues to refuse to test the remaining debris for explosives or incendiaries. EDIT: Just to address a point about 'secret societies'. They don't have to be cloak wearing extras from eyes wide shut, super villains with a lair, or whatever cultist stuff people imagine, it's the same petty clique shit from high school scaled up with power/influence/money/etc... User was warned for this post | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
"Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse. Who's manufacturing mysterious forces? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Since every other skyscraper in history that has fallen in the manner in which WTC 7 did was an explosive controlled demolition Dumb people fall for sentences like this. On January 26 2018 09:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Dem Congressman. https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/956543185584574465 Cool, that'll pay for 1/3rd of that big-ass Trump monument. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On January 26 2018 09:07 Aquanim wrote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/ Who's manufacturing mysterious forces? If I'm not mistaken that's the report in dispute. Hence no reference to actually bothering to check for explosive residues. Just the blanket "we found no evidence" which was referenced in the piece highlighting the disputes as having to admit that what it meant was that they didn't look as would be standard operating procedure if it was an NYFD operation. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 26 2018 09:17 GreenHorizons wrote: If I'm not mistaken that's the report in dispute. Hence no reference to actually bothering to check for explosive residues Sure, but if any explosion of a relevant size would have been heard, and no such explosion was heard, then there isn't really any question after that, is there? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
On January 26 2018 09:19 Aquanim wrote: Sure, but if any explosion of a relevant size would have been heard, and no such explosion was heard, then there isn't really any question after that, is there? Yeah, there's lots of questions as to what that would sound like and whether the same report that clearly lied/omitted/misstated/screwed up (whatever you want to call it) about other aspects would be trustworthy. People definitely reported hearing explosions as well, but in the chaos that's not the leg I would stand on to prove there's nothing suspicious about the many other problems in the report anyway. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On January 26 2018 09:24 GreenHorizons wrote: People definitely reported hearing explosions as well Source this. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States4741 Posts
meanwhile And somehow Cotton is the bad person throughout this. I'm not even sure what I think of this yet but good heavens. Gutierrez said just last week that he'd build the wall himself. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23172 Posts
Keep in mind the sheer chaos of the event and the general unreliability of eye witness testimony that there were or weren't explosions when and how many and why it's already protocol not to rely on eye witness testimony alone and run tests that weren't run for no determinable reason. | ||
| ||
