Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Jell 0 Biafra

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58
1
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 07:37:27 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?

I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.

Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?

stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.

To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.

Fair enough.  Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true.  But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.

  If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

Is the conspiracy surrounding the WTC in 2001 also related to the motivation for the first Gulf War 10 years previous?

I wouldn't think so.  The conspiracy about the first gulf war is established fact. I don't see any evidence for the WTC conspiracy.

2
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 05:39:30 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

To be regarded as a conspiracy theory, does the quality of the supporting evidence not matter?

I've never heard anyone saying that the contemporary claims that the Bush administration, with the assistance of the Blair government, was cooking the books/data to garner support in the run-up to the Iraq War, amounted to a conspiracy theory.

Maybe Bush and Blair were too nakedly fraudulent?

stew, god bless him (whatever happened to him?) used to roll out the Hillary conspiracy theories all the time, often to do with her murdering people, without a shred of supporting evidence.

To me, a conspiracy theory is where someone posits some outlandish explanation for something without offering any evidence beyond some poorly thought-through/half-baked, paranoid nonsense.

Fair enough.  Given that definition, I don't know of any ones that have turned out to be true.  But I wonder if everyone is working with something like your definition.

  If I told a group of people right now that the Gulf war was sold to the American people by a PR company who showcased a woman who claimed to have seen Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait shut off incubators containing babies, and that woman turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US, and that her story was entirely made up, I would be fairly sure some would dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

3
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 05:18:39 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

Yes - a REAL conspiracy. What is your point?

Simply that the claim that a democratically elected government would knowingly lead its people into war under false premises is/has been regarded as a conspiracy theory.  So they're examples of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

4
General discussion / Re: 9/11 What really happened to WT7?
« on: September 13, 2018, 02:36:28 PM »
Building 7 was not hit by any plane.
The Fire commander leading the fight on the day, said that "the fires in WTC 7 were under control and only needed 2 teams to put it out". He called for the area command to assign the teams to fight the fire. They started to put the fires out, only to be told after half an hour to abandon their positions, and evacuate the building. They argued with the commanders that the fires were almost out, but the commanders radioed they had to evacuate immediately as the building was going to collapse and trap them in it. They radioed back saying they (The commanders) were talking rubbish as there was very little damage to the building and there was no way a collapse was imminent. They were then told not to argue but to evacuate immediately. Leave everything, run. About 5 minutes after evacuating the building it collapsed symmetrically to the ground into it's own footprint.
There are dozens of videos on YTube where firemen talk about what they heard and saw, as they evacuated the building. They describe hearing dozens of explosions from the top of the building on every floor all the way to the bottom. They also describe these explosions as exactly like a demolition.
None of this was ever mentioned in the NIST reports, where they completely ignored any and all testimony regarding explosions, not just in building seven but WTC 1 and 2.

As for the assertion that  multiple structural steel support beams were sheered by an Aluminum can, I guess we will never know because the evidence of what happened to the steel was never gathered due to the steel being removed immediately from the scene of the crime. Removal of evidence from a crime scene is a capital offence btw. Coverup anyone....

This is just f**king bananas. Take a break from the internet lad.
Don't think it's that far-fetched myself

Saying that the American government blew up Building 7 is not far fetched? You're on a level with Willie Frazier and Jim Corr. Good company.

Worth noting that Willie Frazer (among plenty of others) maintained that state collusion was a conspiracy theory. There are still those who would accuse you of mad conspiracy theories for suggesting that the British State orchestrated the slaughter of innocent civilians in Dublin & Monaghan in May 1974, for instance.

I'm not suggesting I necessarily believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but if the world was made up solely of people who sneered at every seemingly outlandish conspiracy theory, it would be a dangerous world where states could get away with a lot more than what we already now know they have been up to.

Exactly. It's like Bush said once, telling people not to believe these conspiracy theories... You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. So you're not a proper American if you question 9/11. Clever propaganda line.

Can anyone name one outlandish conspiracy theory that was sneered at and has since been proven true?


I don't know how outlandish conspiracies have to be to qualify, but there was the gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US government officials knowingly deceived the public leading to the Vietnam war.  https://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin   And for both the Gulf war and the Iraq war, there were orchestrated attempts to deceive the public about the need to go to war. 
When people in power collude secretly to achieve aims that are not in the public interest, what is that only a conspiracy?

5
GAA Discussion / Re: New Championship Format
« on: September 11, 2018, 02:42:35 PM »
Might work.  An opportunity to play a final in front of a full house in Croke park might be enough of an inducement.  I'd like to see added that the winner plays in the upper tier competition the following season.

6
General discussion / Re: The Wire (tv drama)
« on: September 06, 2018, 07:31:04 PM »
I agree about the West Wing but similarly season 5 of the Wire is a little too proposterorus for me.

Yeah, season 5 was crap.  Wasn't wild about season 2 either.

Carnivale is another excellent show, but was unfortunately canceled after two seasons.  The two seasons do stand alone though, so you can watch it without feeling like you're not going to get some kind of resolution.

7
The Beatles, Run For Your Life, is definitely the catchiest song about domestic abuse.

8
General discussion / Re: Dogs
« on: July 25, 2018, 06:11:28 PM »
If you have the time and a bit of patience, training them yourself is fun for both of you.

9
General discussion / Re: Dogs
« on: July 24, 2018, 05:31:38 PM »
Joined the dog owner club and got myself and the wife a wee boxer pup. The whole show just loves him. Any training tips and advice would be appreciated.

Keep the sessions short and fun.  Treats immediately for any progress towards what you want him to do.  The sit command is easy, and is the basis for a lot of other commands.  Just hold a treat over his head, about where his ears are, and he'll maneuver into a sitting position to try to get it. 

There's lots of books.  This one is pretty good:  https://www.amazon.com/101-Dog-Tricks-Activities-Challenge/dp/1592533256/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1532449860&sr=8-1&keywords=dog+tricks+101&dpID=51PrGJbxGpL&preST=_SX218_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch

10
Will anyone?

11
General discussion / Re: America`s Gun Culture
« on: July 17, 2018, 02:10:11 AM »
These are elected politicians agreeing that good toddlers with guns is a great idea. We're fucked.

12
GAA Discussion / Re: Rule Change Needed to Stop Puke Keep-Ball
« on: July 16, 2018, 02:01:42 AM »
I think we're seeing an early glimpse of a real weakness in the current competition structure. You have a good side that is very strong in defence, playing a side that they're not likely to beat. But because it's a league setup, and they'd give themselves a fair chance of winning the other two games, it's imperative that they don't get hammered.  So despite an imminent loss, there is no incentive for them to try to win if doing so risks a tanking. Imagine how the last ten minutes might have gone if Donegal had been facing exit from the tournament.

So, is it a rule change thats needed, or a return to qf knockout?

13
GAA Discussion / Re: Rule Change Needed to Stop Puke Keep-Ball
« on: July 16, 2018, 01:49:18 AM »
Are the four lads allowed to cross back into their own half once the ball does? Because that's just giving them, bt means of a rule change, what they wanted and couldn't achieve: the attacking team forced into a smaller area of the pitch, and thus easier to dispossess.

14
General discussion / Re: The Official World Cup 2018 Thread
« on: July 15, 2018, 01:14:51 AM »
Imagine if Ireland had beaten Colombia on pennos and had "only" Croatia standing in the way of a wcf, as opposed to say the Brazil,  Germany or Argentina teams of yore. With the best chance of a wcf in a lifetime, wouldn't we lose the run of ourselves?

15
GAA Discussion / Re: Dublin V Donegal
« on: July 14, 2018, 10:47:36 PM »
Dublin always play this way against defensive teams when they have the lead. I agree it's terrible to watch, but isn't the answer to play less defensively?  Or are we expected to repeat our hari Kiri Donegal 2014 performance to make it easier for everyone else?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 58