Leaderboard

Good news! Seems like nuclear bombs do not work. Which means nuclear bombs dont exist, which means there will be no nuclear war. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm https://www.google.no/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+nuclear+bombs+exist I would spread far and wide if I were you since it is not cool to scare people like this, but ofcourse it benefits those in power, so they dont care, whether they would know its a hoax or not. I got the lead from a guy stopping by the "THE END OF THE WORLD" video on youtube, and I've informed myself about all the other lies in society, and have minimal trust in popular claims to begin with, so it was easy for me to be open to the idea. Personally I am not 100% sure yet, need to do more research, but I think it is important to get the message out fast because it changes alot and takes away a strong grip that states have on people imo.

....doesn't collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint.

Kinda my point. I totally agree.

It might have been different if someone put 60,000,000 Joules of fast-moving airplane and jet fuel into the building core about a quarter to a third of the way down from the top, as opposed to dropping a fork into a toaster oven.

So where's the alternative scenario that doesn't end in a bloody battle? Also, original sin = the biblical answer to the will to power, selfishness? Baby, "I want, I want."

The feeling associated with looking at women and libido are the same thing. It's like saying the colder you feel the colder you think you are. There's no way to trace what is arousing you in isolated cases. If you look at a person and feel something, you don't automatically know what particular feature is doing that. So thinking that something is pretty is not quite the same as having a feeling triggered by something that went through the visual cortex. Experiments on T supplement and blockers are plentiful, particularly transgenders. People that get T therapy report having higher libido while people that take blockers report the opposite. Women that get HRT often report their libido "going through the roof" within a few months. Women get both a T spike and a libido spike when ovulating. The BC pill is known to suppress both. You would never get aroused at all from looking at women if you didn't already have an androgen response, proven by males born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome having female heterosexuality. I can't see any basis for claiming that T does not increase libido. I suggest reading transgender stories. It gives an understanding that we would never have otherwise. That is a contradiction. Aggression and competitiveness are omnipresent. Those words refer to actions in a social context, not to motives. They are a result of the combination of any kind of desire and opportunity. A biological factor can only affect them by affecting desire. To claim that testosterone increases aggression is to claim that it increases desire for something. Why do women hit kids much more than men do? Kids are the only humans weaker than them. Hitting kids is their aggression outlet. So what? It's screen version rating on IMDB is 4/10. It probably got a lot of reads because it looks controversial. Most women on Earth struggle to eradicate the existence of billionaires. One does not struggle to eradicate his or her favourite thing. You could make a movie called "Billionaires Should Be Shot" that does nothing but loop a billionaire being shot for 2 hours and it would get a better rating than that, especially from women. We're hard pressed to get most women to even speak to us if we don't want to burn the rich. But everyone is a hypocrite. So women want billionaires so they can quit their jobs and spend all day buying shoes and watching soap operas. What is a relationship? People are vending machines. Insert appropriate number of coins and press button for desired menu item. Buttons have a relationship with menu items. As productivity increases over time and women have more coins the marginal utility of a coin decreases. It seems to me that what has changed is what we need to offer each other, while in places like India and Africa you still get a lot of bang for your coin. I don't know how you are linking that with what I said about hormones.

For one it means no one has a claim on the moon. And perhaps the tax payers has something to say about their money being used for a very expensive 'show'. And it can be nice to keep it in mind. For example when/if NASA or others try to convince people about a trip to Mars. High production value videos were popping up several years ago, that always linked a flat earth perspective with 'that's why there was no moon landing'. It is quite an ingenious psyop to link scepticism, with a flat earth perspective. It has found its way into this forum which is an example of just how effective it has been. These high production value videos did not just spawn by themselves. They would need funding. (Even the narrator is professional sounding in these videos). There are probably people who really believe in flat earth, but if there is, they are usually residing in channels with a low production value. What also happened as far as I know, is that real hardcore long time flat earthers has a website/forum that was rapidly invaded, and obfuscated, by new people, which also shows that this was not some natural growing support for a flat earth perspective. It was pushed along, and always with the 'that's why we did not go to the moon' agenda. It also means that someone found it necessary to create this psychological operation. And that is likely because science, evidence, observations, pictures, etc all stack up to not be in favour of a successful moon excursion. And these things are easily shared on internet. But since this successful psyop, those do not readily have much value anymore. Since anything I or others say about it will now be countered with the produce of the psyop. You put different things in a bag, labeled it religion, and presented that to a person who is talking about some, or one of them? Ok behaviour?