A4E

Thanks for sharing Jonathan! Very intriguing. When I have children, that is the kind of interaction I want to have aswell.

IMO this is a part of an ongoing campaign to label as many as possible with an illness, so that several things can be achieved, some of which are making money on more artificial chemicals, suppressing individual thoughts since they pose a threat to the system, And also a means to get rid of people like us, by placing us in psychiatric wards if we do not conform. There is a scientology produced documentary, that targets your emotions, about this issue that I watched recently called psychiatry an industry of death. It is very horrible, so only watch if you have the stomach for it.

I went head on with a guy on youtube (villain below) defending abuse recently. He has not replied for a while. At first I get emotional, but then I calm down and approach it as a challenge. There were plenty of other repliers but I really tried to dig into his mind. I am "Joarmusic" villain original post: Kids live to test limits. You explain to a child, firmly, calmly and rationally what he can and can't do, and if he disobeys? Spank him. A child isn't going to stop drawing on the wall because you sit him down and explain that he's hurting your feelings, and that not drawing on the walls is the least he can do given what you provide him. Children don't inherently have a moral code that stops them from being an ass, they learn that from their parents. So don't be surprised when they treat you like crap when you don't place any boundaries down. People need to stop acting like children are adults who can be reasoned with and expected to act maturely of their own free will. me: Do you feel it is ok to hit pets if they dont obey you? Let me show you how your statement below falls apart: You said: "Children don't inherently have a moral code that stops them from being an ass, they learn that from their parents. So don't be surprised when they treat you like crap when you don't place any boundaries down." You say that children learn moral codes from parents. Ok, so a situation where you are in charge, the child learns that it is moral to hit people who do not obey you. So dont be surprised when the child treats you like crap when that is EXACTLY what you are doing to the child. Peacefull parenting trumps your invalid statements. Google Stefan Molyneux if you are interested in moral codes as you mention. villain: No, if my kid draws on the wall I tell him to stop. If he keeps doing it, I send him to his room or something along those lines. If he keeps doing it, then and only then do I hit him. It's about reinforcing consequences for continued disobedience. Also, what child doesn't have a drawing pad? They just don't recognise that drawing on the wall is wrong until you explain it to them. If they continue to draw on the wall while knowing they are in the wrong that's when you hit them. +JoarMusic "Do you feel it is okay to hit pets if they disobey you?" Emm, yes? You hit the dog for disobedience when he is young and then once he's older you never have to hit him because he obeys you, common sense. Hitting your child doesn't teach him that violence is acceptable whenever someone disobeys you, it teaches him that there are consequences for his actions. If having his toys or xbox taken away doesn't stop his bad behaviour then I absolutely will hit them. You talk like it's a go to punishment, it's not, it's a last resort punishment for when you're being met with continual disobedience and bad behaviour. If you do it right then you should only ever have to hit your child a few times throughout his upbringing. me: Interesting. Could I perhaps ask you for advice on an issue I have? My wife keeps slamming the door when she goes outside and comes home. This means the door structure is falling apart more and more for each day, and I have tried to tell her to stop slamming the door, I have explained firmly, calmly and rationally that she cannot do that, but she wont listen to me. She just keeps slamming the door. So she obviously knows that she is doing something wrong when I have told her to stop. What should I do? villain: go to marriage counselling because the woman you marry shouldn't have such little regard for your feelings me: I am confused. When your children are not having any regard for your feelings when they know that they are doing something wrong, you had a perfect way of dealing with that which was depriving them of fun things, like xbox, and if that does not stop them, you would hit them. But when my wife is not having any regard for my feelings when she knows that she is doing something wrong, you tell me to go with my wife to counseling to try to resolve the issue that way. Could you please explain why you are using two different approaches to the same problem? villain: because a grown woman isn't a child? The only authority you have over your wife is what she allows you to have. She's a free, fully grown human being and can do what she wants. If she refuses to do what you ask of her and it causes you distress, you end the relationship. Obviously this is different with children because you have a moral obligation to raise them. me: If my wife is causing me distress, then I can end the relationship. Ok, got it. Thanks for the tip. You say it is a moral obligation to raise children. Is that the reason why you are using a different approach to conflict resolution, than you adviced me to do with my wife? Because I am still at a loss for why you have two different approaches to the same problem. You say you have a moral obligation to raise a child, ok, but that does not explain the different approach. Could you please help me understand why I cannot use one approach for both situations? Why can I not go with my child to counseling, or why can I not take away enjoyable things from my wife and in the end hit her if she does not listen? villain: Because a child doesn't need counselling. They are still developing and as such need guidance. If your wife however acts like a child, she has serious issues because grown women are meant to be mature and sensible. I have no idea why you can't distinguish between the two, your wife is your equal and an adult, your child is not. You can't confiscate your wife's possessions or punish her in any way because as a grown adult that would be against her human rights. +Carl Parrish Fallacious to assert that spanking is about taking your anger or deep seated insecurities out on a child. If you're angry when you hit your child, you're doing it wrong. It's to reinforce that there are consequences to their actions, not to vent your own frustration with their misbehaviour. Your child will grow to respect you when you subject him to authority when he disobeys. A child isn't born with respect for you, you earn it from him. me: "Because a child doesn't need counselling. They are still developing and as such need guidance." Could you please explain how taking away fun things and inflicting possibly dangerous physical pain incorporate into a word like guidance? "If your wife however acts like a child, she has serious issues because grown women are meant to be mature and sensible." If children are not mature or sensible, then how are they going to understand that they are being punished for what they are doing? Is it your opinion that children are the same as a grown person with serious issues? If that is the case, how do you defend hitting the equivalent of a person with serious issues? "I have no idea why you can't distinguish between the two, your wife is your equal and an adult, your child is not." Children are not adults, ok. Are they also not our equals? If so, what makes them less, or not at all equal? "You can't confiscate your wife's possessions or punish her in any way because as a grown adult that would be against her human rights." If my wife has a human right, and your child does not, how is this a human right? Are children not humans? "If you're angry when you hit your child, you're doing it wrong." How does a child differentiate between when it is being hit the right way and being hit the wrong way? Also according to you, children are not mature or sensible so that cannot help them in figuring this out. "It's to reinforce that there are consequences to their actions" If your child repeatedly draws on the wall, which is a pretty harmless conduct, and then you see it fit to hit the child to make it stop, then I would like to see you being punished by having to eat pharmacy drugs for 2 weeks which would mess substantially with your brain as you hitting the child did with the childs brain. Would this be acceptable punishment as guidance for your method of parenting? "Your child will grow to respect you when you subject him to authority when he disobeys." How does this work? My brother was subjected to authority from my father. My brother never respected him. So that is one example deviant of your statement. When I was going to school, there were a few guys and girls who was subjected to authority by some emotional teachers on a regular basis, but they never grew to respect them. Other teachers who made their case in a peacefull non authoritative manner almost always gained respect however. "A child isn't born with respect for you, you earn it from him." Amen. Could you tell me, about your child who draws on the wall through repeated disapproval from you, how much the child respect you? I have respect for many people. None of which hit me once. villain: Not going to reply to this since it is absolute nonsense. Children are our equals? Lol okay. "then I would like to see you being punished by having to eat pharmacy drugs for 2 weeks which would mess substantially with your brain as you hitting the child did with the childs brain." Two things. First off, do you have any actual proof that hitting a kid "messes with his brain"? You realise most children will get into physical fights much worse than a light smack on the behind as they grow and develop, right? Number two, what is wrong with you? You're one of those people that think adults are children to the government, they're not. Adults are free to do what they like so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Children do not have the same rights as adults because the clause behind most rights is that they are only given to rational adults. A schizophrenic for example could be detained against his will or not allowed to own firearms if his condition is bad enough because it makes him no longer rational. Should children be able to vote? Own a house? Have sex? No, of course not. Because they are children and as such their parents are responsible for them. me: "Not going to reply to this since it is absolute nonsense." If it is absolute nonsense, how did you get anything from it? "Children are our equals? Lol okay." I asked you how in your opinion your child is not equal to you. "Two things. First off, do you have any actual proof that hitting a kid "messes with his brain"?" google -spanked children brain "You realise most children will get into physical fights much worse than a light smack on the behind as they grow and develop, right?" I recognize this happens yes. But then also the children can be aware and understand what situation they are in and how everything transpired into it. Unless it is bullying, in which the victim has no idea why he/she is being targeted, and can suffer tremendous psychological effects, and even death, either from the bullying or by suicide. "Number two, what is wrong with you? You're one of those people that think adults are children to the government, they're not." You are incorrect. I do not hold this opinion. "Adults are free to do what they like so long as they don't infringe on the rights of others. Children do not have the same rights as adults because the clause behind most rights is that they are only given to rational adults." So if children are not rational, why are you expecting them to listen when you tell them something? "A schizophrenic for example could be detained against his will or not allowed to own firearms if his condition is bad enough because it makes him no longer rational." Do you expect a schizophrenic to listen if you tell him something? Is it ok to hit a schizophrenic if he does not listen? "Should children be able to vote? Own a house? Have sex? No, of course not. Because they are children and as such their parents are responsible for them." Daycare workers are responsible for children every day. Is it ok with you if your child is in day care and does not listen to the daycare workers, for them to then hit your child? villain: Studies on IQ lowering caused by spanking are totally fallacious. They don't distinguish a light two or three smacks after continual disobedience and a savage beating given by a mentally ill parent looking to vent his or her anger. Of course being actually abused by your parent will effect you negatively, the problem is the people doing these studies were unable to distinguish, presumably because they were biased and pushing an agenda. You don't hit a schizophrenic man if he doesn't listen, but if he is in a mental hospital you sedate him and put him back to his room, which is a form of physical force, yes. A random man does not have the right to restrain a schizophrenic man because he is not charged with his care. Rational does not mean incapable of responding to authority, it just means you're not capable of making sensible decisions consistently. Daycare workers should be allowed to hit children with and only with the parents permission. That having been said I don't send my kids to daycare. We know parents in the neighbourhood anyways so when they were that age they socialised through playdates. At school I would be 100% okay with a teacher hitting a child, but only a smack on the hands and only if I trust the teacher in person is of good character. Me: As it seems you are completely unwilling to see the faulty morality, and refuse to treat children as other human beings, let me ask you why you have not considered using other forms of punishment that does not involve violence, like timeouts. Where do you stand on such methods? "Studies on IQ lowering caused by spanking are totally fallacious. They don't distinguish a light two or three smacks..." If I give my wife two or three light smacks in the face if she does something I dont want her to do after telling her rationally and calmly, do you feel that is a good approach to human interaction? "Rational does not mean incapable of responding to authority, it just means you're not capable of making sensible decisions consistently." (I am assuming there is a typo in here, and that you mean irrational) So again if children are not capable of making sensible decisions consistently, doesn't that actually give them an excuse for not being able to do what you want? Its like saying a guy who has lost one leg and is using a prostethic, who has trouble walking, should be punished if he fails to walk properly. Do you understand what im trying to get at? Shouldn't you rather try to help a child understand by communicating verbally or perhaps drawing to the child to explain what you want the child to do if you feel they have a handicap? How does using violence against what you feel is the equivalent of a mentally handicapped human being have morality?

The division effect is a big problem for the people, because it prevents us from cooperating against those who are making our lives harder. On one hand I want to get rid of all the lies in society so that we can move on from all the religious attachments to things like artificial chemicals which kills a staggering amount of people every year and cripples many times more people. On the other hand I know that when I try to tell people, I will be attacked and the attackers never change their perception since they are too emotionally invested in attacking me. But for me I have come to the conclusion, that if I keep my mouth shut, then its less chance that the world will wake up, than if I just continue throwing reality on people. I made a review on the podcast that surfingthoughts linked to. Stefan has on many occasions spoken condescending about people like me, and I understand that point of view, but when people do as much research as me on the various hoaxes, lies, and propaganda, they see it for what it is, which is usually baseless claims without evidence that cannot be proven, like manmade global warming. I think the reason Stefan has his point of view is that he simply have not spent any substantial time on the subjects. Which makes sense when he is doing so much good in so many other areas.

The following guy also seems to believe that nuclear bombs are real, but he addresses your argument: For those who do not want to see the video, here is a short text version from a debunker website: After an long career in the humanity-disgracing nuclear weapons industry, he went on speaking tour for the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society, suggesting that: Gamma radiation does not cause mutations; Health dangers of Gamma radiation exposure are surface burns at worst; Drinking radioCesium-contaminated water is perfectly safe; Even in his presentation’s more lax pre-Chernobyl times, he found nuclear safety measures already ‘ridiculous’, ‘absurd’, way too strict; He believed that ‘steam explosions’ (just like at coal plants) are the only thing that can possibly go wrong at a nuclear power plant; A nuclear power plant’s ECCR (Emergency Core Cooling System)’s only function is to intentionally destroy a reactor; He claims that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident was no accident, but done on purpose as part of a movie-scripted operation to keep people fearful about radioactivity; as well as trick rate payers into paying more; The radioactive waste disposal system exists primarily for the benefit of ‘organized crime': so it can dispose of all its piles of dead bodies, weapons, etc. without ever getting detected. He asks, “Who owns the Plutonium?” and “How much is it worth?” His answer boils down to his belief that “using it beneficially” threatens a number of powerful interests, most notably an alleged “federal energy cartel” which controls the price and availability of energy. Also I can add that he said along the lines of plutonium being the most valuable thing for future energy. And a google search mentions that he apparently died from leukemia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA Since it seems like most of the FDR community has accepted that manmade climate change is a hoax, I can use it as an example to make a counter argument. Far too much money and effort is spent on global climate change, carbondioxide limitations, carbondioxide depositing, carbondioxide filtering, research on ways to stop using fossil fuels, and public information campaigns on the evil carbondioxide, the most important food for all life on the planet, for it to be a hoax. I dont know how the sun does what it does. The electric universe theory has a section on the sun.

I agree he is sort of awesome, and I too like him alot for making astronomy more interesting. But what is disturbing to me, is that such a cool person is a climate change acceptalist as mentioned, but perhaps lesser known is that he is also an apollo program acceptalist. I would have loved for humans to atleast try to get to the moon when we are ready. But to be ready we need to realize that there are huge problems around human space travel that need to be solved. And we are not getting much progress done by pretending that we have already been on the moon.

@Jeff_NH I always assume that new information can be wrong yes. The problem is when something we have been told repeatedly, from TV and from people, and seen films about, and perhaps even been taught in school, have been transformed into a shielded immortal substance which will always be there. The people you call names have become able to turn off the shielding and lift these substances up from the undeserved protection of all the substance around it, so that they can apply the same level of disbelief to it, as you described. I think this is the way to go if we want to become a species based on rationality and truth, but sadly most people find it easier and more motivating to use all their protected substances to attack those who have become able to uhhinge it from all the protective systems in the brain, so to speak. I have very little information or verification of ISS. Never done any research on it. Does it go in orbit? Do you know for sure? I have not seen it other than in pictures and some videos and just accepted that it is real and that it is going in orbit. Ok. I would be interested in the results too. I always get offended and dissapointed and dismayed about the human race when I see name calling hurled at people like me. They are usually very proficient at making strawmen like you did now. So is it your opinion that all people like me are flimsy, and will always create new thoeries if we are challenged, and that we always wear tin foil hats? I do not wear a tin foil hat, so either I am not one of these people that you are talking about. Or I am, which means your statement is wrong. Or you are talking about some other group that you did not specify to me. There is a big difference between making mistakes, and forinstance putting blame 1 hour after the event and telling a grand tale of the entire operation, and its perpetrators, and how the buildings went down. All on the same day, which was the case with 911. No investigation needed since they already knew everything about it on the same day. Such is the awesome power of propaganda.

"Lumosity subjects showed no gains on any measure" I want to know if their results went down from the before tests.

This guy seems to believe they work, but explains the Japan issue. I have gone through some things about china faking their space walk, and also heard about this before. The alledged moon landings are total fakes without question. So I would not be surprised if ISS was fake. You can ask yourself, have you been to the space station? Have you seen it upclose? Know anyone who was there who you trust to tell the truth? I know, silly questions, but its kinda important. If all we see are video or images of something, then we never really know if they are real because it is supereasy to make videos and images on computers.

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.

He has also said that people like me are nonviolent extremists and that ISIL was created by people like me. That is people who have spent alot of time researching events and who know about the twin tower demolition inside job and 7/7 bombing drill, which is somewhat similar to the boston marathon smoke bombings and the sandy hook charade. Link to video Quote of David Cameron from above video: "The root cause of this terrorist threat is a poisonous ideology of Islamist extremism. This is nothing to do with Islam, which is a peaceful region that inspires countless acts of generosity every day. Islamist extremism believes in using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view and to live in a quasi mediaeval state. To defeat Isil - and organisations like it - we must defeat this ideology in all its forms. As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it. The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and the 7/7 London attacks were staged. The idea that Muslims are persecuted all over the world as a deliberate act of Western policy. The concept of an inevitable clash of civilisations. We must be clear: to defeat the ideology of extremism we need to deal with all forms of extremism - not just violent extremism. For governments, there are some obvious ways we can do this. We must ban preachers of hate from coming to our countries. We must proscribe organisations that incite terrorism against people at home and abroad. We must work together to take down illegal online material like the recent videos of Isil murdering hostages. And we must stop so called non-violent extremists from inciting hatred and intolerance in our schools, universities and prisons. Of course some will argue that this is not compatible with free speech and intellectual inquiry. But I say: would we sit back and allow right-wing extremists, Nazis or Klu Klux Klansmen to recruit on our university campuses? So we shouldn't stand by and just allow any form of non-violent extremism."

@Pepin: Very interesting and I do see how that would work. I wanted to include in the first post that given elders have alot more respect in non western countries, that their role as an overseer or supervisor would be more prevalent atleast in the history of those cultures. But you did derail the question somewhat, in that my suggestion was that in ancient times, perhaps it was customary for old people to handle most of the raising of children, so that adults could focus entirely on working for the immediate survival of the tribe or village. Would that seem likely? Or am I just wrong?

I've had this thought for a while now. The outline is this: In a stoneage scenario or pre agriculture, it could be the role of adults to go hunt for food or gather food of which old people would have a harder time doing. And in order to utilize the wisdom of old people, and from what I understand, also the joy old people get from spending time with children (perhaps a big clue), the old people would do most if not all the parenting, apart from giving milk. For this I am assuming a peaceful society without child abuse, and who knows maybe it was in that time. How does this convey to you? I dont know if it would work or not, just wondering if it has any merit because I have seen nothing about this topic. It would mean less government needed so maybe that is why. Edit: Also presuming that children have atleast 1 grandparent, or would be parented by other old people. And that all the parents are very busy gathering food or building shelters or whatever.

In my country, public child abuse would create a gigantic shockwave in the people around. I imagine that If 10 people witnessed it, then 3 would react, and another would be calling the cops. But I cannot recall it ever happening around me. Pulling in arms and verbal vomit to make the child ashamed occurs though. So thankfully not been in such a situation. I thought it was a nice idea, but I know that in public situations anywhere it is generally hard to get under the skin of people, so nomatter what you said, you would always have a great wall to deal with since people are unlikely to unravel their mind to strangers. So to answer your question I guess it would not have any immediate effect, but surely a spark that could ignite later if the person encountered some other situation where she would be exposed to peacefull parenting.

While reading your insightful posts I came up with the following approach to "do you have kids?": Lower your eyebrows to express that you are confused and dont see any significant correlation to the situation, and then counter with "Are you a human being?" OR "Are you a decent person?" OR "Are you a generally good person?". If she says no, then she already saw where you were going with that question and are looking for a way out through any means neccessary, which means she wont listen to you at all. If she says yes, then follow up with "I am a human being and I dont go around barking at and hitting children, (or all the other human beings for that matter), and that is why I had to speak up." If she goes on about you not having children or something, then it is a lost cause imo, but if she reacts positively, then you have a chance at sparking a new path for the child and the mother, by talking about peacefull parenting. And I believe strongly in honesty, which could go something like "I would probably also get alot of problems raising children if it had not been for x.... " etc... BTW: I wanna mention that another forum I frequented had an up and downvoting system. The downvoting feature caused so much stir and conflict that at one point there was more discussion about the downvoting feature than anything else. And they decided to remove it, and then people slowly calmed down and the forum content improved. Personally I stay tha hell away from even upvoting because it seems my subconscious resent it alot. One reason I can think of is that it can make people behave like politicians trying to be liked or get a scorecard or something.

Sorry to hear you had to go through this. If I saw something like that happen in my area, I imagine I would feel awfull for a week or something. Thankfully child abuse is strictly illegal in my country, but that doesnt stop parents from barking and screaming at their children, and then ofcourse complaining that they are screaming. The other day here I walked past a car where a girl around 4 or 5 years old was hitting the window from inside and yelling, I immediately thought I was in a candid camera setup because there is a show going on tv to see if people care about people in need or other bad situations. The equivalent of "what would you do" from the USA. I stopped and looked around if anyone owned the car, and nothing happened, so I went inside a nearby building and asked the only person I found about it and he also got upset about a child being left alone in the car. So we went outside and got a hold of a state employee who was strolling by and got him to interveene. Turns out the child must have been told by her parent(s) to protect the car from strangers or something because she was worried we would do something to the car. I said I was inclined to call the police, but the state employee insisted that he would handle the situation, even though I could tell he did not really care. My day was ruined. But it turns out its not uncommon to leave children locked in to cars according to my mother.

You are right about your theoretical world, and I would also have liked it if it wasnt more sinister than that, but all the inconsistencies, lack of any evidence, mistreated emergency, and crisis actors identified, and more red flags says otherwise. That is why so many assumed crackpots like me are speaking out.

Like alot of people using their own brains I came across enough red flags after the event to conclude that it was a staged event, but in this new documentary there are things I did not see before. There is a working video in this link at the moment. I found another one aswell, but I liked the audioquality better in the first one. And you could watch it from the creators website. One of the reasons this is important is that governments use it to increase their power. And I hope that is a good enough argument for this community to become aware of atleast why so many internet people question that day.

Unfortunately, I dont see any amount of contrary evidence being able to slay the GW/climate change religion. Climategate was not enough either. It does however suit governments to stick to the hoax, since it is another way of taxing everyone. And asking questions or being critical will label you a climate denier, so politicians are unlikely to let go of it regardless. This religion will probably still be here in 2030. Its effective to dismiss everything critical out of hand by slapping on "denier" for people like me who have actually researched all the big claims. In my country we had snow in the middle of summer this year, which is very surprising. During that there was no mention of GW or CC in the media.

If I continue on a bank robbery analogy, then building 7 would perhaps be equivalent of finding the getaway car on fire, and then not taking it into consideration, nor investigating it. Or lets say that 6 hours after the bank robbery was made, a jewelry shop on the opposite side of the street lost all of its jewelry, and they say on tv that the bank robbers came back, still holding the moneybags from the bank, and grabbed all the jewelry with them, in broad daylight. And then some crackpot nutjob starts asking questions why they were still holding the moneybags from the bank and also why they came back after just robbing a bank on the opposite side of the street with no apparent fear of police being there. Your question "Why would your conspirationist blow building 7?" is a good question, but not really a proper question imo. Something more relevant would be -How did a large steel building with some office fires and superficial damage lose all of its support structure and fall down into itself and become dust, and why? Sorry if im not able to answer your question. I just dont want to fall into a large trapdoor labeled 'Larry Silverstein'.

Excellent question. It is easy for people like me to fall into a trapdoor of conclusions, so I am not going to pretend that I know. They still have not changed the FBI.gov page on Osama bin laden. That page does not even mention 911. If we compare 911 to a bank robbery, then like a bank robbery, different people would be required to pull it off. A driver, a lookout, a mastermind to plan it all out, perhaps someone to distract the workers in the bank, and possibly someone proficient in explosives. And also perhaps someone who are good at selling a story of an escape goat, so that the real people implicit in the robbery will be further ignored. We hear about crimes where the perpetrators are not found or have not been able to be convicted even with years of investigation, but imagine that you robbed a very wealthy bank for millions of dollars. And then you see on TV afterwards on the same day that they say they already know who did it, here is his name, which isnt yours, and have an idea where this mastermind is, and who all the complicit people were and how they broke into the bank, and even what tools they used. Not only that, but that there is no reason to even mention any possibility of an investigation. Wouldnt that be awesome if you were the actual bank robber? Experts from many fields can tell you that there are many things wrong with the official conspiracy theory, and that is where my focus has been. The 'truther' community has its problems, but what we all agree on is that a real investigation is overdue. If you want your head to blow up, you can watch this video. You can see a more lightweight report on the issue in this video. I am not offering those videos because I insinuate that they have the answer, but because they will be far better than me at giving a good overview, which can give you a lead.

That is because: 1-I didnt really follow what you guys were talking about. 2-I consider it kinda meaningless to talk about something that is hard to prove being there. Pilots for 911 truth can offer insight about that. 3-I am trying to avoid getting into arguments, because arguments about 911 are almost certain to turn ugly and personal quite fast, and I am afraid of what might happen then. One consequence could be that noone will be allowed to talk about 911 or any other radical topic, which would be tragic imo. I know that ugly arguments are less likely to happen here, but you never know. I just want to calmly convey my thoughts, share information, and let other people do the same.

In 2001 the ability to doctor video footage and also to manipulate 'live' video footage was available. From this mark in september clues, we can see that one or more 'live' videos from the day had to have been either doctored or manipulated. After the event, anyone with sufficient video editing abilities would have been able to insert a plane image/animation, and hire actors to play out exhagerated emotions around a microphone. Example here. So video records is something that cannot be trusted to be authentic regardless, unless it can be proven that no computers or humans had any chance of doctoring them. I have gone through alot of different stuff around 911, so feel free to ask questions and I will try to answer them.

Neil Armstrong is offered 5000 dollars to swear on the bible that he walked on the moon. Edit: better quality video. Probably wrong forum to post something about religion though I could post a whole book on the moon landing hoax, but I wanna stay lighthearted for now.

There are plenty of examples of highrise buildings on fire that did not collapse. But lets say that the steel in the area around the fires in the WTC towers were enough to make every support structure lose its strength enough so that the upper part fell down on the lower part. What would happen? Has the steel and concrete in the entire building been weakened so much so that the entire buildings fall down into themselves and are transformed into dust and prevalent smoke in a high speed downwards? What I try to focus on when talking to other people about this is that whatever happened to the towers, have not been scientifically explained or proven to be the result from plane crash and fire. Sure NIST and other sources have tried, but they all fail and also contradict eachother. There are also contradictions among those who are critical of the official conspiracy theory (which was ready on the same day), that is why I try to put the ball back to those who think the official story is true, to actually prove it. And noone has been able to.