GregMerwe

I don't listen to AJ but watch schiff channel. It is true what he says around 15 mins. All the cheap goods are made in china and if china crashes the west will be affected.

I don't think speaking about 9/11 is every effective way to do anything. People hate the subject. I actually don't like talking about the subject, online or in person. People just don't want to know that sort of information and they usually don't like the messenger of that sort of information. 9/11 was and still is used as the main justification for the modern police/security state. The west is still in a terrorist psychosis as a result of this event and 7/7 and bali and madrid. These events are used to manipulate the populationm in to being fearful and to accept increased security. The cost of this increased security is larger government and larger security and police state and less liberty. Plus like i said it is more about intellectual credability and basic physics. I can't stand to live in society where people think buildings can turn in to dust like that. Where people believe any official narrative without question. I have learned long a go when to start and stop talking about 9/11 and other subjects like it. I once did not have my work contract renewed because i aried my views on 9/11, when i was younger. It is not like i go around at parties and social gatherings and always talk about 9/11. Usually i will see if there is a 9/11 thread on a forum i join and then post my research. I don't create 9/11 threads on forums that i have been on for a long time. I have no big need to convince everyone i meet of the truth. On different forums it is received in different ways. A lot of people still can't handle some subjects and will instantly ban discussion of them. I was quite happy when i thought i had figured out 9/11 at least to some extent because i thought it gave me some what closure on it. I have not researched the event for many years now and i think many people involved in 9/11 movement has also stopped looking in to it. If nothing else i would be happy with the controlled demolition side coming to light in the mainstream because i think is the most outrageous thing to occur in our life times, that they controlled demo a building at 9am without any notifications and so on. If they can do that and get away with it, what is stopping even worse, obviously not the trillion dollar security and military industry or the magical government.

To me it is a matter of scientific credibility. If anyone who claims to be a professional thinks that steel framed and steel reinforced concrete buildings can turn in to dust at free fall speed then they have no professional credibility. It is important for the scientific and professional community to know basic physics. Planes can not vanish in to buildings without any deformation of structure of the plane itself. Steel frame buildings can not self destruct through the path of most resistance without explosives. Listen to the professionals in the Experts Speak out I posted. One mathematician did the calculation and claims that it would have taken 50 million pounds of force per second to destroy the WTC 1 and 2 at the rate that they were destroyed. There has never been a shortage of people who refuse to accept no planes. Even when listening to other experts and professionals on the subject they still can;t accept it. I think they don't want to accept it because psychologically they can not handle that truth. It is a lie too big. This in my opinion is one of the ways that helps them get away with it, a lie so big that no one will ever believe it. Use missiles and fake planes, no way, the amount of people that would have to be involved and so on, same old arguments. Refuted a million times, doesn't stop people from arguing against it. Some even admit no plane at the pentagon but won't accept the other 3. Some accept controlled demolition but not no planes. What matters to me is that we live in a society where if 1000s of people are murdered we have an investigation and we don't have a media that helps to cover up the mass murder and a government and security industry that exploits the mass murder for their own gain. I don't have that attitude of let it all burn, that is some people attitude, i don't have that attitude, that is why it is important for me to convince people of the truth because I want a better world. Check out these videos on this channel, https://www.youtube.com/user/entropification It includes all the full media footage from the day as well as snippets of video that shows mistakes in the media where the editors didn't cut up the audio and let a missile slip here or there and witnesses on air who thought they say a missile and ones that heard a sonic boom. It is all right in front of you in the media, people are just hood winked. If this thread doesn't sadden you then you might be a socio-path. Making appeals to evidence that you don't have is not a good argument. I could say my mother friend who invented steel buildings saw a missile. Means nothing in this context. Everyone watched the same fake planes on TV. That does not prove that it was a real plane or that it was not a controlled demolition. Again another appeal to witness that you can not reproduce. Who said it was the government? The first documentary i posted shows a lot of evidence that points to this being done by a covert black ops group of criminals. The likes of bush most likely was convinced by the official story just as much as you. It is my opinion although I can not directly prove this but I will speculate for the sake of this context. FFA and norad was hacked. AS well as the FBI and other agencies being on training or retreats out of state. When the attack occurred there was massive confusion about what was going on. They didn't need everyone to be involved because they were all convinced by the official story. If anyone questioned it then they were most likely threatened or eventually murdered. There is also many examples of massive top secret operations that involved 10000s of people over several decades that remain a secret until it was later declassified. Add on to that compartmentalization and classification levels or "need to know" as they say in the films. It starts to come to light that it would actually be quite easy to pull off. I also think that the media was taken over by black ops like organisations. There is evidence that post 9/11 they have written these powers in to law.; There is also reports that CIA has had people permanently placed at news organisations steering the news for some time. You would have to actually be a gullible school boy to think that the world was so rosy that it was not possible to pull it off, because in fact they did. If the media was not hacked or taken over then they were complicit and it would not take that many people in the studio to do. The anchor would have to have known something weird was going on but be forced to go along with it. Outside of that, the studio manager and the audio/video professionals would use a multi-track sequencer to chop up the audio and the video. For live video like that it would have been quite cutting edge accomplishment in 2001. Although not unlikely. Explosives were placed in WTC 1 and 2 most likely a roll on gel or paint of military grade nano thermate, probably rolled on during the fireproofing upgrade maintenance over a long period of time. With 7 most likely being rigged up during construction as a fail safe. Aircraft controllers reported seeing fake transponders, further evidence that it was hacked at least to some extent. The biggest part of the cover up was making sure that no amateur footage ever got out. They did a tremendous job of it in my opinion. They would not have been able to get away with it these days where everyone has a mobile phone camera and even professional cameras. Back then in 2001 only photographers had digital cameras and expensive tape cameras. Most people still had film cameras and they had to get those developed. There is evidence, a video of a nypd officer saying that they were assigned to go to all the camera shops and confiscate all the developing film in the months after 9/11, in search of evidence. Of course what would be the first thing a good patriot would do if they recorded a missile going in the wtc 1? They would phone the authorities, hello i have this amazing 9/11 footage showing a missile hit the wtc 1, well they would come around and take the footage and even kill the person if they knew too much. They also setup an organisation called camera planet that was used as way to explain where all the footage went that was confiscated because there was many people who wanted their footage back and it took a long time to get it up and running. Most of the camera planet footage has been edited in one way or another. Fake zooms, new audio. One thing is for sure, outside of the 52 (about 10 hq ones) known impact videos none of the amateur video shows any impact, often the impact is cut out or starts just after or finishes just before the impact have been. This you would only ever know if you watched and analysed a ton of amateur 911 footage and next to no one is ever going to do that. Even when people have done that and showed it to be true people still don't believe it. Engineer all over the world have been hood winked. Not the first time and won't be the last. People appear to be more stupid than I personally thought they were.

New discussion with Neal Adams from last month. Personally I am 100% convinced that all planets are growing. Pangea is incorrect, the big bang is incorrect. I also think the universe is growing, rather than expanding. It is a sporadic and random growth of galaxies and solar systems. The suns creat the solar systems and the planets create the atmospheres.

This is my almost 10 year investigation in to 911 and the conclusions. I hate to discuss 9/11 because it is so over discussed and such a cliche conspiracy theory and i hate that persona that cliche of a conspiracy theory nut. Unfortunately i think it is a vital to changing social economic and philosophical paradigm to know the truth about the world and to be able to convince other people of the truth yourself. The short explanation is that 9/11 was three controlled demolitions and four missiles. With wtc 1 and 2 being new top down uncoventional building demolition and wtc 7 being a conventional building demolition. The no plane based on my research has a collaborative evidence and supports the witness testimonies as well as the impact holes are consistent with a missile impacts. With 1 and 2 most likely a tomahawk style missile while the pentagon was a russia missile or a missile from a helicopter. Shankesville/flight 93 was a missile blowing up a trailer from a small jet. I will tell you what it took to convince me outside of my own research/investigations. The who and the why. This documentary includes some information that i don't agree with however it is still a valuable addition to the list. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. Pilots for 9/11 truth No planes theories: Joseph Keith, the aurospace engineer who invented the boeing shaker system, a boeing test system. He made a 11 min audio piece explaining in plain english why no planes was used on 9/11. That was the final nail in the coffin for me on that theory. http://www.pumpitout.com/audio/joseph_keith_081607_planes.mp3 September clues covers the media fakery on the day. This i think is what people struggle to accept the most. The roman imperial cult modern day manifestation. It was an Italian man named Simon Shack that 8 years ago spotted the fakery and decided to point out, check out all the videos on his channel. Then we have another researcher, a video/audio expert, who in my opinion took simon shacks research to the next level and proved without a doubt that the videos of planes was completely fraudulent. The same guy created a 3 hours long video that covers the 9/11 truth movement and the 911 story from demo to no plane. This of course leaves most people with a lot of questions, that to be honest i have answered online many times in the past at length. The other doc is the pentacon. That covers the pentagon incident specifically. This docs first version's witness testimony clearly pointed towards missile impact at the pentagon. The next version, the only one to be found on youtube is ambiguous about what it was. I don't know if you have ever heard about the list of deaths of 9/11 witnesses, another depressing story that must be told. The truth is that the cover up of 9/11 was just as much a big operation as the day itself. In my opinion the pentagon incident is the smoking gun of the 9/11 lie. We have 6 reported dead on the day and a clear exit hole incident a missile impact. The post impact buildings looks suspiciously like it was blown up post impact with cutter charges to further increase the appearance of damage. This can be observed by the symmetrical destruction that is synonymous with cutting charges. The evidence also supports the narrative of a "post impact collapse" at the pentagon. The final death figures at the pentagon 120 dead. Beyond extremely suspicious, audacious i would say. What happened there, especially when after the fact we found out coincidently that the same part of the building hit by a missile (plane lol) was actually recently renovated to improve missile impacts. I honestly do think it was some sort of hierarchical takeover that occurred on that day. I did not cover all points in this post, i tried to summarise it to get the most information in to as little as possible. To be honest I did cry when I realized all of this. I just sat their balling my eyes out at the state of the world.

I heard that the indians already have a working thorium reactor. What I would like to see is a mini thorium reactor that can installed in a neighbourhood and provide power for 100-1000 people at a low cost with minimal risk. Or even an extremely small mini-thorium reactor, one that works with the tesla battery to supply a one off energy cost to houses and off the grid power. Even if you are not convinced that the nukes are fake, do you admit that all the videos of nuclear explosives are fake and that there has been a major propagandic element to the nuclear weapons story? hxxp://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/india-turns-to-thorium-as-future-reactor-fuel I guess it is a difficult discussion to have without actually start discussing the science behind explosives. Which i am sure is not such a good thing to start discussing on the internet. (my guess as to why the nuke lies forum was closed) Basically, as far as i am aware one type of bomb is like fireworks, where they have a chemical reaction in a pressurised container which gains its explosive capacity from the pressure generated during the reaction and the pressure or concealment of the container. Then there are explosives that react explosively even without pressure. Such as thermite or thermate or other types. If uranium and plutonium are in fact less effective as explosive as dynamite in terms of a pressure container type explosive then they would be considered quite ineffective. It would make a lot more sense practically to use fire bombing like in dresden, than try to develop a bomb that use uranium or plutonium. I think it was more likely that it was a type of napalm that was used in japan but by 1000s aircraft. More advanced forms of napalm was used extensively 25 years later in vietnam. They were already using incendiaries in dresdan.

The purpose of life is to experience all there is to experience. The meaning of life is the mystery. The inherent incomprehensible logical conclusion.

Ceaser's Messiah: The Roman conspiracy to invent Jesus. Fascinating new book and documentary. This is how I understand it but i need to watch it again. Basically Josephus invented Christianity on the request of the Romans. As a way to discredit the jews and stop the jewish religion. They invented a messiah that was killed by the jews and called it Christianity. They used existing texts and stories from the past that we still have a record of to write the bible and these parallels as they are called can be pointed out. Where the text is almost exactly the same between two ancient books, one being the bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVu6BzJ90Sk http://caesarsmessiah.com/ The implications if this is correct is big. Basically disprove the bible once and for all as nothing more than a human written book. Designed specifically to control the population through religion or fairy tales.

I thought this was an interesting discussion. I rarely watch rogan but I actually sat through the entire interview. They cover foreign policy in this discussion and Sam Harris views on islam, it challenged some of my views.

I think it definitely exists, in that there is a satellite of its description in orbit. It has been seen by many independent astronomers. That does not prove that there is people in it though. I have been looking for HD docking videos for the ISS for many years, since I first heard about the ISS many years ago. NASA finally released some HD docking footage, claiming that they have advanced thrusters and lasers that automatically allow for the docking at 17000 miles per hour around the planet. After watching the videos on youtube that showed that China was faking its space walks by using a pool and a "blue colour filter" to take out the water, creating the illusion of weightlessness. The mistake was not editing out some of the bubbles before broadcasting it on the TV and other mistakes. I did start doubting the ISS even more. Then we had russia sending a clown to the ISS. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/30/guy-laliberte-billionaire_n_303980.html Then the accusation would have to be that they fake all the zero gravity footage in high altitude with modified air planes. I am not convinced either way on this. I am sceptical that there are people in there but I have not seen enough to prove that they are not. The video in the OP is quite convincing and i had not come across it yet. I know that NASA is involved in fraud, from the apollo missions so i would not put it past them to go through such lengths. Man has never been higher than 280 miles 450km. ISS altitude is 400km. Satellites are at 22000 miles.

I heard recently a feminist say to me that it was not until 1993 that women were set free from sexual slavery within marriages. She tried to paint a picture that women were just completely powerless before 1993 within domestic abuse scenarios. The feminist cited the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This establishes marital rape as a human rights violation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape#20th_and_21st_century_criminalization Was that realy such a problem in the west before 1993 that feminism can count that as something that feminism has accomplished and helped solved? I don't think that was such a problem before 1993 as it is made out to be and with laws like this, it can be used in a marriage against a man without much recourse. In a domestic abuse disputes both sides escalating their arguments. If it is not a domestic dispute like that and there is a clear form of violence and control being put over the man or women then that could be handled with individual rights just the same. There is no need to make an exception for marrage and women. That law seems like it would help women in Islamic culture who are being forced to be a wife and have sex. This i think is something that is good to prevent. I don't think many muslim women will take advantage of this type of law though. Another point about this Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women is, would not men and boy's benefit form such a declaration as well? Not that i want the UN to publish declarations. I am just pointing out that men could equally benefit from additional rights in exactly the same way. I think it would be better if atheists were behind these types of laws than feminists. Atheists would frame the laws in such a way that it was gender neutral whilst still worked to prevent religious activity from justifying violence between the sexes. Now I of course am against rape in marriage and violence and so on. I can see how it is important to have a law that specifies that it is transgressing against someone self ownership whether they are in marriage or not to rape or commit violence. I am more interested in this idea that feminism has helped solve that problem and this is just one of the many successes of feminism. What do you think, can we say that feminism was responsible for that UN mandate or is it just a result of the development of culture, like many other declarations before it, in the sense that it was more about preventing religious violence within the marriages in islamic culture in the west and less about modern feminism itself. The question is can the "pay gap" and "rape culture" be all equated under one umbrella called feminism, along side real oppression within the marriage in cultures around the world.

I am not a certified scientist. As far as i understand it, nuclear power stations actually use steam to turn the turbines that generate the power. The reason they call it nuclear power is because as a part of the reaction that goes in to generating the steam they use uranium. The danger comes not from the uranium itself but the pressure required to create the reaction. This is why thorium reactors have been considered such a breakthrough. In that sense nuclear power stations are not actually magic nuclear reactors one step away from a bomb, they are just utilising uranium to generate steam. On thorium reactors to replace uranium. Do i think it is possible to make a bomb out of uranium? I would say it is highly likely technically possible. Considering the pressure required to make the reaction in the steam power plants i doubt it would be practical though. I know that US have uranium war head missile. Do they use the uranium in the rocket reaction? i don't think so, do they use it in the explosive? I am not sure, i think it is more of a payload. hxxs://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Depleted_uranium Read up there is says that it is actually used in various ways. In missiles it used to for its density and armour piercing qualities. That i did not know. Please correct me if i am wrong on this.

I try and refute feminism by pointing out that women are not victims by showing that men are just as much victims as women. I have found that even when I show statistics that men experience more violence, more rape, have to go to war, have to work all the worst and difficult jobs, have less rights in marriage and so on and on. They still fail to accept that women are not the victim sex. It is an extremely powerful cognitive dissonance which is not surprising. A lot of western women base their entire understanding of reality on this victim feminist perspective. The foundation of feminism is also incorrect. Women have always worked and most men in history were not educated or worked low level jobs like farming with no hope of becoming a doctor or other professional jobs. Most men in history could not vote as well, it was class based or you had to be a land owner which was some what class based as well. When women started working and breaking away from the traditional gender role of motherhood. They had no reputation as a sex working in specific fields, like doctors for example. It was culturally unheard of for women to be doctors so a lot of men would refuse the service on the grounds of competence, sure it was sexist but that is not oppression. As women gained more competence in the field that they had traditionally not operated in they were eventually accepted by the community to complete that service. This even happens in more recent times with the cliche police women on tv proving how not only is she capable but she is better than her male peers. There was definitely some cultural changes that did occur when modern feminism took off, but it was not responsible for giving women the vote or allowing them to get jobs like a registered doctor. I have been told that there was instances where the government made it illegal for women to work in specific fields. Now that could be classified as oppression, although I could not find any specific examples of laws that prevented women from working in specific fields but there was some articles about it. There has been female nurses though out history of course. Western feminism has painted a very sad history for women that is largely exaggerated and false. Women often had the better deal in history, while the men was out doing tough work, the women would teach the children and raise the children and do work around the house. This was before washing machines and televisions to entertain the children and before most children could afford education. There was of course many women in history going back 100s of years that accomplished a lot. Women have been queens for 1000s of years, this idea that in 1960 women were set free from male enslavement is a complete fabrication and misrepresentation of history. I do think though that the history of women was suppressed to some extent. Often the feats of women were not appreciated or recorded as well as men. Then many men were also not appreciated or remembered in the history books just the same. Feminism paints the experience that women had in history as the sort of experience women face in saudi arabia at the moment. I don't see any evidence to suggest that women were treated that way in western civilisations or even ancient civilisations. Although I stand to be corrected if anyone can refute this i would be happy to hear it. I recommend watching this documentary series on feminism, it explains the history of feminism and its impact on modern society. It is very long a documentary, it was made over a period of several years. Recently the original creator and uploader of the video vanished from the internet and removed his youtube channel without any explanation. It has been uploaded elsewhere.

I didn't join the forum to post this but I saw the thread and as i have known about this set of idea for a number of years I though i should add something to the topic. There was a lot of discussion on this topic on the now closed forum nukelies.com. This one guy called Edmund Burke went and made a full documentary on the subject and I recommend you watch it. To be honest I am pretty convinced that all the nuke videos were faked and i am partially convinced that nukes do not exist and that japan was just carpet bombs like dresden. But ill let you watch the documentary. I did check if anyone else has posted this info but didnt see it. I am more interested in the implications of what it means to foreign relations if it is finally admitted that nukes don't exist. Would that kick off another cold war? was the nuclear weapon invented to end the world war 2? Was it propaganda that ended the world war 2?

Hi. I have been watching Stef on youtube for what seems like 5 years. I was previously on the mises.org forums and concen forums back in its active days. Not sure if you know either of those. I accept some labels, classical liberal, libertarian, atheist, minarchist, anarcho capitalist and probaly more as well. I have interests in austrian economics, agorism and more. I grew up in South Africa but live in London UK. I am 31 and a man.