It's always shocked me how many 9/11 conspiracy theories people buy into, where there exists significantly more evidence that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor a day or so in advance, but allowed it to happen in order to push a reluctant US into war.
It is very likely that he did. In my fairly rudimentary research on the matter I would say it's almost a certainty. That's a leader's job. Later in the conversation, Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders: We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." FDR had it easy in that he had someone (and a very foolish someone) who was actually able and willing to attack us. Ah, the good old days. FDR's platform was to remain isolationist, however as time went on it was increasingly obvious the US could not remain so as the Allies were beng dominated by the Axis throughout Europe and Japan had controlled much of Asia for years by 1942. In order to provoke Japan, the US (iirc) blocked oil supplies to the Home islands, amongst other things, effectively daring them to throw the first punch that would get the American public onside. Hitting Pearl Harbour (and Darwin in Australia) was an attempt to decimate the US fleet in the Pacific to stymie the effectiveness of the US when they eventually joined (as the Japanese knew was inevitable). and, iirc someone stood up in parliament (Denmark?) in the weeks before the attack and spoke of intelligence of an attack on PH..... That is the biggest bunch of historical revisionist bunk. FDR was the very opposite of isolationist and very strongly pushing the US to support Briton very early on. This was to the point where the US was essentially engaging the German navy on Briton's behalf on the Atlantic side. FDR explicitly intermixed US merchant ships with British convoys, providing explicit protection to the Brits. That is not isolationist. The Germans however learned their lesson in WWI, where the US only entered the war after their uboats sunk US merchant ships. Without that Wilson would not have been able to get the US to enter WWI. So in WWII the Germans went very far out of their way to avoid a direct confrontation with the US navy or US merchant ships. Very far out of there way. To call FDR isolationist is absurd, he was pro-Briton. This presented a problem for the pro-Briton FDR. He needed a spark, and found it in Japan. No, its not revisionist bunk. If the environment was so hawkish the US could have just joined the war on the allied side without a catalyst. You're really almost agreeing with what I wrote, so my use of 'FDR's platform to remain isolationist' is what is to blame / incorrect. It would have been better to say he came to power in an environment where public sentiment and congress were decidedly dovish. Platform isnt the right word. The events of ww1, not joining the league and the effects of the depression were a big part of the landscape in the early to mid 30's. Even in 39-40 the sentiment was still anti-war. the Allies also were being pushed back, France capitulated and an invasion of the UK was a possibility. He wasn't overtly hawkish, often meeting Churchill in secret, so he needed a spark as you wrote. Blocking supplies to Japan was what caused it, as without oil the Japanese war machine would halt. This backed Japan into a corner and culminated in the attack. There is where I diverge from Armstrong. He characterizes FDR's confiscation of gold and the devaluation of the dollar as necessary to restart to economy. Whereas I follow the late One Handed Economist who pointed out that Americans were eating more butter and chicken per capital in 1933 than they were in 1929, and then almost no butter in the great sacrifice of the war. The war was also the way to pull women out of the house and introduce them to working. FDR was apparently a former Wallstreet guy and was aligned with the banksters. The New Deal socialism, the turning of the income tax into tax on all wages when by law it is only a tax government wages, etc all took place during his dictatorial reign. |
|
|
|
i'm ok with it with the automatic expansion. but i'm alittle concerned with the miner voting for expansion. why just them and is voting really the way we want to go? Yes the BIP 100 voting scheme seems a bit under developed at this point. The problem is that POW mining is the only way to prove independent existence, this is the basis of distributed consensus -- you can easily create a bunch of fake AWS "full" nodes for example -- 1000 nodes just forward requests to a single full node. And if you could solve the voting problem without using mining, you could use that solution to remove mining from consensus (i.e. from bitcoin). One way to prove unique nodes is to require that every node use asymmetric functions to encode the data to be stored, with uniquifying "salt". This is essentially hashing but backwards. For example, every node chooses a unique 256bit identifier (salt). Then for every 8 or 16 bits of blockchain data Di, it finds and stores Xi such that Hash(Xi + identifier + i) = Di (where "+" means "append"). This search happens continually as the blockchain is being created. Now a client can validate the uniqueness of storage by another node by requesting random chunks of data from the node. The node responds with its ID and Xi0-i1. The client can then quickly validate this by running the hash function and comparing the result to its own blockchain. A "full" node (one that is calculating this data and storing it as the blockchain is created) will be able to respond quickly where one that is not doing so will have to calculate the reverse hash function (essentially a random search like mining but easier because only 8 or 16 bits) on the fly. Once you have this "proof of storage" you might be able to turn it into allowing node voting... So someone rents hard disk space on Amazon AWS during the voting period and becomes many unique entities. You were correct that there is no way to prove one computer, one vote. PoW doesn't work by voting. It works by random chance. The only problem PoW solves is consensus on ordering. Ah I grow weary in this thread. |
|
|
|
But why are you focused on circumstantial innuendo and not on the hard physical science of it?
I couldn't move on with my life until I had researched the hard science of it. I just had to know. I don't understand why others would be so apathetic?
Because ultimately I will never have access to the evidence or the expertise to evaluate it, and most importantly: I don't care if it was Saudi terrorists or American terrorists who planned the attacks. Even if the US government is 100% responsible for 9/11, it has done far worse than kill those 3000 people, both before and after the event. So focusing on whether or not they are responsible is a bit like obsessing over whether or not a serial killer also deserves a parking ticket. But by denying the knowledge of the power you are up against, it enables to you believe in fantasies about human ability to overcome with a network design which is fraught with centralization vectors and inertia. But thank you. You explained why you are easily willing to hop onto hope. You don't want to know. You prefer hope than hard reality. And this is why the 90% slow burn in the NWO plan works, as I explained mathematically upthread. Any way, if you are sincere in your desire for what is best for humanity, then the best way for the two of us to interact is via concrete engineering designs. All of this fighting over piecewise dis-analysis of the problem set is just noise. Then you can make your decision which one you support. Probably you will choose the hope and wet dreams of Bitcoin no matter what. Because that is just the way your personality and mind is programmed apparently. That is okay. We need a market of winners and losers. There can't be all winners, else there isn't a market, unless of course we are just expanding the pie for everyone so even the losers in the market are gaining nominally while losing relative to the winners. And only after the fact will we prove which choices were correct. I am not asserting that I have proven you will be the loser. I don't know for sure even what your future choices will be. And I don't know for sure what outcomes will be achieved, especially from my side. Again thank you for your candid honesty. And I hope I have returned the same. Edit: this hope curse is something I am dealing with too. I been trying to convince myself that what I want to embark on is not just hope. To gain some estimates of realism and the market. One thing I have learned from my past successes is, don't rely on others they slow me down. Don't expect anyone to help me, because they will just parasite. Close off the world and code and amazing things happen. "Have faith in yourself, you've done this before". Don't try to reason it all out. Code and ship it. |
|
|
|
some witness testimony, the probability of NORAD wargames on the same day under the same scenario (same thing happened in London on 7/7)
You can be refuted on these points. Stay with hard physical science of the collapse of the buildings and the pools of molten lava that was superhot for weeks. Those can't be explained without thermite. When you have looked at these issues with the relevant scientific background, then the comments that others make about extraneous BS just looks so damn lame there aren't really words to describe. |
|
|
|
Why do you belabor this point instead of focusing on your errors about 9/11? You're right, I just checked and I misremembered something. There wasn't a second bombing attempt in 1998 - that was actually a robbery. So even though the buildings had been in the news twice in the decade prior to 9/11 there had been only one prior attempt by terrorists to destroy the towers. But why are you focused on circumstantial innuendo and not on the hard physical science of it? I couldn't move on with my life until I had researched the hard science of it. I just had to know. I don't understand why others would be so apathetic? |
|
|
|
BOO!!! Haha! Okay. I will accept you are just in your own little world here. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Well given I wrote in May that Bitcoin would rally in June or July (at max up to $320ish) because of Greece, I would say you are late to the game. There is an initial synergy for private assets, but the contagion coming will pull liquidity out of the most liquid (real, not leveraged) assets, i.e. gold and Bitcoin. Repeat of 2008 for gold and silver and other private assets that didn't exist. We will head down again to lower lows. |
|
|
|
the paranoia runs high in this one...BOO!!!
Come on man. Armstrong never posts in any forum any where on earth. He has stated he doesn't follow others. He is in his own world. His site gets as much traffic as this site does. He doesn't need to come here and dilute his message and waste his time. You know very well I am not Armstrong. |
|
|
|
|
I wish you had added an option for "support block size increase but only by consensus BIP". Many of the yes votes are conflated into that.
|
|
|
|
It's always shocked me how many 9/11 conspiracy theories people buy into, where there exists significantly more evidence that FDR knew of Pearl Harbor a day or so in advance, but allowed it to happen in order to push a reluctant US into war.
And you studied the engineering facts in detail? Ignorant people are often shocked by reality. Haven't you experienced that with for example explaining Bitcoin to relatives back in 2012? This is yet another example of why I tend to believe I am just dealing with unwitting sheep and not conscious disinformation. |
|
|
|
simple, you get to verify who i am.
I believe it is you in the pic who is posting. That isn't a benefit from my perspective. |
|
|
|
otherwise, you would not mind me viewing your face.
What is in it for me? You just want to view my face and what satisfaction do I get. Why not a public debate on video. That would be more fun. But I've been cautioned already that you are trying to draw me into a trap. My instinct is to debate you in public. But I may receive stern advice not to do it. |
|
|
|
Fire up them sock-puppets boys!
Did you set the poll to disallow votes from new members? I don't see how any poll here can be valid when the "No" side doesn't have the motivation to pad the votes but "Yes" side is playing the "dumb masses are ours" card and will use every means to sway public (sheep) opinion. Remember sheep only see the ass of the other sheep in front of them and follow. |
|
|
|
well then, do as you promised and go away. How do you know if somebody will never, ever leave a thread? If they write a post promising/threatening that they will. Why do you belabor this point instead of focusing on your errors about 9/11? More disinformation noise to bury the undeniable facts of engineering stated? |
|
|
|
you actually know who i am, where i live, seen a picture of me, know my background, know i'm involved in a public lawsuit the docs of which you have have read, have 4.5 yrs worth of forum postings of me here and in other threads, and YET you still think i am part of a conspiracy. tell me, do i fit the profile? where is your logic in that regard?
I actually argued to the neurobiologist researcher that you are not. She told me your true affiliations would be clear by how you would respond to logic. I am still entertaining the possibility you are just extremely deluded (or compromised by some vested interest). I am more apt to argue that again, because of Occam's Razor. I actually think most people here are just dumb sheep and unwittingly doing what they do. But I am not sure. You've seen my photos too and know who I am. So we are even. What can we gain in Skype? Do you really think you can out-debate me (lol). Not a chance in hell for you to win a debate with me. My father is an attorney. I inherited his logic (but not writing) skills. |
|
|
|
But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11?
Anyone who took some flying lessons? Fuck man. You haven't even done the most basic research. Steel buildings with girders the width of your room don't collapse into a pile of dust from kerosene and impact with aluminum. And they certainly don't do it straight down onto themselves perfectly every time (3 times in this case) and with complete collapse and all with free fall acceleration (no resistance). sure man. After the planes hit some dudes with explosives ran UP the stairway ALL the way to where the fire was burning, planted the explosives, then ran all the way back down. /s That's why if you look at the footage you'll see the building collapse started from the burn not from the bottom like when a building is demoed. And yes absolutely kerosene and the vast quantity of flammable stuff in office buildings can heat steel to the point where it loses structural strength. I've done it to the log holder in my fireplace just with office paper. Losing structural strength (i.e. bending and warping) does not result in free fall velocity (i.e. no resistance) and perfect implosion onto base footprint with perfect accuracy 3 times for 3 different buildings including one that wasn't hit by any airplane. And it is well known the buildings were evacuated several times in the weeks leading up to the incident and groups of men were "working" in the elevator shafts. Now it is becoming very clear who here is a disinformation agent (perhaps unwittingly I am not sure). |
|
|
|
And FYI the idea literally was written into a Tom Clancy novel years before (although IIRC it was Japan that attacked) so the terrorists did not even need to be creative I'm glad I'm not the only one who remembers that. I remember as soon as I heard the news about planes crashing into the World Trade Center and Pentagon my first thought was, "wow, it's just like in Debt of Honor". Even back then I thought the media narrative was hysterical and insane. As you said, the idea of using planes to attack buildings wasn't exactly obscure - Tom Clancy was among the most popular authors of the 90s, and the world trade center been a target of terrorists attacks already. People were acting like their entire world view had been shattered by the fact that terrorists finally succeded in destroying the building they'd been trying to destroy for a decade. Were they just not paying attention to the first two attempts? And what does any of that have to do with the physical (civil and thermodynamics engineering) science of it all? Those who accuse me of writing posts devoid of information then don't address posts like this which are disinformational. How did the fires under the rubble as seen from IR satellite imagery burn so intensely hot and long without oxygen? What was the fuel? |
|
|
|
But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11?
Anyone who took some flying lessons? Fuck man. You haven't even done the most basic research. Steel buildings with girders the width of your room don't collapse into a pile of dust from kerosene and impact with aluminum. And they certainly don't do it straight down onto themselves perfectly every time (3 times in this case) and with complete collapse and all with free fall acceleration (no resistance). And you are an engineer? Do you do not have a pocket calculator? |
|
|
|
once this happens, Gavin and Mike will be happy to recruit a whole new core dev team to minimize the chances of such a huge disagreement happening once again. everyone is for diversity but this hostage situation is way over the top and can't be tolerated.
Didn't you just write we could easily fork away from Gavinmike  Your posts don't have logical continuity. my pt is that the community aka economic majority can fork away from any dev or group of devs that abuses its power. No man. You understand very well inertia. And you understand very well the further we go on, the more the inertia rests at the center and not at the ends because of Bitcoin's network design. |
|
|
|
I didn't recognize how unusual this is until later in life.
And that is why they don't understand when I post comments on both sides of an issue. I am weighing the probabilities. And yes I am also not sure who invented Bitcoin. But just step back for a moment and ask yourself who in the hell had the power to do 9/11? And then you see the world differently than if you didn't think that power existed. Then look at what is actually happening with Bitcoin. your willingness to accept such deep conspiracy theory is bordering on psychotic. i've skimmed that data and just don't believe it credible esp after having followed/lived it step by step with all the follow on consequences arising from it. also the events leading up to it make perfect sense as well. Clearly I know which side you are working for them. You can start with the fact that NIST report modeling WTC7 collapse is an impossible model. And rabbit hole goes much deeper than that. I am tired of arguing with you because it is clear that you are on a disinformation campaign (or extremely dumb... which I am still entertaining as a possibility but doesn't seem likely given your status as a medical doctor...). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
