Lovely statistics. And don't get me wrong. I wasn't stating that they are false. However, like others, what's your source? I understand that the source might not be linkable websites. Maybe it is your parents or grandparents. Maybe you happen to be old enough that you experienced it all yourself, and compiled it because you were an investigative journalist of the day. Just curious about your source(s). What are they? At least might you divulge the kind(s) of source(s)?  The figures which I have posted, are from the book The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, authored by Donald L. Niewyk, and published by the Columbia University Press. You can quote from other sources (such as Atlas of the Holocaust by Martin Gilbert) as well, but since the Holocaust is well documented, the difference in the numbers will be less than 5%. Bryan, correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't the original source, and the authoritative source, the actual German records. They were if nothing else, meticulous record keepers... |
|
|
|
This is very strange. It starts by asking for proof that Bin Laden was responsible for 911. But who said that he was? This is a bit like saying Obama was responsible for Bengazi. Check Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacksAuthorities in the United States and Britain also obtained electronic intercepts, including telephone conversations and electronic bank transfers, which indicate that Mohammed Atef, a bin Laden deputy, was a key figure in the planning of the 9/11 attacks. Intercepts were also obtained that revealed conversations that took place days before September 11 between bin Laden and an associate in Pakistan. In those conversations, the two referred to "an incident that would take place in America on, or around, September 11" and they discussed potential repercussions. In another conversation with an associate in Afghanistan, bin Laden discussed the "scale and effects of a forthcoming operation." These conversations did not specifically mention the World Trade Center or Pentagon, or other specifics.[24] ...According to interviews by Al-Jazeera[40] as well as United States interrogations of al-Qaeda members Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (captured in 2002 and 2003 respectively), Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the instigator and prime organizer of the attacks. |
|
|
|
How has us gov managed to get to109 votes? you guys need to take off your tinfoil hats and settle down. Do yous really think in this day and age your own government would fly a plane into the twin towers? Im going to vote aliens, much more likely.
There was an Army plane that accidentally flew into the Empire State Building, IIRC. Im not up to speed on that, Ive actually never heard of that at all but as you say yourself it was accidental. I dont think the planes crashing into the towers were by any means accidental, and if it was then it was probably one of the biggest fuck ups in modern times. 911 was clearly on purpose but conspiracy theory's that it was the usa's own government is just ridiculous. Early 1950s I believe. The pilot was trying to fly under or around fog layers or something. Yes there are totally insane conspiracy theories about 911. They are anti logic, anti evidence, and anti fact and science. As I have said multiple times on this thread I am not even opposed to conspiracy theories - just produce ones that are self-consistent and which make sense. As an example of what "doesn't make sense" some of these guys propose that the airliners were flown into the towers BUT THEN ALSO bunches of explosives were laid out AT THE SAME LEVELS the jets hit BUT THEY WERE SPECIAL EXOTIC EXPLOSIVES THAT ONLY THE NSA has. I mean, this is batshit crazy talk. Wouldn't someone just simply bomb the towers? Why would any conspiracy involve both flying planes into the towers and bombing them also .... be obviously ridiculous? But that's the sort of lengths they have to go to to try to get the facts to fit the conspiracy. The facts just don't fit too well. So be my guest, introduce a 911 conspiracy theory that at least half makes sense. |
|
|
|
Actually, from the humidity, wind, and temperature record presented, it certainly does look like "front passage." By the way, a more accurate number would be to go from (say) 12 noon one day, to 12 noon the next. Or max min for the 2 days. As presented there is likely 5C error in the range due to differing times.
By the way, you certainly can use statistical variance to determine significant variation from climatic norms. All the records are available to do this, at least in the USA I know. You can just use the last 30 years, that should be fine.
You know, even without all the scientific stuff, weather became rather crazy gotta admit that. Never had a winter like that truly xD So don't know if it's mankind fault or not, but there is still something coming. And I don't think burning our fuel is helping reducing it! Btw, you didn't answer on the heat produces by us compared to the sun, I'm still sure it's not that low you know? I totally agree with you: humans are disturbing this planet's stability but... as George Carlin said once Nature will take its chance to regulate itself again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjfiIow-eW0The trouble was never to destroy Nature, I'm pretty sure Nature will be fine with what we're doing. But Nature "regulation" might not take mankind survival into account  Of course! We have no power against something which is totally unknown to us. These guys can think they own the weather they can do some mess for a while on Earth but Earth/Nature eventually will clean itself. To me it will all end up in a big sneeze and we'll be gone atchaaa! Bless you! Not this time, not now. Let me become filthy rich and then, only then, you may be able to sneeze. And what if that "something coming" is an ice age? We are about overdue for one, you know. |
|
|
|
How has us gov managed to get to109 votes? you guys need to take off your tinfoil hats and settle down. Do yous really think in this day and age your own government would fly a plane into the twin towers? Im going to vote aliens, much more likely.
There was an Army plane that accidentally flew into the Empire State Building, IIRC. |
|
|
|
Joule count of human fuel was not the question I was talking about, it was merely a philosophical question I'm not claiming anything. What I am asking is: do you really believe that humans have no global impact on environment? It's an easy Yes or No question man Sure, I will answer your rigged question. The answer is of course humans have an impact on the earth, and the subset of the earth known as the environment. We have an effect on the entire universe at least for a hundred light year radius. Just think, we've polluted that sphere with traces of our radio waves. Your question is rigged by way of the Zero. If we had 1.7 10^-15C effect on temperature, then the answer would be YES. Therefore, for a universe with one cockroach, that cockroach would have an effect on the universe, measurable out to a light cone whose distance is proportional to it's age. What you really want to address, I would think, is something like "a significant impact" or "a statistically significant impact." These are really the practical questions. It was not meant to be rigged, not everything is a hidden attack  Of course the idea was "significant"! But you're misled in my attempt. What I wanted to show is not that human have a significant impact. Only two solution: -we have a significant impact. Then it's important to control this impact and to be aware of it. Thus your position is a bit weird as you promote the inaction or at least the non coordinated action. -We don't have a significant impact, then why not letting us trying to control it? It won't hurt anyone to try to be ecolo friendly even is it might be a bit useless no? It's a bit like the Pascal bet, but with much less flaws  Actually I wasn't implying mal intent in saying the question was rigged, just noting the "zero" effect. Yes, actually, if you put politicians in charge of "trying to control it" they certainly can have an effect that is the reverse of their stated goals. For example, shutting down activities that require power in countries that have sophisticated coal plant scrubbers -- sends those activities to third world countries or China where they couldn't care less about clean outputs. Hence, the government takes your money for a supposed goal, shuts down industries by harsh penalties, industries move elsewhere where there are no rules, net effect is the opposite. (Side note: Let's not derail this into "Oh, China is going to clean up," bllah blah blah) Just take it for what it is, as stated. |
|
|
|
Its not new really, the poll says US government did it. we probably saw the documentary video about what really happened. Has anybody else maybe 500 times before noticed how this Spendulus guy has very limited reading comprehension?
He isn't promoting any signature so you might be expecting him as a hero to at least read everything. I expect this guy to at least try putting a finger on my arguments, that´s all. But if you start out as a moron on message boards you´ll remain a moron no matter how senior you get. I guess that´s his problem. Stupidity is incurable. I don't see that you have any arguments. You have assertions that you throw out, that's about it. Fuck off if you don't like my comments. Or just ignore them and look stupid. Makes no difference to me. Yeah. Relax, galdur. Spendy just has to be a school teacher. That's a good way to look at the matter. There is no reason to get mad if your 911 Whackjob-Conspiracy-Arguments are refuted simply and categorically with high school math, physics and chemistry. It simply is what it is. Sure, it's a lot more boring than some grand theory that has the owner of the building in cahoots with the CIA and them buried with Al Queda and the four jets being carted off to an island, then dismantled and buried, with the passengers of the jets transported to Alpha Centauri where they were all eaten by hungry aliens. |
|
|
|
You ask question but don't answer the questions you're asked. What is your point then? Humans can't really have an impact on environment? That's what you're trying to say? It's all too big for us and we should let thing go on their own? RE whether joule count of human fuel use affects climate, even rabid Warmers don't claim this. Check the IPCC reports for example. Humans obviously have regional impacts on environment. Feeling good by way of giving taxes to your government has nothing to do with the Earth's temperature series. Nothing. This has been calculated time after time. If you deny that, then who is the denier? Joule count of human fuel was not the question I was talking about, it was merely a philosophical question I'm not claiming anything. What I am asking is: do you really believe that humans have no global impact on environment? It's an easy Yes or No question man Sure, I will answer your rigged question. The answer is of course humans have an impact on the earth, and the subset of the earth known as the environment. We have an effect on the entire universe at least for a hundred light year radius. Just think, we've polluted that sphere with traces of our radio waves. Your question is rigged by way of the Zero. If we had 1.7 10^-15C effect on temperature, then the answer would be YES. Therefore, for a universe with one cockroach, that cockroach would have an effect on the universe, measurable out to a light cone whose distance is proportional to it's age. What you really want to address, I would think, is something like "a significant impact" or "a statistically significant impact." These are really the practical questions. |
|
|
|
Its not new really, the poll says US government did it. we probably saw the documentary video about what really happened. Has anybody else maybe 500 times before noticed how this Spendulus guy has very limited reading comprehension?
He isn't promoting any signature so you might be expecting him as a hero to at least read everything. I expect this guy to at least try putting a finger on my arguments, that´s all. But if you start out as a moron on message boards you´ll remain a moron no matter how senior you get. I guess that´s his problem. Stupidity is incurable. I don't see that you have any arguments. You have assertions that you throw out, that's about it. Fuck off if you don't like my comments. Or just ignore them and look stupid. Makes no difference to me. |
|
|
|
Governments can reduce the amount of carbon that is put into the air by making it a cost to business yes.
This is just one of several possible measures, what in your opinion would help?
That is NOT the question I asked. However, neither is it true. We know that when England drives one of their last remaining steel plants out of business through onerous taxation (EG saving the planet through legislating money to government for carbon emissions, that more carbon emissions simply occur in China as the industry segment moves there. So do you really believe that a strategy, that does not pass college Economics 101 level logic, is a "good?" You ask question but don't answer the questions you're asked. What is your point then? Humans can't really have an impact on environment? That's what you're trying to say? It's all too big for us and we should let thing go on their own? RE whether joule count of human fuel use affects climate, even rabid Warmers don't claim this. Check the IPCC reports for example. Humans obviously have regional impacts on environment. Feeling good by way of giving taxes to your government has nothing to do with the Earth's temperature series. Nothing. This has been calculated time after time. If you deny that, then who is the denier? |
|
|
|
Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:
1. Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
1.A. Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?
2. If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?
3. Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
3.A. In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?
4. If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
4.A. How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?
Thoughts/answers to the above?
No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace. As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace. Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing. The truth lies above. Or below. www.thereligionofpeace.com |
|
|
|
I was watching these shocking events live and remember thinking, wow they pretty much have the case wrapped up on TV in just a few hours. Expert after expert generals and spooks have made it all crystal clear. If it´s so obvious how was it even possible to pull it off so easily to begin with? It´s a major operation. Takes preparation and planning and time.
No kidding? The FBI had intel on Al Queda intending to ram planes into buildings, they just didn't know how soon or where. In the month before 911, they were furiously trying to figure this out. So after planes get rammed into buildings, what exactly would you expect them to say? |
|
|
|
Everybody knows who did 11 September. Maybe some dumb Americans believe different stories but everybody else in the world who has some brain cells know who did it. The group who did it changed the whole politics in Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.
Not really true. There has been and will continue to be a lot of propaganda on this issue. For example, something like half the people in Jordon and Pakistan believe those Evil Jews did 911. |
|
|
|
Islam is not peaceful at first place so ISIS is just proof on that. There is not even pace between different Islam fractions so we "infidels" cant expect any good from them. Wake up ppl, Islam is not about peace and prosperity and ISIS is just tip of iceberg.
^Ditto^ Yes! ISIS isn't proof that Islam has failed at peace. ISIS is proof that Islam is what it is, VIOLENT! By same logic, Nazi germany is a proof that western culture is VIOLENT KKK is proof, that white american are racist and VIOLENT ......... I can go on and on, but don't you see the flaw with this logic? I dont see any logic there mate. Nazi Germany did not represent western culture, in fact most of western countries were part of allies who defeated nazis and KKK was never running USA or even represent most of white Americans. Islam on other hand, since that desert demon possessed that Muhammad guy is nothing but violence. Just look how civil right stand in most developed Islam countries today and imagine how it was in past centuries. You have a point. Western culture does not exactly claim to be perfect, and does not claim to be peace. However Islam claims to be perfect, and Islam claims to be peace. Yet the production of cultures of peace, and cultures of violence, from the Judeo Christian beliefs and those of Islam, do seem to be reversed. |
|
|
|
Governments can reduce the amount of carbon that is put into the air by making it a cost to business yes.
This is just one of several possible measures, what in your opinion would help?
That is NOT the question I asked. However, neither is it true. We know that when England drives one of their last remaining steel plants out of business through onerous taxation (EG saving the planet through legislating money to government for carbon emissions, that more carbon emissions simply occur in China as the industry segment moves there. So do you really believe that a strategy, that does not pass college Economics 101 level logic, is a "good?" |
|
|
|
Okay. And the Red Arrow for Sillary? That means she's a Commie and a Dyke? Evil Commie, yeah. Can't really blame her turning into a Dyke... I mean... Bill. Nuff said.I have to admit you have a point. Let me change it around. That means she's an EVIL Commie and an EVIL Dyke? (I do know people in communist countries who basically agree with their government, whom I would not describe as evil. Unfortunate, but not evil.) |
|
|
|
No-ones saying humans are the controlling everything, why don't you skepticscrazys go and campaign about vaccines or guns or something else you care deeply about.
Soon enough, developed countries will have to begin taking in millions of climate refugees from low lying islands, which will make the current refugee crisis look like child's play. But it will be too late then... and the carbon taxes you didnt want to pay, the petrol tax you didnt want to pay, those solar rebates you didnt want to pay will come and bite you in your ass.
Wait, so governments can control the climate through our paying taxes? Can they also change the orbits of the Moon and Jupiter? If we just pay them the right amounts? And did they tell you this? And you believed them? |
|
|
|
What's wrong with this innuendo, is that of course if a building burns down, the owner will be looked at closely - who knows, maybe he burned it down to get insurance money. Cops know this, and you can bet that the owner was very carefully examined. |
|
|
|
Okay. And the Red Arrow for Sillary? That means she's a Commie and a Dyke? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
