...
That seems to make no sense. Perhaps you'd like to explain further?
Not really. Keep working on it. I'm sure it will come to you eventually. Convoluted horse shit is still horse shit. |
|
|
|
...
Access amount of Aluminum in the body plus a particular microwave to trigger it is the virus causing COVID-1 dis ease.
Several ways to get aluminum in the body, absorbing by the skin from chem-trails or polluted air like in Wuhan which did have severe pollution problem unlike Beijing or Shanghai.
....
Total fantasies. Aluminum is not the evil thing you say. Sand is aluminum oxide. Microwaves don't "Trigger it", there are no chem-trails. |
|
|
|
....the NQC meter and into the control server of the A.I. Law Enforcement or the Command and Control Skynet for it to send signals for the Angels of Death Robots to capture the criminals immediately.....
Myself, I always liked Judge Dredd. Haven't heard of that yet but I watched psychopass which is a very good depiction of where our future might be heading |
|
|
|
spendy loves the maths of trajectory.
i prefer to find the witnessed evidence
badecker prefers to dream of fantasy
A couple years ago I decided to refute these clowns arguments about 911 using only 8th grade math, physics and chemistry level refutations. That's how low grade and laughable these conspiracy theories really are. You'd think Iran could have done better with their disinformation campaign. |
|
|
|
What ever could go wrong with a Skynet?
If you haven't done anything wrong, why should you worry? (lol...) |
|
|
|
....the NQC meter and into the control server of the A.I. Law Enforcement or the Command and Control Skynet for it to send signals for the Angels of Death Robots to capture the criminals immediately.....
Myself, I always liked Judge Dredd. |
|
|
|
... I agree. It was an error. But which direction was the error in? ....  Like I said (final time here repeating this ) they knew all afternoon that building was most likely going to fall down, any minute. They could have recorded that to play later and by mistake it went on the air right then. So what? There's nothing there. That's got to be the weakest, most totally worthless argument I've ever heard. |
|
|
|
....Ronald Reagan had the greatest rebuttal against attacks regarding his cognitive decline during his reelection campaign - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJhCjMfRndk Joe Biden just doesn't have the same charisma. The two more who looked, similarly to Biden, like "losers from the get-go" were Dole, and McCain. I wouldn't put Hillary in that category. |
|
|
|
Good. Don't become a propaganda arm for the Communist government of China if you want to be taken seriously on an international level. WHO's done China's bidding for them in suppressing the virus so cut off their funds. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the second highest funder of WHO and they should reduce funding themselves, but I doubt they will.
International organizations are always problematic, are always a cluster****, and are always politicized. More evidence seems to be coming out that China was slow in informing other nations of the problem and the likely spread of the problem. This resulted in something of world chaos. WHO certainly shouldn't be aligned with actions or advocacy that make the health of the world worse. EDIT TO ADD: I don't think this should be reduced to "China evil punish Evil China." "Evil WHO TOO!!" I can see easily, US working with China on policy and science, planning how to deal with future events such as this, and more good come from that than demonizing nations. |
|
|
|
Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads.
You are basically right. Where you are wrong is, what you said is exactly what they thought they were doing. They mistakenly thought the building had come down already. Otherwise they would never have allow her to tell us that it was down, while it was standing UP right in her background. Lol so a reporter does a ridiculous thing, and you have to find an even more ridiculous explanation. You started off with a predetermined wacko theory and tried to make the facts fit it. Like I said, all of the reporters were receiving information that that tower was likely going to fall, among others from firemen. I remember that from watching it that day. This is a gigantic nothing burger. Here's what the BBC had to say about this issue. 5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... " https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html |
|
|
|
Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in. that's not true at all. watch it again. there were some fires, some incidental damage, the building evacuated. just before the collapse the rooftop can be seen to dip, as the core columns were cut using incindiarys and explosives....No need to WATCH it again. I'm talking about what the reporters on site SAID that afternoon. ... So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?
,,,,, You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill." So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal. If a reporter is wrong, who cares, right? But it was the BBC that was wrong. Reporters are the end-point of the system of news. They get their info from their bosses. If they happen to be investigative reporters, it's still their bosses that allow what they report on to go through to the people. In this case, it's easy to speculate that the BBC knew in advance that Bldg. 7 was going to come down, and simply got their timing wrong with their TV reporter. ..... Got their timing wrong? That's silly. Your imaginary conspirators would just sit back and let their own reporter watch it go down and report it. This is really, really grasping at threads. So there is something to the UofA Fairbanks study!
Absolutely. There is Chinese disinformation. |
|
|
|
.....
I also believe fairly strongly that the 'simple' interpretation of what Gates said (through his disgusting smirk) is the accurate one. Vaccines will kill a ton of people, and make the rest into a kind of Idiocracy which is easy to control and which poses zero threat to the rich and powerful.
That presumes there is someone other than idiots in the Idiocracy. At least in the movie, there was not, with the exception of two from the past. We're certainly not seeing evidence of any rich and powerful who are much of anything but idiots. Completely NOT true. - Someone commissioned the giant digital clock, for instance, and it didn't install itself in the tower. - Some unseen entity runs the system which keeps track of the peeps digital money (and lets their corporate friends defraud the peeps.) - Some unseen entity analyzes the IQ scores and was able to find the peep who scored highest. The peeps in Idiocracy didn't see any other class of people so they assumed they didn't exist (as did you I might add.) One of the characteristics of a low IQ person is an inability to make inferences. No you are wrong on this. The movie clearly says that the IQ of people went down. The remaining vestiges of smart people in Idiocracy are from the past. IQ scoring was from a computer. Etc, etc. In Idiocracy there is not unseen, hidden elite in control. You said, For instance, that mm wave frequencies from 5G phased array antennas could possibly have any harmful physiological effects unless there are videos of people getting thermally cooked and vanishing into a puff of smoke.That seems to make no sense. Perhaps you'd like to explain further? |
|
|
|
...
So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words?
,,,,, You don't just walk around and make statements about things for no reason at all. Or maybe you do: "That car is going to crash into that truck that we don't know is on the other side of the hill." [/quote] So the reporter was wrong. Who cares? What's laughable is that you make that into a big deal. Where was this guy anyway? In NY watching the scene, or in London? Pretty weak, to try to use something like this to support your pet theory. It remains the fact that I remember hearing a lot of talk about bldg 7 the afternoon of 9/11 by reporters on the television channels. "They expect building 7 to fall anytime", "firemen have been told to stay away from building 7," etc etc. So there's no reason for you to act like it was some big surprise. freefall speed of collapse, 3x. yeah, 10 seconds quarter mile high to hit the ground (ZERO resistance from existing massive steel columns)....
I'm confused. what are you saying here? the towers were designed to withstand impacts from 2 or 3 707 jets simultaneously. (there are 4 engines on a 707) they are were supported by 200 vertical steel columns around the perimeter, and several massive core columns that rise from the foundation to the roof. on the day, it was as if they did not even exist, as the buildings fell at freefall speed (32 feet per second squared) the roofs meeting the ground in just ten seconds there was zero resistance from these supporting columns, which means that incindiarys and explosives had to be used to accomplish such a quick fall Okay, I got your argument now. Go ahead and support that with the relevant physics or static force diagrams, if you really believe it. What you really have to prove is that after the 88th floor (IIRC) collapsed due to fire, then the weight of the floors above coming down at the speed when it hit the next floor was insufficient to pop the supporting structures. A shearing of a beam would occur at the speed of sound in steel which would be essentially instantaneous, and certainly not result in some slow-motion collapse such as you seem to be arguing for. Once some of the potential energy is converted to kinetic, there is so much force in action that no sort of "slow motion collapse" is conceivable. |
|
|
|
....
reported on BBC television (bldg 7) to have collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually did collapse
...
So after they made the wrong report and then figured out it was wrong, they dispatched teams to make it true? Dispatched teams? They did what they could to cover their blunder. So instead of a simple mistake by a dumb reporter, it has got to be changed into another part of a coverup by scheming conspirators. That's pretty weak. But I'm curious about one thing. Why does it matter at all what one guy said on one TV channel? Anyway, as I remember that day multiple TV channels were reporting about building 7, that it had been on fire, that it was likely to collapse or about to collapse. Can't remember the exact words, but the point was it was common knowledge because half of one side was tilting over and the top had caved in. So what's the big deal about the BBC reporter's words? |
|
|
|
This can't be done without the government requesting a backdoor to access data for all of this information. The government is probably going to try to pitch an idea like this, they're most likely going to say that its done to ensure that during an emergency people are safe. Once this ends though, the government isn't going to give up stuff like this -- they're going to keep the program running and just continue to track people.
That's why we have the privacy issues we have today, all the monitoring, surveillance, etc didn't just come out of nowhere. An emergency happens where people just want action to come, then action comes through legislation, government grows and they don't give back that control after the crisis.
It's useful to separate two discrete issues. A) What math and encryption will and will not do. B) What power structures (include here not just government, but all those commercial interests that want your cloud data) was. My point is that it is 100% possible and practical for the tracking necessary to trace person to person transmission of Covid-19 at level A, without (B). It's important for the Crypto community to stand up and say things like this, because otherwise the exact trap you cite will be fronted and no one will say it's not necessary to give up privacy. |
|
|
|
I came to gradually realize that it was possible to develop very sophisticated cryptographic protocols with a little bit of imagination.
I am still impressed by the implementation of protocols that are able to provide such services as zero-knowledge proof for instance ..
Recently in the news there has been discussion about following the evolution of the covid thanks to applications that track citizens. This is obviously not without major problems of privacy.
I was wondering : would there be a way to use the magic of cryptography in order to provide some solutions to help overcoming this impasse ?
For example, someone could somehow partially reveal the information about whether or not he is positive to the disease, but only people of his choice could use that information - on the other hand, people could query some sort of common or rizomatic register to find out their chances of being positive (i.e. whether they have been in contact with positive cases or not) but without knowing who is positive if they are.
Another example would be the possibility of following the geographical evolution of the disease anonymously by creating groups of individuals who are spatially close to each other, and by mixing the information they bring about their positivity.
It's a very open question, I'm just suggesting a few things to illustrate my idea a little bit. I think there are people here who have much better skills in cryptography than I do, and they will certainly be better able to define a more rigorous framework to formalize the issue.
Feel free to share your thoughts
This is a very important subject, and I started a pretty much identical thread which is here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240877.msg54230701#msg54230701The point as I see it is that if there is /was a need for societal tracking of all individuals for alleged good purpose, DO NOT BELIEVE those who say this requires infringing on privacy or taking away privacy. In my post I demonstrate the general directions of one solution. |
|
|
|
.....
I also believe fairly strongly that the 'simple' interpretation of what Gates said (through his disgusting smirk) is the accurate one. Vaccines will kill a ton of people, and make the rest into a kind of Idiocracy which is easy to control and which poses zero threat to the rich and powerful.
That presumes there is someone other than idiots in the Idiocracy. At least in the movie, there was not, with the exception of two from the past. We're certainly not seeing evidence of any rich and powerful who are much of anything but idiots. |
|
|
|
Your whole jury scenario has literally happened a billion times already. A courtroom of your peers in a scientific field are other doctors that look at the same images and evidence and go, oh yeah yep thats what that is right there. My specialty isn't in the medical field, none of my posts have been about saying I am the absolute authority on the matter and you shall bend to my whim. What I am confident enough about is the scientific process and peer review procedures. They are absolutely more brutal and stringent than you could possibly imagine. You think a jury of random people would do a better job than a half of a million medical researchers with egos the size of the planet that would love a chance to say, excuse me but you're wrong. Science is brutal, despite what you see on those fake 100 person trials that are reported daily on the news, real scientists will leave 0 doubt with anything they come to a conclusion on before saying a single word to anyone. When they are wrong is when they are working on an incorrect assumption, and thats when the thousand egos jump in ready to crush their mistakes. If their mistakes aren't understandable, they've lost funding, future jobs, etc. You're literally betting your life with each paper your publish. You're allowed to make mistakes, but not make mistakes due to negligence or malintent.
People specialize for a reason. A single human can't live long enough to learn everything. It doesn't matter if you don't understand how trivial it is for someone who knows what they're doing to identify 50 strains of flu as easily as you could point out different models of cars on the road. It'll take me four years to properly explain to you why light from the sun takes 30,000 years to reach our happy little planet. It'd take X number of years for a medical professional to give you a proper answer on why they came to the conclusions they came to. It'll take an electrician X years to explain to a medical professional why their power is out. I dont let electricians advise me on Covid, and I don't let medical professionals advise me on home electrical codes. You either trust what they come together as a group to come up with or shut up and become a medical professional yourself that can put them in their place when they make mistakes properly.
That's all "Sort of" True but in the last several weeks we've all heard quite a bit of blabbing in the media where otherwise intelligent medical doctors talk about "models." And suddenly they are way, WAY out o their depth and saying ridiculous things and thinking they are an expert. But they don't know how stupid the things they say really are. Many other examples of this sort of issue. |
|
|
|
conspiracy nutters actively damaging towers is an actual thing
the story those conspiracy nutter talk about is not a thing
wavelength and wattage (physics) proves how wrong they are
Wait, is that the reason nobody will talk wavelength and watts with me? |
|
|
|
possible outcomes...
So i sue him and win some money.....It wouldn't erase the deep embedded pain and trauma that he has inflicted. No this is not about money.
So i sue him and lose some money.....It wouldn't erase the deep embedded pain and trauma that he has inflicted. No this is not about money.
So i sue him and break even.....It wouldn't erase the deep embedded pain and trauma that he has inflicted. No this is not about money.
100% assured outcome... It won't erase the deep embedded pain and trauma that he has inflicted. So why do anything at all? I already addressed this. You are a sad excuse for a human being. I see it as the reverse. What if after spending a quarter million in a civil lawsuit, he got nothing? And you would advocate that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
