I started reducing my sugar intake and suddenly, I find most processed foods too sweet to eat without grimacing.
The more I become aware of how the food industry works in all its varied levels, the more I find myself gravitating towards things which are actually good for the body and mind. It took surprisingly little effort, and I now really enjoy what I eat, I feel really good after eating it, and I literally cannot stomach much of the stuff generally considered normal in the North American diet. I remember actually enjoying McDonnald's food, but these days a Rotton Ronald burger tastes like it's made from patties of shit.
--After I started eating free range beef and other organic foods, there's no going back. Holy smokes! I had no idea beef and chicken could taste and smell so amazing! Most people are walking around with dead taste buds and fogged brains. When the clarity starts to come as you de-tox, it's like walking through a door into another world. That was my experience, anyway.
It can be faced with the most astonishing fact, and within half an hour, have more or less normalized it into its functional reality. Survival doesn't do well when heart attack is the result of every enounter with a funky new beast!
But I know what you mean.
Though in my little time-travel-to-show-off-technology fantasy, I travel back in time to 1977 or 1978, shortly after Star Wars came out, and open up a laptop for my childhood friends back then, (who were big Star Wars fans, naturally), and load up one of the better Lucasarts titles. I'd let everybody play for an afternoon, tell them that you can get the new Star Wars 'electronic game' Sears for $99.95, and then vanish the next day forever so that no adult would believe ever them.
How cool a story would they have to tell amongst themselves then? And how nuts would parents be driven in seeking out a toy store which carried the Star Wars 'electronic game'?
I'll dispute that the whole molecule contains methanol, what it does contain is a methyl ester. The ester does not have the toxic properties of the alchohol.
Okay, yes, you are technically correct, but you're also splitting hairs.
From the Aspartame promotional website. ..
"Upon digestion, aspartame breaks down into three components (aspartic acid, phenylalanine and methanol), which are then absorbed into the blood[. ..]"
Anyway, the point here is not who is most right and most wrong in the picky details. The point is that Aspartame is toxic and that the corporations and government boards are lying through their teeth about it. That's what really matters in the final analysis, wouldn't you agree?
My favorite one described how the sweeteners in diet pop form wood alchohol in the brain, leading to arthritis, paralysis and other conditions.
Perhaps you should revisit that one. After reading through everything I could get my hands on regarding Aspartame, I came to the conclusion that the toxic effects are by no means mythological.
Aspartame DOES contain methanol (wood alcohol). This has never been disputed.
Part of the advertising Monsanto (the creator of Aspartame), does to counter is to say that some fruit and vegetable juices, like Tomato juice, also contain small amounts of methanol, and since nobody ever died from drinking vegetable juice, the alarmists should shut up and go home. It is important to remember, however, that when occurring naturally, (like in tomato juice), methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, and usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. In diet pop, however, there is no ethanol present and so the methanol is absorbed and carries on to have its toxic effects. Pretty straight forward.
Interestingly, Monsanto uses the internet to spread the idea that Aspartame toxicity is an urban legend in much the same way that an urban legend would spread, except Monsanto has the advantage of being able to push with lots of extra dollars.
It's just as inadvisable to completely disregard everything said on the internet as it is to believe it wholesale. At some point a little work is required from the viewer. Nobody can be entirely trusted to give the right answers, so people need to dig and think for themselves.
Is that silicate gel stuff re-usable? If so, then clearly the arguments against it lose a lot of validity. --Namely, that since it takes lots of energy to fabricate the gel, it is therefore not as efficient as hydrogen initially appears.
Now, if we use your logic, one could say that facism, communism, democracy, or capitalism were the ideologies for which folks would wage war, and thus, anyone who subscribes to any of those views suffers from an ideologues myopia.
Interesting. I've never bothered with this particular debate before and so I've never heard the responses the other side has developed. I guess I'd have to say this; Religion is a choice, whereas all those systems of government you mentioned are inevitabilities; that is even if you (or your society) chooses against one, you automatically find yourself participating in another; even the far extreme, anarchism, ends up being a default ideology.
That being the case, even if all of those systems of government are fool's games, they are not something you can hold against the participants in quite the same way you can point at religion and say, "You might want to reconsider that."
In essence, religion is a poor excuse for war, but just because some folks believe it is, does not mean that religion itself is a sham or inherently wrong.
Actually, I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Is a dormant virus which can infect and cause illness in another good or bad?
I believe that all the major religions are falsehoods designed to enslave and proliferate themselves. Everybody who follows a lie is pouring the energy of their collective belief down a black hole, which contributes to the continued enslavement of humanity.
See, I consider all religions to have been deliberately planted by malevolent beings with the purpose of harvesting humanity. (That's the pulp sci-fi version, but in essence it's also the core of what I currently think is the case.)
Works like this. ..
The crucifixion of Christ, (for one of many instances), was an act. A falsehood designed to perpetuate a certain train of thinking; "Christ was a really cool teacher, and he suffered and died for some ephemeral reason. Therefore, since he was my really cool teacher, I should attempt follow his example. So now when the psychopaths of the world come to torment me, rather than say, "NO!" I will instead 'turn the other cheek' 'forgive and forget' and 'love thine enemy'.
I consider these little phrases to be psychological conditioning designed to enable the feeding of higher beings, whose food is the thought energy of misery and suffering.
Pretty way-out, I realize, but not without its supporting evidence by way of UFO encounters and the various probings into the spiritual realm. There's a whole lot of aware entities out there and a whole lot of them are hungry and nasty. Pretending that they're not there is stupid, (sticking your head in the sand only makes your bottom half an easy target), and hoping that a false savior is going to help out is a misnomer. Christ is still a powerful entity unto himself, and he will help when asked, but he isn't going to save anybody. You have to do that yourself. And the foolish religion surrounding Christ is a giant trap designed to lock people down like cattle. If Christ was a spiritual teacher of any weight whatsoever, one of his most important messages was almost certainly, "Do Not Follow Me! Not following is a key. The path to enlightenment is unique to each individual. I am just here to show that it is possible. Be true to yourself! YOU must do the work! Blindly following instructions is worse than doing nothing." (Or something to that effect.)
Typically, if everybody is doing something without having first critically examined it, (ie, organized religion), it's probably a good idea to not do it yourself.
Christ was NOT a shepherd. --Sheep are sheared and then eaten. No thank-you.
2) [. ..] All your "point" illustrates is that scum can come from Israel - only by leaps of logic (israeli=mossad=conspiracy) can that equal evidence of anything...
According to this story, it was unofficially determined that the five men were indeed Mossad operatives. This is from a Jewish paper, suggesting that this detail is probably factual, while those aspects of the story which seem to tone down the level of Mossad involvement in 9-11 are also possibly just that; toned down, or even outright falsehoods.
Once you know the lean and bias of a journal, you just lean the other way in order to zero in on where the truth might really sit.
The Bush administration didn't cooperate with the parts of the investigation looking into how they bungled anti-terrorism measures prior to 9/11. At best - thats indicative of a scandalous lack of attention given to Al-Qaeda - not involvement.
Can't a scandalous lack of attention have been deliberate? It sounds very much as though it had been, particularly with regard to the many reports from FBI agents being told to back off in their investigations of the Bin Ladens and their hirelings once Bush got into office. --And if a lack of attention was deliberate, could not further involvement have also been possible? We'll never know through the investigation.
Identifying the hijackers, following the paper/money trail,etc is a completely seperate business - and I don;t recall any complaints from the 9/11 commission, or any other investigative bodies about that aspect
Problem is, I've heard exactly nothing from the government regarding the many allegations of pre-9/11 insider trading. --A lot of money was made by dumping stocks in big companies which had offices in the World Trade Center. There is no question as to whether or not this happened and that the activity was almost certainly the result of foreknowledge of the attacks, but there has been zero follow-up on this when it would have been (and still could be) easy enough to do. Here's an essay with notes detailing this issue. The thinking is that the CIA and people connected to them were probably involved in making some of those high-profit trades because they would have been among those in the know beforehand. Lots of dirty hands.
Point 4) My theory for the black boxes vs passports? Passports are easily identifiable by any onlooker. A black box is just another hunk of scrap metal in a pile of scrap. Remember - the data is designed to survive a crash - not the casing - who knows what a flight data recorder box will look like after a 1400 foot fall?
To be honest, I pondered that very question myself until I realized that black boxes are specifically designed to survive falling from heights of considerably more than 1400 feet. They are also painted red, or day-glo orange with white stripes so that they can be easily found in wreckage. The engineers were thinking about these problems.
Then I ran across this item which suggests that the black boxes were indeed found, but quickly spirited away into the hands of the FBI. If the story from the fire-fighters is true, then why would the government not want anybody to know what was going on aboard those planes, and then lie to the public about not finding the boxes?
Without wanting to make any knee-jerk assumptions, the curious mind can't help but wonder at the blank spots, at the fishy smell, and the total avoidance of these subjects in the official press.
Read the article again - its the original source report that CNN, USA Today, and all the rest of the national newspapers keyed off of. They all made the same mistake you (and the rest of the conspiracy lunatics) did - a passport a few blocks away from the towers doesn't mean Ground Zero. They read it and assumed it must have been found in the rubble. Everyone in NY knows that Ground Zero was only the immediate WTC block - a few blocks away means it wasn't in the rubble pile. The 9/11 Commission Report fills in the rest of the gaps.
Yes. The passport was found a distance away from 'Ground Zero'. I accepted that this was part of the story shortly after my first post.
I didn't want to give you that satisfaction, though, because you sounded like another smarmy geek who, "Doesn't Believe in Conspiracies."
So I decided to annoy you for saying that the passport was found before the towers collapsed, which was not true. Figured you might go away.
Guess that didn't work. So, yes. You were right about the passport not being on ground zero.
Although, I might as well say that I think you use the term 'conspiracy lunatic' entirely too freely. The U.S. government has acted many times in many ways to suggest that there is a great deal of lying and manipulating going on. --The attacks on 9-11 themselves were the fruits of a big conspiracy. (A secret plan brought to fruition!) People who say, 'there is no such thing as conspiracies' are thus flat wrong. Conspiracies, many even by good ol' Americans, have been historically documented. They happen very, very easily, especially when there are geeks out there who are too emotionally damaged to examine anything except ways to prop up the official story.
So, yes. The passport was found a few blocks away from ground zero. But this does not mean that 9-11 went down the way it was officially described. If a black box can be spirited away by the FBI, (or whoever), then an incriminating passport can just as easily be left behind.
Of COURSE a piece of media is going reflect the viewpoints of the person/people that created it!
Anybody who truly believes that a 'simulation' is actually representational of the real world is going to get a rude shock.
The problem, is that on some level, people really do believe that games are representational of reality. --Just look at all the people who think war is fun, and who watched eagerly as American troops rolled into Bagdhad, all with little images of Command & Conquer dancing before their eyes.
the geeks who make games have reason to dislike religion.
Those who argue 'the good side' of religion are ALWAYS thinking through severe myopia. Look around you; World War III is currently igniting on a global scale entirely because of religion. Geek game designers, despite their own over-reactionary limiting biases, (against spirituality), are smart enough to recognize the tom-fool sham that religion is.
So YES, it's going to appear in the media they create.
I find it interesting that fiction writers, (that is, people who have learned how to think effectively enough to be able to write a book), are also generally aware that religion is for chumps.
I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, but honestly, religion takes a few good points from spiritual philosophy and warps them into mind-numbing brain poison designed to enslave and limit.
Typically, when quoting a source to prove the accuracy of your statement, the source should actually say something to indicate, um, the accuracy of your statement.
I checked the newsday article. It doesn't say anything about the passport hitting the ground before the tower collapsed. As for the passport belonging to one of the hijackers. . , nobody was ever debating that. The question was whether or not it was likly for the passport to have been found where it was said to have been found, and not simply planted.
And thats not to mention the 9/11 Commission - whose official report confirms this. But don't worry about it - its a lot easier to have a conspiracy theory when you don't let FACTS get in the way.
Don't make blind accusations and throw the word, 'facts' at me in all-caps until you figure out what is even being discussed, okay?
Thinking? Right... israeli=mossad=conspiracy. Please. Thats a kneejerk response - not logic. Your fixation on the trivial is telling - you obsess on curiosities which weren't even primary evidence. For example the passport - was it used as primary evidence? No. The investigation used the seat locations as reported by a flight attendant on the hijacked flight for IDing the terrorists.
But I think I've posted enough to prove my point - you're a high functioning paranoid. In your mind speculation=facts, reported facts=faked, and everything that doesn't fit must be part of a conspiracy. Good for you... but don't confuse your mental illness for clear thinking.
Another bold & broad statement made while neatly avoiding actually responding to all but one of the points being discussed. --I note you tend to be one of those who likes to make big statements and put them forth with an air of authority as though this alone will make them true. This is, incidentally, one of the tactics of the Bush admin.
You think you've put forth enough evidence to prove that I am a 'high functioning paranoid' (whatever that is)? Okay. Just for fun, let's tally up our score. ..
1. Going waaaay back to your first Blanket Statement. --You claimed that I was getting all my information and thinking from the, 'Cairo Dailies'. I hope you'll note that none of what we've been dealing with here has come from any such source. (Except the comments from one of the 5 dancing Israelis, which originated on an Israeli talk-show). If you search through my past comments here on mighty Slashdot, you would similarly note that I exercise rather more care than you suggest in examining the details of our world. Your first blanket statement was inaccurate when you uttered it and remains so now. 1 point for Me, 0 for You.
2. Your claim that the Dancing Israelis are utterly irrelevant because of your causation theory still doesn't make any sense, as I tried to illustrate as best I was able in my last post. You've not bothered to respond to that, (probably because you are beginning to see the faults in your argument and don't know how to respond without losing face). So I'll take that as another point against you. So, 2 points for Me, 0 for You.
3. I found the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with the investigation significant, and indicative of possible guilt. You did not, and have yet to come up with anything resembling a functional argument as to why you did not, (other than more blanket statements with zero support and faulty logic). 3 for Me, 0 for You.
4. The passport. I'll have to concede that it is physically possible for a booklet of paper to have been ejected from the impact and found later. I don't necessarily agree that this is without question where the passport came from, but I will have to give you the point nonetheless because the logic isn't bad. Good job!
So the final tally is, 3 for Me, 1 for You.
Though, I'd be curious to know your opinions on those missing black boxes. (Of course, I wouldn't want to be further accused of 'obsessive' interest in 'trivial curiosities'.).
Sooo. As for having proven your point that I am a 'high functioning paranoid', give me a break. Try actually answering my last post with rational responses, and then we'll consider your latest blanket statement. --Though considering your current standing in this debate, I'd say you're probably not up to the task, and I'm guessing that on some deep level, you are vaguely conscious of this; why else your, "I'm taking my toys and I'm going home!" attitude? (Right up there with your liberal use of the Ridicule-as-Argument device.)
Those in denial tend to have soft brains well adjusted to convincing themselves they are right regardless of logic and facts. The interesting thing is that the longer one remains on that path, the softer the brain becomes, and the weaker the spirits and the dimmer the light. You might want to consider this if you are still able.
1) Wow - that gave me a laugh. You admit that strictly speaking, my point is 100% correct. And then you demand I speculate. Whats the point? The only people in the position to know are the people in question - and perhaps the authorities who questioned them. Not everything has a rational explanation - especially when you compound that with the fact that 30 million people were in the physical light cone of the WTC events. You are assuming causality - that everything that happened that day is relevant - when reality is that the actions of the vast majority of those 30 million has no relevance. Any speculation on their actions, no matter how inane, is equally valid - and also equally invalid.
Laughing, are you? Good job. Remember: ridicule is the first line of defense with people who do not like to venture outside dogmatic and/or flawed belief systems. Instead, try thinking:
To start with the semantics in your above argument don't work very well.
The only way to learn about the true nature of an event is to investigate circumstances which suggest causality. If people ignored every event which seemed out of place saying, "I don't want to assume causality," then nobody would ever learn anything.
There is a reason why 'circumstantial evidence' is considered acceptable in courts of law. And there was also, clearly a reason that, as it happened, the dancing Israelis were arrested and held for many weeks. --Oddly enough, they were eventually released into the care of the Israeli authorities with no public announcement as to their guilt or innocence. --Though, when asked after their release about it, the response was, "[...] Our purpose was to document the event."
--Which is pretty interesting in itself. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot lump the dancers into the same category as any other randomly picked out person in New York. --Especially considering the long list of past actions and indictments and activities of Mossad agents through the last half century. Means, Motive, Opportunity and piles of circumstantial evidence were all available for the Mossad, and no good explanation whatsoever for the incriminating actions. Sometimes if a thing looks like a rose and smells like a rose. ..
2) The refusals of the administration to cooperate when investigating the US governments half-assed handling of intelligence and lack of coherent anti-terrorist policy prior to the events has little to do with the actual investigation of the actions of the individuals who carried out the hijacking, or those who financed or directed them.
This would perhaps be true if elements of the U.S. government were not involved in the direction and implementation of the attacks. Even if the attacks were simply allowed to happen and nothing more, (and I think there was a lot more encouragement than that), then investigating the administration is of paramount importance. Again, automatically assuming innocence is just plain dumb when there is means, motive and opportunity in abundance.
3) Is a series of fallacies. The fact of the matter is that the fire started after the crash - the sheer momentum of the airplanes meant that some of its contents - especially from the front (like where the passport probably was) and heaver engines of the airplanes - were expelled relatively intact (except for damage from the fall). Other documented debris found on the roofs of nearby buildings (and on the streets) include an engine, fuselage parts, seats from the forward compartment, and not to mention body parts from the passengers themselves.
Uh huh. But no black boxes? Come on.
--The problem is that there was just so much stage-management surrounding the whole disaster clean-up and release of information that convenient discoveries like incriminating passports just don't strike me as convincing.
You can go here and find something to help you take back control! Hurry, I can see it's not yet too late for you!
Cute. All giggles aside, though, you are typical of the average guy in that you joke without offering any objective reason for why you think my comments aren't valid. --Please consider that a question asked.
Interestingly, nobody who has made the lame tin-foil joke has ever responded with anything even remotely logical or reasonable when I ask them to back up their world view. It's pretty amazing, actually. --I should start saving for later cut & paste sessions some of the weak responses I've gotten. When you start to really examine the pale logic and baseless assumptions used by those who rubber stamp the old Tin Foil Hat joke, it becomes apparent fairly quickly exactly who the clueless ones are.
The world was working just fine thirty years ago without all this high security crap.
All it takes is a couple of wussy secret agencies bombing their own people and crying out a lie, "MOMMMMM! He hit me!" to get a free popsicle and your brother in trouble. --Do that and you get all the ignorant little sheeple lining up to have their eyeballs scanned.
What a stupid, stupid, stupid scenario.
Get the Mossad and American/British secret intelligence to blow up a few busses and trains in London, and suddenly a handful of paranoia companies, (like Carlyle Group, funded with Bush investement, and others like it), are making hundreds of millions of dollars selling their death and paranioa equipment.
Consdier it. ..
If YOU were a CEO and you knew that you could turn a 10 million dollar company into a 500 million dollar company overnight with a few homemade bombs, wouldn't you be tempted? Especially when the Mossad says they'll do it for you, because they hate the Arabs so damned much that they'll do anything to justify their endless agressions against them, (using U.S. and British cash, no less?)
--Assuming, of course, you were a raving greed-driven asshole who had learned from such culture-programming television events like, "Survivor", which teaches that psychopathy is not just acceptible behavior to adopt, but desirable.
Competition at all cost! Survival of the fittest! Jocks torture the Geeks! Old rich men get the young blond girls!
Funny. I always thought that hydrogen/oxygen mixes offered one of the most efficient chemical weight-to-energy ratios there is. --They use the stuff to power rockets for this reason.
I've never heard anybody complain about hydrogen's ability to store energy efficiently.
Out of the hundreds of people that read my first reply only a handful bothered to respond to something they interpreted as a challenge rather than a simple fact of life. I guess you were not one of the smarter ones. My post simply says, if you don't know shit then don't speak more shit.
Jeez. You're calling my intelligence into question?
Look. You fell for the big lie and now you're carrying a gun and thinking you're fighting the good fight against bad people. You are a tool. I've had numerous opportunities to speak with people working in high level international politics, and I can tell you that you are privately laughed at for having been stupid enough to have fallen for the lie. You are a tool. You are being used. You are not defending the world. You are being used to destroy it. I am the one who knows what he is talking about. You are the one swimming in ignorance. The game of war and politics is primarily about getting other people to die for you so that you can make money and gain power. This is why the Middle East threat was manufactured by consent and agreement.
Your stated 'case' consists of 3 irrelevancies: dancing israeli's, investigations you didn't like, and a passport on a pile of rubble.
The first is an assumption of intent and purpose (and provides no linkage to those responsible to taking over the planes), the second is an opinion that I don't share, and the third doesn't even seem sinister. There was paper fluttering down for hours after the event - that one stapled booklet of paper ended up towards the top instead of the bottom isn't shocking.
Wow. That's some amazingly weak thinking.
1. How do you explain a group of Israelis having a camera set up to tape the events of 9/11 as it happened and then dancing with joy after the fact? You call it unrelated, an assumption of intent with no linkage to those responsible for the attacks, which while strictly accurate doesn't do anything to invalidate the question. How do you rationally explain them? --And saying that there were also people dancing in the Middle East too is, I'm afraid, not a rational argument. Nor is simply repeating that the dancers are 'irrelevant' and that they prove nothing, (and then folding your arms with a defiant pout?). That's how five year-olds argue.
2. You were satisfied with the 9/11 investigations, despite the destruction of evidence, the refusals of the Bush administration to participate and the lack of proper explanations for all the various holes in the official story? I don't even know what to say.
3. Think: That passport was supposedly compacted inside a crashing airplane, then exploded in a fireball and allowed to burn for fifteen minutes or so. Then it was brought down inside a collapsing office tower. And you're telling me you think it is reasonable that it should appear undamaged on top of the rubble heap? Again. I don't even know what to say without resorting to the kinds of insults a five year-old might offer your intelligence.
Honestly. If you are truly invested in your statements, then you are either very stupid, or you are in total denial, in which case you are FAR beyond any help I might offer.
You can only see the world as it is if you choose to.
The trouble is that embracing lies defines one's spiritual path in a very destructive way. --Seeking the lower self ultimately results in the final dissolution of the soul. The soul is there to experience life. To hide from life within comfortable fabrications is to deny existence.
I'm not the previous poster you were dealing with, but I just have to jump in here.
Back in Jr. High, when a guy was faced with an argument he didn't have the mind or spirit to answer with, he'd fall back on one to two ways of dealing:
1. Brute force.
2. Smarmy Joking of exactly the same kind you just employed.
I've been there and done it, so I know it when I see it.
--You just got burned for saying (yet another) thoughtless thing, and you didn't have any way of dealing with it other than to joke about it.
Perhaps you ought to stop in your tracks and do some hard thinking of your own about WHY people kill and the nature of politics and population manipulation. It's entirely within your ability to do so. Believing in emotional arguments and spouting patriotic ding-dongs like you have been is what happens when you have been made a fool of; when you've been used.
Being a dumb-ass tool is your choice, and there's no reason anybody should care, except the problem here is that you are being used to bring misery into the world.
--If you really want to make the world a better place, and it sounds like you do, then you have GOT to stop for a minute and ask where your ideas all came from. It's essential if you ever want to get off the merry-go-round.
P.S. I've never been employed by the military, but I have a brother who is, he's currently serving in the Middle East carrying a rifle. He's seen it first-hand and he'd tell you to your face that you are a damned fool if you really believe the pep-talk shite you actually bought and are now spouting.
What else would you suggest? Do nothing and continue as always? You know by the nature of politics this cannot happen and the government will feel the need to take "action" as spurred by the masses. The critical input is -what- action is to be taken.
The problem is believing the lies.
If people didn't embrace the falsehoods, then psychopathic leaders would not rise to the tops of all the power structures.
This lesson and the many painful ones to follow are the way we learn as souls not to give up our minds to others for the sake of easy answers.
The best solution would be to remove the current leadership in the U.S., drive out the elitists, and dismantle all the corrupt systems. If everybody were wise and awake, this could happen easily and bloodlessly and almost automatically. But the reason we are all here is that we are not all wise and awake. We learn those qualities by living through the misery which results from not being wise and awake.
--And part of learning is to talk openly about the events which are unfolding around us.
Right... I read what you wrote. And I understood it completely. You read a bunch of conspiracy websites, and decided that they seemed much more believable than government and MSM reports.
No, you read what I wrote and you made poor generalized assumptions.
You also appear to have an odd bias; If I understand your words correctly, then anything which is not a government report or an 'MSM' report, (whatever that is), then it is a 'conspiracy' web-site.
You also singled out one (still entirely valid) point, (dancing Israelis), from among several also entirely valid points, (which you ignored), and you didn't say anything which answers the question those dancing Israelis pose other than to point out that some people were dancing in Palestine as well, (which does absolutely nothing to invalidate the point; I'll explain the logic there if you really need me to), and you then assumed that I am unable to detect propaganda if it happens to originate from the Middle East.
Thanks, but my thinking is not as broken as you ASSUME it to be, (or as yours is, it seems).
And I've read the conspiracy sites that use the 'dancing spies' as evidence - they all end up throwing in some idiotic (and obviously false) 'fact' in like: there were no Jews killed in 9/11. Please...
Good for you. Perhaps you ought to read more than a bunch of dumb conspiracy web-sites and government reports before making such moth-eaten blanket statements.
Slashdot Mirror
I started reducing my sugar intake and suddenly, I find most processed foods too sweet to eat without grimacing.
The more I become aware of how the food industry works in all its varied levels, the more I find myself gravitating towards things which are actually good for the body and mind. It took surprisingly little effort, and I now really enjoy what I eat, I feel really good after eating it, and I literally cannot stomach much of the stuff generally considered normal in the North American diet. I remember actually enjoying McDonnald's food, but these days a Rotton Ronald burger tastes like it's made from patties of shit.
--After I started eating free range beef and other organic foods, there's no going back. Holy smokes! I had no idea beef and chicken could taste and smell so amazing! Most people are walking around with dead taste buds and fogged brains. When the clarity starts to come as you de-tox, it's like walking through a door into another world. That was my experience, anyway.
-FL
But I know what you mean.
Though in my little time-travel-to-show-off-technology fantasy, I travel back in time to 1977 or 1978, shortly after Star Wars came out, and open up a laptop for my childhood friends back then, (who were big Star Wars fans, naturally), and load up one of the better Lucasarts titles. I'd let everybody play for an afternoon, tell them that you can get the new Star Wars 'electronic game' Sears for $99.95, and then vanish the next day forever so that no adult would believe ever them.
How cool a story would they have to tell amongst themselves then? And how nuts would parents be driven in seeking out a toy store which carried the Star Wars 'electronic game'?
Ah. . . Childhood!
-FL
Okay, yes, you are technically correct, but you're also splitting hairs.
From the Aspartame promotional website. .
Anyway, the point here is not who is most right and most wrong in the picky details. The point is that Aspartame is toxic and that the corporations and government boards are lying through their teeth about it. That's what really matters in the final analysis, wouldn't you agree?
-FL
Perhaps you should revisit that one. After reading through everything I could get my hands on regarding Aspartame, I came to the conclusion that the toxic effects are by no means mythological.
Aspartame DOES contain methanol (wood alcohol). This has never been disputed.
Part of the advertising Monsanto (the creator of Aspartame), does to counter is to say that some fruit and vegetable juices, like Tomato juice, also contain small amounts of methanol, and since nobody ever died from drinking vegetable juice, the alarmists should shut up and go home. It is important to remember, however, that when occurring naturally, (like in tomato juice), methanol never appears alone. In every case, ethanol is present, and usually in much higher amounts. Ethanol is an antidote for methanol toxicity in humans. In diet pop, however, there is no ethanol present and so the methanol is absorbed and carries on to have its toxic effects. Pretty straight forward.
Interestingly, Monsanto uses the internet to spread the idea that Aspartame toxicity is an urban legend in much the same way that an urban legend would spread, except Monsanto has the advantage of being able to push with lots of extra dollars.
It's just as inadvisable to completely disregard everything said on the internet as it is to believe it wholesale. At some point a little work is required from the viewer. Nobody can be entirely trusted to give the right answers, so people need to dig and think for themselves.
-FL
Is that silicate gel stuff re-usable? If so, then clearly the arguments against it lose a lot of validity. --Namely, that since it takes lots of energy to fabricate the gel, it is therefore not as efficient as hydrogen initially appears.
-FL
Interesting. I've never bothered with this particular debate before and so I've never heard the responses the other side has developed. I guess I'd have to say this; Religion is a choice, whereas all those systems of government you mentioned are inevitabilities; that is even if you (or your society) chooses against one, you automatically find yourself participating in another; even the far extreme, anarchism, ends up being a default ideology.
That being the case, even if all of those systems of government are fool's games, they are not something you can hold against the participants in quite the same way you can point at religion and say, "You might want to reconsider that."
In essence, religion is a poor excuse for war, but just because some folks believe it is, does not mean that religion itself is a sham or inherently wrong.
Actually, I disagree with this on a fundamental level. Is a dormant virus which can infect and cause illness in another good or bad?
I believe that all the major religions are falsehoods designed to enslave and proliferate themselves. Everybody who follows a lie is pouring the energy of their collective belief down a black hole, which contributes to the continued enslavement of humanity.
See, I consider all religions to have been deliberately planted by malevolent beings with the purpose of harvesting humanity. (That's the pulp sci-fi version, but in essence it's also the core of what I currently think is the case.)
Works like this. .
The crucifixion of Christ, (for one of many instances), was an act. A falsehood designed to perpetuate a certain train of thinking; "Christ was a really cool teacher, and he suffered and died for some ephemeral reason. Therefore, since he was my really cool teacher, I should attempt follow his example. So now when the psychopaths of the world come to torment me, rather than say, "NO!" I will instead 'turn the other cheek' 'forgive and forget' and 'love thine enemy'.
I consider these little phrases to be psychological conditioning designed to enable the feeding of higher beings, whose food is the thought energy of misery and suffering.
Pretty way-out, I realize, but not without its supporting evidence by way of UFO encounters and the various probings into the spiritual realm. There's a whole lot of aware entities out there and a whole lot of them are hungry and nasty. Pretending that they're not there is stupid, (sticking your head in the sand only makes your bottom half an easy target), and hoping that a false savior is going to help out is a misnomer. Christ is still a powerful entity unto himself, and he will help when asked, but he isn't going to save anybody. You have to do that yourself. And the foolish religion surrounding Christ is a giant trap designed to lock people down like cattle. If Christ was a spiritual teacher of any weight whatsoever, one of his most important messages was almost certainly, "Do Not Follow Me! Not following is a key. The path to enlightenment is unique to each individual. I am just here to show that it is possible. Be true to yourself! YOU must do the work! Blindly following instructions is worse than doing nothing." (Or something to that effect.)
Typically, if everybody is doing something without having first critically examined it, (ie, organized religion), it's probably a good idea to not do it yourself.
Christ was NOT a shepherd. --Sheep are sheared and then eaten. No thank-you.
-FL
-FL
According to this story, it was unofficially determined that the five men were indeed Mossad operatives. This is from a Jewish paper, suggesting that this detail is probably factual, while those aspects of the story which seem to tone down the level of Mossad involvement in 9-11 are also possibly just that; toned down, or even outright falsehoods.
Once you know the lean and bias of a journal, you just lean the other way in order to zero in on where the truth might really sit.
The Bush administration didn't cooperate with the parts of the investigation looking into how they bungled anti-terrorism measures prior to 9/11. At best - thats indicative of a scandalous lack of attention given to Al-Qaeda - not involvement.
Can't a scandalous lack of attention have been deliberate? It sounds very much as though it had been, particularly with regard to the many reports from FBI agents being told to back off in their investigations of the Bin Ladens and their hirelings once Bush got into office. --And if a lack of attention was deliberate, could not further involvement have also been possible? We'll never know through the investigation.
Identifying the hijackers, following the paper/money trail,etc is a completely seperate business - and I don;t recall any complaints from the 9/11 commission, or any other investigative bodies about that aspect
Problem is, I've heard exactly nothing from the government regarding the many allegations of pre-9/11 insider trading. --A lot of money was made by dumping stocks in big companies which had offices in the World Trade Center. There is no question as to whether or not this happened and that the activity was almost certainly the result of foreknowledge of the attacks, but there has been zero follow-up on this when it would have been (and still could be) easy enough to do. Here's an essay with notes detailing this issue. The thinking is that the CIA and people connected to them were probably involved in making some of those high-profit trades because they would have been among those in the know beforehand. Lots of dirty hands.
Point 4) My theory for the black boxes vs passports? Passports are easily identifiable by any onlooker. A black box is just another hunk of scrap metal in a pile of scrap. Remember - the data is designed to survive a crash - not the casing - who knows what a flight data recorder box will look like after a 1400 foot fall?
To be honest, I pondered that very question myself until I realized that black boxes are specifically designed to survive falling from heights of considerably more than 1400 feet. They are also painted red, or day-glo orange with white stripes so that they can be easily found in wreckage. The engineers were thinking about these problems.
Then I ran across this item which suggests that the black boxes were indeed found, but quickly spirited away into the hands of the FBI. If the story from the fire-fighters is true, then why would the government not want anybody to know what was going on aboard those planes, and then lie to the public about not finding the boxes?
Without wanting to make any knee-jerk assumptions, the curious mind can't help but wonder at the blank spots, at the fishy smell, and the total avoidance of these subjects in the official press.
-FL
Yes. The passport was found a distance away from 'Ground Zero'. I accepted that this was part of the story shortly after my first post.
I didn't want to give you that satisfaction, though, because you sounded like another smarmy geek who, "Doesn't Believe in Conspiracies."
So I decided to annoy you for saying that the passport was found before the towers collapsed, which was not true. Figured you might go away.
Guess that didn't work. So, yes. You were right about the passport not being on ground zero.
Although, I might as well say that I think you use the term 'conspiracy lunatic' entirely too freely. The U.S. government has acted many times in many ways to suggest that there is a great deal of lying and manipulating going on. --The attacks on 9-11 themselves were the fruits of a big conspiracy. (A secret plan brought to fruition!) People who say, 'there is no such thing as conspiracies' are thus flat wrong. Conspiracies, many even by good ol' Americans, have been historically documented. They happen very, very easily, especially when there are geeks out there who are too emotionally damaged to examine anything except ways to prop up the official story.
So, yes. The passport was found a few blocks away from ground zero. But this does not mean that 9-11 went down the way it was officially described. If a black box can be spirited away by the FBI, (or whoever), then an incriminating passport can just as easily be left behind.
-FL
Of COURSE a piece of media is going reflect the viewpoints of the person/people that created it!
Anybody who truly believes that a 'simulation' is actually representational of the real world is going to get a rude shock.
The problem, is that on some level, people really do believe that games are representational of reality. --Just look at all the people who think war is fun, and who watched eagerly as American troops rolled into Bagdhad, all with little images of Command & Conquer dancing before their eyes.
-FL
Those who argue 'the good side' of religion are ALWAYS thinking through severe myopia. Look around you; World War III is currently igniting on a global scale entirely because of religion. Geek game designers, despite their own over-reactionary limiting biases, (against spirituality), are smart enough to recognize the tom-fool sham that religion is.
So YES, it's going to appear in the media they create.
I find it interesting that fiction writers, (that is, people who have learned how to think effectively enough to be able to write a book), are also generally aware that religion is for chumps.
I hope that doesn't sound too harsh, but honestly, religion takes a few good points from spiritual philosophy and warps them into mind-numbing brain poison designed to enslave and limit.
-FL
I checked the newsday article. It doesn't say anything about the passport hitting the ground before the tower collapsed. As for the passport belonging to one of the hijackers. . , nobody was ever debating that. The question was whether or not it was likly for the passport to have been found where it was said to have been found, and not simply planted.
And thats not to mention the 9/11 Commission - whose official report confirms this. But don't worry about it - its a lot easier to have a conspiracy theory when you don't let FACTS get in the way.
Don't make blind accusations and throw the word, 'facts' at me in all-caps until you figure out what is even being discussed, okay?
-FL
But I think I've posted enough to prove my point - you're a high functioning paranoid. In your mind speculation=facts, reported facts=faked, and everything that doesn't fit must be part of a conspiracy. Good for you... but don't confuse your mental illness for clear thinking.
Another bold & broad statement made while neatly avoiding actually responding to all but one of the points being discussed. --I note you tend to be one of those who likes to make big statements and put them forth with an air of authority as though this alone will make them true. This is, incidentally, one of the tactics of the Bush admin.
You think you've put forth enough evidence to prove that I am a 'high functioning paranoid' (whatever that is)? Okay. Just for fun, let's tally up our score. .
1. Going waaaay back to your first Blanket Statement. --You claimed that I was getting all my information and thinking from the, 'Cairo Dailies'. I hope you'll note that none of what we've been dealing with here has come from any such source. (Except the comments from one of the 5 dancing Israelis, which originated on an Israeli talk-show). If you search through my past comments here on mighty Slashdot, you would similarly note that I exercise rather more care than you suggest in examining the details of our world. Your first blanket statement was inaccurate when you uttered it and remains so now. 1 point for Me, 0 for You.
2. Your claim that the Dancing Israelis are utterly irrelevant because of your causation theory still doesn't make any sense, as I tried to illustrate as best I was able in my last post. You've not bothered to respond to that, (probably because you are beginning to see the faults in your argument and don't know how to respond without losing face). So I'll take that as another point against you. So, 2 points for Me, 0 for You.
3. I found the Bush administration's refusal to cooperate with the investigation significant, and indicative of possible guilt. You did not, and have yet to come up with anything resembling a functional argument as to why you did not, (other than more blanket statements with zero support and faulty logic). 3 for Me, 0 for You.
4. The passport. I'll have to concede that it is physically possible for a booklet of paper to have been ejected from the impact and found later. I don't necessarily agree that this is without question where the passport came from, but I will have to give you the point nonetheless because the logic isn't bad. Good job!
So the final tally is, 3 for Me, 1 for You.
Though, I'd be curious to know your opinions on those missing black boxes. (Of course, I wouldn't want to be further accused of 'obsessive' interest in 'trivial curiosities'.).
Sooo. As for having proven your point that I am a 'high functioning paranoid', give me a break. Try actually answering my last post with rational responses, and then we'll consider your latest blanket statement. --Though considering your current standing in this debate, I'd say you're probably not up to the task, and I'm guessing that on some deep level, you are vaguely conscious of this; why else your, "I'm taking my toys and I'm going home!" attitude? (Right up there with your liberal use of the Ridicule-as-Argument device.)
Those in denial tend to have soft brains well adjusted to convincing themselves they are right regardless of logic and facts. The interesting thing is that the longer one remains on that path, the softer the brain becomes, and the weaker the spirits and the dimmer the light. You might want to consider this if you are still able.
-FL
Laughing, are you? Good job. Remember: ridicule is the first line of defense with people who do not like to venture outside dogmatic and/or flawed belief systems. Instead, try thinking:
To start with the semantics in your above argument don't work very well.
The only way to learn about the true nature of an event is to investigate circumstances which suggest causality. If people ignored every event which seemed out of place saying, "I don't want to assume causality," then nobody would ever learn anything.
There is a reason why 'circumstantial evidence' is considered acceptable in courts of law. And there was also, clearly a reason that, as it happened, the dancing Israelis were arrested and held for many weeks. --Oddly enough, they were eventually released into the care of the Israeli authorities with no public announcement as to their guilt or innocence. --Though, when asked after their release about it, the response was, "[...] Our purpose was to document the event."
--Which is pretty interesting in itself. I'm sorry, but I simply cannot lump the dancers into the same category as any other randomly picked out person in New York. --Especially considering the long list of past actions and indictments and activities of Mossad agents through the last half century. Means, Motive, Opportunity and piles of circumstantial evidence were all available for the Mossad, and no good explanation whatsoever for the incriminating actions. Sometimes if a thing looks like a rose and smells like a rose. .
2) The refusals of the administration to cooperate when investigating the US governments half-assed handling of intelligence and lack of coherent anti-terrorist policy prior to the events has little to do with the actual investigation of the actions of the individuals who carried out the hijacking, or those who financed or directed them.
This would perhaps be true if elements of the U.S. government were not involved in the direction and implementation of the attacks. Even if the attacks were simply allowed to happen and nothing more, (and I think there was a lot more encouragement than that), then investigating the administration is of paramount importance. Again, automatically assuming innocence is just plain dumb when there is means, motive and opportunity in abundance.
3) Is a series of fallacies. The fact of the matter is that the fire started after the crash - the sheer momentum of the airplanes meant that some of its contents - especially from the front (like where the passport probably was) and heaver engines of the airplanes - were expelled relatively intact (except for damage from the fall). Other documented debris found on the roofs of nearby buildings (and on the streets) include an engine, fuselage parts, seats from the forward compartment, and not to mention body parts from the passengers themselves.
Uh huh. But no black boxes? Come on.
--The problem is that there was just so much stage-management surrounding the whole disaster clean-up and release of information that convenient discoveries like incriminating passports just don't strike me as convincing.
-FL
CNN disagrees with you.
Thanks for playing.
-FL
Cute. All giggles aside, though, you are typical of the average guy in that you joke without offering any objective reason for why you think my comments aren't valid. --Please consider that a question asked.
Interestingly, nobody who has made the lame tin-foil joke has ever responded with anything even remotely logical or reasonable when I ask them to back up their world view. It's pretty amazing, actually. --I should start saving for later cut & paste sessions some of the weak responses I've gotten. When you start to really examine the pale logic and baseless assumptions used by those who rubber stamp the old Tin Foil Hat joke, it becomes apparent fairly quickly exactly who the clueless ones are.
-FL
All it takes is a couple of wussy secret agencies bombing their own people and crying out a lie, "MOMMMMM! He hit me!" to get a free popsicle and your brother in trouble. --Do that and you get all the ignorant little sheeple lining up to have their eyeballs scanned.
What a stupid, stupid, stupid scenario.
Get the Mossad and American/British secret intelligence to blow up a few busses and trains in London, and suddenly a handful of paranoia companies, (like Carlyle Group, funded with Bush investement, and others like it), are making hundreds of millions of dollars selling their death and paranioa equipment.
Consdier it. .
If YOU were a CEO and you knew that you could turn a 10 million dollar company into a 500 million dollar company overnight with a few homemade bombs, wouldn't you be tempted? Especially when the Mossad says they'll do it for you, because they hate the Arabs so damned much that they'll do anything to justify their endless agressions against them, (using U.S. and British cash, no less?)
--Assuming, of course, you were a raving greed-driven asshole who had learned from such culture-programming television events like, "Survivor", which teaches that psychopathy is not just acceptible behavior to adopt, but desirable.
Competition at all cost! Survival of the fittest! Jocks torture the Geeks! Old rich men get the young blond girls!
Bah.
-FL
How will you keep all the little sheeple in their boxes if they find out that they don't have to slave for a living?
It's nice to dream, though. .
-FL
I've never heard anybody complain about hydrogen's ability to store energy efficiently.
Electric cars are certainly pretty cool, though.
-FL
Free thought is expensive to maintain. Sounds to me like Wired got chumped.
No worries. Those eager to seek the message will find it, nobody can stop it entirely from leaking through the trawling net.
-FL
Jeez. You're calling my intelligence into question?
Look. You fell for the big lie and now you're carrying a gun and thinking you're fighting the good fight against bad people. You are a tool. I've had numerous opportunities to speak with people working in high level international politics, and I can tell you that you are privately laughed at for having been stupid enough to have fallen for the lie. You are a tool. You are being used. You are not defending the world. You are being used to destroy it. I am the one who knows what he is talking about. You are the one swimming in ignorance. The game of war and politics is primarily about getting other people to die for you so that you can make money and gain power. This is why the Middle East threat was manufactured by consent and agreement.
-FL
The first is an assumption of intent and purpose (and provides no linkage to those responsible to taking over the planes), the second is an opinion that I don't share, and the third doesn't even seem sinister. There was paper fluttering down for hours after the event - that one stapled booklet of paper ended up towards the top instead of the bottom isn't shocking.
Wow. That's some amazingly weak thinking.
1. How do you explain a group of Israelis having a camera set up to tape the events of 9/11 as it happened and then dancing with joy after the fact? You call it unrelated, an assumption of intent with no linkage to those responsible for the attacks, which while strictly accurate doesn't do anything to invalidate the question. How do you rationally explain them? --And saying that there were also people dancing in the Middle East too is, I'm afraid, not a rational argument. Nor is simply repeating that the dancers are 'irrelevant' and that they prove nothing, (and then folding your arms with a defiant pout?). That's how five year-olds argue.
2. You were satisfied with the 9/11 investigations, despite the destruction of evidence, the refusals of the Bush administration to participate and the lack of proper explanations for all the various holes in the official story? I don't even know what to say.
3. Think: That passport was supposedly compacted inside a crashing airplane, then exploded in a fireball and allowed to burn for fifteen minutes or so. Then it was brought down inside a collapsing office tower. And you're telling me you think it is reasonable that it should appear undamaged on top of the rubble heap? Again. I don't even know what to say without resorting to the kinds of insults a five year-old might offer your intelligence.
Honestly. If you are truly invested in your statements, then you are either very stupid, or you are in total denial, in which case you are FAR beyond any help I might offer.
You can only see the world as it is if you choose to.
The trouble is that embracing lies defines one's spiritual path in a very destructive way. --Seeking the lower self ultimately results in the final dissolution of the soul. The soul is there to experience life. To hide from life within comfortable fabrications is to deny existence.
-FL
I'm not the previous poster you were dealing with, but I just have to jump in here.
Back in Jr. High, when a guy was faced with an argument he didn't have the mind or spirit to answer with, he'd fall back on one to two ways of dealing:
1. Brute force.
2. Smarmy Joking of exactly the same kind you just employed.
I've been there and done it, so I know it when I see it.
--You just got burned for saying (yet another) thoughtless thing, and you didn't have any way of dealing with it other than to joke about it.
Perhaps you ought to stop in your tracks and do some hard thinking of your own about WHY people kill and the nature of politics and population manipulation. It's entirely within your ability to do so. Believing in emotional arguments and spouting patriotic ding-dongs like you have been is what happens when you have been made a fool of; when you've been used.
Being a dumb-ass tool is your choice, and there's no reason anybody should care, except the problem here is that you are being used to bring misery into the world.
--If you really want to make the world a better place, and it sounds like you do, then you have GOT to stop for a minute and ask where your ideas all came from. It's essential if you ever want to get off the merry-go-round.
P.S. I've never been employed by the military, but I have a brother who is, he's currently serving in the Middle East carrying a rifle. He's seen it first-hand and he'd tell you to your face that you are a damned fool if you really believe the pep-talk shite you actually bought and are now spouting.
-FL
The problem is believing the lies.
If people didn't embrace the falsehoods, then psychopathic leaders would not rise to the tops of all the power structures.
This lesson and the many painful ones to follow are the way we learn as souls not to give up our minds to others for the sake of easy answers.
The best solution would be to remove the current leadership in the U.S., drive out the elitists, and dismantle all the corrupt systems. If everybody were wise and awake, this could happen easily and bloodlessly and almost automatically. But the reason we are all here is that we are not all wise and awake. We learn those qualities by living through the misery which results from not being wise and awake.
--And part of learning is to talk openly about the events which are unfolding around us.
-FL
No, you read what I wrote and you made poor generalized assumptions.
You also appear to have an odd bias; If I understand your words correctly, then anything which is not a government report or an 'MSM' report, (whatever that is), then it is a 'conspiracy' web-site.
You also singled out one (still entirely valid) point, (dancing Israelis), from among several also entirely valid points, (which you ignored), and you didn't say anything which answers the question those dancing Israelis pose other than to point out that some people were dancing in Palestine as well, (which does absolutely nothing to invalidate the point; I'll explain the logic there if you really need me to), and you then assumed that I am unable to detect propaganda if it happens to originate from the Middle East.
Thanks, but my thinking is not as broken as you ASSUME it to be, (or as yours is, it seems).
And I've read the conspiracy sites that use the 'dancing spies' as evidence - they all end up throwing in some idiotic (and obviously false) 'fact' in like: there were no Jews killed in 9/11. Please...
Good for you. Perhaps you ought to read more than a bunch of dumb conspiracy web-sites and government reports before making such moth-eaten blanket statements.
-FL