Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said.....So... fewer cyclones. Cool, I'm glad we agree

So???

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said..
There is no ruler test... just people who can't comprehend geometry.

I know that, I just wanted Pete to wok it out for himself.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

Pugwash said..
There is no ruler test... just people who can't comprehend geometry.

I know that, I just wanted Pete to wok it out for himself.

We both know that won't happen.

Select to expand quote

Pugwash said.. We both know that won't happen.

I have to admit you're probably right.

But there's a stubborn streak in me that doesn't like giving up.

I've only met Pete once, a while ago and very briefly, but I get the impression, he's an honest caring person. The response from the people, who do know him, to his accident, is a good indication of that.

He obviously doesn't listen to anything we say, so could encouraging him to think help?

Nah, a voice inside me says, youtube has too big a hold.

I rarely watch YouTube.

I do not blindly regurgitate what I've been fed like tv watchers and newspaper readers tend to do.

Nigh on impossible to not be influenced by it unless you are fully aware it's a TOOL to brainwash the people in to thinking in a certain direction.

If you can't get your head around the fact that two 'planes' cannot cause three superstructures to collapse then waking up to all this other stuff like the fraud of man made climate change etc is impossible many times over.

Intelligence has little to no defence against the the reality box in the corner of the room I'm afraid. Logic should give you some defence. The real problem is the psychology of trust.

Repeating what the talking heads have to say - walking dead.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
I rarely watch YouTube.

I do not blindly regurgitate what I've been fed like tv watchers and newspaper readers tend to do.

Nigh on impossible to not be influenced by it unless you are fully aware it's a TOOL to brainwash the people in to thinking in a certain direction.

If you can't get your head around the fact that two 'planes' cannot cause three superstructures to collapse then waking up to all this other stuff like the fraud of man made climate change etc is impossible many times over.

Intelligence has little to no defence against the the reality box in the corner of the room I'm afraid. Logic should give you some defence. The real problem is the psychology of trust.

Repeating what the talking heads have to say - walking dead.

Oh stop being so gullible! You are the one who is blindly regurgitating stuff around here. Look at the fact that you repeated claims about 5G made by someone who has no scientific credentials. Look at the fact that when a website made a claim about the Swiss federation of doctors, you just accepted it without even going to the relevant website to check whether there was any evidence that the doctors had ever made such a claim.

The gullible ones around here are the climate deniers, who swallow lies hook, line and sinker. Just look at a few recent examples;

One of them claims that a court ruled that Mann had to apologise, which was totally wrong.
One of them claimed that "climate warriors" had been stuck in ice, which was totally wrong - they were just a bunch of old guys following an old exploration.
One of them claimed that another climate research ship didn't get within 100km of the Antarctic continent, when I got almost right to the shore.
And you claimed that the Swiss association of doctors came out with a statement against 5G, but despite requests you have provided NO evidence for your claim.

Why not stop throwing abuse and wild claims around and linking to pages that don't provide any evidence, and actually doing some research yourself?

I find it rather disturbing that you can be so ego-centric as to claim that, for example, I should believe you about phone radiation and not what I am told by someone who has spent years researching the area. You think you are a god, but you certainly are not. Why do you find it so hard to respect other people?

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..I find it rather disturbing that you can be so ego-centric as to claim that, for example, I should believe you about phone radiation and not what I am told by someone who has spent years researching the area. You think you are a god, but you certainly are not. Why do you find it so hard to respect other people?

Chris, I think you have Pete wrong here.
He's so convinced by his giant conspiracy theory, he's just trying to wake everybody else up to the delusion they're in.
As he said a bit earlier, intelligence is no help to you, so he doesn't bother to check stuff, if it agrees with him it must be right. If it disagrees with him it's part of the conspiracy. This leaves no room for critical inspection of anything.

You two should check out the inconsistencies around building 7.

I should not believe the evidence that proves to me beyond any shadow of a doubt it was demolished by controlled demolitions - but instead "I should trust someone who has spent years researching the area". In this case that would be NIST.

NIST being the God of the official fairytale.

Why do you find it so hard to hard to respect the physical evidence that points to it being deliberately demolished?

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said.. Why do you find it so hard to hard to respect the physical evidence that points to it being deliberately demolished?

Peter, here's where you are putting words in my mouth again, I've never said one word about 911, in the scheme of your gigantic conspiracy it's irrelevant. And certainly has no bearing on the shape of the Earth or the effects of Climate change.
I believe that various powers that be could be capable of such an act of villainy, but I just don't think it's likely in this case, especially with all the ordinary citizen witnesses and vids showing the planes.

So they may have lied about arguably the largest event of our generation but it has no bearing on their 'facts' concerning man made climate change - really? I tend to at least question liars.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
So they may have lied about arguably the largest event of our generation but it has no bearing on their 'facts' concerning man made climate change - really? I tend to at least question liars.

But Peter, it's your "they" that's confusing you.
you're talking about totally separate "theys" here.
Where is the evidence that almost the whole world is conspiring to deceive the very small minority that are left?
Unless of course, your "they" are the invisible lizard people, who've been around for millennia, with total knowledge of the future, and have been planning all this for ever.

Hey Mike, if you're going to bash your head against the wall, at least put a hard hat on.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
So they may have lied about arguably the largest event of our generation but it has no bearing on their 'facts' concerning man made climate change - really? I tend to at least question liars.

No, you DON'T question a lot of things on the evidence we have. For example, you didn't question the claim that the Swiss doctor's federation spoke out against 5G.

You also don't identify the "they" who were allegedly involved in some bizarre 9/11 cover-up and how the same "they" are allegedly convincing thousands upon thousands of climate scientists to lie.

All you do is to sling foul, disgusting insults at people, claiming that they are lying for some reason you have never provided.

I do not not need to identify who they are or what the motivation was. I am just bringing to light the obvious that the official story of building 7 is a easily verifiable lie.

I prefer to not be part of covering up such a monolithic lie.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
I do not not need to identify who they are or what the motivation was. I am just bringing to light the obvious that the official story of building 7 is a easily verifiable lie.

I prefer to not be part of covering up such a monolithic lie.

But Peter, 9/11 is way off topic here and irrelevant.
And the word "they", the way you use it is meaningless, unless you can define it, could be anything from angels to oxen.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..


You two should check out the inconsistencies around building 7.

I should not believe the evidence that proves to me beyond any shadow of a doubt it was demolished by controlled demolitions - but instead "I should trust someone who has spent years researching the area". In this case that would be NIST.

NIST being the God of the official fairytale.

Why do you find it so hard to hard to respect the physical evidence that points to it being deliberately demolished?

Because the physical evidence you write of appears to be bull****. Have you seen whatever evidence this is? Are you equipped to know the forces involved? Have you calculated the Euler numbers on the girders? Have you worked out the metallurgy and the impacts of heat? Do you know what fuel loads were involved?

Why do you find it so hard to respect the people who say it was NOT deliberately demolished? Are you soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better, soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much smarter, soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better informed than the engineers and others who say that the conspiracy theories are bull****?

You are making an incredibly serious allegation about the NIST - that they were accomplices to mass murder. That is a sickeningly vile charge to throw at people, especially when based on such poor "evidence" and by a person who is so gullible that he hasn't even shown evidence for things he links to.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
I do not not need to identify who they are or what the motivation was. I am just bringing to light the obvious that the official story of building 7 is a easily verifiable lie.

I prefer to not be part of covering up such a monolithic lie.

So you just throw around allegations of conspiracy including complicity in mass murder without having the guts, decency or honesty to even try to back them up.

All my observation tells me categorically Building 7 was brought down by controlled charges and there are hundreds of millions of others if not more who believe the same. My observation is my back up as you call it.

Sickeningly vile to defend the implausible sorry the impossible I think you mean.

What "observations"? Where you there? Are you a metallurgist? Are you a structural engineer?

How much involvement have you had in skyscraper design and demolition?

Do you have any credentials in this area at all? What do you do for a living?

If you have any guts or honesty why have you failed to answer simple questions such as the request to show us where the Swiss doctors' association spoke out against 5G?

Good one Chris, I think you maybe taking the heat off me, but you won't get anywhere

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
What "observations"? Where you there? Are you a metallurgist? Are you a structural engineer?

How much involvement have you had in skyscraper design and demolition?

Do you have any credentials in this area at all? What do you do for a living?

If you have any guts or honesty why have you failed to answer simple questions such as the request to show us where the Swiss doctors' association spoke out against 5G?

No I was not there but there's crystal clear video footage of the collapse and it clearly shows or indicates the bleeding obvious. You know if it looks like a duck....

We owe it to the fallen to challenge NIST in the face of all the different video footage available of the collapse of the 650 foot skyscraper.

Decrepit and others seems to think it's ok to censor contrary opinion on man made climate change.

Do you agree evidence contrary to the NIST version of the event should also be censored by the mainstream media (as it currently is) and by social media etc on the grounds it may offend the people at NIST?

Cheers, D!

What gets me about some of the conspiracy theorists here is three things - one is the enormous arrogance that leads them to believe that a bit of reading on the web makes them experts in subjects that take other people ten years or more to learn. The second is their gullibility, as in the examples I gave earlier. The third is that they are so ready to believe that other people lie.

The odd thing is that I spent years as an investigator by profession. My last couple of contracts included investigating senior people in Defence, and playing a part in taking down one of Australia's most profitable (and least ethical) companies. I love the feeling of sniffing the evidence, finding the smoking gun, and pinning down the bad guys. But it's got to be done with honesty, objectivity, and respect for others as well as respect for logic. The conspiracy theory nutters just love their convoluted trails of biased spin. Real investigations - ones that get results - are not like that.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

Chris 249 said..
What "observations"? Where you there? Are you a metallurgist? Are you a structural engineer?

How much involvement have you had in skyscraper design and demolition?

Do you have any credentials in this area at all? What do you do for a living?

If you have any guts or honesty why have you failed to answer simple questions such as the request to show us where the Swiss doctors' association spoke out against 5G?

No I was not there but there's crystal clear video footage of the collapse and it clearly shows or indicates the bleeding obvious. You know if it looks like a duck....

We owe it to the fallen to challenge NIST in the face of all the different video footage available of the collapse of the 650 foot skyscraper.

Decrepit and others seems to think it's ok to censor contrary opinion on man made climate change.

Do you agree evidence contrary to the NIST version of the event should also be censored by the mainstream media ( as it currently is) and by social media etc on the grounds it may offend the people at NIST?

No, I don't believe evidence should be censored but people also shouldn't talk bull**** and expect it to be respected.

You continue to dodge the questions, which is odd for someone who claims to want to find out the truth.

Do you have any credentials in this area? How do you know how the footage "indicates the bleeding obvious"?

Exactly what about the footage shows what about the collapse?

And, to ask for about the fifth time - what evidence do you have to back up the claims about the Swiss doctors' federations claims on 5G? If you are such an expert at finding out the truth, surely you wouldn't have been so gullible as just to swallow the claim that they spoke out against 5G because it was on a website article, so surely you must have done your homework and checked for the information.

How do I know the video footage indicates the bleeding obvious - well I've watched it about a hundred times and it looks identical to other buildings that were deliberately brought down by demolition teams.

You obviously do not need to be a expert in the field to determine it was a controlled demolition. Watch it.

I have not had time to look in to your other claims regarding 5G.

5G is another subject that is being clearly censored by the mainstream media.

Before too long...

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

Chris 249 said..
What "observations"? Where you there? Are you a metallurgist? Are you a structural engineer?

How much involvement have you had in skyscraper design and demolition?

Do you have any credentials in this area at all? What do you do for a living?

If you have any guts or honesty why have you failed to answer simple questions such as the request to show us where the Swiss doctors' association spoke out against 5G?

No I was not there but there's crystal clear video footage of the collapse and it clearly shows or indicates the bleeding obvious. You know if it looks like a duck....

We owe it to the fallen to challenge NIST in the face of all the different video footage available of the collapse of the 650 foot skyscraper.

Decrepit and others seems to think it's ok to censor contrary opinion on man made climate change.

Do you agree evidence contrary to the NIST version of the event should also be censored by the mainstream media (as it currently is) and by social media etc on the grounds it may offend the people at NIST?

But Pete you've also said previously that the footage was faked and that they weren't real planes but holograms or missiles?
Why is it ok now to rely 100% on the footage.

Nice of you to offer us your unbiased opinion. Pretty easy to superimpose stuff on video.

No plane hit WTC 7

Hang on a minute ???
so the footage is pretty easy to superimpose images onto, but the footage you've seen shows the bleeding obvious.

Riiiiighto then

I watched a repeat of Q and A today.

The grey haired host referred to those who do not accept the evidence as "deniers".

A great example showing the bias of the mainstream media.

As the host of the show in a panel discussion it is not proper for him to offer such a forceful opinion. He is supposed to be independent.

www.technocracy.news/climate-scientists-write-to-un-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
How do I know the video footage indicates the bleeding obvious - well I've watched it about a hundred times and it looks identical to other buildings that were deliberately brought down by demolition teams.

You obviously do not need to be a expert in the field to determine it was a controlled demolition. Watch it.

I have not had time to look in to your other claims regarding 5G.

5G is another subject that is being clearly censored by the mainstream media.

Before too long...

1- Oh for god's sake. What made you an expert on what buildings looks when they are brought down by demolition teams, compared to high-rise buildings of a particular construction that were brought down by fire and impact damage? How many collapses of high-rise buildings of that type have you watched, and under what conditions? How do you know how they collapse in other situations?

What was the construction of the building in question? How many such buildings have come down in what ways, and how did they look?

The weird thing about the stupid conspiracy theories is that they rely on the conspirators being so unbelievably efficient that they stopped anyone from the inside saying anything, but at the same time were so unbelievably stupid that they brought the buildings down in a way that was (allegedly) so different from the way they "should" have collapsed.

2- If you have not had time to look into my claims regarding 5G then you should not be spouting your bull**** claims about how it's dangerous. If you have not done your homework then don't lecture us.

3- Don't be so arrogant as to assume that other people rely on the mainstream media.

If people wonder why I get upset, it's because Peter is calling me, my friends, and (most importantly) my wife liars or fools. My wife is a neuroscientist who spent years researching mobile phone radiation, and Peter is calling her a liar. He is also calling our friends who work in similar fields liars. He is calling me a fool or a liar.

That is a revolting and vile thing for someone to do, when they admit they haven't even checked the stories they rely on when they throw around their vicious, arrogant and foul slurs.