damn the sexist military, when will pregnant women be allowed to serve in combat!LadyLuna said:
AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
Conspiracy Theories
- Thread starter Evvie
- Start date
-
** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.
- Status
I just watched Resurrection last night! I too am confused about it all ...LuckySmiles said:TashaDutch said:LuckySmiles said:
hmm hey thats one of those i really did go on research for... it's really intriguing.. the way he was prenounced dead and the way his autopsy was performed... and then no funural...
i can really see how that got people paranoid... and come up with all those questions..
his mom really did speak in riddles.. if you watch that interview they did back then.. it really gets you wondering...
i doubt that he's still alive... alot of people say we will know in 2014... if the world didnt endray:
after everything i read about it... i have no clue... but i find that sugga guy really suspicious
lol well his mom was a black panther and he was very outspoken politically. He was a very influential voice and motivator of his time. I believe he's dead though lol. His image was a gangster or whatever but he was a trained actor, highly intelligent and only 25 when he died(who doesn't just care about partying and bullshit in their early 20s?). He'd be about 41 now... and likely give obama a run for his money...
Jay-Z did it. lol.
Tupac is dead for sure, imo. There was lots of dodgy stuff surrounding his death but more likely it was cover up for his murder. Suge Knight is dodgy as fuck and remember, all the conspiracy theory stuff surrounding him makes all those guys millions and millions of dollars per year.
Think of it this way, if you're Tupac where the fuck can you hide that no one will recognise you? And even if you found such a place, it's not like you could live well with all that money without attracting attention.
Think of it this way, if you're Tupac where the fuck can you hide that no one will recognise you? And even if you found such a place, it's not like you could live well with all that money without attracting attention.
We may be able to successfully cure cancer one day. But cancer is a naturally occurring blight based upon mutations within our cells. Creating a wonder drug that cures it is worth trillions, simply because we cannot prevent cancer. It will always exist. The drug will always be needed. Polio, on the other hand, is a virus and technically could be eradicated.
So the idea that a cancer treatment wonder drug is hidden to maintain a pharmaceutical profit in other drugs is utterly bonkers. The costs of the medical aid are enormous, the sums of money spent on research are insane. the financial cost upon society is beyond comprehension. The company that came up with such a wonder drug could patent/license or whatever and become the richest most successful drugs company ever. It would also relieve hospital wards, operating lists, waiting lists, and much more.
However, I have heard that drugs companies do still push less effective drugs harder than the more effective ones - as that way they can graduate from one treatment to the next - taking longer, and costing more. That is more believable...
So the idea that a cancer treatment wonder drug is hidden to maintain a pharmaceutical profit in other drugs is utterly bonkers. The costs of the medical aid are enormous, the sums of money spent on research are insane. the financial cost upon society is beyond comprehension. The company that came up with such a wonder drug could patent/license or whatever and become the richest most successful drugs company ever. It would also relieve hospital wards, operating lists, waiting lists, and much more.
However, I have heard that drugs companies do still push less effective drugs harder than the more effective ones - as that way they can graduate from one treatment to the next - taking longer, and costing more. That is more believable...
Well the thing is, "cancer" isn't a single disease and one of the problems with finding a cure for any kind of cancer, as I understand it, is that you'd be essentially inhibiting natural functions the human body needs to survive. Cancer is cell growth, they can cut out the section that's gone into overdrive if it's small enough, if it's not embedded in life-critical tissue, and IF they get it all. Course there's also chemo, which kills the cells, and unfortunately kills a bunch of healthy cells too and still isn't a cure.Shaun__ said:
As far as a cure though...the conditions that lead to cancer arise from mutations generated in DNA I think? So even if it was possible to completely cure cancer it would seem to me it would require DNA manipulation on a level we're not even close to, AND it would still have to be performed well before the tumour invades critical organs.
Jupiter551 said:
I never said the cures would be pleasant to use. Link
or without side effects.
When I say cure I mean killing cancer cells and leaving most patients alive when finished.
Shaun__ said:
Is this about using the redesigned HIV virus? I cant get to your New York times link without a subscription. :crybaby:
If it is, this therapy will only have applications to a certain subset of cancers. I am of the same mindset as some others in this thread. Cancer will never be curable. Some cancers certainly, we are already there with a few of them. One drug or technique to cure all cancers? I do not foresee that happening in any of our lifetimes. :twocents-02cents:
I dont think anyone said "one cure for all" anything... very obviously any cures would need to be strain specific if/when they became available. Perhaps even being DNA based or cultivated by individual if we get to that point of sophistication with our tech.
But heh, I ain't no daaktah so what do I know.....
But heh, I ain't no daaktah so what do I know.....
LadyLuna
Inactive Cam Model
- Mar 8, 2010
- 6,710
- 9,440
- 293
- Twitter Username
- @EveMatteo
- MFC Username
- LadyLuna
- Streamate Username
- Lady_Luna
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/store/42697/LadyLuna
Well, the 9/11 thread provoked a chat about conspiracy theories, so I thought it a good time to revive this thread.
Well, I do have something to add to that old post I made, way back when.
Whenever a tragedy strikes, there's always two types of conspiracy theories that pop up. The first I have no problem with, and think that it's a good thing for us to consider. That is that the government was behind the tragedy. As long as we keep looking for this, the government will probably refrain from actually being behind any tragedy. (A subset of this is that some other group is behind it, which again, no problem with conspiracy theories that wish to assign blame to one group or another, as long as they are doing a good job of actually looking at facts, and don't take it to the stage of "let's go attack that group!")
The other type though, that one is dangerous and infuriating. That's the "it never happened" type. FUCK THEM. By saying that a terrible thing never even happened, they are spitting on the pain of other people.
That's all.
Well, I do have something to add to that old post I made, way back when.
Whenever a tragedy strikes, there's always two types of conspiracy theories that pop up. The first I have no problem with, and think that it's a good thing for us to consider. That is that the government was behind the tragedy. As long as we keep looking for this, the government will probably refrain from actually being behind any tragedy. (A subset of this is that some other group is behind it, which again, no problem with conspiracy theories that wish to assign blame to one group or another, as long as they are doing a good job of actually looking at facts, and don't take it to the stage of "let's go attack that group!")
The other type though, that one is dangerous and infuriating. That's the "it never happened" type. FUCK THEM. By saying that a terrible thing never even happened, they are spitting on the pain of other people.
That's all.
I believe in some conspiracy theories.
When things don't fit perfectly, it creates doubt. That's okay. Do I think the government did 9/11? I really don't know. Was there something "off" about 9/11? Definitely. Not all of the pieces fit.
I don't think it's wise to close your mind off from possibilities. It doesn't matter what you believe one way or the other, but to be so sure, without a doubt? That seems ignorant to me.
When things don't fit perfectly, it creates doubt. That's okay. Do I think the government did 9/11? I really don't know. Was there something "off" about 9/11? Definitely. Not all of the pieces fit.
I don't think it's wise to close your mind off from possibilities. It doesn't matter what you believe one way or the other, but to be so sure, without a doubt? That seems ignorant to me.
How are the ones saying it never happened really any worse than the idiots that blame the government? Both refuse facts, both are harmful. I get being skeptical of everything but both groups are equally shitty imo. When something can be proved without any doubt and people refuse to accept it, it can also be dangerous and infuriating.LadyLuna said:
Seems ignorant to go against what can be proven and instead believe in something with zero proof. I mean, I guess if you remove all research and reason then yeah I guess maybe the government was in on it. 2+2=4 but Imma keep an opened mind about it and not close off all possibilities cause maybe it equals 8.PlayboyMegan said:
LadyLuna
Inactive Cam Model
- Mar 8, 2010
- 6,710
- 9,440
- 293
- Twitter Username
- @EveMatteo
- MFC Username
- LadyLuna
- Streamate Username
- Lady_Luna
- Clips4Sale URL
- http://clips4sale.com/store/42697/LadyLuna
PunkInDrublic said:
In linear alegbra I learned that you can have sets where + means something different. So + could mean + 1 + . Or + 6 + . You can come up with all sorts of crazy stuff that way, but it had an actual real-world application that I don't recall at this time. x.x
Closing your mind to all possibilities except the one you think you know is stupid. Yes, 2 + 2 = 4 in most every situation. But what if what you thought was 2 was really a 3? Then you have 3 + 3 = 6. I agree that it's important to be able to know what is an actual fact, and what is not. And I agree that once all facts have been verified to be true, it's important to agree with what conclusions those facts lead to. But conspiracy theories which involve "who was really behind this?" and "did the government have a chance to prevent this?" do not harm anyone unless the people who believe them decide to act on that belief.
Why is the other one worse? If you're a young child and your mother was just killed in a shooting, and people you talk to on a regular basis start trying to convince you that your mother was never actually shot, what would that do to you? If they're saying that she's shot, but that the government was behind it, all that does is provide you incentive to change the government. But if they say the terrible event which caused your mother to drop out of your life never even happened, then they are saying you shouldn't be grieving about her loss because she's not even gone. That is a hell of a lot more dangerous.
WTC 1 and 2 looked weird at the time but I thought nothing of it. I never knew about WTC 7 until recently. Its either a conspiracy or someone needs to sue the people who built those buildings.
This is a Chinese building that did not collapse due to a "fire"
Every other steel framed building that has ever caught fire didn't collapse either http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... fires.html
http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/ Once you get past the hyperbole and the rhetoric on both sides - and the credibility of the authors - it does still pose some questions. The video shows windows being blown out and flames 10 floors below the level where the the WTC 2 building is collapsing. It looks so much like a controlled implosion and the building wreckage complicates that even further.
This is a Chinese building that did not collapse due to a "fire"
Every other steel framed building that has ever caught fire didn't collapse either http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... fires.html
http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/ Once you get past the hyperbole and the rhetoric on both sides - and the credibility of the authors - it does still pose some questions. The video shows windows being blown out and flames 10 floors below the level where the the WTC 2 building is collapsing. It looks so much like a controlled implosion and the building wreckage complicates that even further.
Yes, it's complicated. Never have buildings the size of the WTC been impacted by aircraft full of jet fuel, been on fire and collapsed on themselves. There are no "experts" in that kind of thing. Anyone who says this or that "must have been" the cause is guessing.
Red7227 said:WTC 1 and 2 looked weird at the time but I thought nothing of it. I never knew about WTC 7 until recently. Its either a conspiracy or someone needs to sue the people who built those buildings.
This is a Chinese building that did not collapse due to a "fire"
Every other steel framed building that has ever caught fire didn't collapse either http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi ... fires.html
http://video.cpt12.org/video/2270078138/ Once you get past the hyperbole and the rhetoric on both sides - and the credibility of the authors - it does still pose some questions. The video shows windows being blown out and flames 10 floors below the level where the the WTC 2 building is collapsing. It looks so much like a controlled implosion and the building wreckage complicates that even further.
You are right steel frame building don't normally collapse just from fire. On the other hand, I am not aware of any other steel frame building that was engulfed in flames for 7 hours, with a automatic sprinkler that completely failed. Needless to say on 9/11 the fire department had higher priority problems to deal with than trying to put out the fire in a completely evacuated building like WTC 7. Where as in most situations including the Bejing fire the fire department is working really hard and putting the fire which would result in lower temperature. That didn't happen on 9/11 for perfectly understandable reasons.
The Popular Mechanic article has nice explanation and for more detail you can http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874 can read the NIST report which I looked at years ago. The NIST report recommendation was to provide more support for open plan buildings like WTC7. On the hand structural engineers don't design building to assuming that none of the fire suppression system will work and there is no fire department around.
As for the blown windows below the the 13rd floor. First if you slow motion the collapse video you can clearly see the collapse started around the 13th floor, unlike a control demolish where the always set the charges at the ground floor. Of course windows and flames are going to to be seen at the bottom floors. You have 34 floors (47-13) worth of superheated air all being pancaked into 20 or 30 foot high mass of rubble. Where is else is the 300+ feet of air suppose to go but down into the remain dozen floors. This create a massive overpressure and since glass is weaker than steel the windows get blown out. This is basic physics.
HiGirlsRHot said:
That overpreasure? Each floor is about 4 metres and sealed off from the floors above except for stairs and lift wells which have doors. Any pressure would have been in the central column and there would have no reason for it to vent though any particular door. There isn't an explanation for the windows blowing out more than a couple flows below the collapse.
The other question is, if the upper floors are identical in construction to the floors being crushed by the upper floors, why didn't they collapse at the same rate. That big block of upper floors crushing everything underneath it is physically impossible - yet it happened. The upper part should have been crushed by its own weight as it crashed into each successive floor until it stopped due to lack of momentum about half way down.
The only conspiracy theory I actively subscribe to is that "they" are setting out to actively dismantle the public education system in America, and replace it with a for-profit model through the private sector. Of course, since that's what's actually happening, it's not really a conspiracy theory -- it's just depressing reality.
But we know exactly what happened. It would be stupid to continue to look for answers that aren't there.LadyLuna said:
Not how it works. You prove 2 is a 2 and it's always a 2. Some people might call it a 3 but it's a 2.LadyLuna said:
Word to clever old dudes.LadyLuna said:
They do harm by spreading misinformation.LadyLuna said:
Both awful things to do but yeah one does sound worse I suppose. Thread needs some Bertrand.LadyLuna said:
Never let yourself be diverted
By what you wish to believe
But look only and surely
At what are the facts
Red7227 said:
Look at the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 windows on lower floors blew out on them also and explosion is form of overpressurization so on video they look the same. Actually there is a perfectly good explanation for progressive collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_o ... ade_Center.
Anyway I look forward reading your article in a civil engineering journal explaining why all of this is wrong. But I've debated this in the past no need to repeat myself.
HiGirlsRHot said:
The explanation in the article does explain how it might have happened, though how burning kerosene softened steel is still a question as its less than half the required temperature. Whatever the fuel, there would have had to have been a draft coming though the opening made by the plane acting like a blow torch to achieve the temperature required to soften steel. As far as I can tell the argument is that the collapsing interior of the building was ripping the floors out about 10 stories below where the upper building was coming down and collapsing the the unsupported walls. That matches what it looked like in the video. Still not superheated air though, just burning debris.
Next time just post the link and don't try to explain something you don't understand.
- Status
Similar threads
