The main issue preventing you an Old, from finding more about people who are Young, is that the Young don’t exactly love the old filling up their spaces, trying to remain hip.
This is exemplified by the slow death of social networks as they grow in popularity. A new social network pops up, its quickly populated by the youth. Slowly, as it becomes more popular, Olds start creeping in, until there are so many Olds that the youth want to go somewhere else because they no longer have privacy.
When Mom and Uncle Jim are in the conversation, everything is suddenly less cool.
Happened to MySpace first, and it’s happening to Facebook right now. It’s basically ghost towns of people who will be dead soon.
We are limited because the youth will always want their own private spaces where they can truly be themselves without their weird expectations of the older generations. If you’re older with zero expecations for the youth, congratulations: you’re unusual, so don’t hold it against the youth that they assume you’re just another boring old person who is going to judge them for something. Most adults are out here judging them, so give them a break on assumptions they might make about you.
I used to keep up with music through YouTube channels, but even the ones I used to follow are aging up and soon enough those people I was listening to are Old now too, and they’re doing the same thing as me, trying to keep up with what’s hip and good.
I understand the desire to do so. New music is often so good, and I really get sick of people who act like the music they grew up with is the best in history. It’s not, and it never will be. Music is always growing and making music is more accessible than ever, which means its really exploding and evolving. There’s never been a better time to love music.
However, as Olds, we’re just going to miss a lot of what’s cool with the kids simply because we’re Olds. So much is just going to naturally be hidden from us.
Thanks for this throughout and measured response it really does make sense now you bring these points to my attention I was the same when I was younger.
I guess I don’t want to invade their space as much as understand what they like and what they care about, not in a creepy way, more because I think the older generation should do this.
The part where you mentioned you would be unusual to have no expectations of young people. Well I am unusual as I think the youth are alright and a part of my thinking in this post is that we should celebrate the future of the world as they’ve got longer here than me and so they should have a larger part in shaping it.
It’s sad that we have this divide now where it’s us (not literally) against them when really they can learn from our mistakes and we can learn from their new perspectives.
I imagine it goes without saying that I’m not afraid to admit that I don’t know everything and even that we can learn from younger people and I don’t really blame them for thinking all older people are against them or whatever as I am self aware that I would have this mentality towards boomers when there are some great boomers out here that would be with me at pro-Palestine marches and stuff.
Apologies for this being all over the place. I literally just rambled on, and now too lazy to go back and format it better.
It’s fine, no worries on your thoughts being all over, it’s the internet. Who cares? You got your points across fine.
I don’t think trying to know what the youth are into is creepy at all! I think the real issue comes from the youth being used to adults being shitty and judgy to them. Like I said, it’s great if we’re not shitty and judgy, but we have to be patient with the youth and their expectations of older people because they’re absolutely colored by the fact that most older folks are weirdly judgy. So it’s more that we have our work cut out for us because most older folks could give a flying fuck about being interested in the art of the youth, and the youth know that and feel it viscerally. It takes time for them to feel “safe” and open up. Like you said, how we grew up with Boomers and most of them are just dogshit and judgy people when it came to the youth. We like to think our generation is better… but it’s not, sadly.
Anyway, it’s not impossible to make inroads with the youth, but you have to be okay with them ribbing you and smile and laugh when they joke about how out of touch you are. They’re going to assume we’re just like any other jerk of an Old, so it just takes more effort on our parts to prove we’re not just some judgy jerk.
I am thankful for every old person who has genuine interest in what the youth are doing and what kind of art they are creating. You’re right, it IS a good thing to be interested, and it’s a good thing to pursue, because it helps break down the very generational barriers we dislike so much.
And since we’re not Youngs, how the music appeals (or doesn’t) is really not part of our experiences.
Pop music is a thing of the moment. Not to criticize, just an observation. Because of this, I don’t really get why an Old would want to try to stay hip with music. You’re not young during that time, not part of what the coming of age experience is like at the time. It’s not your time.
Plus pop music, by definition, appeals to the broadest group possible by being less complex - this is true of anything. I always use Miles Davis’ “Kind of Blue” (a massive avant-garde jazz hit in the 60’s), compared to something by the Beach Boys, Elvis, The Beatles, etc.
Everyone can grok what Elvis is singing, but even as someone who studied music theory, I find Kind of Blue challenging to grasp. And I hear/learn something new every time I hear it.
Even if you’re not personally experiencing the things pop music is currently about, there’s still plenty of really great stuff coming out all the time that you’ll miss out on if you stop listening to new things. For example, NPR popped up recently with a Tiny Desk Concert (which feels like a very Old way to find new music in itself) from Chappell Roan, and I would’ve been missing out big time if I’d skipped it just because she’s 15ish years younger than me and in a different phase of her life. A lot of it feels more nostalgic (fucking Casual, man, so many of us have been there) than current to my life, but it’s good music. And as a queer woman, gosh it’s great to see these queer artists who are able to write their feelings and experiences without having to keep plausible deniability in the lyrics.
I’d say what you’re (possibly) describing is something that’s less specific to it’s writer’s time/age/moment, giving it broader appeal. If someone is 17 and writing classical style music, I’d expect most who appreciates classical to take an interest. That’s just looking for new music, not a focus on staying “hip”, which, again, isn’t really an effective approach.
This fits with the reasons media/arts appeal the way they do - the more “base” it’s appeal, the broader that appeal will be, because more/most people understand it.
These aren’t my ideas - ask a professor of music (especially music history) the difference between the different classifications of music, and why they’re defined the way they are.
One great example: today most people would consider Opera to be “high-falutin classical stuff that us regular folks can’t grok cause we don’t know Italian”, when the reality is it was the popular music of it’s day, with Opera performances being a rough equivalent to TV shows today. Some Opera composers knocked out 200 operas, per year.
Check out any lectures by Prof Robert Greenburg, especially “How to Listen to and Understand Great Music” or “Music as a Mirror of History”, he explains these ideas very well.
I don’t think MySpace died because The Olds invaded in the same way as Facebook. I think Facebook genuinely out-competed MySpace in features, especially having its own messenger. Facebook absolutely died when The Olds joined, what’s remarkable to me is that Facebook…still exists?
And Facebook succumbed to the olds many years ago. I remember in the mid then late 00s when it expanded from just college students to include high school students, and then suddenly my Aunt Joyce was on it too. Seriously, we’re talking 15 years ago now
I don’t have this problem exactly, but what I would recommend is putting it in a specific separate library. You could even set it up so only your mother’s account can access it, and you never have to see it, or you could have it visible but never go to it.
This is a good idea, and an approach I’m going to think about and probably take. Then it’s away from everything else, and not polluting my actual good movies.
Here’s a response I’ve seen about this around the net for a while now that feels right.
–
"Actually, the “you’re welcome/no problem” issue is simply a linguistics misunderstanding. Older ppl tend to say “you’re welcome,” younger ppl tend to say “no problem.” This is because for older people the act of helping or assisting someone is seen as a task that is not expected of them, but is them doing extra, so it’s them saying, ‘I accept your thanks because I know I deserve it.”
“No problem, however, is used because younger people feel not only that helping or assisting someone is a given and expected but also that it should be stressed that your need for help was no burden to them (even if it was).”
“Basically, older people think help is a gift you give, younger people think help is a requirement.”
calling it a “linguistics misunderstanding” makes it seem more scientific than it probably is. I’d like to see some evidence to back it up, because to me it just looks like some Tumblr user’s conjecture.
To be fair, with no data to back it up, this is just an anecdote. So saying it’s stereotyping ageist bullshit is a perfectly valid response to it. I just felt it fit the question quite well so I went and dug it up and shared it. If you feel differently, no stress!
The reality is going to be different to everyone, and it’s as much a learned behaviour as anything else. It’s not like collectively an entire generation got together and decided “it’s ‘no problem’ now instead of ‘you’re welcome’, okay?” Language evolves over time after all, and knowing why that happens and the actual causes for it are something that will require a lot more analysis than a couple of anecdotes from the internet.
The main question is unanswerable as it couldn't happen without fundamentally changing physics in some way. However, the other one is a lot more interesting.
On a large scale, one in ten atoms vanishing would decrease both the density and mass of most objects by 10%. This would also decrease their gravity by 10%, resulting in all orbits becoming significantly more (or less) eccentric. I imagine the changes would be enough to destabilize some solar systems, potentially causing planets to perturb each other's orbits until they collide or end up being ejected from the system.
The change in density also means that gravitationally bound objects that are held up by internal pressure (like planets and stars) would collapse slightly as their internals are re-compressed to their original density. The collapse would release a lot of energy, heating up planets significantly and (just guessing here) maybe causing a burst of fusion in stars as they're temporarily compressed past their equilibrium point.
All of that is pretty bad news for life on Earth, but the worst is what happens chemically. Some molecules are just going to become different molecules when one or more of their atoms disappears. Take water, for example; a water molecule has an 8.1% chance to become a hydrogen molecule, an 8.1% chance to become a (highly reactive) hydroxide ion, and a 0.9% chance to become a (highly reactive) single oxygen atom. 18% of nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere would also become single atoms and promptly react violently. These molecular changes would instantly kill all life on Earth (and anywhere else). There's simply no possible way for an organism to survive so many reactive molecules being introduced throughout itself. Not to mention that all DNA would be irreparably damaged from the random deletions too.
I'm sure there are some other effects that I haven't thought of, but those are definitely the most noticeable ones.
I don’t shower 10 times a day but I do leave the house in and out at least that much and not just little quick trips I could wear slippers, I’m not gonna lace up my boots 10 times and unlike them 10 times everyday. I also don’t have filthy carpets so it’s easy to clean my floors.
Funny story. My partner was making mince meat a little while back and instead of adding nutmeg they accidentally added cinnamon. Actually turned out really good!
Agree with acid. Fuck nutmeg though, I’m tired of sauces with nutmeg. It does not give it a je ne sais quoi, it just makes it taste like fucking nutmeg.
I had to learn to not go overboard with nutmeg, because it’s a very strong flavor that quickly overpowers a dish and when it does, it doesn’t taste nice. But in the correct quantity on the right dish, it’s brilliant.
The option to disable third party cookies has been in pretty much every browser (Chrome included) for decades. OP is talking about Google’s move to make it the default.
It was, like 25 years ago. Well, maybe 15 years ago.
Pre-2007.
Because back then people were making good money out of college, and they were able to buy a house for themselves. Shit, they didn’t even need to go to college. As long as you were working hard before 2007, and you were going to be able to find a down payment on a house as long as you didn’t have some kind of financial affliction.
That’s not to say that gen X had it easy as compared to those before them, but there’s a clear separation.
Millennials tried their hardest not to live at home, just because of the social stigma.
Gen Z is feeling that stigma less. That’s why you’re probably here questioning why it’s even a thing. You’re probably Gen Z.
I really hope the stigma goes away because unless the world economy improves, a lot of people will have to stay with parents until a lot later in life.
It is a cultural thing though. It’s not an issue at all in most of SE Asia.
I didn’t actually believe this, but it was fun to entertain the idea.
Here’s why. At the time, there were a bunch of very odd coincidences. I’ll do my best to remember the best of them.
The CIA/NSA (one of the “secret” agencies) put out a budget report showing a large amount of money that was not trackable, in the billions.
Coincidentally, the section of the pentagon hit by the “plane” was reportedly where financial records were stored.
By “plane”, I mean object. If you watch the 1 video that got out (all other videos were confiscated) from the nearby gas station, the thing that hits the pentagon does not look like a plane but instead a missile.
Next!
reportedly, the owner of the twin towers took out a massive insurance policy against the buildings the day or week before 9/11 (I forget exact timing)
also, the building was covered in asbestos, the cost to remove was in the billions, and the cost to keep the building occupied always also increasing
Next!
building 7 (I think that’s the right one) collapsed under what appeared to be demolishing conditions
building 7 was never hit by a plane or anything else, it just dropped like it was purposefully demolished
Edit: forgot one!
the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” meme comes from.
There are more, but it’s been 20 years and my memory is hazy.
Overall, there were some oddities around the whole event that, when allowing yourself to think completely outside of reality, make sense as to why it was an inside job.
Finally, personally I believe the Saudis did it in cooperation with Bin Laden and their goal was to bankrupt America. They did a pretty good job, from their perspective.
I can't vouch for the veracity of most of your content but I wanted to add that building 7 was also announced to have collapsed before it actually did.
I can’t vouch for the veracity of most of your content but I wanted to add that building 7 was also announced to have collapsed before it actually did.
Yep. There was also the quotes from Rudi Guilani where he said something along the lines of “Pull Building 7”, where pull is demolitions parlance to set off the charges. This was like a day of audio snippet. Its also basically impossible to find the original footage that isn’t pure conspiracy drivel, but I remember it from the time when all of this was happening. There was so much going on in the wake of 9-11, with the country pretty much instantaneously jumping into war mode, being immediately handed a narrative around al-Qaeda with no investigation into the causes or veracity of the government claims around al-Qaeda.
The push back on questioning the narrative was surreal. Like, you would be drawn and quartered publicly for doing so. The ‘feeling’ at the time was that the investigation into what actually happened and how felt like a complete sham that the government didn’t really want to do because so many people weren’t accepting the party narrative.
Also, keep in mind the context. There was a strong anti-war sentiment in 2003 going into the invasion of Iraq. The “9-11 was an inside job crowd” found themselves running with the anti-war crowd as general anti-institutionalists. This was when Alex Jones was just finding his footing and definitely wasn’t quite fully right wing. He was more accurately (at the time, in historical context) anti-establishment. The modern right-wing movement hadn’t fully formed, although it found its roots in this historical period (the Tea party would also come out of this period).
So just broadly consider the different vectors operating on public perception at the time. We were basically instantly construction a “Going to War is the Solution” narrative within hours of 9-11 happening, and the narrative around that construction was found to be fully formed as soon as it emerged, almost as if the institutions of the US government and its surrounding media had been prepared for this exact moment. Push back against this was effectively an instantaneous scarlett letter and there basically was none in US mainstream media*. There was a strong push back against any kind of independent investigation into the events leading up to the event. We got reports from the CIA and FBI, but considering the context, like, if those are the parties in question, do you believe them? Then you had the Saudi Bush family connections, the fact that we were basically going to war with Afghanistan when we knew it was the Saudis that did 9-11, which was like a pretty big red flag. Then there were the reports that globally, many governments warned about this happening to US intelligence agencies, but it seemed like they just kind of let it happen. Which is really where the conspiracy was focused. These days it gets too wrapped up in ‘inside job’ etc, but the general scheme was more about 9-11 being allowed to happen as an excuse for a Bush invasion into the middle east. This wasn’t a conspiracy that was built in hindsight, the speculation was built in real time (before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq), and then go figure, Bush invades the middle east, and specifically, goes after Iraq. This basically fully validates the theory, and to put a cherry on top, the evidence on Iraq was all just… fraudulent. So if you limit the scope of the theory to 9-11 was ‘allowed’ to occur to justify a military industrial complex incursion into the middle east, its kind-of like “well yeah duh” because thats exactly what happened.
Wild fukin time and wild bit of history. Important to keep context in mind, and to have sources of information about the past which aren’t ‘edited’ to reflect newthink.
*Democracy Now did exist by this time (finding its establishment after the Seattle WTO protests). If you want to really understand what was going on at the time, this would be the media source I would recommend.
I’m a scientist, so I do ‘write’ professionally, but its a very different kind of writing than I do here, and I would say that they are entirely seperate (excepting my discussion sections where I afford a bit more liberty to style, although I tend to be more focused on methods in my publications, where I don’t give myself as much liberty).
I attribute my writing style to years of participating in forums and threaded discussion boards, starting in the early 90s. I try to use quotes from who I’m replying to, hyper links, bold and italics for emphasis, but to use a conversational/ editorial style. When I was coming up on the internet, I truly believed that the internet allowed for the democratization of ideas, in that, on the internet you have no appeal to authority on your credentials or name or background. The only weight you can provide is rhetoric and whatever evidence you can scuff up, and because of that, the best ideas should find their way to the top. Boy was I wrong, but I still believe in the virtue of good ideas, and that belief is part of my motivation for being involved in places like (formerly) reddit or (currently) lemmy.
The push back on questioning the narrative was surreal.
The vast majority of the time, the pushback was low effort “asking questions” based on fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter or entirely pulled our of their asses.
Bro say what you will about the baselessness of it, but 9-11 conspiracy theorists were anything but low effort. People made documentaries, traveled to track down steel, built media enterprises off the back of it.
And those people are all people like Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson who are totally shameless liars and manipulators, all his 911 truth stuff led to stuff like the sandy hook denials and maga nonsence.
But not lazy people. Not ‘low effort’. Its important to get criticism right. These people went completely down a rabbit hole and committed to it fully. In doing so they were able to form a kind of platform that would buoy the communication and mental frameworks that have set up the current white nationalist and christian fascist movements. They invested enough effort to effectively and successfully restructure American politics. If not for the work they did in this time period, which might reflect banal in juxtaposition, the MAGA movement of 2016-current might not actually exist.
Yes. Terrible people and actions of huge consequence in hind sight. But not people just lazily asking questions.
The if you truly find your self in opposition to white nationalism, fascism, dominionism and zionism, you do both yourself and the rest of us a disservice if you fail to understand history and how these movements form and function, and what motivates these people to do what they do. To trivialize their efforts, its to underestimate them, and to set all of us in a position of weakness relative to a common opponent. These people are not for lack of effort, they do not lack for resources, and they are clever, if wrong in the conclusions they’ve made about the world. They are organized, motivated, funded, and fully committed to the vision. This final bit, their commitment, is the part that white liberals simply can-not comprehend. These people lack the cynicism that permeates white liberalism. They truly believe the things they do - whereas white liberals will only associate with political movements that are safe, low social impact, and demand little from themselves. White liberalism mistakes that every one else is as cynical as they are. See the comments by @phillaholic as an example of this political philosophy. Because of this cynicism, they constantly and completely underestimate the strength of their opponents. Examples of this political philosophy in action and its consequences are represented in modern political history throughout: Bush v Gore; The anti-war movement of 2003; The housing market collapse of 2007-8 and the refusal to hold capitol accountable in that time; Occupy Wallstreet; Obamas entire 8 years as president; Clinton campaign 2014-16; All of the investigations into the Trump administration 2016-2020; BLM 2016-2021; etc. We are all bearing the cost borne of the cynical heart of white liberalism.
Before the Bush election, Cheney and Rumsfeild belonged to a think tank called a New American Century that created the plan to invade Iraq in order to create a government friendly to the US.
One author even said that America would need a new Pearl Harbor to regain its military strength.
I mean, this shit writes itself. If history were a work of political fiction, it would be called out as tropish, too on the nose and goofy to sustain disbelief.
Countless incorrect things were announced. Everyone was collectively panicking. That’s odd, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything considering the building was already visibly damaged.
The building had been on fire for hours at that point with no water pressure to run the sprinklers or allow firefighters to effectively combat it. It was decided to stop efforts to save the building as it was presumed the integrity of the structure was damaged beyond repair.
As for the reporters announcing it collapsing early, its doubtful that it was anything but one of many mistakes reporters made live on air hours into an exhausting day of chaos. Maybe that had been told the building was going to collapse at any minute or maybe they had been told efforts to stop collapse had ceased and an assumption was made by the crew on the ground it had already fell. As I recall it was the BBC that said it fell before it actually did, so the idea of a foreign news outlet being in on a false flag conspiracy is just too ridiculous to be believable over something such as an exhausted reporter misspeaking in the middle of an emotionally overwhelming day.
How can you not believe any of what you wrote but also say that you believe the Saudis did it? The Bush-Saudi connection was known for a decade before September 11th.
Bush Sr. literally invaded Iraq to protect Saudi oil interests. No one at the top actually believed Saddam was an immediate threat to U.S. interests.
The only planes that flew out of the U.S. after the attacks were Saudi nationals who were granted exception by the White House to flee the country.
I’m not the person you’re responding to, but where I land on the question is basically I think there’s a very good chance that GWB knew about a credible threat of something like 9/11 happening and deliberately chose not to interfere. So more like an act by intentionally doing nothing.
Do I think Dubya sat around in dark rooms in 2001 with Bin Laden, planning every stage of 9/11? Absolutely not. I don’t know any serious Truther who does, either. But there’s no doubt in my mind that some members of the Bush admin and the Pentagon knew in advance that something big was going to happen. That, in my mind, is qualitive enough to be an inside job
I don’t know any serious Truther who does, either.
The word “serious” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. There are a ton of truthers out there with some truly unhinged theories about 9/11, and I’d say that the unhinged truthers outnumber the reasonable ones by a fair bit.
It’s been pretty well publicized that the lack of collaboration between the three letter agencies allowed them to slip through the cracks. Foreign intelligence knew about it, but domestic wasn’t aware. The fact of the matter is, they aren’t just sitting around getting 1 of these reports every couple months that they have to investigate. They get Thousands of these constantly. There’s a declassified docuseries on Netflix, that despite being “copaganda” to a degree, all describe legitimate threats that could have turned into big things if they were left along. There’s no doubt what the individuals intended to do. I don’t think the Bush Administration left anyone do anything, they simply didn’t let a tragedy go to waste.
the towers were obviously hit by planes, we have plenty of video evidence of this. The controversy is around how the towers actually fell. This is where the “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” meme comes from.
Of course, the meme is a parody of anyone who thinks that’s a legitimate argument. You don’t need to liquify a material for it to lose its structural integrity.
Building 7 had one of the towers fucking fall on it, was seen bulging massively before collapsing, and it was pretty obvious what was going to happen, hence people getting confused and saying it had already collapsed.
A building fire started by jet fuel absolutely can melt steel beams, and the collapse of building 7 occurred exactly as you would expect from a building fire, which happened because the fire in the other buildings was blown across by the wind and explosions. None of the building collapse videos look like a demolition.
If the government wanted to execute an attack on Americans, why not just fund the terrorists and ignore warnings? Let the jihadists crash planes into buuldings. Setting hidden, controlled demolition charges and trying to make it look like a collapse is harder than finding some terrorists willing to die for their cause and teaching them to fly.
It is conceivable to me that members of the intelligence community, the military-industrial complex, and/or the government ignored warnings and allowed the attacks to happen for their own benefit. I would prefer to think it wasn’t true, but I must concede that it would explain many inconsistencies.
It is theoretically possible, but implausible to me, that those same people would coordinate the attacks and support the terrorists to ensure that the attacks would happen as a false flag operation. This is an extraordinary claim with almost no evidence.
It is not in any way possible that the government demolished any of the buildings attacked on purpose and then covered up all evidence of the demolition. There would need to be too many people involved, too many videos altered or destroyed, and too much evidence planted after the fact. It is demonstrably false.
"The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present."
There’s a first for everything. And after reading the report, it’s easy to come to the conclusion that a building under those conditions would be expected to fail.
Could have been, but it wasn’t. It’s utterly absurd to think it was logistically possible to do so without anyone seeing or leaking anything. That plot wouldn’t make it out of 9th grade creative writing class.
The main one for me was that NORAD, for the first time ever, was “stress testing” their system and running every flight sim they had, so when things went down, they had no idea what was real and what wasn’t.
The order to do so, for the first time, unprovoked, unnecessarily and unneededly came from Dick Cheney himself, who didn’t even have the authority to order the Pentagon to do ANYTHING but his orders were followed regardless.
That’s a pretty big discrepancy. It’s really hard for me to rule that one out
Building 7 is a big leap of faith to hurdle.
The twin towers themselves collapsing in a controlled manner, that doesn’t happen without blowing individual floors. Buildings in war zones don’t fall down vertically, they’ll partially collapse or fall over, not straight down - that ONLY happens with controlled demolition.
That’s a big leap of faith.
Like almost everyone else, I was glued to the TV all day on 9/11. I remember when the Pentagon footage was aired on TV. It was played ONCE. That was a missile. It was clear as day. Beyond that, if it was an airplane, where’s the fucking wreckage? Cuz that would be the first plane crash in all of history that left zero wreckage.
That’s a big leap of faith.
It requires to many leaps of faith to believe the given story. Idk the whole of what happened, but I know we weren’t told it.
The Patriot Act was introduced 5 weeks after the attack. 342 pages, no contradictions in the whole thing. Introduced, passed, and signed into law in 4 days. 5 weeks isn’t enough time to read 350 pages of legalese, let alone write it. It was ready to go
Add to all the sus, America’s government post WW2, at least, has not warranted any trust from the public. The CIA has done a LOT of fucked up, illegal shit to us. The Bay of Tomkin was a false flag fucking lie to the people. The incessant lie of Neoliberalism telling us that GDP is up! But everyone’s quality of life is being striped away faster than our rights. Citizens United is bullshit, 2000 election was bullshit, Iraq and Afghanistan were both bullshit, qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture are fucking repressive FASCIST bullshit and yea, you know, I don’t think the people calling the shots have our best interests in mind, how could you?
“_______ doesn’t happen without _______” all all bullshit based on nothing. NIST has published their findings. They had 200 Experts, 125 of which came from the private sector investigate how the towers came down, and there is absolutely no evidence what so ever that they were brought down in a controlled manner. I even remember watching a documentary that interviewed the owner or engineer of one of the US’s top demolition companies that easily pokes holes in the idea that a major skyscraper with people, furniture, etc could be brought down like that at all. It’s total nonsense. NIST has a FAQ page
Sure, one guy looks at a video for twenty seconds and that counters 200 experts spending months researching and simulating it and those opinions are equal. If it were clear, you’d have thousands of experts claiming it. In reality, you have one guy willing to tarnish his reputation by making an impulse statement after seeing none of the facts.
Donald Trump’s presidency pretty much removed any doubt I had about the official 9/11 story.
He proved that our government is full of regular idiots who are just barely able to work together. Of course the 3 letter agencies have a lot of power and fancy technology, but if the CIA or NSA was seriously that in control of this country, Trump would have never happened. He is a bumbling moron who did a ton of damage to this country and nobody lifted a finger apparently? Damaging alliances, burning undercover assets, etc.
Our Congress can’t work together long enough to pass basic bills. No way the Patriot act was planned with a false flag in mind.
The 9/11 conspiracy is just way too big and would need way too many participants to keep it under wraps like that.
Plus, every big disaster has conspiracy theories. If you believe all of them, you’re pretty much saying bad things never happen without the overlords planning them. 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, JFK assassination, RFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, and every other major event have had massive conspiracy theories and claims that they were inside jobs.
Yeah, the official story has holes but reality is messy. It was a big attack involving/affecting a lot of agencies, corporations, and people. It’s pretty much guaranteed that out of the measly 365 days in a year, a lot of these groups and individuals would be doing their “once a year” inspections, misremember details in their panic, deal with other terrorist attacks, intersect with ongoing crimes that were being committed separately, etc.
Seriously, a plane crashed into one of the biggest and wealthiest business centers in the world. The conspiracy theories write themselves no matter how clear the evidence is. Of course one of those companies has ties to foreign governments, obviously one of the CEOs is commiting fraud, one of the employees is bound to have worked for the government in a sensitive role. Imagine the ties you could find on one of the planes alone. Every plane in the sky right now has a politician’s relative, a political activist, a criminal, a foreign diplomat, high-ranking military, or all of the above. All of these things would spark a great conspiracy theory. Imagine the things you could find if you wanted to blame Boeing. Start looking into details about every employee they have and connect some dots. It’s easy.
Oh I agree, you dig for dirt, you’ll find it, guarenteed. Whether or not it’s actually connected and not happenstance, that’s a different story.
You only need you and 23 other people in a room to find two people with the same birthday. Coincidence is much more common than we think, just like true random doesn’t feel like random to us, and if something doesnt make sense, the brain can basically retcon on the spot and you’ll believe it as dogma to your core.
It’s important to be aware of and to acknowledge our limitations, for sure. Crazy important.
But let’s keep playing. Take my comment and strike out everything about the buildings falling and I’m still calling it sus.
Were we just that unlucky that the first ever stress test of NORAD happened to coincide? Maybe, it’s a possibility, an extremely small one. 1/18687 to be exact. Not very probable.
How about the missile into the Pentagon that was broadcast on live TV? The gas station footage was broadcast not the actual live event. Story goes reporters found a single camera that hadn’t already been seized and was pointing in the right direction.
So I’m a poli sci guy. Where normal people flow sports teams or celebrities, I follow politics. Global politics as well as domestic, both federal and my state. It’s just what I do. Easily I’ve read 50+ articles a day since 1997. EASILY. That day was the first day for me at a new tree service, and I was the first guy to arrive at the arborists house before we rolled out and I delivered the news of the attack. Guys started showing up, we had the news flipped on and BAM 2nd Impact. Work was called off that day, after that. The Pentagon news came about 2 hours later, we were all still sitting in the arborists living room, just watching when the footage played, so 5 sets of eyes saw it and I said bullshit that’s a plane. 2 guys were ex military, they went off, about wreckage, how small the impact is. I can not forget that memory, besides the 2nd tower falling, the Pentagon lie, a quick oopsies they hoped ppl would forget if they just lied loud enough and fast enough, that redacting in real time, really set the dark tone that was to come. It wasn’t that we were just attacked. Some part of it was opportunistic.
2001 was basically the stone ages compared to now. The Internet was still geocities, a/s/l chatrooms. All your base had JUST belonged to us. It would’ve taken a whole lot less individuals to conduct something in an unmonitored world.
I don’t claim to know what happened, I just knew we’re being lied too. There’s no theory, just calling bullshit for what it is.
if it was an airplane, where’s the fucking wreckage? Cuz that would be the first plane crash in all of history that left zero wreckage.
There was plenty of wreckage. There were no big chunks of fuselage or wings or engines, but that isn’t uncommon with extreme accidents. A plane at high speed slamming into the ground, a cliff, or a heavily reinforced building, is going to disintegrate into pretty small pieces, making investigations difficult. And indeed there are photos of small chunks of plane wreckage found at the Pentagon on 9/11.
It's an amazing country to visit. Beautiful sights, amazing food, lovely people. Of course there are tourist traps and scams like everywhere else, but also some of the most generous and hospitable people I have ever met. I can't wait to go back honestly.
Harambe died May 28th. Cubs won the World Series November 2nd. Trump became president-elect on November 8th. That’s when we should have recognized the timeline problem.
I was busy and couldn’t make it to the comment section in time, you two comment sniping chodes deserve to be interrupted by someone knocking on the door then lingering until you finish when you’re taking a poop
kbin.life
Top