Hey all, maybe some old school people still remember me heh :p I regulary check the forums and all, and now i'll be back more on irc (under the nick RenderMonkey) and i'll actually try to play some good old db again. The new features seems cool :>
Anyway, since I have noticed that DavidM seems to like to watch documentries on youtube, I decided to give you a little collection of movies about WTC that you might find interesting!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZH-GUtpx-U
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... lane+sight
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... =wtc+power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9b4D-aO3zY
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... A%22wtc%22
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9024486145
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1605341661
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1751648213
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8192753501
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b48_1179020076
Doesn't mather in what order you watch em.
Also, before trash talking, take the time to at least watch some of it. Also, I'm not saying that this is the truth or anything, I posted these videos since I thought that DavidM and perhaps some other people here might find these videos interesting. It is up to you all decide what to believe and what to ignore.
For DavidM
Moderators: Jay2k1, DavidM, The_One
1. is about burning buildings did never in history fall apart by themselves. i guess nobody can prove all that points wrong. at least nobody ever tried, and those who don't like the story just distract from it or laught at it instead of being reasonable.
2. is "in plane site", which is I think the best docu I've seen about this, because it's very accurate, reasonable and nowhere polemic. its by dave van kleist (or so)... you can never really prove him wrong. he only says what's really for certain. (like "those agencies etc who try to hide this and that about 9/11 are most likely to be involved in 9/11").i watched more stuff by him, he's pretty clever.
3. is about all 3 buildings being controlled demolitions, which just has to be right, because it would ridicule the odds if they just felt so controlled by chance
2. is "in plane site", which is I think the best docu I've seen about this, because it's very accurate, reasonable and nowhere polemic. its by dave van kleist (or so)... you can never really prove him wrong. he only says what's really for certain. (like "those agencies etc who try to hide this and that about 9/11 are most likely to be involved in 9/11").i watched more stuff by him, he's pretty clever.
3. is about all 3 buildings being controlled demolitions, which just has to be right, because it would ridicule the odds if they just felt so controlled by chance
4. this one's new to me. its about the owner of the WTC saying on TV that he wanted to "pull" building 7, contradicting to the original story that says it was catching fire
5. lots of points why the buildings couldn't have collapsed by themselves that way, well done
6. I can just tell: bloody excellent. this is going far beyond anything else. It's not so much based on 9/11, more about all backgrounds, the way money is moving, US strategies and much more. Something everybody should watch! It takes 2,5 hours, but it's worth it big time. Things keep adding up and making more sense.
Sure nobody says "the US did 911 by themselves" but it's clear that it's just for the favour of their previous strategies.
5. lots of points why the buildings couldn't have collapsed by themselves that way, well done
6. I can just tell: bloody excellent. this is going far beyond anything else. It's not so much based on 9/11, more about all backgrounds, the way money is moving, US strategies and much more. Something everybody should watch! It takes 2,5 hours, but it's worth it big time. Things keep adding up and making more sense.
Sure nobody says "the US did 911 by themselves" but it's clear that it's just for the favour of their previous strategies.
Last edited by DavidM on 30-05-2007 23:54, edited 1 time in total.
7: doesnt exist anymore
8: it has many of the things that are for sure right, but there are lots of relatively loose accuses and polemy. taking every hint the way they need it instead of being objectively
9: it's this weird "loose change" one which is pretty loose itself. too bad THIS one is one of the most known ones.
10: not much to do with all. but it hits the weak jewish spot, eh...
8: it has many of the things that are for sure right, but there are lots of relatively loose accuses and polemy. taking every hint the way they need it instead of being objectively
9: it's this weird "loose change" one which is pretty loose itself. too bad THIS one is one of the most known ones.
10: not much to do with all. but it hits the weak jewish spot, eh...
Last edited by DavidM on 31-05-2007 03:23, edited 1 time in total.
to bring this topic back to its original intentions...
here's my off-colour view on all this.
with the advancement of technology and industrialism, a new world order can not be prevented. we no longer live in a farmer based society. communications bring people together, sharing of technology and economy brings nations together, easy travel makes the world one entity.
one world.. means one future government. that's where we're heading and there's not much point in standing against it, unless we push progress (not necessarily a good thing, or a bad thing) backwards.
the question becomes, who will be that future government. the obvious answer is the USA... there's no other people running... there's no other people who have the infrastructure to pull it off.
so in essence, i have no big beef about a single world dominating government - call it an empire. it's inevitable, and we're living thru a period in time where that fact is surfacing. people are understanding what's going on, and reacting to it, until a few generations later, they will accept it. this would work best when it's done as a long term generational project - what's the hurry?
the more important issue i think is HOW this empire will be run. this will determine how long this empire will last. history has showed over and over that u can't hold an empire for too long if your citizens are unhappy. those tend to end in a very ugly way, but, in our case, it's probably too early to tell.
this is where it gets tricky.. i'm not an expert in economics or empire running or large-scale management for that matter. for an empire to last - and as a corollary keep "most" of its citizens happy, are wars healthy? is selective poverty healthy? is education healthy?
those are difficult questions to answer. without wars, it's easy to fall into complacency. without poverty, it's easy to become lazy and stop progress. same thing with education. uneducated people are harder to control - they tend to be more immune to propaganda as well.
which brings as to the major point, the trick to stabilizing the future empire will have to be propaganda based. the best propaganda out there is to give people a comfortable lifestyle and threaten to have them lose it unless they support the status quo. (dying for keeping ur "free" way of life is a very strong motivator)
so, all this to say, it's a sticky situation - hard to take sides in. just because an empire is being born doesn't mean the people involved in the birth aren't crooks. it doesn't mean it will be painless. it sure as hell doesn't mean the future is bright.
but are there any brighter alternatives?
here's my off-colour view on all this.
with the advancement of technology and industrialism, a new world order can not be prevented. we no longer live in a farmer based society. communications bring people together, sharing of technology and economy brings nations together, easy travel makes the world one entity.
one world.. means one future government. that's where we're heading and there's not much point in standing against it, unless we push progress (not necessarily a good thing, or a bad thing) backwards.
the question becomes, who will be that future government. the obvious answer is the USA... there's no other people running... there's no other people who have the infrastructure to pull it off.
so in essence, i have no big beef about a single world dominating government - call it an empire. it's inevitable, and we're living thru a period in time where that fact is surfacing. people are understanding what's going on, and reacting to it, until a few generations later, they will accept it. this would work best when it's done as a long term generational project - what's the hurry?
the more important issue i think is HOW this empire will be run. this will determine how long this empire will last. history has showed over and over that u can't hold an empire for too long if your citizens are unhappy. those tend to end in a very ugly way, but, in our case, it's probably too early to tell.
this is where it gets tricky.. i'm not an expert in economics or empire running or large-scale management for that matter. for an empire to last - and as a corollary keep "most" of its citizens happy, are wars healthy? is selective poverty healthy? is education healthy?
those are difficult questions to answer. without wars, it's easy to fall into complacency. without poverty, it's easy to become lazy and stop progress. same thing with education. uneducated people are harder to control - they tend to be more immune to propaganda as well.
which brings as to the major point, the trick to stabilizing the future empire will have to be propaganda based. the best propaganda out there is to give people a comfortable lifestyle and threaten to have them lose it unless they support the status quo. (dying for keeping ur "free" way of life is a very strong motivator)
so, all this to say, it's a sticky situation - hard to take sides in. just because an empire is being born doesn't mean the people involved in the birth aren't crooks. it doesn't mean it will be painless. it sure as hell doesn't mean the future is bright.
but are there any brighter alternatives?
"uneducated people are harder to control - they tend to be more immune to propaganda as well."
from my experience those are the easiest to manipulate. the media give em some pseudo-problems to complain about and feel smart about it, but it's just to distract them from what they are doing. and they fall for all reasoning.
like when the usa decides to invade yet another country for no good reasons they make up lots of reasons so half the country believes it, so it's ok for them to do it.
on the other hand "well informed" people are just as bad. these are those who read the new york times propaganda i guess. there are pendants in germany. well respected etc...but if you look close, they are just manipulating puppets too.
well tbh i was shocked to see the NYT is one of the most frequented pages on the internet. also CNN uses to have a good image, but I watched very poorly made propaganda run by them several times now. gee
well in the end i always think the media are those who could solve problems by telling us how things are. but they can easily just show us what they need to accomplish their personal goals, because people believe too easily.
from my experience those are the easiest to manipulate. the media give em some pseudo-problems to complain about and feel smart about it, but it's just to distract them from what they are doing. and they fall for all reasoning.
like when the usa decides to invade yet another country for no good reasons they make up lots of reasons so half the country believes it, so it's ok for them to do it.
on the other hand "well informed" people are just as bad. these are those who read the new york times propaganda i guess. there are pendants in germany. well respected etc...but if you look close, they are just manipulating puppets too.
well tbh i was shocked to see the NYT is one of the most frequented pages on the internet. also CNN uses to have a good image, but I watched very poorly made propaganda run by them several times now. gee
well in the end i always think the media are those who could solve problems by telling us how things are. but they can easily just show us what they need to accomplish their personal goals, because people believe too easily.