Post: #26

Where's Zelcorpion? Should we get vaccinated or wot m8?

Post: #27

I had shingles about a year ago and I'm 32, likely due to extreme stress at the time compromising my immune system. At first symptoms I did a little research and quickly knew what it was. I got the standard prescribed anti-virals, it stops the shingles from progressing, which if taken in the first 3 days of symptoms you'll not experience much pain or blistering, and your immune system will be able to fight it down after a week or two. The pills kept it at bay for me, I just had a sensation of sensitivity on the left side of my torso and a couple small clusters of blisters on my back, but overall no big deal. The problems come when you don't take action and let it progress, especially if you're older.

If you have a general pain/slight burning sensation on one side of your torso/back and some red marks starting from your spine and spreading on only one side of your body then you'll know you likely have Shingles.

Post: #28

(12-11-2015 01:52 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:43 AM)Mr. Brightside Wrote:  My great grandmother got shingles in her eye socket and they had to sew that sucker shut. Thank god for vaccines, and god bless those little kiddos whose parents are too fucking ignorant to give their children such protection.

The protection of a god whose existence isn't worth capitalizing isn't worth invoking or thanking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YVPkCQxqz4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxH7MoHjafM

Here's one for you in particular.

Vaccination Caused Asthma, Anaphylactic Shock and Shingles In Eye:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wlqCk4mR58

I can post youtube videos of Architects saying they think the World Trade Center had to be controlled demolition. So what? Anyone can make a youtube video of useless garbage

Youtube videos aren't evidence.
Especially ones featuring a mom drawing her own uninformed conclusions, and put out by a website called "StopMandatoryVaccination . com"

I'll go with evidence based on science, research, logic, real world results. Thanks.

Post: #29

(12-11-2015 02:27 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I can post youtube videos of Architects saying they think the World Trade Center had to be controlled demolition. So what? Anyone can make a youtube video of useless garbage

Youtube videos aren't evidence.
Especially ones featuring a mom drawing her own uninformed conclusions, and put out by a website called "StopMandatoryVaccination . com"

I'll go with evidence based on science, research, logic, real world results. Thanks.

Speaking of the WTC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkuG54q6lo

You go with the "official" version of 9/11 and vaccines. I go with real evidence based on science, research, logic, and real world results (such as planes hitting skyscrapers before and never causing a building to collapse in a free fall).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodLDGhTe0k

Post: #30

(12-11-2015 03:04 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  You go with the "official" version of 9/11 and vaccines. I go with real evidence based on science, research, logic, and real world results (such as planes hitting skyscrapers before and never causing a building to collapse in a free fall).

Well, here's a logical proposition for you: rarity of result does not preclude a possibility from becoming an actuality.

It's rare for planes to actually hit skyscrapers at all, which makes the survey sample a bit small. And it's rare for fully loaded 747s to hit buildings, too, which makes the survey sample even smaller.

The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber in 1945 -- which is probably the example you're driving at -- but it massed a maximum of 41,000 pounds, and contained a maximum fuel load of 947 gallons. The bomber was trying to avoid the building, and its maximum speed was 275 mph. As a result, structural damage took place, which was repairable, and the building is still standing today.

The planes used on 9/11 each contained 10,000 gallons of fuel. Each plane massed a gross of about 274,000 pounds. They were travelling at between 470 mph and 590 mph, again significant since kinetic energy transferred in a collision is much greater with higher speed, let alone how hot the fuel fires burned. Seven times the mass and twice the speed (or more - 275 mph is the maximum speed, which the B-25 was probably not doing). Therefore: much greater structural damage, leading to a collapse of the WTC towers.

Post: #31

(12-11-2015 03:04 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 02:27 AM)GlobalMan Wrote:  I can post youtube videos of Architects saying they think the World Trade Center had to be controlled demolition. So what? Anyone can make a youtube video of useless garbage

Youtube videos aren't evidence.
Especially ones featuring a mom drawing her own uninformed conclusions, and put out by a website called "StopMandatoryVaccination . com"

I'll go with evidence based on science, research, logic, real world results. Thanks.

Speaking of the WTC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFkuG54q6lo

You go with the "official" version of 9/11 and vaccines. I go with real evidence based on science, research, logic, and real world results (such as planes hitting skyscrapers before and never causing a building to collapse in a free fall).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CodLDGhTe0k

How did I know that would be your response.

What's that you say, more youtube videos?

Post: #32

(12-11-2015 03:39 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 03:04 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  You go with the "official" version of 9/11 and vaccines. I go with real evidence based on science, research, logic, and real world results (such as planes hitting skyscrapers before and never causing a building to collapse in a free fall).

Well, here's a logical proposition for you: rarity of result does not preclude a possibility from becoming an actuality.

It's rare for planes to actually hit skyscrapers at all, which makes the survey sample a bit small. And it's rare for fully loaded 747s to hit buildings, too, which makes the survey sample even smaller.

The Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 bomber in 1945 -- which is probably the example you're driving at -- but it massed a maximum of 41,000 pounds, and contained a maximum fuel load of 947 gallons. The bomber was trying to avoid the building, and its maximum speed was 275 mph. As a result, structural damage took place, which was repairable, and the building is still standing today.

The planes used on 9/11 each contained 10,000 gallons of fuel. Each plane massed a gross of about 274,000 pounds. They were travelling at between 470 mph and 590 mph, again significant since kinetic energy transferred in a collision is much greater with higher speed, let alone how hot the fuel fires burned. Seven times the mass and twice the speed (or more - 275 mph is the maximum speed, which the B-25 was probably not doing). Therefore: much greater structural damage, leading to a collapse of the WTC towers.

Don't even bother with these people man, there is absolutely not enough evidence on the planet that can overcome their desire to believe what they want.

Physics, logic, science... they pale in comparison to a man who has first decided the conclusion and then goes in search of any shred that could be misinterpreted enough fit his baseless assertions

Prepare for more youtube "evidence" by people making up nonsense. It's always youtube. Youtube is the repository of "truth".

15 years and they still don't have any evidence supporting the theory. That says it all. He didn't get the memo that the truther movement ran out of steam 6+ years ago, after the 9 previous years produced nothing backing their claims.

They are a group of silly fools linking to "evidence" that a fellow truther pulled out of his ass.

Post: #33

My father got shingles in his later years and it was extremely painful, and permanent. Shingles is not to be trifled with.

Post: #34

The mere fact that people on both sides of the argument talk about "vaccines", as if one could make one broad judgement about all vaccines, makes this discussion lack fundamental distinctions. There are many differences depending on the type of vaccine, so talking about "vaccines are 100% safe" or "vaccines cause XY" just isn't constructive.
While YouTube videos can be a legitimate source (always depending on which evidence the video is based on), the links that Byzantium posted are ridiculous (both on vaccines and 9/11).
Still speaking in general terms, vaccines are the best thing, medicine ever came up with. All in all, they have done so much good for humanity, it's almost unfathomable. I'm not denying the possibility, that maybe some healthy-born children were damaged by vaccinations, but who knows what diseases would have done to them if they weren't vaccinated. I wrote this a few days ago in another thread but I'm going to repeat myself: even if vaccines come with some danger for possible permanent damage, this risk is by far the lesser evil of two. If you're only going to vaccinate when there is 100% proof that 100% of vaccines are 100% safe for 100% of the population, then go play russian roulette with your health. But motherswithgoogle.com isn't a legitimate source to decide on these issues. Since Byzantium likes ridiculous YouTube videos so much, here's another one, enjoy:




On the issue of 9/11 - why did you have to bring this up, it's clear this will lead to yet another discussion but it's completely off-topic here. I'll still comment since we're already in: just because Byzantium uses laughable sources doesn't mean the "truthers" don't have a point. The buildings might actually have collapsed due to a controlled demolition. It certainly looks that way, however I'm not claiming it were true. At least for the third building, WTC 7 (which wasn't mentioned in the official report), it is pretty much certain, yes. Maybe the 2 main towers fell because of the weight of the planes but I'm still sceptical as this doesn't explain why the steel beams just melted away like my heart when I see Selena Gomez (a little cheesy joke here for the very funny amongst us). However, even if the 2 main buildings weren't blasted, the whole situation around it just doesn't add up at all. I know I've already outed myself as a tinfoiler in previous threads so my comments won't be taken seriously anyway, but outside of the US, amongst most people my opinion isn't even regarded as conspiracy. The majority of people here don't believe the official story because the official story is as ridiculous as Byzantium's sources (Welt der Wunder, a "knowledge TV series" in Germany had a poll on 9/11 and apparently 89,5% of Germans don't believe the official story. It's just one poll but from what I hear from friends and their opinions, it seems pretty representative).

Also, Google translate: https://goo.gl/AomVxm

It's a fairy-tale. Americans who believe the official report need to understand that this event had a very significant psychological impact which impairs their judgement. The shock because it was unexpected plus the extend of the tragedy can be very psychologically scarring. It makes many people feel helpless and vulnerable, thus it requires simple explanations and instant protective measures to regain psychological stability. Conveniently, these were already at hand - kindly provided by the media, "experts" and politicians. In such a situation, one is very inclined to believe what is said - you get the reasons, the responsible persons and the solutions handed to you on a plate. "Just take it, just believe it, the blue pill looks so much tastier anyway. I'm telling you - it's the Bin Laden... I mean the Hussein... I mean the muslims from Afghanistan/Iraq/who cares, just bomb the shit out of them and increase homeland surveillance and we're safe again, goy! Justice will finally be restored."
I wish, the world was that simple. What I'm saying is, people who aren't personally affected by this as much can look at it from a more distanced, more objective position, which is why non-Americans tend to question the story more than Americans and those who question it, usually do some research and those who research usually end up not believing what is told.

Post: #35

Penn and Teller summed up the vaccination argument pretty succinctly in one of their TV show episodes.

TL;DW
Even if vaccines cause autism in 1 of every 110 kids (which has been debunked wayyy too many times), kids stand a far better chance of survival than without because they would be vulnerable to countless infectious diseases.

Post: #36

(12-11-2015 01:52 AM)Byzantium Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 01:43 AM)Mr. Brightside Wrote:  My great grandmother got shingles in her eye socket and they had to sew that sucker shut. Thank god for vaccines, and god bless those little kiddos whose parents are too fucking ignorant to give their children such protection.

The protection of a god whose existence isn't worth capitalizing isn't worth invoking or thanking.

It's just a common interjection you dweeb, not a declaration of faith.

Oh wait, you're a troll. Ban in 5, 4...

Post: #37

Vaccines are not some uniform type, I am convinced most vaccines are very good, such as polio, TB and a bunch of other things. The long standing vaccines have been tested on millions if not billions of people. Cause and effect and side effects are well known.

What is not good is hastily put together vaccines when the latest flu scare out of Africa or the HPV vaccine or vaccines for non-lethal, non-risky diseases, pushed by the corrupt medical establishment.

Post: #38

(12-11-2015 04:59 PM)Requiem Wrote:  Maybe the 2 main towers fell because of the weight of the planes but I'm still sceptical as this doesn't explain why the steel beams just melted away like my heart when I see Selena Gomez (a little cheesy joke here for the very funny amongst us).

You do know that steel doesn't need to melt before it loses substantial strength right?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

Post: #39

To quote an acquaintance of mine, one with a very shady past. " I swear, you americans are like fuckin robots! What if 9/11 actually happened but someone was paid to do it!?".

Post: #40

(12-12-2015 10:52 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  Vaccines are not some uniform type, I am convinced most vaccines are very good, such as polio, TB and a bunch of other things. The long standing vaccines have been tested on millions if not billions of people. Cause and effect and side effects are well known.

What is not good is hastily put together vaccines when the latest flu scare out of Africa or the HPV vaccine or vaccines for non-lethal, non-risky diseases, pushed by the corrupt medical establishment.

Each flu season there is a percentage of the population that will be fatally effected by the virus. Which strain do you need to focus on for next year's season? You only have a few shots to get it right, to create enough vaccine to inoculate each community so those who can't get it, and who will be negatively effected by the strain, will have enough of a protective barrier to not catch it. Production takes time, and you need to guess correctly, or you just blew millions of dollars on something completely useless, and now people will die.

When the "swine flu" reemerged, they rightfully freaked the fuck out, seeing as how the last time it came around it wiped out a third of the world's population. It wasn't the same, but it had the same base code as 1918, same thing with "bird flu" -close enough to get everyone concerned.

It's not that the medical establishment is corrupt, it more that there is so much waste. The chick they put in charge of spearheading the swine flu campaign called in and (frivolously) used up almost all of our country's knockout mice. These guys were expensive then, now you can get custom order lineages, I think the ones they used up were about $2k-$10k a piece, maybe more. Right now a head of a research division at a university is being sued by his secretary for something weird, all the workers say it was cause she was going to get fired (she was grossly overpaid, is the consensus), and pulled a sexual harassment claim. If he gets fired, the university loses out on a $8 million darpa grant the team got for (ebola, I think) a project.

Anyways, the work isn't hard, it's just tedious as fuck. The equipment is very expensive, so you can't exactly splurge for the newest gene sequencer model 6S (what's the new iphone?) when it comes out each year. Pick the right flu to fight next year, throw all your resources at it to get it into production, and hope you were right.

Post: #41

(12-12-2015 07:15 PM)achromaticmike Wrote:  

(12-11-2015 04:59 PM)Requiem Wrote:  Maybe the 2 main towers fell because of the weight of the planes but I'm still sceptical as this doesn't explain why the steel beams just melted away like my heart when I see Selena Gomez (a little cheesy joke here for the very funny amongst us).

You do know that steel doesn't need to melt before it loses substantial strength right?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/

[Disclaimer: There are YouTube videos in my response, which makes my arguments implausible.]

The hotter you make the steel, the easier it would probably be to bend it, I guess. But you first have to make it very, very hot in order to be able to BEND STEEL. What I do know for certain however, is that you do have to melt steel in order to actually melt it:




Now some people say, that what we see here isn't melting steel but rather the melting medal from the plane. But... official analyzers and MSM reports actually talk about steel having been melted:







So there's really two main options: either, the steel didn't melt. Then I wonder how that whole building could just collapse at once with free fall, or, the steel did in fact melt, which seems to be evident from not only witnesses but actual objects that were retrieved from ground zero. Then you have to wonder, what caused that. The guy in the first report (Hyman Brown) says, it was the fire... there are others who say, a mere fire can't do it. I'm not going to take sides here, maybe the fire caused the collapse, but I think it's highly unlikely. In WTC7, I will insist however that the fire was not the cause of the collapse, which I will get into later.
If, like the second report indicates, the fire just kept burning for weeks even, then I simply refuse to believe that the little kerosene from the jets was able to do that, so there was probably something else at play... something like... THERMITE.

I don't know how much the "believers" here have looked into it so maybe I'm not telling you anything new here. No plane hit WTC7. Just coincidentally, on the same day that the biggest tragedy in US history happened, a related building just besides the two main towers, also catches fire without apparent reason. Ok, well let's assume such coincidences occured... then watch the actual collapse and tell me a fire on one level of a building that is this huge and especially broad is able to make that thing collapse evenly and parallel to the ground just like free fall. It is not possible. Watch how all corners of that building start going down simultaneously:




Then tell me, this is also a coincidence - the BBC reported the WTC7-collapse before it happened:




They had the info from Reuters. Reuters never explained, how they happened to have visionary-skills. The fact that Reuters is one of the largest news agencies worldwide doesn't make it sincere. Quite the contrary actually. Look into who founded it, who owns it and what their history is. Actually you don't have to, because it's always the same results for large media if you know what I'm getting at.


Why did the owner of the WTC go to work everyday like a clock but on that one day of the events, he coincidentally had a dentist appointment and just didn't feel like going to work before then? Dude, weed, lmao... there sure were a whole lot of coincidences in a single day. It's like the universe just loves your rich people and hates all the plebs. Guess when shit hits the fan, it really just hits the fucking fan, right? I better go watch some more goy-TV to distract me from all these spooky mysteries.

Just 2 more videos, not that they are particularly good, but to get you interested as it seems that few have actually looked into it. The "debunkers" usually either lack info or actual arguments based on the available info. I can tell you why - it didn't happen as it was told.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-cGbEwfx20

If all of this doesn't at least make you skeptical, then there is still the possibility Easy_C mentioned. It was either an inside job, or at a bare minimum, it was let happen. I really cannot fathom how some people can be certain that the official story is true. How people can trust your government even after the many declassified documents and leaks (e.g. about the plans for a coordinated terror-attack during the Kennedy administration, which Kennedy managed to balk. - Why did he actually have to die? Oh, I remember, it was a crazy person with a rifle. Ok, let's move on, nothing to see here, just a dead president. And a dead assassin. Business as usual. And why did they let Pearl Harbour happen? Well, it's probably a bit harsh to assume that just because they fucked you over in this way a couple of times already, that they would also be capable of doing it another time). Questioning 9/11 isn't even tinfoiling anymore. I'm not saying I know how it went down, I'm saying the official story is a fairytale and was used to get you into war, to restrict your freedoms and to increase surveillance. Sacrificing a few goys isn't a necessary but a fun evil to certain people.

Post: #42

Wow, from chicken pox, to conspiracies to 9/11 conspiracies! Thread derail.

This thread appears to have world re-known experts on steel, especially steel columns and beams with reinforced concrete all of a sudden, and to quote posters before me, cite Youtube as "truth" and potential Jew conspiracies.

Steel has low melting point, prior to that it can deform when it reaches what is known as the elastic point. If you were a plumber or any man who had to bend something, even a muscle, you need to warm it up first. If you do not warm metal up it can fracture, bend a different way you want it to or as metal has a good habit of doing, doesn't move at all.

Go to your local wielders shop, find a sturdy piece of metal 1-2 inches thick, place it in a vice and try to bend it with your own strength or a significant weight.

Steel is good under tension, bending motion, resistance to torsion and its lightweight application in comparison to concrete. There is a very good reason you wrap steel and most metals in insulation. Heat fucks it up.

The jews did not place demolition charges in the main columns. It was a matter of heat+steel+impact+oxygen+fuel+gravity. I have no idea how heavy the towers weighed but the parts above the impact areas were heavy enough to cause a cataclysmic implosion and when weight is combined with intertia, you have only a skeleton of a building left to take the impact, the end result is a pile on the ground.

Post: #43

(12-13-2015 11:17 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  to quote posters before me, cite Youtube as "truth"

Yeah, let's look at that:
First video: Capture of what actually happened, no commentary. But since the video was uploaded to YouTube it must be a lie.
Second video: NBC news-report. But since it was uploaded to YouTube, it now turned into an amateur home-video. Not worth considering.
Third video: compilation of news reports from several MSM outlets. BUT... since it's on YouTube, its credibility can now be compared to the drunk bummer at the street corner yelling at night.
Fourth video: See first video.
Fifth video: BBC news report. But uploaded to YouTube, so not actually BBC.
The last two videos I said were not especially good. But one is a discussion and the other contains MSM reports also.

Well fuck me, how could I be so reckless with my sources.

(12-13-2015 11:17 AM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  It was a matter of heat+steel+impact+oxygen+fuel+gravity. I have no idea how heavy the towers weighed but the parts above the impact areas were heavy enough to cause a cataclysmic implosion and when weight is combined with intertia, you have only a skeleton of a building left to take the impact, the end result is a pile on the ground.

Even though I doubt that this alone did the trick, I don't claim that it was necessarily otherwise. I'm saying there are other likely possibilities that need to be at least considered but maybe you're right and this actually was what caused it... in the main towers. WTC7 lacks fuel+impact, so summarizing the remaining factors, you're saying that an office fire (heat+oxygen) made tons of steel bend all at once and thus led to a perfect free fall collapse of one of the largest buildings in the world. That sure sounds much more plausible than what all those crazy tinfoilers say. I never saw it this way. You actually have very good point. You convinced me. I take back what I said and now claim the opposite. Thanks for showing me the light. The world ain't all that dark and evil after all. Seems like I'll be able to sleep tight again tonight. Be right back watching a sitcom and smoking some weed. Life is good.

Post: #44

Fuck it, not worth it. He's too far gone.

Post: #45

(12-13-2015 04:10 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Fuck it, not worth it. He's too far gone.

Gr8 b8, m8. I r8 9/11.
Here, have a free reply:


Also, don't give reps for single posts if you expect the respective user to agree with you on every other important issue as well. That's foolish.

Glad we talked.