Posts by wiredtiger10

William Newman67 said:Look, first off, I don't get some of these comments—like "what's the point?" or "it only supports 64-bit." Man, I am stoked! Can't wait for the full release. I already grabbed the beta, just haven't had a chance to dive in yet. This thing is gonna fly compared to Vista because it follows that Macintosh philosophy... we build the OS, and then it's up to everyone else to catch up with hardware and software support. It’s easy to build a high-performance OS when you aren't trying to juggle everything—Vista tries to recognize 99% of all hardware out of the box, which means it's loading a massive amount of .dll files right at startup. No wonder people complain about it being slow. Personally, I've been running Vista x64 for a year now, and there is zero chance I'm going back to Windows XP even if my life depended on it... "Not Responding"... lol.
Try running Vista on 4GB of RAM and maybe you'll change your mind, losers. Next time, actually read what an OS needs to function. What's wrong with a 64-bit system? You aren't stuck with a 3.5GB limit, and there are basically 90% fewer viruses... people are honestly clueless, man. It was the exact same drama when Windows XP launched... "Ugh, this sucks, Windows 98 was the king"... please, give me a break...

Sean Patel4 said:it's actually hilarious 🤣
man, Harsh Times is easily in my top 10—there’s just this specific vibe to it, I can't even put it into words.

Maria Thompson2 says:
Look, if you actually want people to take you seriously, you’ve gotta look at the other side of the argument too!

1) You claim you build houses—and honestly, as an economist and political scientist, I’d be dead serious offended if you told me how to frame a house. But what these documentaries do is tell YOU how a house is built! And you don't get offended by that—you think it's great!

Residential buildings, not houses.

These shows don't show opposing views—I didn't hear a single dissenting opinion in them. Not one lone engineer stepped up and said, "Hold on, that's wrong, those columns CAN melt from kerosene if they're wrapped in it, provided the concrete casing takes a massive hit first!"—no, they just give you one specific perspective. That's it!

That's not it. In a few documentaries, I saw a statement from someone who designed the World Trade Center saying those towers were built to withstand multiple hits from a Boeing much larger than the ones that struck the WTC. Isn't that credible?

Btw, interesting thing—everyone in that film keeps saying, "You can't melt a reinforced concrete column at those temperatures," but NOBODY MENTIONS THAT AFTER THE IMPACT, THE COLUMN ISN'T EVEN THE SAME COLUMN! Nobody accounts for the fact that because of the impact from a plane with massive mass, those columns LOST A HUGE CHUNK OF CONCRETE and the steel rebar inside was EXPOSED! And once that happens, it takes WAY FEWER DEGREES to make that steel—not MELT, just HEAT UP!
Because remember how swords are forged? You don't melt the steel into liquid, you just heat it up! And then the weight of the floors above it CRUSHES that heated steel, and that's when the cascade starts!

What about the statements from demolition experts? They all agree it was a controlled demolition using explosives. Now, the easy way out is to say: "Oh, they're just pseudo-experts or mercenaries." That's how you can dismiss any evidence as just being part of a conspiracy.

Interesting, I hadn't heard that data before.

If everything is a conspiracy, then I'm really curious how many serious builders would actually TAKE INTO ACCOUNTi>I mean, man, as a builder, you know how much that spikes the budget. Does it go up by half? By 90%? You think anyone is just going to swallow that cost?

I build residential buildings, but not skyscrapers, so I haven't run into that issue yet.

3) If you’re actually in private business, then you KNOW EXACTLY what kind of chaos ensues when you try to organize even the smallest thing! How things leak from every side and how the final product ends up heading in a totally different direction!

I know. I also know that one person can manage 20 people during highly complex jobs without a single mistake happening.

And NOT ONE of these shows asks the simple question: how is it possible that in a conspiracy that had to involve HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE—not a single soul whispered to anyone else, "Hey honey, tomorrow I'm killing 3,500 people on orders from George Bush! Oh, btw, prep some roast beef for tonight, I'll be hungry."

I don't believe that many people were directly involved. I'm not talking about the people who instigated it—there were probably hundreds of those. I mean the people who did the actual work to prevent a response—like blocking military jets or missiles. This is just a guess, maybe 25 people, but it's unconfirmed and could be totally wrong. Within agencies like the CIA, FBI, NORAD, NASA, the military, etc., there's a hierarchy and a chain of command. So, if the person running NORAD was involved—and they had to be if this scenario is true—they could have engineered the situation. Lower-ranking officials don't need to know anything about the operation; they just do their jobs.

You and these shows keep saying it’s ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE to pull off a perfectly orchestrated crime involving hundreds of people—administration, radar, NORAD, intelligence agencies—and have everyone just stay dead silent!

Look, I just don't buy that you need that many people. In my book, you only need the top brass in each agency and maybe a few guys right under them to plan and execute something like this.

My theory—that the Arabs just struck and took advantage of how massive the administration is, and then the hawks all jumped on it together—that's just not happening.

No, it isn't. That's probably one of the least likely scenarios out there. The problem is there's way too much evidence pointing the other way.

I mean, sure, it’s totally human—because whether you want to admit it or not, people EXPLOIT tragedies or other people's ignorance, and that happens all the time—so it's possible.
But no, it's still not probable. It's way more likely that a conspiracy involving over 200 people went down, nobody said a word, and everything went exactly according to plan.

Why 200 people? I don't get why such a huge number would even need to be involved in this.

Why doesn't any of these shows say something like: "Look at Watergate, for example—way fewer people were involved, maybe 20 total—and it came out. So can someone explain to me how WTCgate could possibly stay hidden with all those players involved?"

Like how that General got caught hunting and they tracked him down when there were maybe only 5 or 6 people involved. 😁 What does that prove? Nothing.

4) And just because YOU are honest and don't run from responsibility—can you honestly tell me that NOBODY here is dodging accountability? Especially those high-paid suits sitting in cushy positions?

More or less, everyone dodges responsibility. They drive company cars, live in rentals, everything is on credit. Why bother caring about the company car or how a job gets done? It's not like they're losing money directly, right? That's just the mindset most people have these days.

Which brings us back to these shows again—can someone explain WHY everyone thinks the US administration is built like the Borg? This super-efficient fusion of man and machine that takes orders from a "collective mind" and is so superior it's unstoppable? Because that’s exactly what these shows push—that the Borg rules America and every single move is perfectly calculated, leaving zero room for anything else to happen.

I don't see it that way. It's obvious they can't actually cover up the truth. Just look at the Vietnam War. From the initial cause of that war to all the testimonies from people directly involved, it was run specifically to drag it out rather than actually win. You probably know more about this than I do, so feel free to weigh in.

Maria Thompson2 said:If you had paid a bit more attention to actual films rather than just scrolling through silly anonymous websites, you would see that none of those planes were performing any wild maneuvers at all. In fact, they were approaching the skyscrapers almost like projectiles; even the one that looks like it is "turning" is barely deviating from its path. It was a very clever way to make it look like the plane was struggling or trying to AVOID the building, rather than making it obvious that it had been hijacked.

But hey, once you provide me with the exact names of these "experts," seasoned pilots, and "rational people" who explicitly claim the same thing, then—and only then—will I believe you.
Until that happens, I can certainly point you toward a whole bunch of fascinatingly "true" websites where people claim that nothing happened at Auschwitz, that the Srebrenica lie is real, that merfolk exist, that the Russian administration is working with Orion, and that Anderlon is actually run by Stipe Mason.

Now, we eagerly await the reaction from the little fan girl regarding how a company should properly be managed.

northerncrane4 said:I don't see how anyone can call that a "fact"—simply because a few self-proclaimed experts say so? Every documentary I've watched lacks the actual specialists needed to explain *why* it is physically possible—leaving the viewer without any real way to weigh one side against the other.

As for the Pentagon and that fourth plane, I find the idea that they were hijacked and then shot down by our own military or air defense perfectly plausible. But since both were packed with civilians, someone clearly decided a cover-up was easier than dealing with the public fallout—so they rushed to deny the hit on the Pentagon and the debris in the field.

northerncrane4 said:I don't see how anyone can call that a "fact"—simply because a few self-proclaimed experts say so? Every documentary I've watched lacks the actual specialists needed to explain *why* it is physically possible—leaving the viewer without any real way to weigh one side against the other.

As for the Pentagon and that fourth plane, I find the idea that they were hijacked and then shot down by our own military or air defense perfectly plausible. But since both were packed with civilians, someone clearly decided a cover-up was easier than dealing with the public fallout—so they rushed to deny the hit on the Pentagon and the debris in the field.

northerncrane4 said:Did that documentary include anyone actually attempting to explain the official versions of the tower collapses and the Pentagon strike—alongside the usual 9/11 Conspiracy theories?

jadetiger962 said:Oatmeal is the absolute best way to go for breakfast. Just toss in some other grains, maybe a bit of dried fruit—whatever—pour on some milk or yogurt, and you're good to go.