WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

Twin Towers.

Explain the physics behind energy beam weapons causing the kind of damage seen in the towers. Get really detailed here because it will be necessary to substantiate your claims. If you do it correctly, you'll have discovered a whole new area of physics and you deserve the credit for it.

[–] 1 pt (edited )

Shucks, I would just refer you to Dr. Judy Wood. But I'm confident she's just a whacko. I have no idea what went on in Maui, I haven't looked into it.

Do you know that I can explain construction methods, theology and other various and sundry topics either using obscure (to the layman) or non-obscure terminology? Or a combination? Or, first obscure then a 'subtext'?

It would be to your benefit (and others probably, maybe) if you did the same on the subjects you feel you know well. You can't just baffle them with numbers and math and physics and expect to win them over (if you indeed do wish to win them over).

You feel me?

You want all those heady upvotes from folks who just think you sound good?

I also know this rocket scientist (below) as well, talked to him on the phone several years ago inadvertently while trying to reach his kid. He was played by Ron Howard's little brother (of Gentle Ben fame) in Apollo 13 (which rumor has it that it was a cooked up script in answer to people griping about the moon landings interrupting I Love Lucy reruns).

What do you think, is that possible?

But whatever the truth is, on anything, that's all I care about. I member my first foray into the interwebs and being fooled by "Hey look, it was the SS driver that actually shot JFK, see him turning around and see the gun in his hand!"

Well crud, I forgot my rocket scientist video.

[–] 0 pt

It would be to your benefit (and others probably, maybe) if you did the same on the subjects you feel you know well. You can't just baffle them with numbers and math and physics and expect to win them over (if you indeed do wish to win them over).

I do this all the time. I am well versed in this field so I provide the information that others don't know or don't want to believe as fact. I'm not here to coddle the weak minded. That's not going to help people who only think in emotional ways. We're way past that and they need to be smashed with facts and reality instead of perpetuating their child-like ignorance.

You want all those heady upvotes from folks who just think you sound good?

I don't give a shit about upvotes. I'm here to make people think and give factual information in my fields of expertise. And I don't drop names of the people who are public figures that I know in hopes of impressing someone on this site. Ahem.

[–] 0 pt

Might as well hear it from the horse's mouth, that being Dr Judy Wood who explains the discrepancies extremely concisely. Even then, her full lectures explaining all of the evidence takes an hour and a half to two hours. In a way, it'd be a disservice to try and simplify it. If you're not interested enough on alternative theories as to how the towers collapsed, that's fine.

[–] 0 pt

Okay, fair enough. For the most part.

Yeah I do name drop but I think people, most, find it interesting. They're just stories. I know I like to hear them from others.

I used to have an inordinate 'desire' (for lack of better terms or word) to be a celebrity, and I guess the infatuation still remains to a degree.

After high school I went straight to Hollywood to be somebody but blew all my dad's money, like the prodigal son in the Bible. Really stupid.

Finally came back home and settled on being a 'commercial artist' and made that happen.

[–] 0 pt
[–] 0 pt

You really have a unnatural connection to this stuff. So much pride in who you know. The fall commeth.

[–] 0 pt

Not really, my natural indwelling pride received a death blow when I was changed back in 1980 but there's definitely plenty that remains.

18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.