Paper "AMERO" will replace the dollar by spring!? - page 70
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
"The devil's greatest trick is to convince everyone that he doesn't exist"
I don't remember who said it... (probably from some movie)
Hello, Alexei.
Isn't the human psyche interesting? Killing a bunch of people for power or money goes without saying. But to write a book about how it was done, to disavow the bastards in this way, is blasphemy. After all, it was written only for the sake of money. Exclusively.
What is this? Stupidity? Primitive thinking? We can understand a petty game - write a book for the sake of money, but all the bigger ones just do not fit in our heads. Maybe it's just scary to wake up? Much more comfortable to dream under the blanket, chewing the myths that were fed from the television.
I can understand how a person can believe in some "capitalist paradise" or "communist paradise", but I cannot understand why a person with such stubbornness, even aggression, defends this myth, thus fooling himself. What is he defending, the right to ignorance? The right to be lazy? Or an ideal that helps him live?
Maybe you can explain it to me?
I have always been an opponent of accusations of any kind without clear evidence and facts (I became a sceptic probably because of my mathematical education). I have seen many such books and they are primarily aimed at a conspiracy theory infected public, which always become bestsellers in the early days and then are forgotten. If you like it and it tickles your fancy, read it. Only, it is usually very incorrect to make claims about the truth of others' sensational but unsubstantiated opinions. Such things say a lot about the worldview of the applicant.
Unfortunately for me almost all CIS citizens are "infected" with the conspiracy theory virus, maybe it's because they see it every day in reality (corruption is also a conspiracy), but believe me it is not so everywhere.
P.S. Even the title of the theme is inspired by such a virus. Somehow I am sure that such a topic with a minimum of probability could appear on American sites.
Of course, it's better to keep quiet and god forbid to publish a book about 09/11 or else be accused of wanting to make money.
When I found out more about the author, I started to think that he was making money off the short-sighted readers after all.
About paid-for articles-books. An example is fairly recent:
There is an article by Kudrin at the very top of Новости@Mail.Ru right now : the reserve fund will be spent in 2010.
Since I don't have a TV, I turned on online TV for the first time to see this statement in the news. But not a word about it in any of the newscasts. Was I watching it badly or was the article commissioned to upset the market?
I have always been an opponent of accusations of any kind without clear evidence and facts (I became a sceptic probably because of my mathematical education). I have seen many such books and they are primarily aimed at a conspiracy theory infected public, they always become bestsellers in the first days of their appearance and then they are forgotten. If you like it and it tickles your fancy, read it. Only, it is usually very incorrect to make claims about the truth of others' sensational but unsubstantiated opinions. Such things say a lot about the worldview of the applicant.
To my regret, almost all CIS citizens are "infected" with the conspiracy theory virus, probably because they see it every day in reality (corruption is a conspiracy too), but believe me it is not so everywhere.
P.S. Even the title of the thread is inspired by that virus. Somehow I am sure that such a topic would appear on American sites with a minimum of probability.
You have a big problem with maths, kid. You probably got an education, but you didn't learn the method. :-(
1. Please, please, go to the "statements of truth of other people's sensational but unsubstantiated opinions". Quote pls. If there is no citation, it says a lot about the worldview of the applicant of this statement. In particular that he is twisting and wishful thinking. Or worse, that he is not even capable of understanding the posts of this thread.
2. The holy belief that conspiracy theory is bullshit is just as naive and unjustified as the belief that it is just. Since, apart from this belief, the petitioner has nothing, his opinion is not supported by anything, neither evidence nor facts. For this reason the opinion can be disregarded.
By the way, this book has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. This fact allows us to understand the origins of the applicant's belief - as is often the case, simple ignorance.
3. The facts in this book are overwhelming. How the petitioner has managed to overlook them is totally incomprehensible. Most likely the reason is that the said applicant is unable to refute any of them. He is not even able to point out which one is a lie and which one is the truth. Therefore the method of staus is chosen - to close one's eyes.
4. Clear evidence in the humanitarian sphere can be video or audio recordings of the events in question, authentic documents revealing their essence, as well as the honest confessions of the perpetrators. What do you want? Where do you want it?
The author of the book is merely offering his version of the events. If the applicant does not understand it, then either he has big problems with reading texts or he has not read at all, even the review cited.
One last thing. As someone with a mathematical background, the applicant should know that if he does not agree with the author's version of the book, or with his arguments, he should give his evidence, or at least arguments as to why that version is wrong. The claim that the version is wrong because it is a conspiracy theory in which the applicant does not believe is mathematically incorrect and, from a humanitarian point of view, childish babble.
If the applicant is "somehow convinced" otherwise, he had better voluntarily surrender his maths degree where he got it.
About paid-for articles-books. An example is fairly recent:
There is an article by Kudrin at the very top of Новости@Mail.Ru right now : the reserve fund will be spent in 2010.
Since I don't have a TV, I turned on online TV for the first time to see this statement on the news. But not a word about it in any of the newscasts. Was it me watching badly or was the article custom made to unsettle the market?
Enjoy and don't believe in conspiracies. And also don't believe in conspiracies.
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=278092&cid=1
1. Please provide a "statement of the truth of other people's sensational but unsubstantiated opinions". Quote pls.
Yurixx 21.04.2009 00:18
Here, for all lovers of factual material, information for reflection and self reflection on real processes in the world, and in particular for my friend Timbo, I suggest the following text: http://saint-juste.narod.ru/11092001.htm
Is there a conspiracy or no conspiracy I do not know for sure, I think that probably not, but you young man are quite tired of citing all kinds of bullshit and tripe presented as the latest factual material every time.
Interesting movie, they (conspirators) were waiting for the twins to burn so they could detonate pre-bombs and attribute everything to Al-Qaeda.
Why the hell are there planes in this chain? In such events the chain is kept to a minimum as each link is potentially unreliable.
What prevented the bombing and write off the same address with pictures of some workers carrying something into buildings well etc.
There was no urgent removal of the wreckage. There was a company called "W-Trade" (offshore programming, owned by husband and wife, Russians) in a building that was not damaged but subsequently demolished.
If you have the materials, you can easily check it. The programmers were sitting in St. Petersburg (I can give you the address), but they were not allowed into the building and the wreckage remained in their offices for days.
They were broadcasting live on satellite with the debris in the background. If you analyze all this stuff point by point, there will be nothing left but the cover.
I can assume I have some illusions and I'm ready to part with them, but I won't trade them for your bullshit, like a pimply-eyed teenager finding porn in the trash and taking it to school
to surprise your classmates.
Tired
Sad, girls, critical analysis is missing as a class...
Эта книга произвела фурор и мгновенно стала бестселлером во Франции, а затем и в других европейских странах. В США власти более года препятствовали выходу в свет этой книги, но она все же была опубликована - и сразу стала мощнейшим подспорьем для антивоенного и "антиглобалистского" движения.
The first sentence is a lie. "It's impossible to prevent a book from being published". You just go to the printer, pay and a few days later you get a print run. You can print anything you like. It's called "freedom of speech".
Wikipedia says the book was a bestseller in Arab countries, but says nothing about France. Knowing the French I highly doubt the book could have been a bestseller in Fragcia. The French don't care about America.
One might wonder about the identity of the author - Thierry Meyssan is a professional writer on the subject of various conspiracies, a kind of fiction writer.
Those who are not lazy at all can enquire about the counterarguments to the Pentagon's self-attack theory - there are some.
________________________________
Jim Hoffman and other members have produced essays examining the "No Boeing" claims and have concluded that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon.[ 78][ 79] Several researchers have argued that the wings would cause less damage than the plane's main body,[ 80] that photographs of large amounts of wreckage and debris matching a 757 have become available, that the appearance of the size of the hole is typically misrepresented; and that the actual fuselage diameter of 12 feet is a much more relevant dimension for the deepest parts of the hole than the overall 44-foot height of the 757's tail.[ 81][ 82] They also emphasize reports from numerous eyewitnesses, including commuters on nearby roads,[ 83] nearby apartment buildings,[ 84] and other surrounding locations. Many witnesses saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon and described it as an American Airlines Boeing 757.[ 85][ 86][ 87] The remains of all but one of the victims of Flight 77 have been identified using DNA testing.[ 88][ 89]
__________________________________________
The main question is: why all these theories here? Ah yes - if those pindos are such bastards that they rammed themselves and then lied to everyone, then everything they do to the economy is bad, and whoever disagrees is a scumbag. With that logic all Russians should just kill themselves, because so much blood and lies have been made by Russian-Soviet-Russian rulers... Americans are children by comparison.
You've got a big problem with maths, boy. You may have had an education, but you haven't mastered the method. :-(
1. Please, please, in the studio "statements about the truthfulness of other people's sensational but unsubstantiated opinions". Quote pls. If there is no citation, it says a lot about the worldview of the applicant of this statement. In particular that he is twisting and wishful thinking. Or worse, that he is not even capable of understanding the posts of this thread.
2. The holy belief that conspiracy theory is bullshit is just as naive and unjustified as the belief that it is just. Since, apart from this belief, the petitioner has nothing, his opinion is not supported by anything, neither evidence nor facts. For this reason the opinion can be disregarded.
By the way, this book has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. This fact allows us to understand the origins of the applicant's belief - as is often the case, simple ignorance.
3. The facts in this book are overwhelming. How the petitioner has managed to overlook them is totally incomprehensible. Most likely the reason is that the said applicant is unable to refute any of them. He is not even able to point out which one is a lie and which one is the truth. Therefore the method of staus is chosen - to close one's eyes.
4. Clear evidence in the humanitarian sphere can be video or audio recordings of the events in question, authentic documents revealing their essence, as well as the honest confessions of the perpetrators. What do you want? Where do you want it?
The author of the book is merely offering his version of the events. If the applicant does not understand it, then either he has big problems with reading texts or he has not read at all, even the review cited.
One last thing. As someone with a mathematical background, the applicant should know that if he does not agree with the author's version of the book, or with his arguments, he should give his evidence, or at least arguments as to why that version is wrong. The claim that the version is wrong because it is a conspiracy theory in which the applicant does not believe is mathematically incorrect and, from a humanitarian point of view, childish babble.
If the applicant is "somehow convinced" otherwise, he had better voluntarily surrender his maths degree where he got it.
This post can be described as quite moronic, and particularly ignorant, if similar thoughts are actually coming to you, I sympathise.
P.S. I'll allow myself to add a couple of fundamental things to your knowledge base.
1. In mathematics, emptiness is not proved, its existence is axiomatic. If Somebody pretends that Something exists, he has to prove it.
2. "...As someone with a mathematical background, the claimant should know that if he does not agree with the author'sversion of the book, or with his arguments, he should give his evidence, or at least arguments why that version is wrong. The claim that the version is wrong because it is a conspiracy theory in which the applicant does not believe... "
Although I have a non-humanitarian background, I think that the word version is synonymous with hypothesis or assumption. Then what is there to prove? Your contradiction does not need proving.