David Icke, is he for real or trolling people?

Boredstiff666

King Mob wrote: »

Old stuff that didn't work.
This was contrary to your claims.

Just because it was banned doesn't mean it is effective. I've shown you a study that actually tests the method.

Jeez so many twists and turns. You carry on you are only arguing with yourself.

King Mob

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Jeez so many twists and turns. You carry on you are only arguing with yourself.

So no then.

There's no evidence for a method that can brainwash people via the telly either now or then.
Your point doesn't help support the idea of a space based, AI controlled microwave weapon as is being discussed.

Boredstiff666

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have any evidence that there is new technology that can brainwash people?

No and never claimed to have contrary to what you say but if such was 'secret' then not many people would have evidence to portray to others would they?

I prefer to have an open mind and say anything is possible.

Whereas you have such superior knowledge to all others (or you cant find it on Wiki) that you discount that and everything else until it lands on your head. In which case I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't give it a possibility then.

My question to you earlier was do you believe in a god? And you still havent answered....why?

King Mob

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

No and never claimed to have contrary to what you say but if such was 'secret' then not many people would have evidence to portray to others would they?

The lack of evidence is also indicative that it doesn't exist.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I prefer to have an open mind and say anything is possible.

And believing that there's a spacebased, AI controlled, brain erasing laser in space is a bit silly.
There's a difference between having an open mind and believing in fantasies.

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

Whereas you have such superior knowledge to all others (or you cant find it on Wiki) that you discount that and everything else until it lands on your head. In which case I wouldn't be at all surprised if you didn't give it a possibility then.

Lol, wut?

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

My question to you earlier was do you believe in a god? And you still havent answered....why?

Because it's not relevant to the discussion.
I don't believe in God.

Dohnjoe

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

I am no expert on such but even I fail to see how those buildings came down the way they did and have never heard David Icke on about it.

I do have some engineering knowledge and know a bit about steel construction. I also know it is impossible to melt steel with just diesel fuel or solid fuel if not in a controlled environment. So all that stops there and David Icke doesnt need to tell me this if he ever did.

Well to bring you up to speed from 2003, melting steel had nothing to do with the collapses. The engineering (and architectural) world has overwhelmingly accepted the collapse theories of 911, the findings are covered and taught in universities, incorporated in building code. There isn't any major recognised group representing engineers or other experts, globally, which has come forward to dispute those facts. Multiple credible investigations carried out over the years have only reinforced the findings.

But this is all off topic, as mentioned there is a 911 sub-forum

Boredstiff666

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well to bring you up to speed from 2003, melting steel had nothing to do with the collapses. The engineering (and architectural) world has overwhelmingly accepted the collapse theories of 911, the findings are covered and taught in universities, incorporated in building code. There isn't any major recognised group representing engineers or other experts, globally, which has come forward to dispute those facts. Multiple credible investigations carried out over the years have only reinforced the findings.

But this is all off topic, as mentioned there is a 911 sub-forum

True but I am bemused how if steel didnt melt that building could come down that way with out being blown.........but as you say....another topic.

Dohnjoe

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

True but I am bemused how if steel didnt melt that building could come down that way with out being blown.........but as you say....another topic.

Weakened steel. There's a reason why steel has been cladded in fire-proof protection in buildings for decades, it's vulnerable to fire (weakening, thermal expansion). Office fires can cause it to lose significant strength and stiffness



But indeed, it's off-topic here

Boredstiff666

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Weakened steel. There's a reason why steel has been cladded in fire-proof protection in buildings for decades, it's vulnerable to fire (weakening, thermal expansion). Office fires can cause it to lose significant strength and stiffness



But indeed, it's off-topic here

Yes I know they used to cover all steel frames in buildings in asbestos. But they kind of wilt not collapse into itself as the steel is still welded or bolted together.

ohnonotgmail

Boredstiff666 wrote: »

It's old stuff. Stuff that was played around with so long ago it may not be even relevant today with digital tv. But it was never allowed to be used so that may tell you something.

So being as it is 'old technology' you wont be finding someone messing with it as the old style tv's are long gone.

Who knows??? Well maybe you do as the world according to King Mob is to disprove everything even though he knows????

Never allowed to be used by who? who prevented it from being used?