Are conspiracy theorists ever right?

Explain why that's a case of incompetence. When I couldn't find the thread that you said you were able to find, I'd done a search on "Depleted Uranium" when I was logged in and only one page appeared with links to two different threads. That's why you found it and I didn't. It occurred to me to try it while logged out and twenty pages came up and I found that thread right away.

Do you think that was because of a glitch, or something else?

 

So instead of answering posts in this thread and others, you persist in detailing how crap you are at simple tasks! It works the same logged on or off.

 

It's supposed to work that way but it didn't. That was very strange.

I just tried it again logged in and logged out. This time it worked both ways. Something strange is going on.

 

There's really not much else to do here. The viewers have seen the info I posted and they've seen your responses to it. They can judge for themselves on whether or not you're sincere.

 

That is always your dodge when proven wrong.

The viewers know you are a fool.

You know you have proven wrong as well on every thread

 

Now let's see:

Either it works perfectly for everyone who has a brain and is able to do this dead, dead simple task.

or.

It's a conspiracy, something strange is going on and you aren't actually completely useless on a computer after all - meanwhile everyone else is just lucky and not under some sort of evil control. Or some other weird tin-foil hat hogwash.

Tough one that.

 

Great, logoff go get a life.

Yes, the "viewers" who never agree with you have seen your 20 year spam-athon and have decided you need to stop because you have been humiliated for 20 years and are incapable of seeing this.

Indeed, but my sincerity is not up for debate since the content is what needs assessing. So typical of you to evade the words written, make an ad hominem argument and then run away.

 

Stuff like this is all about misdirection. Depleted uranium isn't harmful sitting next to you, or really even as a chunk of metal imbedded in muscular tissue, but its deadly if you ingest or inhale its particulates that can cycle through your blood and lodge in radiosensitive organs like the brain.. The studies 'assume' that no one is ingesting or inhaling the DU rounds. But, of course, when you fire DU rounds, they fragment particulates both at the point of firing and at the point of impact, and those particulates get into the air, food and water, and thus get ingested and inhaled. This is how and why a 'dirty bomb' works. Of course, the people doing the study surely understand this, so they are conspiring to misdirect from the truth by omitting particulate ingestion and inhalation from their study.

Its worth nothing that DU is only marginally more effective at armor penetration than tungsten. But tungsten is expensive and DU is basically free because the nuclear energy industry normally would have to pay large amounts of money to safely store DU, and are quite happy to instead just give it to the military, who are also quite happy to get free DU instead of buying tungsten.

 

You're misrepresenting what the videos say to mislead those viewers who don't take the time to look at them. Go to the 7:20 time mark of this video.

Talk - Dr. Doug Rokke - Depleted Uranium (DU)


This guy talks about the effects of inhaling depleted uranium dust.

 

I didn't watch your 57min video (and I'm not going to) or comment on what it said. I referred only to studies on the matter. Which I clearly stated in my comment that you edited out. Are you trying to misrepresent what I said?

 

It looked to me like you were referring to the studies by Dr Rokke and the other truthers. If you were referring to the studies by RAND, your comment makes sense so I'm sorry about that.

Your refusing to watch the video hurts your credibility though. Refusing to look at one side of a debate would get you laughed out of the debating hall.

 

True. I dont have an hour to commit this.

 

Even when you apply the comments about particulates to DU weapons, it still does not invalidate the study. The whole point of war is kill your enemy. ALL weapons tear up into particulates and the lead/mercury is the main problem by some considerable margin. The level of radioactivity from depleted uranium is very low, unless you use a crazy amount of them. Unfortunately, the US military and to some extent the British have done exactly that.

Ridiculous, even when somebody adds some meat to the story you spammed, because you fail to do so yourself, you still come up with this idiotic credibility and debate hall bullshit!

To put this into context, you are suggesting that a whole barrage of scientists lie, based on your pathetic attempt to poison the well, with some half-assed "assessment" concerning RAND - a ridiculous generalisation from a completely unscientific claim! Is the weapon dangerous? Yes. Is the depleted uranium? No. Would the depleted uranium be maybe dangerous if you chucked a few tons of it at your enemy. Probably. BUT, the waste from the lead and mercury would be orders of magnitude worse! So your other pathetic attempt, without ANY scientific analysis, or rigor, to pin the deformities on the RAND report on DU is also bullshit.

 

RAND is probably much like Google, owned by our Cocaine Importing Agency.

Like WHO and NIAID, they advance various official narratives.

Anybody that breathes in DU dust will become poisoned. That RAND would have its readers believe otherwise is what one would expect from an organ of the Military Industrial Complex.

 

In a way.....
I am merely a janitor who reads a lot, but I am working on my own little conspiracy of sorts to attempt to set in motion a plan to pay off the national debt of the USA before the year 2031?!

Seventeen percent of the far more than average posters on politicalforum are not laughing at my theory either!

I had to use the idea of paying it off in one year for the shock value....... but even that is theoretically possible.... if sixty percent of Americans would do their research?!


Can the national debt of the USA be paid off in one year?


?
Can the national debt of the USA be paid off in one year?

1. 
   No
   28 vote(s)
   80.0%
2. 
   Yes
   4 vote(s)
   11.4%
3. *
   No.. it will take seven years and Ezekiel chapters forty to forty eight must be prepared for.
   2 vote(s)
   5.7%
4. 
   By this do you mean that the national debt of the USA is partly a practical joke???????
   1 vote(s)
   2.9%

Change Your Vote

 

I've posted this info on a couple of other threads but it's relevant to the discussion on this thread too.

MEDICAL JOURNALS CORRUPT TO THE CORE!
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/medical-journals-corrupt-to-the-core/

Perspectives on the Pandemic | "The Illusion of Evidence Based Medicine" | Episode 13 Remastered
https://off-guardian.org/2021/04/20/watch-perspectives-on-the-pandemic-13/

Here's a transcript of the above video in case it goes off-line.
https://www.thepressandthepublic.com/post/the-illusion-of-evidence-based-medicine


According to these two doctors peer review is under the same control that the media are under. Start watching at around the 31:45 time mark.

Dr Tenpenny and Dr. Lee Merritt - The Medical Industry Has Now Been Weaponized
https://ugetube.com/watch/dr-tenpen...qGPN9GmGgHid51sXwDGu2vb7HDMbtkImVXHsXeW9ys0UA

 

The wholesale rejection of the Hippocratic Oath by so much of the western medical profession is the real shame here.

Do the good guys like Tenpenny, Merritt, Bridle and others outnumber the bad guys? It's hard to tell, but I think not.

 

Yes.

Watergate, for example. (Not so sure about all the other "gates" out there, though).

 

Not in this case. There are a few that turned out to be true, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Nowadays, batshit is completely out of control for a select minority. No amount of discussion will persuade them otherwise.

Would Watergate be the most famous conspiracy theory that turned out to be true? - Quora

Watergate wasn’t a conspiracy theory. It was a burglary attempt that failed. The crime was investigated and the perpetrators were caught. The only aspect of the crime that was left to theorize was the identity of ‘deep throat’.

 

No it isn't. It's just more of your spamming and complete failure to validate the credibility of your useless sources.

 

I think you're confused as to what a conspiracy is.

 

No. I think you are confusing conspiracies with conspiracy theories. Watergate had no theories being bandied about.

 

Yes, the theory was that the Nixon administration had conspired against its political opponents.

 

Ok. Well my memory of the events says otherwise.

 

And the theory was proved to be fact.

Another case of conspiracy theory evolving into conspiracy fact.