politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Can never rule out the christofacists being stupid on a completely unfathomable level but:
Odds are VERY good he was murdered. At most, one could maybe argue that he was spirited away only to be killed elsewhere so he wouldn't talk. But at that point... why not just kill him in his cell?
I'll also add on: epstein's death is one of those focal points for this "scandal". It is also the safest to manufacture easily refutable conspiracy over. So be very careful of over-fixating. I mean... just look at 9-11. All the idiots insist "jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" and we all mock them for it. But it did a great job of distracting the public as a whole from questions of how preventable it was and who actually bankrolled it.
He's definitely dead and likely died in prison at the hands of someone, probably an inmate or someone dressed to appear as an inmate.
It was a message to anyone exposed in this that not even a federal prison will keep someone safe from their reach. Probably why there's so much due diligence around redacting the co-conspirators and less so on other reductions. If known, those individuals would be added to the same suicide list that Epstein was on after he was indicted and jailed.
Let's face it. The rich and powerful we know are just the showmen who want the attention. There are just as likely very rich and powerful people who are also willing and able to remove threats at the mere hint of that threat, whether credible or not.
There are two theories beginning to appear everywhere right now: that Epstein worked for Russia and that Epstein is still alive. Both smell very much like deliberate attempts to muddy the waters and confuse people into giving up on the truth. We shouldn't let ourselves be distracted. Epstein is almost certainly dead and probably worked for Mossad, perhaps with some freelance blackmail for others too. And the main issue now is to get the rest of the files released and unredact the names and crimes of the perpetrators whom Trump's DOJ is determined to protect.
Don't forget the billions of dollars that went missing on 9/11 that were never recovered and barely reported on.
WTC 7 held a SEC storage area that had the majority of the Enron documents in it. They were, of course, destroyed. What a happy coincidence.
What's the first rule of conspiracies? What are the other ones?
The first rule is basically that the more people required to be involved in a conspiracy, the less likely that someone doesn't eventually leak something.
I will note that this works for a lot of the more dubious ones, we never went to the moon, the earth is flat, etc.
But I will also note that any competent intelligence type agency compartmentalizes as much information as possible, so that very few people actually know enough to put together a 'big' story.
Manhattan Project
Are you saying the Manhattan Project was leak free? If you are, that is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Cohen_(spy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppenheimer_security_clearance_hearing#Chevalier_incident
No, just that it was a hundred and thirty thousand people and it still wasn’t known until they literally dropped an atomic bomb.
“Conspiracies can’t exist because there would be leaks” is just not a great argument. Of course in Demented Rapist Land conspiracies can be front page news and sweet fuckall would happen.
It wasn't known to the general public.
... It was known to who the spies were leaking too.
Who then also largely kept it a secret.
This is a prime example of why I tried to list the sort of two... extreme edges of this 'rule'.
The entire Epstein thing is basically very similar to the Manhattan project inasmuch as... a pretty good deal of people knew something, a good deal of people knew a lot.
But... most of those people were... pretty good at this compartmentalizion thing. Not to mention just actually members or clients of or directly connected to intelligence agencies.
Untill enough of them fucked up, harder and harder, at keeping things a secret.
I don't see this as a kind of cut and dry fullproof rule.
I see it as a reasonable first pass heuristic.
Alright since you brought it up. My stance is that jet fuel CAN'T melt steel beams but they sure as hell can weaken them. However my own logic prevents me from accepting a bottom starting pancake collapse when the heat is at the top. Wouldn't that have been a top-down pancake at the very least?
It collapsed at the point of impact where the steel weakened, then that crushed everything below it. The evidence is all over and has been for almost 25 years now. Just watch the videos.
It didn’t start at the bottom, but once the section above started to move, weight+inertia would begin to cause failures all up and down the lower section, mostly at the top but certainly along other points, as all of them are now under more stress than they were ever designed to withstand.
At those levels of force, welds, rivets, hell the beams themselves were no match; and the longer it went on the faster it got, and the weaker the lower structure became, in a run-away effect.
Didn't it start from the top down? It's been 25 years but I watched it live and that's what I remember seeing.
Who you're going to believe? Some rando on lemmy or your lying eyes?
Well it has been a long time. I'd trust then more if I wasn't relying on a long faded memory.
What about:
The planes did the damage and they didn't need to rig the towers with c4, but they ignored the plot when they learned about it a month before hand and only shot down the planes that were going to "important" places.
BUT WHAT ABOUT WTC 7
IDK if you'rejoning, but jet fuel can 100% melt steel beams. That's basic physics
Jet engines themselves get to >3000F consistently, despite being actively cooled. More than enough to melt steel
Kerosene combustion releases a fixed amount of energy per unit of fuel. You can get it to an arbitrarily high tenperature if you want
I'm no expert by any means. Looking up briefly I see that jet turbines can get up to around 2000C/3500F give or take. Steel beam melting point is anywhere from 1375C+.
Fair enough.
But what about if jet fuel is not in a turbine? What if it's simply burning?
A pool fire (spill/open liquid fire) of jet fuel burns between 800C-1100C. Not enough to melt a standard beam.
The other point was that the pancake of the building was from the bottom, not from the top, where the fire would be.