I am rather certain that Tucker was actively CIA until the Q team got to him and is now a Q assert.
I think this is what happened to Tucker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Recruit_(film)
Burke seeks out ... James and informs him that his discharge was part of a cover story because he's been selected as a non-official cover operative, or “NOC”.
That is, Tucker was raised in the D.C. / State Department world. He says so. He applied to CIA and was "rejected", but I think he was a selected as a "non-official cover operative", that is, he really was hired by the CIA and the cover story is that he was not.
He then went on to become a popular talk show host with a mission to influence the public as controlled opposition to the Left. In short, he was a Cabal asset.
Then when the Q team took over they turned him into a Q asset. The Q team seems to have also taken over and now uses Alex Jones, Elon Musk, Bill Maher, and now Ana Kasparian.
Some GNU email tool that was popular in the 90s used to insert sentences like that into the end of your emails just so that all emails would sound like terrorists planning an attack just to cause problems for the NSA.
Computer engineer here. There is no way to have a secure device right now.
Wow. Thank you.
The old testament teaches slavery and rape and genocide. These are simply literal facts about the book; they are not my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31
Moses was angry that the soldiers had left all women alive, saying: "... Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Christians have a holy book. That is the worship of a book.
The old testament is part of that book and teaches slavery and rape. These are simply literal facts about the book; they are not my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_31
Moses was angry that the soldiers had left all women alive, saying: "... Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Before you call someone a dumbass, you might want to find out who is actually correct.
Another Buddhist here. Stop with your abrahamic dogmatism. Buddhists are not insane enough to worship books, especially those that teach genocide, rape, and slavery like your bible. We also do not mutilate the genitals of children.
Computer engineer here. Using a flip phone is not going to help: it is also a computer.
All of your text messages are going into the Stellar Wind database in NSA. All your email also.
Cars are the same: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2023/01/remote-vulnerabilities-in-automobiles.html
It’s enough to make you want to buy a car that is not Internet-connected. Unfortunately, that seems to be impossible.
There really is no escape. If you want to track how bad it is, sign up for Bruce's newletter, Cryptogram: https://www.schneier.com/
Can you please remind me of the "McCarthy Speaker of the House votes that were a huge Q proof". I missed that one and I like tracking Q proofs.
High school physics says that the government story is wrong.
WTC7 fell at free fall. (NIST says so in writing.)
Expressing this using vector calculus, it is complex, but expressing this using energy, it is simple, as follows.
Note that this analysis is so simple because (1) energy is conserved and (2) free falling is the asymptotic edge case of ways structures can fall. At the asymptote there is no wiggle room, so additional confounding complexities simply go away.
Doing any work requires energy. (1) Accelerating the building downward is work. (2) Deforming a building is work.
Falling is the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy. The falling is free falling when the efficiency of this conversion is 100%.
Therefore, if the only energy available is the potential energy of the mass suspended at height in a force field, then when free falling there is NO additional energy to do ANY other work.
That is, when free falling, you spend ALL of the energy accelerating the mass downward; in particular, no energy remains to do the work of deforming the building.
You could say that the building fell, and then stopping falling deformed the building, but then time goes in the wrong order: you have to deform the building so that it will fall.
At the first press conference NIST gave after 9/11, someone yelled out to the head of NIST "WTC7 fell at free fall". The head of NIST responded like he was reciting something he learned long ago: "no, it can't have, because you cannot have a progressive collapse of a structure at free fall". (Above I just gave the conservation of energy proof of this statement.) (Link wanted for this interaction).
I think it was six months later that NIST published that WTC7 fell "at free fall for several seconds". It cannot fall at free fall for any number of seconds. (Link wanted for this document).
What got me into this was seeing a YouTube video of a high-school physics teacher plotting each frame of the building falling and getting -10 m/s^2, which is free fall plus a bit of fudge factor. (Link wanted for this video.)
Can anyone recommend a replacement for USAA? In particular, one feature USAA provides is that they have a local phone number in every country in the world, even, say, Albania. Their online services are sufficient, though their website overly complex. They are also a non-profit and I have seen them break their own rules to help their customers, which I have never seen a for-profit bank do. Not sure what bank I would change to.
Dude: your whole conversation is off-topic. I am a professional researcher and this is how people do research: evidence. It has nothing to do with ego.
In contrast, you present no evidence, only your belief. You are just not qualified to be part of a research conversation.
My favorite line is "Investigation dance, those ants-in-pants glances."
I posted this before, but the mods said to post it again so that it could show up on on "New".
You have to have more faith to believe something came from nothing than to believe that something came from something.
No.
My whole point in posting this article was to address people in the research community. As indicated in your faith-based answers, you are not in that community. You do not satisfy the prerequisites for an empirical discussion. This article is about empirical history. Your faith-based answers are simply off-topic and not relevant.
The Bible is the most accurate and trustworthy historical document
No one who is a professional researcher thinks this.
If you believe you are the arbiter of truth, then you are God,
I do not know what you are smoking, but what I said is that Stavrakopoulou, a professional researcher, has something worth reading. I did not say anything about believing anyone to be "the arbiter of truth" so stop pretending otherwise.
How the hell did this get stickied?
If you are so against freedom of speech, you are not an American. You want actual historical scholarship to not be stickied just because you do not like it? Disgusting.
You are like the left: "I do not like it so you should not be allowed to say it."
What do you mean "study" the bible? Have you studied the bible? Can you read ancient hebrew? Stavrakopoulou can. Further she has actually read the hebrew bible and has to get her opinions on it past peer review.
If you cannot read ancient hebrew then you have not studied the bible, you have at best read a translation of the bible. If you think that is the same, then I guarantee that you only read English. Other languages are quite different and a translation says a lot about the opinion of the translator.
This notion that the Bible and its effect on our cultural identity is what is keeping us from admitting child sacrifice was for Yahweh because it goes against what we want to be true or because it feels icky is frankly absurd.
It is not absurd as it very well may be happening. What is potentially very dangerous is something happening right in front of people and people not being willing to admit it because of some book that they like.
What is the contradiction? The bible exists, whether people believe it or not, and it has an influence on people. This book can be studied using the same methods as historians use to study anything else. Here I point to a professional who has done that and whose work seems relevant to the discussion. That's all that is going on here.
I'm a professional researcher, though in a different field. Professional researchers have to write publications that make it past peer review. In contrast, you posting your thoughts on this site, do not. Peer review is not everything, but it is also not nothing. If you have never published anything that made it past professional peer review, then you do not know the difference between being a professional researcher and just having an opinion.
I'm a computing person and this is exactly how it would have to be done.
This is one reason they needed to let the election be stolen in 2020 so that they would have another 4 years with a military fiat to gradually deconstruct everything.
If you are going to do this kind of thing in secret, both sides know something: you have to get the public to mis-attribute causality. You have to act through other parties, so it all looks organic.
Many engineers have noticed that Musk does not really sound like an engineer. I think he is just an actor playing the part of a "super engineer" and most of the public buys that ridiculous story.
There was a movie sort of like this: "Paranoia" with Harrison Ford and Liam Hemsworth. One engineer is just faking it with a team behind him doing all the real work.
Musk used to be Cabal and now he works for Q playing this role of the engineer building all the things that Q needs.
(1) Gautama Buddha ate pork. The practice is to not cause it to be killed for you. I knew a cook who was a full-time Tibetan monk for over 10 years who cooked meat at the restaurant where he worked. Buddhism is not a kind of perfectionism.
(2) Buddhist practitioners at least in the Japanese tradition do not refer to Buddhism as a "religion", but as a "practice".