richard_smith237
-
Posts
36,930 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by richard_smith237
-
-
- Popular Post
Here is yet another shining example of modern enlightenment: a conspiracy stitched together by the algorithmic hive-mind of social media.
It kicks off with some basement philosopher, armed with nothing but Wi-Fi and unwarranted confidence, mangling facts. The digital village quickly awakened - like moths to a particularly stupid flame - each one parroting the last, building a rickety cathedral of nonsense on the foundation of their shared ignorance.
The recent Blue Origin New Shepard flight - many are suggesting this was a fabrication and also use the SpaceX Falcon 9 flight as a comparison.
The Space X Capsule was scored on re-entry, Blue Origin was clean.
Blue Origin’s suborbital capsule never comes close to the speeds required for atmospheric reentry heating - there’s simply not enough velocity. Topping out around Mach 3 (roughly 3,500 km/h), it doesn’t generate the friction or compression needed to produce the iconic fireball effect seen in true spaceflight.
For contrast, SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rockets exceed Mach 10 during ascent, and the Dragon capsule reaches orbital velocity - about 28,000 km/h. That staggering difference explains why Blue Origin’s launches lack the visceral drama of orbital missions. To the untrained eye, it might even seem theatrical - too clean, too slow, too suspiciously smooth.
The landing of Blue Origin was too hard to be realistic:
Tolerable, if a bit jarring. Passengers endure about 4 Gs on descent - not insignificant, but still a cakewalk compared to the brutal forces experienced in orbital reentry. The capsule is equipped with semi-reclined crash seats designed to absorb some of that final impact.
The door Blue Origin was flimsy compared to other 'space craft' and opened inward:
It opens inward by design, a deliberate safety feature. When there’s a pressure differential between the inside and outside of a cabin (as there is at altitude), an inward-opening door becomes physically impossible to open, preventing accidental depressurisation. Critically, the door can be opened in an emergency: a removable handle allows for external access post-landing. During one mission, a passenger reportedly opened the door too early, prompting ground crews to halt the impromptu escape - not for safety, but because the scene wasn’t yet Instagram-ready.
The Blue Origin Capsules interior is basic and looks faked:
The capsule’s interior may appear spartan - even cheap - compared to high-performance orbital vehicles, but that’s largely because it doesn’t need to endure the same brutal conditions. Three Gs on ascent, four on descent - mild, by spaceflight standards. There’s no need for the heavy shielding, intricate thermal protection systems, or complex avionics demanded by true orbital spacecraft.
All of that said: the Blue Origin’s flights aren’t fake - but they are hollow.
The whole affair is less about exploration and more about elevation - of egos, that is. It’s a meticulously choreographed joyride for the ultra-wealthy, controlled entirely from the ground, dressed up in the language of space travel but stripped of any real stakes. Its a carnival ride for billionaires, masquerading as progress.
A trip to the Kármán Line (the boundary of space) not an orbital flight - all of the comparisons used to suggest the Blue Orbit flights are faked can easily be picked apart.
The Blue Origin Capsules had Mannequins and no people:
(zoom in on the hand).
This one is doing the rounds on social - the photo is of a test flight where Mannequins were used.
What’s circulating online is a misleading narrative spun from a test flight that used mannequins to simulate human passengers. This is standard practice for testing purposes, as mannequins equipped with sensors provide critical data about the forces passengers would experience during launch and landing. There’s no conspiracy here—just practical, controlled experimentation, essential for ensuring passenger safety before actual human flights.
------------------
All of the above illustrates how easily a conspiracy can be both fabricated and believed, built on a foundation of flawed narratives and falsehoods.
What's even more alarming is how many will eagerly embrace such fabrications, driven not by genuine conviction, but by an unwillingness - or inability - to engage in the effort required to evaluate and verify the facts.
Far too often, it’s the path of least resistance that wins: the lazy and the ignorant rushing to adopt narratives without a second thought.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
36 minutes ago, kwilco said:
As there is no crsh report available we don't know if the driver was compensating for te poor weather or not.
He skidded off the road and crashed - I think it can readily be assumed the driver didn't compensate for the poor conditions.
As another poster suggested - no seatbelts ? - while we can never be sure, damage suggest this was an entirely survivable accident if seatbelts are worn.
-
14 minutes ago, Sheryl said:
Totally aside from renewing the passport, a father traveling abroad with a child may be asked to show proof that he has the mother's consent (concerns about parental abduction, human trafficking etc). There have been reports of this happening.
So get the POA sland make sure it, or another dovument, clearly give you permission to take the child abroad.
Great Point...
While I have never been asked (2x) and neither has my Wife, while travelling with our child without the 'other parent' - a couple of friends have been questioned. They didn't have any documentation, however, a phone call to the 'other party' was carried out.
We always travel with a form, which 'should' be translated and notarised by the local Amphur, but we never go that far.
This is the form we use (unfortunately I had to save as JPEG as this site doesn't allow loading an MS word or PDF document).
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, marin said:
Two years ago my daughter returned to Thailand with both a US and Thai passport. But both the Thai passport and ID were expired. The IO advised her to enter on her American as it was valid. She said "No" I am going from the airport to the Amphur office to get a new ID, then I will go to the Passport Office on CW and get a new passport. So was entered on the Thai passport that was expired.
I believe this is because a Thai national cannot legally be refused entry into Thailand. Even with an expired passport, they can still prove their Thai citizenship. The immigration officer may have been incorrect or simply trying to offer a workaround by suggesting your daughter enter on her US passport. However, since she holds dual nationality, Thai law requires that she enter and exit Thailand using her Thai passport. From a legal standpoint, her Thai citizenship takes precedence when dealing with Thai immigration.
36 minutes ago, marin said:But told " You now have to renew your Thai passport in order to leave the country". The new ID took 30 minutes, 1 hour in the passport office and a new one came via EMS in 3 days, so no worries.
This offers first hand experience for rattlesnake (the Op) - where your daughter was effectively told she cannot exit Thailand on expired documentation.
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
23 minutes ago, KannikaP said:9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:I recall from renewing my Sons Thai's passport - both Parents need to be present.
What if the Father is unavailable or even Unknown?
If the father is 'unknown' then he is not listed on the birth certificate, the mother does not need his consent to apply for or renew the child’s passport.
The mother can apply alone as the sole parent with full parental authority.
If the father is legally recognised (i.e., his name is on the Thai birth certificate), but he’s simply unavailable, then things get a little trickier.
I believe a court ruling that grants the mother sole custody or full parental power is required.
-
1
-
2
-
- Popular Post
3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:A more appropriate name for those who are seeking truth should be truth seeker, not conspiracy theorist. A "universal truth" should be able to stand alone and weather any questioning from a truth seeker.
While the term "truth seeker" sounds noble, it becomes problematic when it's used to rebrand conspiracy theorists in a way that preemptively legitimises their claims. Seeking truth is admirable, but true inquiry requires rigorous evidence, a willingness to revise beliefs, and an openness to being wrong.
Simply questioning the mainstream doesn’t make someone a truth seeker - it’s the method and intellectual honesty that define the pursuit, not the title.
3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:During the course of my truth seeking, the more a truth seeking idea is ridiculed and scorned the more likely you should target that area and dig deeper. It means you have hit a weak tender area full of nonsense.
The idea that ridicule is a sign of hidden truth is a logical fallacy - specifically, the Galileo gambit. Just because a theory is mocked doesn’t mean it’s correct. Many ideas are ridiculed because they lack coherence, evidence, or rational foundation - not because they’ve “hit a nerve.” Fringe claims often invite scorn because they’re outlandish, not because they’re dangerous revelations.
To quote Kwilco (earlier on in this thread) who quoted Thomas Jefferson:
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”
3 minutes ago, Mark Nothing said:After confirming lots of lies, I am now progressing to studying who is in charge and their thought processes and motivations behind all the lies. Trying to determine the doctrine they are following. And of course it involves the most sensitive of sensitive concepts. Which means a bullseye.
Asserting that “confirming lies” automatically leads one to “the doctrine of those in charge” assumes a shadowy control structure without first proving its existence. Jumping from observed inconsistencies to grand narratives about elite cabals and hidden doctrines is often less about truth and more about pattern-seeking in chaos - a psychological impulse, not a logical conclusion.
Additionally, the notion that the most sensitive topics are inherently the most true (“bullseye”) is circular reasoning. Sensitivity doesn't imply validity.
-
1
-
2
-
15 minutes ago, Merrill said:
Conspiracy theories a great phrase to control the narrative.
No... Its a simple is a term used to describe the belief or explanation that significant events or situations are covertly orchestrated by powerful, often malevolent entities, rather than unfolding through transparent or natural means.
At times, such theories have proven to hold elements of truth - where dominant narratives were indeed shaped or manipulated to conceal inconvenient realities.
In other instances, however, these theories spiral into the realm of the irrational and unhinged, driven not by evidence but by an entrenched anti-establishment mindset. For those lingering at the fringes of reason, suspicion becomes a lens through which all truth is distorted, and paranoia masquerades as insight.
While some conspiracy theories have, over time, been vindicated or revealed to contain elements of truth, it would be a categorical error to treat all such theories as equally credible. The existence of valid conspiracies does not grant automatic legitimacy to every claim that wears the same label. To group them all under one umbrella and regard them with the same level of seriousness is to ignore the vast spectrum that exists - ranging from plausible skepticism to outright delusion.
-
8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:
Thanks Richard, I will see what other people have to say, but if there is any doubt, we will play it safe and my wife will go to the Thai embassy (fortunately she is in the Paris area) to obtain the PoA.
One of the other facets to consider - the Passport Office in Thailand may want to see an Original Document - thus: Timing plays a key factor in getting the original posted over.
I'm not sure of this of course - but Thailand does like its 'originals'... With other documents when an original is required, I've sometimes got away with a coloured print (depending on the office and individual officer).
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Johno57 said:On 4/17/2025 at 6:46 PM, richard_smith237 said:
But... what really surprised me with this video - when crossing the road, how such a lack of self preservation was shown, and more so for a parent to show a lack of preservation for their child when crossing by not looking, not even hesitating.
The speed in which they were hit and the change of lanes at the last 50 yards contradics your theory....totally the drivers fault..
What... you mean the video is wrong and the pedestrians did actually look as they crossed ?
Its not a theory that the German pedestrians showed a lack of awareness and a lack of regard for their own well being - its clear from the video that they strolled across the crossing without looking.
I agree with you that the Songthaew driver is 100% at fault from a legal perspective.
But, I the video also shows the pedestrians showed a high level of disregard for their own safety when crossing without paying any attention at all for any oncoming traffic
----------------------
Where did the 'Songthaew change lanes' ? - is there another video we haven't seen on this thread ?
Even, if the Songthaew it did approach at high speed and change lanes its would have been easy for the pedestrians to avoid impact had they looked and taken greater care.
-
I recall from renewing my Sons Thai's passport - both Parents need to be present.
If one of the parents is not present, I believe a Power of Attorney from Thai Embassy / or consulate must be secured.
------
Regarding 'exiting' Thailand on an expired Thai Passport and using the Passport of Dual Nationality (French in this case) to travel on - I think its risky and Immigration may not permit exit on an expired Thai Passport.
I'd advise to cover my bases and get the PoA, then have the Passport renewed in Thailand.
-
1
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
You are mistaken in your assumption that I avoid mainstream content. I don't, in fact I follow it just as intently as I follow fringe content. I reject nor adhere to neither blindly, I try (as difficult as that is) to look at things as objectively as possible.
My various interactions with a multitude of people has led me to conclude that perhaps my "difference" (for lack of a better word) lies in my willingness to entertain the notion that mass-scale deception is absolutely possible.
In other discussions, I’ve noticed you challenged Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, which is a bold stance stance, to say the least.
At the same time, your insights into the sonoluminescence of distant celestial bodies have genuinely intrigued me.
No offence intended, by the way - I enjoy our exchanges and the intelligence with which you write.... But I have also observed that you often diverge from mainstream perspectives. Perhaps it’s a case of playing devil’s advocate to stimulate discussion, or perhaps you genuinely lean toward alternative frameworks because you want to be an 'alternative thinker' and naturally have 'anti-establishment' bias.
Some of the ideas you've posted directly contradict well-established, demonstrable physics, while others carry a hint of plausibility - especially given the inherent gaps in our understanding of phenomena occurring far beyond our reach (such as distant celestial bodies).
It’s always an engaging debate with you, and I find myself genuinely pausing to consider my responses carefully - rather than instinctively thinking, “Oh, give over, you utter fool.” .....
That alone makes our exchanges far more worthwhile than, say, arguing whether circles exist (a point I made in the thread).
-
1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:
As for the rest of your post, thanks for the reminder on the official version, that is useful indeed.
It’s easy to think of yourself as an independent thinker, but leaning into fringe theories while avoiding mainstream, fact-based science often leads to conspiracist thinking rather than an informed understanding.
As interesting and thought provoking as your input is, its readily debunked.
You are ultimately an example of why this thread exists.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
Some compelling facts from Dr. Suzanne Humphries, regarding “polio”:
First off, polio never actually disappeared. According to Dr. Humphries, “Polio is still here. Polio is still alive and well.”What changed? The definition. Once the vaccine was introduced, the medical establishment redefined what counted as “polio.”
Humphries explains: “Polio is called different things today. Whereas back in the 1940s, 1950s, the criteria for diagnosing polio were completely different to the year that the vaccine was introduced. The playing field, the goalposts – everything was changed… they were able to show a complete cascading drop of paralytic polio simply because of the way they changed the definitions of what polio is and what could cause it.”
Suddenly, cases that would’ve been labeled polio were now called Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus – or simply chalked up to heavy metal poisoning. “They didn’t have virus, or they had coxsackievirus or echovirus, or they were lead poisoned or mercury poisoned, which was – the mercury and lead were the leading treatments of the day,” she said.
Dr. Suzanne Humphries argues that polio never truly disappeared, but was simply renamed after the introduction of the vaccine - reclassified as Guillain-Barré syndrome, coxsackievirus, echovirus, or heavy metal toxicity.
She claims that by changing diagnostic criteria, the medical establishment manufactured a dramatic decline in paralytic polio to credit the vaccine. While this theory has gained traction in alternative health circles, it misrepresents the nature of scientific progress and relies on correlation without causation.
In reality, polio - defined specifically as paralysis caused by poliovirus infection - has decreased by over 99.99% worldwide since the launch of the Global Polio Eradication Initiative in 1988. From 350,000 paralytic cases annually in 125 countries in the 1980s, we now see fewer than 200 cases per year, primarily limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The reduction in cases occurred alongside mass vaccination campaigns, not simply a change in how paralysis was labelled. While diagnostic criteria were refined in the 1950s to require laboratory confirmation and longer-lasting paralysis, this was a product of improved technology and understanding- not manipulation.
Moreover, Guillain-Barré syndrome occurs at a rate of 1–2 per 100,000 people per year globally, while non-polio enteroviruses like coxsackie and echovirus cause millions of mostly mild infections annually, with only a small fraction leading to neurological symptoms.
These conditions are biologically and clinically distinct from poliomyelitis. And while substances like DDT, mercury, and lead were used widely and are neurotoxic, their epidemiological footprint never matched the scale or seasonal/geographic pattern of true polio outbreaks.
Ultimately, polio wasn’t renamed or disguised - it was nearly wiped out through decades of coordinated vaccination, surveillance, and public health efforts.
If it had simply been reclassified, we’d still be seeing tens of thousands of children in wheelchairs or iron lungs worldwide. Instead, those numbers have plummeted - because the virus, not just the diagnosis, has been driven to the edge of extinction.
48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:But it gets worse.
The rise of polio, she says, directly mirrored the use of toxic pesticides like DDT. “The tonnage of production of DDT absolutely mirrored the diagnosis for polio.” And even today, “the countries that still make DDT today is where we’re still seeing this paralytic polio situation happen.”
According to Dr. Humphries, polio didn’t disappear because of vaccines. It disappeared behind a curtain of redefinitions, misdiagnoses, manmade disasters – and a whole lot of propaganda.
Polio is caused by a virus (poliovirus), not a toxin.
The virus was isolated in the 1900s, well before DDT was invented.
Polio outbreaks occurred before DDT was used, though they were smaller.
Most scientists say the apparent correlation is just that - a correlation, not causation.
However, DDT is a known neurotoxin, and it can affect the immune system, so it’s not impossible that it made polio infections more severe in some people.
48 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:She was recently on Joe Rogan's show:
So was Eddie Bravo - a flat earth fruit cake... just because someone gets airtime on The Joe Rogan Experience it doesn’t automatically make their ideas valid or truthful.
Joe Rogan gives a platform to anyone, no matter how wild or unconventional their views might be, which allows for a wide range of perspectives, whether they’re controversial or not.
-
3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:
It was you Sir, who said 150+ years. All the medical procedures that were stated, were done during that time.
Point me to one study/paper/experiment/trials that has Isolated a virus. I'll save you the trouble. You can't. There are not any.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/9/10/848
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6254221_Ilheus_Virus_Isolate_from_a_Human_Ecuador
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00682-5/fulltext
Three very reputable publications... Information regarding the isolation of viruses is widespread.
Isolated SARS-CoV-2 Virus - here >>
https://www.flickr.com/photos/niaid/albums/72157712914621487/
3 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:IMO, no vaccine has every been safe. effective or necessary.
There is no such entity as an anti-viral drug.
The flu is a natural body function.
Yawn... seriously - this is similar to listening to someone convinced that the earth is not an oblate spheroid... oh, thats you too... Ok, I'll again, this is similar to listening to someone convinced that circles do not exist...
And yet again, I fell sullied and just a little more stupid for even entering the debate with such silliness.
-
6 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:
Probably the son of a foreigner with mental health issues.
Poor parenting from Scottish father
Wow - you still managed to shoe-horn a 'farang bash' out of this - very impressive !!
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:
Those threads tend to spiral - gracefully, then grotesquely into absurdity. When one party decides to deny the very existence of viruses, meaningful dialogue becomes a challenge.
Pathogenic viruses do not exist IMO.
Viruses - any viruses - have never been isolated, and accordingly, never been shown to cause any transmission of sickness. from one to another.
No good burying yer head in the sand Richard bud. The truth don't need any embellishment.
You've made my point better than I did...
-
2 hours ago, save the frogs said:2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:
... The guy in the video managed to maintain a straight face too...
That's not a proper response ... so you got nothing.
And you refuse to admit how silly it appears when you take a model airplane and move it across the so-called globe.
I watched the video and, for a fleeting moment, entertained the idea that it might be satire - because no one could possibly be this disastrously uninformed.
I’ll waste no more breath on such absurdities, not because I have no rebuttal, but because to stoop to that level would be entertain dialogue with a brand of stupidity so terminal, it insults the very concept of reason.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, johng said:27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:
While there’s ongoing research into potential biological or environmental causes,
Nothing to do with "safe and effectives" though right ?
couldn't be them for sure for sure, the science has been proven although ongoing studies continue ?
Correct - the increase in autism has nothing to do with vaccines... The fallacy here is the false causality - implying that because autism rates have risen over time, vaccines must be the cause.
This is a classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, where the assumption is made that because one thing (vaccines) happens before another (autism diagnoses), one must be causing the other. It’s an illogical leap.
There is no credible evidence linking vaccines, including the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine, to autism. Decades of research - including large-scale studies, peer-reviewed journals, and extensive reviews by reputable institutions like the CDC, WHO, and NIH - have found no correlation.
The initial study that started this whole controversy, led by Andrew Wakefield in 1998, was fraudulent and thoroughly debunked. He lost his medical license, and the paper was retracted.
As for “ongoing studies,” yes, research is always happening - but it’s not because scientists are still exploring this old discredited theory. It’s because science never stops looking for new insights, not to prove a false link that’s already been debunked.
So, no, vaccines aren’t the problem. The rise in autism is more likely tied to better recognition, broader definitions, and improved diagnostic practices.
But... that doesn't stop the nut-jobs spreading baseless conspiracy theories when the science is clear.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, save the frogs said:
Please watch this video and give me your rebuttal of why you think it's bs.
And anyone else who wants to chime in.
... The guy in the video managed to maintain a straight face too...
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, billd766 said:
Why don't you offer to adopt it, and take on all the responsibility for the animal, including all the costs of feeding it, looking after it, and when it savages another person, paying for ALL the damages and costs?
Indeed.... as commented earlier... If owners were routinely held fully responsible, how long would it take for ownership of these ticking time-bombs to diminish ?
20 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:IF owners were routinely held to account with no-nonsense prosecutions and actual jail time every time one of these genetic landmines mauls a child or kills a passer-by. How long, would it be before the appetite for owning such animals dried up overnight?
The bravado would vanish the moment the handcuffs clicked shut
-
On 4/18/2025 at 7:03 AM, Red Phoenix said:On 4/18/2025 at 12:24 AM, richard_smith237 said:Expand
As evidenced by a number of the posters on this forum (and in this thread) - I think the rates of autism used to be higher !
The autism rate continues increasing relentlessly, now up to 1 in 12.5 boys in the most recent California survey
And this is precisely why your commentary consistently misses the mark - it leans on shallow soundbites and cherry-picked stats instead of engaging with any real critical thought.
For clarity: my original comment was a joke aimed at the conspiracy-addled dimwits who genuinely believe this nonsense. But instead of clocking the satire, you took it at face value and ran with a tired, misinformed narrative - one I’ll now dismantle with a little common sense.
Over the past 50 years, the reported rate of autism has increased significantly, but this rise is largely due to changes in how we define, diagnose, and understand autism rather than a true surge in how many people are actually autistic.
Earlier definitions were narrow, often recognising only the most severe cases. But over time, autism has come to be understood as a spectrum, capturing a wider range of traits and behaviours - including those previously overlooked or mislabelled.
Updates in diagnostic manuals (like the DSM), along with greater public and professional awareness, have led to more people being assessed and diagnosed.
Other factors contributing to the rise include improved access to services that require a formal diagnosis, and "diagnostic substitution" - where individuals who might once have been diagnosed with other conditions (such as intellectual disability or language disorders) are now recognised as autistic.
While there’s ongoing research into potential biological or environmental causes, most of the increase can be attributed to broader criteria, better tools, and more awareness, not a true spike in prevalence.
Hence - the statistic you presented is a utter pile of rubbish... perhaps you were one of those who went undiagnosed...
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, NorthernRyland said:
I've listened to both sides of the debate on the moon landing and both sides have good arguments. At the very least they were successful in planting seeds of doubt and since I wasn't on the shuttle myself I'll never know for certain.
Same for 9/11. It really does look like a controlled demolition. It's hard to envision what happened with the pillars and how they could melt at free fall speed. Whether jet fuel can burn at that temperature is debated also. I've heard the testimony of engineers who explained how that fire would likely have happened and I've heard the counter arguments. Then the fact it was used to spark an illegal war on false pretenses was extremely suspect. As it stands it looks like 9/11 was probably a conspiracy, or least their arguments were more convincing for me personally.
However things like flat earth are too stupid to entertain. I tried to give them a chance and listened a little but it's just too stupid on it's face to believe.
I completely agree - it’s crucial to evaluate each conspiracy individually rather than lumping them all together under a broad "pro" or "anti" label. Personally, I’m firmly convinced the moon landings were real - there’s far too much scientific evidence to deny it. The "Fly Me to the Moon" movie from last year does an excellent job of satirizing the moon landing hoax narrative.
As for 9/11 conspiracies, I believe the scale makes it unlikely to be valid. The distrust many people have for authority figures, particularly in the US, has fuelled these theories, especially when distortions are introduced - like the claim that the steel melted at free-fall speed. The reality is that it didn’t melt; it destabilised over hours, and the collapse was occured once it reached its structural limit and the structural collapse cascaded as pancaked down.
Yet these misrepresentations often weave a narrative that sounds plausible but collapses under scrutiny. Much of the so-called "evidence" - like traces of thermite or claims of planted charges - is either deeply misleading or simply non-existent outside conspiracy theorist commentary. There’s no credible, peer-reviewed support for such claims. Observations of “flashes” during the collapse have also been wildly overstated; in a structure wired with millions of volts, electrical flashes and discharges are entirely expected when it fails catastrophically. It’s not proof of sabotage.
The problem is, these distractions twist technical realities into something sinister for those already inclined to distrust the official narrative.
Then, of course, there’s the utterly ridiculous stuff, like flat Earth theory. It doesn’t deserve serious attention, though I’ll admit, some of the outlandish comments can be unintentionally entertaining.
-
13 minutes ago, PopGun said:31 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:Expand
This isn’t about cruelty. It’s about recognising that when something is man-made and dangerous, we have the right, and perhaps the obligation to unmake it.
You mean things like Bombs, Guns, Knives, etc'
Seriously though.
Selectively breeding a dog to fight to the death, is not for the perceived benefit of the human race.
In my opinion.
The Bully dog should be phased out.
I've seen arguments as daft as 'humans kill more than Pitbulls'... thankfully that level of asininity hasn't reached this thread yet...
-
5 minutes ago, redwood1 said:
The Earth is Flat
This is not speculation it is a fact......
Why do you think they call SeaLevel Sea LEVEL ? Because the sea is LEVEL as in flat.
2 minutes ago, UWEB said:Yes, totally fake. They have landed on the back side of the flat Earth.
In response to the thread, the two reasons outlined above illustrate why some individuals interpret such comments as validation - essentially providing oxygen to their belief in various conspiracies.
Can I renew my son's Thai passport if my wife is abroad?
in Visas and migration to other countries
Posted
The rights are equal: Both parents need to be Present even if its the the Thai mother who wants to renew the Thai Passport for the child.
Confusing statement muddying the waters.
It doesn't matter if there is also a Marriage Certificate.
With both Father & Mother on the Birth Certificate - both parents need to be present, OR a PoA (from the non-attending parent) is required.
Irrelevant how he dresses, IF he doesn't have the right paperwork (PoA) or the Mother / Wife also present.
rattlesnakes question has nothing to do with the visa he's on... also the visa he is on, has no relevance to the Childs renewal of their Thai passport.