2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +3 / -1

Hahaha. No accurate science. None whatsoever.

The Ice is melting. Why are you putting wind turbines in the Sea? At what point does electricity stop climate change, when it's caused climate change? We have only had climate change since electricity, prior to it, the weather changed by itself. Today all it has generated is dystopia.

No accurate science, the Planet has had warm and cool periods frequently lasting upto centuries of prolonged warmer and cool spells, documented for thousands of years.

If the ice melts, simple science, it causes what? Increasing tectonics. Two water fresh and sea, cause what kind of pressure, and weather. These on big enough eruption cause cool periods. Mini ice-age after Vesuvius.

Solar cycles and conjunctions no longer account for modern science, what impact does it cause on our planet, subjected to a climate, instead science has given us the means of dystopia, every fool profiting off the consumption. Consumption buying another bullshit service empowering tyrants, moguls, banks, and corps. Debt collectors, tax collectors, landlords offering every other form of investment apart from landownership.

What are they offering humanity? Not a lot. They've profited off it until now. Why won't they? Until it becomes more services generating how much more consumption, one's they control even more. A grid, fully connected into which means and methods.

There is no accurate science on what actually occurs, in warming, what is fully caused by climate and to what extents it changes. There are only doomsayers. What if they cannot profit? Shucks we got to profit off it now, today. Buy it, quickly.

After causing mass population booms, and mass consumption. Why wouldn't they offer another subscription that's taxed?

4
Xinesepsiop 4 points ago +4 / -0

The same way you explain the cultist. They're both brainwashed by bullshit.

The danger is propaganda and beliefs

by DrLeaks
2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +2 / -0

It helps him sleep

2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +3 / -1

Once upon a time ago something something something doesn't exist but let's all pretend it does

3
Xinesepsiop 3 points ago +3 / -0

Are you dumb. You must be.

Climate change happens anyway. Like seasonally. Every year. Winter, spring, summer, autumn.

The problem is more dumb humans feeling it. The most dumb humans in existence feeling seasonal weather. They're affected more because there's more of them.

There is no science on whether it's a global warm period, lasting sustained cycles. Years to centuries. The planet has had them prior to Bill Gates. Gone through decades of warm periods and cool periods. Because the planet goes through climate change.

How much is influenced by look at all those supermoons last year and this year. Alignment, conjunctions, and our sun having cycles causing warm and cool periods.

Or whether it's going to pop. It's not. Because they're profiting off it. They'll continue profiting regardless of whether it pops or not. If it pops what does it do. No accuracy. Literal insanity. The warmest day since 1948. But it must be climate change. Because the Internet said so.

Electricity won't do anything else except provide them even more control, and cost even more consumption. Because it kicks starts industry. All those computers running windows, operating a grid exclusively using electricity on products and software Bill Gates profits from. Or the next billionaire, Corp, and Bank. Offering new consumption in the form of brand new products. Get your even worse EVs, buying even more services. How many services does it take to power your EV. Look at how serious they are about climate change. All those products.

If it pops, electricity won't do anything. In fact it will be worse. It is everytime there's the weather.

But it sells to dumb people. Like it has done historically. They couldn't do shit about it either. Because the climate changes regardless. Regardless of dumb stupid narratives and products.

Laughably all you're doing is buying it. It must be the climate change, yep, next season it's colder or warmer. You meant ecologically. Nope it's the same, colder or warmer. But when will it pop. Are you bullshitting me. They put all these people on a volcano or flood plain or next to a hurricane etc. You're asking if your EV changes it. They also bought the climate change. I mean all those EVs. Regardless.

2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's stupid if you aren't Braindead.

Ukraine are getting readers to accept the fact they're going to attack it, and possibly blame it on the Russians if it gets damaged in their obvious attack on it.

It's a reactor, if you attack it, it creates a bigger risk. They're firing all these shells and missiles, capturing it, but guys the Russians mined it. It's their fault.

The press is letting everybody know Ukraine aim to attack it. Why else would they say Russia mined it

You gotta be brain dead, at what point today do we get this news. Like the schoolyard, listening to it. Constantly. We've seen it constantly with kids. It's obvious if they suggest, it's because they plan to attack it.

3
Xinesepsiop 3 points ago +3 / -0

But how come Israel is vehemently jewish? Everybody else.

Because it's actually a separate matter. Neo feudalism. It comes from creditors. Banking. Privatisation. Narratives adopted from debt and bureaucratics not elected allowing lines of credit.

I bet Poland's statistical home ownership has declined since.

Today it doesn't matter the slave because the bank wins in debt, crime, inflation, decline. It generates another service, another lot of shares and investors opening more credit and services. Rent.

Who wins, the population are simply taxed and rent more, far more services costing. Yes there are fiscal improvements. Until national services, look at it fall into more and more debt providing the rent collectors and investors with premiums. Corps, banks, privatisation.

Poland currently has massively changed it's booming from the investment and industry. But costs are also rising fast. The more it adds into its populace what happens when it becomes France?

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

The problem is obvious.

Whoever attacks the reactor, causes risk to it. Like they did previous, and all that shit last time.

Therefore unless you're paying attention the problem is Ukraine attacking it at some point during its offensive. It puts it at risk. No second guessing unless you're brain dead.

Has it been mined and booby trap. You're still attacking it. That's the risk. Beep.

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hard to say what will occur. The power it's supplying is minimal in understanding. So the greater danger is an attack causing escalation. Or the potential for sabotage. Like a prolonged leak of hazardous materials. Or the water flow interrupted causing it to get critical.

The reason Ukraine are suggestively is because it causes escalation. It will draw specialist teams and inspectors into the area to secure any contaminates. This potentially seizes it.

At the same time perhaps Russia has less reasons. Unless it's apparent Ukraine will capture it? Then perhaps it could be to sabotage its use and cause scorched earth. But remarkablely it draws an international response due to the hazardous materials. Why? They might as well launch a nuke.

Who knows there are reasons both could disrupt it, blaming the other.

Ukraine are suggesting its mined and booby trap they're already citing a response. They're also stating they have hazmats on hand. Beep

2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +2 / -0

It is much hard than it sounds reading about it.

Aren't most of the reactors shutdown. Not all 6 are operating.

Unless there is extensive damage to the site, including the cooling and fuel ponds. it's much hard to put it into meltdown with explosives.

Unlike Fukushima which was fully operational when the Earthquake caused extensive damage to it. It isn't.

There are a few more issues on the cooling ponds and the water supply. After the dam. Waste war and cooling water levels these were dropping after the dam, and needed a regular flow. If they drop extensively, mined reportedly, which they aren't, then it can eventually trigger meltdown if not supplied and possibly an easier target than the cores. Any cores needing sustained direct hits.

I think it's been hyped and it's far more problematical, due to the inception and comparison to other reactors and disasters, where it presents a much bigger risk on whoever holds it in a conflict. Because it still generates power for both. At one point 20% of the national supply.

But unless it's fully targeted by directed strikes. Who knows?

After reading. The biggest danger is the site becoming completely inoperative, where with its radioactive materials, can cause much bigger problems if significantly disrupted. It has been hyped, where unless it's directly targeted, the danger is largely its output in a conflict. A site operating under threat, housing the potential for larger disaster.

There are fewer ways it is goes into critical mass. The water flow becoming disrupted, not accessed, and possibly leaking waste. Direct strikes causing significant damage, or prolonged damage. It's not Chernoboyl and isn't operating at the same capacity as Fukushima.

The hype is it operating by a hostile side that can potentially cause disaster if it becomes completely inoperable and if waste materials escape?

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. You're fucking nuts. You're a troll.

No proof. Doesn't debate flicks names, shouting believe. Believe in what?

I have given you so much opportunity to debate this. Instead you just act dumb. Like monkey. It's your name. Yes. Dumb like monkey. Onk onk. Believe in king ape. He say it. Hoot hoot. No, primate.

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

No dumbass. I question bullshit.

Look at Ukraine all they air is. At what point on the probability have nukes hit when all they air is?

Our ears would fall off. Dumbass.

Baseless conjecture. There would be no end of it. It would be everywhere. There is 0 chance to date they have been used. It is not say they won't. Currently none.

Ukraine would scream scream and scream. It's all they do.

Ergo this fucking topic being written into doctrine. Congress and Nato have approved action if the reactor goes meltdown.

0
Xinesepsiop 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yawn, why is conspiracy of idiot? She doesn't know how to cook steak?

2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +2 / -0

That isn't an answer. It's bullshit. See when I make a debate I insert more than erratic claims.

You've just matter of fact expected people to believe your bullshit with no context to back it up. Somebody said something you're claiming, believe. Dumb, stupid, ignorant, fantasy, whimsical, baloney, trite.

Where. When. How. First rules of thought. Not somebody said something on the Internet you've claimed.

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/03/europe/zelensky-ukraine-putin-erin-burnett-interview-intl-cmd/index.html

Here example of blue in the face. You know counter offensive is badly. Because he's screaming. https://liveuamap.com/en

But if nukes our ears would fall off.

Somehow I doubt defenses last forever. They haven't in any other war. How indeed does it conclude. Because there's always nukes.

2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +2 / -0

No you. Nukes have a very distinctive signature and leave behind radiation.

I provided the examples of your assumption. You turn around and produce ignorance. Read it. It doesn't make you clever blaming me or turning this debate into how I need to research your claim. I cited 5 examples of detonations you're possibly presuming.

There is a supposed debate on the depleted shells, except a radiation reading was there prior to any detonation, despite of it being there afterwards, and it wasn't a tactical signature. There was two missile hits. If a nuke why double tap. Neither were the distinct blast

The signature of a distinctive flash, the flash being incredibly bright, and then the blast wave, shock wave, travelling outwards. Like at the mall. However there are other munitions that also cause a shock wave. Like vacuum and thermobaric. It was incendiary. Because it hit flammable materials and munitions. Like it did at the railway factory fuel depot.

So where asshole, read that bullshit, so matter of fact. When. Where. How. You claimed. I asked. I didn't ask for nonsense.

If they're using nukes so brazenly why has it been localised to explosions with ignitable compounds. Munition storage, and fuel depots? They leave plumes, and clouds. Incendiary materials do. Check out American disasters this year, railway crash, the milking factory, fertiliser storage. All had mushroom clouds, and plumes.

If you're quoting the hypersonic hits like Lviv, or the recent one somewhere in Donetsk, something something cannot pronounce it, near Bakhmut somewhere. Neither had radiation readings. The mall didn't either. They would be screaming, until he was blue in the face calling for nuclear missiles to reign down on Russia, begging for the nukes.

Again the probability is almost zero, because it would get a huge response. We'd hear no end of it. Our ears would fall off. The press would incite WW3, because Zelenskyy would be screaming for a nuclear football.

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are searches, streams, like Roku and others supposedly showing parts of it.

I am not signing up to streaming services. But. Who knows if it has the content. It says it does. It's probably a video of a video. There are other searches that supposedly have it. I don't think you'll find unless you use Tor or other domains or torrents, you won't find it.

It got removed but was still archived on the deepweb. Other searches made another documentary with some of the footage, they still exist.

It looks fake as hell, like an old horror/gore movie. Complete bullshit. A narrative. All it did was police the Web more

3
Xinesepsiop 3 points ago +4 / -1

Nukes, hahaha. No. What. Where. When?

Nukes? You cite that, so matter of fact.

Tactical nukes where. Come on. Like the lowest yields on the biggest munitions storages. That way nobody cares. No. Why aren't they using them everywhere else? Literally. Look it's a cluster of Ukrainians in tanks and stuff. Tactical strike. No other risk as you put it. A number of times now. No fallout either.

Where have the nukes been used? Why was there no other fallout reported? Why aren't they being used everywhere? Only used according to yourself selectively on the munition storages?

It was the said event you're quoting, the big factory that plumed last month with the depleted shells, a month or two before the fuel depot and the anti aircraft? Those weren't nukes. Neither was the mall in Kiev or the bunker in Lviv.

2
Xinesepsiop 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yawn. It causes nuclear war. It has already been inserted into Nato doctrine as a means of Nato entering. If it gets hit. It has already been approved by Dems and the Gop, senate, as entry. Nato has also suggest likewise. It ain't a dam. It's meltdown. It faster causes direct involvement.

There are grounds around it. Not many. To what extent depends on the disaster. But it will cause a reaction Nato commit.

It would be easier to turn it off. Eject the cores and shut it down. Removing it from the battlefield. Oh they'll moan it's supplying both sides. After this long it's a risk that should have seen it shutdown. Rather then a propaganda tool where both sides assume it will. Not that easy injecting the cores, it needs a whole team of monkeys, and measures. But it might've been smarter then it being blamed.

In either event there's a risk it remains contentious. A means of escalation.

The problem was also shutting it down, it was called a warcrime, I believ3 certain subststions were artempted, it brought inspectors. It's supplying both. America also accused Russia of tampering with any upgrades they added on it. Hasn't it got like 6 cores?

But somehow it seemibgly would've been smarter to turn it off. At what point is it still in operation in a warzone? Tempting something.

1
Xinesepsiop 1 point ago +1 / -0

It is your worst nightmare today. Watch some documentaries about it.

The shit they're doing with A.I and the blue-screen.

The A.I is now accessing every picture and video on the web. It is sooner animating them onto actors that are deepfaked. Like stunt doubles. Until it doesn't even need it. It can insert a person who goes to studio and gets captured in about an hour or two of a few movements, and stances. Until it doesn't even need it. Cameras, face recognition Uploaded on the Web. The voice recognition after a few key words and sounds is replicating an entire voice. Until it doesn't even need it. Shit like Alexa.

Currently it's still in a studio. But the A.I they're making has access to all of it.

Funnily the dumb little stalker here, down votes, thinks that video was for real.

Getting so sick of it. Nothing is real. Nothing. It's all fake. Half of the news is recreated in studios with bluescreens and actors. Barely using live footage. Then it's only to drive narratives.

0
Xinesepsiop 0 points ago +1 / -1

Deep fakes are everywhere. The AI, is at a point where it can recreate anything, all it needs is some background. It can take a picture and animate it. It can take a person and put another person onto them. It can replicate speech and movement putting it into a background.

That video this topic looked bullshit. Who knows what it was. It looked stupid. But it was when pizzagate was a hot topic. Was it even a snuff film, hard to say. It looked bullshit. Remember commenting then. But people believe what they want. He had shit on his laptop. That. No. I doubt it.

0
Xinesepsiop 0 points ago +1 / -1

It was fake and gay. It looked like that 70s shit. Faces of death. It was grainy as hell. I think it got taken down. But it didn't prove anything. It's probably still out there. But it could've come from anywhere. It might've been faked or whatever. The problem was it was immediately reported as that's her, there was no proof of it. It likely got removed.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›