This blog can now be reached via the url http://www.thethoughtfulgamer.com/ which means there are now two direct routes to soul corrupting atheism and morality destroying video games :)
Just thought I'd let you know :)
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
9/11 Controlled Demolition Conspiracy Theory Debunked
You think it was a U.S. government conspiracy that perpetrated 9/11?
Think the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition?
Well, they weren't.
Here's a few points I'd like you to consider. This isn't entirely comprehensive of course, but I'm not doing all of your research for you.
1) Where was the evidence of the controlled demolition afer the fact? There is always evidence of the explosive devices on the scene after a controlled demo. Yet, no such evidence was ever seen. Wonder why?
2) When do you propose they went into the buildings and planted all of those bombs, and how is that that no one noticed anything either during, or anytime after this operation?
The world trade center tower walls would have had to have been opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses, and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls, on all four sides of the building. Then the walls would have to be closed up.
This all taking place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building?
Really?
And again, say that somehow happened, where was the evidence on the scene?
3) People point to the beams with diagonal cuts as evidence of thermite usage.
Well, the beams were cut.....During the clean up:
4) The towers were designed to withstand impact with a jet.
The towers did withstand the impact.
They were brought down by a combination of the damage sustained during impact, and the fires, both of which resulted in enough structural instability to bring the buildings down.
5) But it looks like a controlled demolition!!!
Turn your sound on, and then watch this 30 second video:
People will compare video of a controlled demo and video of the WTC buildings falling once they start to fall. Well, look at them before that point. When a controlled demolition takes place, the charges are extremely loud and follow each other in sequence. THEN the building falls.
Look at that video. The charges go off for 10 seconds before the building starts to collapse. This was not heard or described by anyone on 9/11, nor during the collapse of Seven World Trade. It is not in any videos or heard by any witnesses.
It was not a controlled demolition.
6) Still somehow think it was? Really?
Explain this:
Why did the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 start from the top of the buldings, where the planes hit??
Controlled demo collapses start from the bottom. Not the top.
There was no controlled demolition, and there was no U.S. government conspiracy.
Think the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition?
Well, they weren't.
Here's a few points I'd like you to consider. This isn't entirely comprehensive of course, but I'm not doing all of your research for you.
1) Where was the evidence of the controlled demolition afer the fact? There is always evidence of the explosive devices on the scene after a controlled demo. Yet, no such evidence was ever seen. Wonder why?
2) When do you propose they went into the buildings and planted all of those bombs, and how is that that no one noticed anything either during, or anytime after this operation?
The world trade center tower walls would have had to have been opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses, and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls, on all four sides of the building. Then the walls would have to be closed up.
This all taking place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building?
Really?
And again, say that somehow happened, where was the evidence on the scene?
3) People point to the beams with diagonal cuts as evidence of thermite usage.
Well, the beams were cut.....During the clean up:
4) The towers were designed to withstand impact with a jet.
The towers did withstand the impact.
They were brought down by a combination of the damage sustained during impact, and the fires, both of which resulted in enough structural instability to bring the buildings down.
5) But it looks like a controlled demolition!!!
Turn your sound on, and then watch this 30 second video:
People will compare video of a controlled demo and video of the WTC buildings falling once they start to fall. Well, look at them before that point. When a controlled demolition takes place, the charges are extremely loud and follow each other in sequence. THEN the building falls.
Look at that video. The charges go off for 10 seconds before the building starts to collapse. This was not heard or described by anyone on 9/11, nor during the collapse of Seven World Trade. It is not in any videos or heard by any witnesses.
It was not a controlled demolition.
6) Still somehow think it was? Really?
Explain this:
Why did the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 start from the top of the buldings, where the planes hit??
Controlled demo collapses start from the bottom. Not the top.
There was no controlled demolition, and there was no U.S. government conspiracy.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Top Ten Arguments "Against" Gay Marriage
The top ten reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married. No way, no how. Nuh uh! No gay marriage!!
This is a VERY important topic, so I might get a little HEATED in this one.
This is an adaptation. I hope I put a decent spin on things.
BTW, I'm being incredibly sarcastic here. I'm 10000000% for gay marriage.
Zombie Apocalypse XBLA Review
Bring the Apocalypse, or Get Feasted On.
In Zombie Apocalypse, you have two choices. Either expend incredible amounts of ammunition bringing the Apocalypse to a bunch of brain hungry zombies, or just give up and be eaten. Not sure which option to take? Well, then this review is for you. This won't be a terribly lengthy review, as the game is quite simple. It's an arcade style twin stick shooter, in the vein of classics like Robotron and SMASH TV (both of which are also available on the Xbox Live Arcade).
Remember this?
Now there's this:
So, you do this, along the way picking up various weapons, which include a shotgun, dual SMG, rifle, molotov cocktails, flamethrower, grenade launcher, and rocket launcher. Your default weapons are an assault rifle and a chainsaw, which you can use in two ways. Normal, and execution. Executions add 3 to your multiplier for each one you do, so they are very useful, but they also leave you open for attack for a second after you do one, so you must use them wisely. When the shotgun toting sheriff zombies (yes, seriously) show up, you don't want to be stuck doing an execution when one of them is nearby, you'll be open to a shotgun blast.
Speaking of shotgun toting sheriff zombies, these are the enemy types to be found in the game (weapon or attributes in brackets):
Dodge Zombie (side-stepper)
Shambler (regular zombie)
Big Boy (construction worker, can't break)
Granny (knives)
Nurse
Queen (flying)
Puker (puke piles, slows you down)
Dynamite Guy (blows you up)
Infected Human (not attracted to bait)
That last one refers to two things I have not, as of yet, mentioned. There are survivors that randomly appear, and if you protect them for a short period of time, and they get picked up by helicopter, you get a score bonus. If they get attacked, they turn and then attack you. The bait mentioned is a talking C4 filled teddy bear (again, seriously) which you can throw to get the horde off of your back, and then watch as they gather around the lovable teddy bear.....and then BOOM, they explode into a pile of bloody gore. Well, this works on everything except the newly turned zombies.
The game starts out with one mode, and then you can unlock some new ones through normal play. They are as follows:
Turbo (faster)
All Weaons (you carry infinite versions of every weapon, which you can cycle through with the dpad)
Blackout (limited light)
Hardcore (start with one life)
Chainsaw Only (self explanatory)
7 Days of Hell (a long and very difficult mode)
As for the difficulty, it starts out easy and then ramps up, gettting quite difficult later on, although this is offset by infinite continues, which you can use if desired. Any score earned after continuing does not get posted to the leaderboards. You start with 4 lives, and you earn more as you gain score.
There is 4 player co-op, both online and off, in addition to the aforementioned leaderboards. The game is really fun, especially at first, but it's not perfect. So, a few downsides to the game:
1) Only 2 bosses, and it's really the same one twice
2) It gets repetitive, seeing as how it's a fairly shallow arcade game.
3) At $10, I don't think it's overpriced per se, but at $5 it would have been a sure bet for more people.
4) There isn't a huge community for this, at least on the xbox 360 version (I can't speak for the PS3 version). It's been out a few days, and the most people I have seen online at once is maybe 40.
Overall, this is a good looking, fun, modernized take on an old arcade standby, the top down shooter. Very fun, especially with friends, and it has a decent amount if unlockables, which is refreshing. It can also get stale fairly quickly. If you're a high score junkie, then you'll find more replayability out of it. The price is fair enough, and it really is fun. For the price of a movie ticket, you'll get two (or more) times the amount of hours of enjoyment. So, despite the inherently repetitive and shallow nature of the game, it's definitely a recommended buy for arcade shooter and zombie fans.
Final Score: 8/10.
'Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future'
There is a book, released last year, entitled 'Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future' It's about the disconnect between scientists and the general public. The book's homepage: http://www.unscientificamerica.com/ talks about the issue.
Here is an excerpt:
Some of our gravest challenges—climate change, the energy crisis, national economic competitiveness—and gravest threats--global pandemics, nuclear proliferation—have fundamentally scientific underpinnings. Yet we still live in a culture that rarely takes science seriously or has it on the radar.
For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science; 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; the number of newspapers with weekly science sections has shrunken by two-thirds over the past several decades.
The public is polarized over climate change—an issue where political party affiliation determines one's view of reality—and in dangerous retreat from childhood vaccinations. Meanwhile, only 18 percent of Americans have even met a scientist to begin with; more than half can't name a living scientist role model.
The situation is pretty bad down there in the US (not sure how we're faring overall here in Canada, but I do know we're experiencing a fundamentalist uprising, and the asociated antiscientifc sentiments are rearing their ugly heads as well). Biased news media outlets pick up a story that conforms to their preconceived notions (say, Anthropogenic Global Warming is false) and gladly report it ad nauseum, hammering home the message for the viewers....all without bothering to either wait for things to come clear, or do some honest appraisal and fact checking.
And once the people hear it on tv...it's gospel. They don't think critically. They don't do the research themselves. Look at the whole 'climategate' thing. And, as the old saying goes, the lie spreads quickly and sticks, so even if the truth eventually gets out, it's too late (or something like that).
Another example was the supposedly suppressed EPA analysis of a climate change bill. Fox news was all over it, saying that the EPA did not include in its report a 98 page document generated within the agency that questioned the science of global warming.
Of course, if anyone had bothered to do any, you know, reporting, they would have found that the report was written by two non-climate scientists working for the NCEE, who relied heavily on the work of a leading figure of an industry front group to write their report, which was actually nothing of the sort. They regurgitated pseudoscientifc nonsense from the front group's website. But the damage had already been done, and the science of global warming was further undermined in the public's eye.
So, what the hell do we do? Do scientific establishments need to hire full time PR firms to counter this bullshit before it does the damage it so often does?
Do we revamp the education system so it puts more focus on critical examination and less on blind acceptance and submissiveness to authority?
WHAT? What can we do? Are people too far gone? Is everyone too busy with their ipods and such that they don't have time for the science anymore? Are we too accustomed to having our knowledge delivered to us in quick 3 minute soundbites? I mean, how many people actually refer to the actual science? I love asking deniers of AGW or Evolution,
People deny decades, and even centuries worth of multidisciplinary scientifc evidence, and all they have to go on is some biased news stories, a couple of articles on the internet, and most importantly, selfish reasons for wanting to deny these things, religious, political, financical, or otherwise.
It's incredibly sad, and it threatens our actual futures. Yes, no hyperbole. It threatens our very future.
Here is an excerpt:
Some of our gravest challenges—climate change, the energy crisis, national economic competitiveness—and gravest threats--global pandemics, nuclear proliferation—have fundamentally scientific underpinnings. Yet we still live in a culture that rarely takes science seriously or has it on the radar.
For every five hours of cable news, less than a minute is devoted to science; 46 percent of Americans reject evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old; the number of newspapers with weekly science sections has shrunken by two-thirds over the past several decades.
The public is polarized over climate change—an issue where political party affiliation determines one's view of reality—and in dangerous retreat from childhood vaccinations. Meanwhile, only 18 percent of Americans have even met a scientist to begin with; more than half can't name a living scientist role model.
The situation is pretty bad down there in the US (not sure how we're faring overall here in Canada, but I do know we're experiencing a fundamentalist uprising, and the asociated antiscientifc sentiments are rearing their ugly heads as well). Biased news media outlets pick up a story that conforms to their preconceived notions (say, Anthropogenic Global Warming is false) and gladly report it ad nauseum, hammering home the message for the viewers....all without bothering to either wait for things to come clear, or do some honest appraisal and fact checking.
And once the people hear it on tv...it's gospel. They don't think critically. They don't do the research themselves. Look at the whole 'climategate' thing. And, as the old saying goes, the lie spreads quickly and sticks, so even if the truth eventually gets out, it's too late (or something like that).
Another example was the supposedly suppressed EPA analysis of a climate change bill. Fox news was all over it, saying that the EPA did not include in its report a 98 page document generated within the agency that questioned the science of global warming.
Of course, if anyone had bothered to do any, you know, reporting, they would have found that the report was written by two non-climate scientists working for the NCEE, who relied heavily on the work of a leading figure of an industry front group to write their report, which was actually nothing of the sort. They regurgitated pseudoscientifc nonsense from the front group's website. But the damage had already been done, and the science of global warming was further undermined in the public's eye.
So, what the hell do we do? Do scientific establishments need to hire full time PR firms to counter this bullshit before it does the damage it so often does?
Do we revamp the education system so it puts more focus on critical examination and less on blind acceptance and submissiveness to authority?
WHAT? What can we do? Are people too far gone? Is everyone too busy with their ipods and such that they don't have time for the science anymore? Are we too accustomed to having our knowledge delivered to us in quick 3 minute soundbites? I mean, how many people actually refer to the actual science? I love asking deniers of AGW or Evolution,
How much of the actual research have you read, or even glanced over? Hell, how many abstracts have you read?The answer is usually none.
People deny decades, and even centuries worth of multidisciplinary scientifc evidence, and all they have to go on is some biased news stories, a couple of articles on the internet, and most importantly, selfish reasons for wanting to deny these things, religious, political, financical, or otherwise.
It's incredibly sad, and it threatens our actual futures. Yes, no hyperbole. It threatens our very future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)