|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
28th December 2013, 02:29 PM | #161 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
I somehow doubt it, because there's a lot to explain that I suspect you're going to handwave away, including, just to mention one, the trails provided by companies in countries such as mine.
But I look forward to your unified explanation of all the events. Or are you going to just focus on a few facts that you find "unlikely" and forget about the bulk of the rest? |
28th December 2013, 02:33 PM | #162 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
28th December 2013, 02:37 PM | #163 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
28th December 2013, 02:39 PM | #164 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
A creationist once informed me that evolution was so highly improbable , and that given God can do anything, God was the much simpler and more probable generator of all life.
David it seems is about to tell us that it is much more likely that an organization with vast power and wealth orchestrated a vast and complicated conspiracy to destroy a dozen buildings in lower Manhattan, one wing of the largest military office structure in the world, and shoot down a plane over Penn. IOW invoke a God analogue. |
28th December 2013, 02:44 PM | #165 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
28th December 2013, 02:45 PM | #166 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
This will help put things straight as to where I am coming from. For those of you that were not following the previous merged thread (re: CD and free fall) you would not have seen a post of mine; and those that were no doubt lost track of it. It was my fault it got lost in the shuffle.
"I reduced the point to the following: Here is where I have come to with all that I have encountered here at JREF. As we go issue by issue you always have an explanation. No problem there. But it is always that every explanation that you provide is in terms of its being "possible." Your side has to come up with a way to explain away every single thing regarding 9/11. And the list of things for you to explain goes on and on. Of course that applies to the truther side as well. But we can explain everything in one sentence. It was an inside job/false flag event." |
28th December 2013, 02:49 PM | #167 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
28th December 2013, 02:49 PM | #168 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
I will try to get out a post quickly that shows why I think I/we have a better explanation.
It will take a bit and I only have just over an hour before I have to leave the keypad. I'll do my best. |
28th December 2013, 02:50 PM | #169 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
28th December 2013, 02:51 PM | #170 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
28th December 2013, 02:52 PM | #171 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
28th December 2013, 02:53 PM | #172 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
28th December 2013, 03:17 PM | #173 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
We see lies from 911 truth, and 911 truth is unable to stop spreading lies.
http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html 911 truth logic starts with...
Quote:
Quote:
Can you show your math again for the 10th point of woo? can save you |
28th December 2013, 03:43 PM | #174 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
28th December 2013, 03:44 PM | #175 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Now, beachnut, why would 911 truth choose to ignore the large amount of other personal effects of the occupants of the plane that were also found or the FACT that finding personal effects from airliner crash victims is extremely common.
Which reminds me, david never did list the airliner crashes in which personal effects of the occupants were not found. |
28th December 2013, 03:46 PM | #176 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
28th December 2013, 03:57 PM | #177 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Post done. But, I copied and pasted from text doc. Nothing lines up. You will see what I mean. Stupid. I should have written it in response box. Damn.
See what I can do to make it readable. |
28th December 2013, 03:59 PM | #178 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
Looks pretty good after pasting in reply box. But preview everything smashed together.
|
28th December 2013, 04:17 PM | #179 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
|
28th December 2013, 04:19 PM | #180 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
|
This list is not complete due to time considerations. I had started to list things off the top of my head that I remembered and I am sure there are at least quite a few more. (I have not been into this stuff to any significant degree for probably three years.)
Sorry for the format. Bolded are the explanations from the official story. Inside job: "FF" = Planned out False Flag easy explanation. You'll get the idea. Each item is stated followed by BOLD (official story) then "FF" (I do have to leave and will be gone for unknown # hours. Back when I can be.) In no particular order: Item JREF Me -- AA11. “Vaporized airplane.” It’s possible FF -- AA11. Few parts found It’s possible FF -- Found passports It’s possible FF -- H. Honjour flying It’s possible FF -- Pentagon section hit: - $2.3 Trillion. - computers and “accountants” with $2.3 T info. - only section of many “reinforced” It’s possible FF -- FBI gathering video tapes within minutes Possible reasonableexplanation. FF -- no video of AA11 flying in and hitting Pent. Possible reasonable explanation FF -- Destruction of ATC audio tape of controllers talking Possible reasonable explanation FF -- People told don’t fly 9/11 Possible reasonable FF (LIHOP ALSO applies. -- Drills making things confusing Coincidence FF - false radar blips etc. - sending fighters long way away. -- Cheney “whipping head around and ‘ course orders stand‘ Possible reasonable FF explanation -- UA 93 pristine hijacker Its possible FF bandana -- UA 93 no fuel in soil Its possible FF -- Few black boxes found Its possible FF all planes -- WTC plane hit well of center Its possible FF both collapses look ‘identical’ --UA 93 Crashed straight in Its possible FF FDR showed 20 degree angle Some wreckage 1-2 miles away --AA 11. ‘vaporized plane’ all or nearly all DNA identified Its possible FF --So many reports of explosions PPL lied or mistaken FF yet dismissed/ignored --seeing “molten steel” Not true FF -- box cutters take all 4 crews out Possible FF -- Planes “way over max operating” Its possible FF (and by pilots no experience) -- Plane parts -- no serial #’s Who cares? FF --Steel shipped to China So what? FF --Acars data well after crash So? FF --Cell phone calls from crashed airplane So? FF --Radar shows return after crash So? FF --put options Even if, so what? FF --sulfidized steel So? Possible FF --CIA female told not to be in NYC She lied FF --Warning from others countries ignored ? FF (LIHOP/MIHOP) --Jennings/Hess Timeline we know FF correct timeline, you don’t -- collapse explanations It’s possible FF |
28th December 2013, 04:34 PM | #181 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
28th December 2013, 04:37 PM | #182 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
No, we have a dead cat. This is now a forensics exercise: how did the cat die?
Not all loose ends get tied up neatly in forensics: this is not a typical police procedural television drama. The bulk of evidence points to a logical conclusion. If you don't agree, show how the evidence at hand better fits an alternate. You have to show how, no guesses, no could've, no might've. |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
28th December 2013, 04:39 PM | #183 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,744
|
More accurately and correctly I would say there are two sides, but they are;
Side supported by evidence and reality Side that denies reality and offers no evidence, even when asked repeatedly to do so. "Official story" is commonly used by Truthers as a derogatory term. In their world official = government and government = evil, therefore anything official is evil. If they label what actually happened on 9/11 as the official story they can automatically dismiss it, and by extension anyone who even seems to support it (since we are all paid government shills after all). But one does not have to rely on anything "official" to understand that on 9/11/2001 terrorists with a long history of attacking the U.S. took two pages out of the standard terrorist playbook (hijackings and suicide bombings) and combined them in order to achieve their political goals. My suggestion is to get past the "official story" business so that it does not cloud your objectivity. There is only what happened, based on the evidence. Official or not official has nothing to do with it. If you have an explanation of what happened on 9/11 that you can prove on evidence, by all means bring it. |
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts. |
|
28th December 2013, 04:49 PM | #184 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
No video of the plane hitting the pentagon! False flag!
Video of the plane hitting the south tower? False flag. Plane vaporized? False flag Vaporized plane's parts found? False flag. Find passport? False flag! Not find passport? False flag. Can't find black boxes? False flag Find black boxes? False flag. *********** ridiculous. |
28th December 2013, 05:13 PM | #185 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
David you keep offering an EXPLANATION. All you have posted is a list of poorly defined items of FACT. Each with a pair of ALLEGATIONS as to someone's opposing opinions.
What you have to do - and preferably in this order - is: 1) State what you are claiming. For your first attempt try to keep it a single focussed and arguable claim. Try one of these: (a) I claim that Controlled Demolition methods were used to ensure the Collapse of WTC1 and WTC 2; OR (b) I claim that no plane crashed into the Pentagon. 2) The default narrative for 1)(a) says "No CD" And states the following facts as evidence for "No CD" - list say the most important 5 that you can either disprove OR outweigh with contrary evidence. You cannot avoid identifying the evidence against you - you have to overcome it and pretending that it doesn't exist will not work. As stage one stick to physical facts - not social aspects. What is claimed to have been the mechanism NOT "who dunnit". If you cannot prove that "it was done" THEN you certainly cannot prove "who dunnit". So prove it happened FIRST before tackling the "who dunnit". 3) I claim the following facts as evidence of CD - list your strongest points. 4) Then show how the total of your points of fact outweighs the facts of evidence underpinning the default explanation. Specifically - for example the default explanation for WTC collapses says "no evidence of demolition materials were found in the debris". So if you have to prove that statement wrong - give us the pictures or other evidence showing that there was demolition material in the debris. OR take the far harder track and demonstrate why the lack of evidence is not fatal to your claim. And do your homework - check that the evidence has not already been rebutted. PAUSE HERE AND POST YOUR PROGRESS WORK Get that far and we will check your progress. There is still a long way to go - but so far you are still standing stationary at the starting line, unsure what the race is and without any apparent clue as to the direction and route to take. Here is a slightly different option: There are many more BUT all they are is a list of asserted facts - poorly defined. Zero reasoning to show why they matter. By all means pick ONE of them and explain: P) why it matters; AND Q) why the evidence you rely on is stronger that the evidence for the default explanation. So you may as well follow the simple sequence I outlined above BUT using your facts. And state up front what you are trying to claim or prove....otherwise the material is literally aimless. Start with one simple technical building block - don't try the truther trick of "It was an inside job" --- without defining "It". If you cannot show that the plane was not inside the Pentagon THEN all the alphabet soup of acronyms from P4T is pointless evasion. If you cannot prove CD at WTC then all the "who dunnit" for CD is pointless. So start with the technical building blocks...they are - they must be - the foundations. PS OK -- [EndArguingYourCase101] |
28th December 2013, 05:18 PM | #186 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,214
|
|
28th December 2013, 05:24 PM | #187 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
28th December 2013, 05:26 PM | #188 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Liberal misuse of the word "Vaporized" for a plane that did not vaporize.
|
28th December 2013, 05:40 PM | #189 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Be my guest.
EDIT: ooops - gotcha On re-reading I think I see that you are using "fact" to mean "true fact" - I wasn't - I was being legal - "fact" does not imply "true fact" - when I said that he "asserted" them I was not saying anything either way as to their truth or falsity. Merely identifying them as items of fact - and, at this stage, he presents them bereft of any validation OR reasoning. His burden of proof to prove them - and not for me to pre-empt his proof OR lack of proof. Structurally I wanted to keep "claim" for the outcome and none of his "asserted facts" are claims of "outcomes" - rather they are potential building blocks of factual evidence to support a higher level claim. Which claim he has not yet stated. |
Last edited by ozeco41; 28th December 2013 at 05:47 PM. Reason: changed to better match what pgimeno was saying |
|
28th December 2013, 05:43 PM | #190 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
28th December 2013, 05:58 PM | #191 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,218
|
"FF" isn't an answer.
"FF" isn't evidence. You need evidence of HOW things were planted / destroyed / coordinated. These will not be a two-word answer. The truther/creationist analogy is very apt. "FF" = "God did it". |
28th December 2013, 05:59 PM | #192 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
I have questions too:
What are the odds some secret-squirrel cabal stages a hijacking to drive the US into a war, but doesn't use hijackers from the countries they want to invade? Why not use more planes to hit more targets? Why isn't crashing an airplane enough? Why rig the buildings to collapse? What are the odds none of the thousands of professionals who worked at Ground Zero never saw evidence of CD? What are the odds that even one of them did and has remained silent? What are the odds of none of the thousands of documents Manning leaked to Wikileaks on the Iraq and Afghan wars show no conspiracy? What are the odds you don't understand statistics, probability or outcome? |
28th December 2013, 06:12 PM | #193 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
As far as I'm concerned whether or not an incident being discussed in the past tense is accidental or plotted in some nefarious scheme is determined by a chain of evidence and not by their raw probability of occurrence in the future. If you haven't got the chain of evidence, then I fail to see your reasoning in trying to blow this up into some big deal as having any meaning. You're simply taking the tiniest of minutiae and trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be. Reality is, you've got some inkling that this event was a big conspiracy, and even without anything to back that idea up, and no need for it... I could think of much easier paths to take in order to make that point... and do it more convincingly to boot.
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
28th December 2013, 06:40 PM | #194 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
28th December 2013, 06:44 PM | #195 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
|
28th December 2013, 07:09 PM | #196 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
The planes were not vaporized, this is lie. Did you make up this lie?
The plane was in the WTC. Sorry, you lost this one. lol, lots of personal stuff found, you don't got anything again. Looks like H. Honjour figured out 911 12 years before you, and you claim to be a pilot. Bad pilots can figure out 911, and pilots who spread lies about 911 can't? Hani had a FAA ticket, now it is in doubt you have one due to the complete ignorances of flying issues on 911. This makes no sense, but for you it is more nonsense you use to spread lies. FBI job is to protect evidence. Add the FBI and rules of evidence to your list of don't do. Flt 11 hit the WTC. BINGO Flight 77 is on RADAR, 5 different RADAR sites, and drops off at the Pentagon at impact. There are no high resolution video cameras aimed up in the air! lol, I wonder why. guess people who steal stuff in parking lots don't come out of the sky, but I guess you house security cameras are pointed to the stars to catch ET coming. This more nonsense which means?... ... Nothing. lol, another lie if you imply it was not 77. The controller interview was destroyed? lol, it is their thoughts, and not testimony, Sorry, another failed Gish Gallop. wow, not a single thing is good for anything; what is next? What a bunch of nonsense. Another big lie you support and reference with talk. You are the most gullible pilot, next to Balsamo. OOPs, now you get to NORAD and can't figure out an exercise would have more qualified people on board. Thus, this is a stupid claim, it makes the military more ready, not less ready. You logic is faulty. Cheney? lol, this is the red flag of woo, something in a command post as evidence for the real world is? Nonsense. Good job - if you had worked with command posts, you would know this means nothing. Next time get some experience before repeating failed junk from 911 truth. You editor is bad, and you don't know how to use the quote button. Lots of things are ejected in aircraft crashes. Bringing this up exposes your lack of experience with aircraft impacts and a general lack of knowledge. Means? it burned up. oops - A few is how many? Flight 93, FDR okay, the CVR okay oops Flight 77, FDR burnt but readable the last 4 seconds correlation data was corrupt, but 25 plus hours of flights, all 175 confirmed! CVR damaged too much. Flight 11, and 175 missing and involved in an event with over 2,700 tons of TNT in heat energy fires, and 260 tons of TNT collapse energy. OOPS, check the specs, the FDR can't handle this much energy in heat, and impacts. Both impacts were equal to 1300 and 2000 pounds of TNT. Why can't you do the physics and see what a FDR can handle? The FDR could be crushed. 130 tons of KE in a collapse could damage a FDR. But go ahead, show the math on your side. Make my day. What? Both collapse looked different. And you mentioned the tilt, which means you are flip flopping with your Gish Gallop. Wrong again. Flt 93 crashed upside down and at 40 degrees, I have the FDR readout, why don't you? lol, another lie. Flt 77 and 93 had all DNA identified, not 11. Only the kid you insult with lies on 77 was not identified. 11 was not all identified; Why spread lies when you can't line up your ducks? No explosives. Darn. No melted steel. oops Or small knives. Yes, when our throats are cut, it pretty much makes us dead, unable to fight anymore. It was a surprise attack, they cut your throat while you are strapped in with seat belts and shoulder harnesses. but you are a pilot and you know you are facing forward, and the attack comes from behind, as they cut our throats, and we die. Go ahead, make up the big story how you would win a fight you never saw coming. Say something to make you the hero, as you spread more lies. LOL, i have the data. Flight 11, only up to a flight certified speed for dive. OOPS, you lied. Flight 175, over speed for seconds, and why not. I flew heavy jets and they are clean and can easily go past Vmo, and I have been over Vmo - but then I am a real pilot, and you are what? Spreading lies about 911. Flt 93, crashed upside down in a steep dive, no way it can't exceed speeds if it has enough space to accelerate. You lost this one. Flight 77, over-speed for 20 seconds or less, you have no idea, you don't have the FDR, and you don't care. LOL, no need for serial numbers. Flt 11, 175, 77 and 93 are the only planes missing in the United States on 911, and all four were tracked by RADAR to where they impacted. This is a Gish Gallop to fool those who refuse to think for themselves. So what? Steel is sold the highest bidder. If you are upset, cry about it. This means what? Nothing. ACARS keeps sending. If we die, will our mail stop? This is nonsense from an idiot, Balsamo who never flew heavies. If you think this has merit, it means you never flew passengers or flew with the majors airlines, and make your claims of being a pilot suspect. Balsamo never made it to the left seat heavy jets, so he could be stupid enough to make this lie up. But a real pilot of heavies would not fall for this idiotic claim, exposing complete ignorance of how ACARS work. Cell phones do work in flight, I have used one. I was the pilot. But on 911, the calls which lasted to be useful, were from seat backs. oops Nope, this is a dumb lie. RADAR show no returns after crashing. But then you mean the flight explorer, which a repeater for software derived from RADAR inputs, which coasts the targets, or does what the software says to do. Big mistake repeating something debunked before. lol, a put option is traceable. You don't understand the stock market, or why when you mess up like Martha Stewart you go to jail. lol, you don't know stock, add this to the don't know list. Corroded steel due to fire, not hot enough to melt steel. Only 1000 C. Oops, means nothing again. Where do you find all this nonsense? And? What was the warning. So far all you have is talk. Jennings and Hess heard explosions, but did not die from the explosion which happened right next to them. Means, no explosives. Oops again. Fire destroys buildings. A fact 911 truth can't figure out. ' You spread lies about 911, and you can't help it. http://www.opednews.com/Diary/9-11-H...80324-705.html When will you retract these lies? |
28th December 2013, 07:25 PM | #197 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
|
None of the four planes were vaporized. Identifying parts were recovered from all four. Please stop repeating falsehoods.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2) No specific "accountants" were in those locations. 3) "Computers" is the stupidest argument ever. Haven't Truthers heard of internet/intranets? Servers? Redundant back-ups? It was 2001, not 1975.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(snipped repetitive nonsense)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2) IIRC, some if not all the planes had in seat phones as well.
Quote:
|
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence." |
|
28th December 2013, 08:24 PM | #198 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Not really and not much.
I doubt both "will" and "can" - I suspect that the latter is dominant. "Will not" because "cannot".
Modesty inhibits me from commenting.
Understood. (I doubt it - he still looks like a genuine but confused truther to me - not a "game playing pretender" AKA "Troll".)
|
28th December 2013, 08:29 PM | #199 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
No problem - my fault - I try to use the word with legal precision seeing that most of these discussions are implicitly set in a para-legal context.
When I remember I state "true fact" to avoid the confusion. Forgot on this occasion. Mea culpa on that. My focus was on identifying the fact distinct from calling on him to prove it. Probably a waste of time - he doesn't seem to pick the obvious meanings so forget the nuances. |
28th December 2013, 08:51 PM | #200 |
Devilish Dictionarian
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
|
This has to be the Gishiest Gallop to ever Gish Gallop.
Seriously. Ill defined terms ("vaporized") Vague accusations (H. Hanjour pilot .... And????) Stale old rebuked cherry picked tripe (oops, I Lost 2.3 Trillion dollars!!!) Pull it together, man. Create a comprehensive story! None of the spaghetti strands are sticking anymore!!!!!!!! |
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|