Topic: [Vote] Who did 911? - page 37. (Read 63039 times)

i am not here to push the argument that there was no plane at wtc. but only at wtc. as for the pentagon and pennsylv too many reports states that no plane could have crashed into pentagon nor in pensylv. if you want mathematical proofs as well as statements, arguments and physics, no problem i will provide those too. for the time being i am preparing the wtc mathematics and physics..

but my question is : what if i prove it? what will you do? because all valid proofs presented to you till now you just dont want to believe it.

also :

what did Larry Silverstein mean when he stated: “I said, ‘You know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” He could not have meant that they should “pull” the firefighters from the building because there weren’t any firefighters in the building, at least according to FEMA, NIST, and Frank Fellini, the Assistant Chief responsible for WTC 7 at that time. And if he meant “pull the firefighters” then why did he say “pull it”, with no reference to anything other than the building? The argument that “pull” is not used to mean “demolish” a building is belied by the other footage in the PBS documentary. And consider the timing: “they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.” Could it really be possible that some (nonexistent) fire brigade was removed from the building and just at that moment (“then”) the building collapsed? Is there really any doubt here about what Silverstein meant?

That's a very clear statement of the problem which has left me rather puzzled here.

It goes like this.

THERE WAS A PLOT AND THE EVIL (Jews, Us gov, big corporations, blah blah blah) ACTUALL DID 911!

Because the plane could not have (blah blah blah)

SEE THERE WAS A PLOT!

.....

And then I point out clearly that yes, the plane could have (blah blah blah) and these guys get mad and start insulting.  I haven't even destroyed the conspiracy theory, only the bad science and logic of the "fact".  They can devise some other supporting argument....

I thought it was clear. I'm the shit. 


Actually, if you proved "it" using a logical argument where the relevant propositions are supported by mathematics and physics, I would believe "it."

Here's a challenge I'll probably regret making, as this is already taking up too much of my mornings. Pick one of the 4 flights from 9/11. Only 1, but I leave it up to you to choose. Then state clear, unambiguous sentences asserting your beliefs about only this part of the attack. Label the sentences to avoid confusion. Combine the sentences in such a way that demonstrates the "official narrative" is impossible (or I'll accept highly improbable).

To give you a small example of what I'm looking for, suppose we were discussing the fate of Flight 93. Here are some sentences which I hope have a clear, unambiguous meaning.

(A) The official narrative states that Flight 93 crashed in a field in Pennsylvania on 9/11.
(B) If Flight 93 landed at an airport in Cleveland in the late morning of 9/11, then it did not crash in a field in Pennsylvania.
(C) Flight 93 landed at an airport in Cleveland in the late morning of 9/11.

If (A), (B) and (C) are all true, then we can conclude that the official narrative is false. (To analyze this deeper we could go into propositional logic, but perhaps it's clear enough.)

We probably all agree (A) is true, right? Whatever you believe was the fate of Flight 93, it seems clear that the official narrative states that Flight 93 crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

We probably also agree (B) is true, although here there are some corner cases. Someone might argue that Flight 93 landed, then took off again, and then crashed. I tried to avoid this by putting "late morning."

We probably disagree on (C). I don't believe (C). Based on the youtube links someone posted earlier (Netpyder?), some of you believe (C).

Once we know what specific claim we are disagreeing about, we can ask for supporting evidence for (C) or evidence against (C). We should have a protocol to avoid people going off the rails, as happens naturally in these kinds of discussions. Perhaps it's enough to insist that each time evidence is given for or against a sentence, the label of the sentence must be explicitly given (e.g., (C)) and at least one new sentence needs to explain the relevant of the evidence to the labelled sentence.

Here's what I'm trying to avoid:

Supporting evidence for (C): (C) is true because NORAD was ordered to stand down.

Whether or not NORAD was ordered to stand down is irrelevant to whether or not (C) is true. This need to give a sentence to explain relevance isn't perfect. Someone can still say:

Supporting evidence for (C): (C) is true because NORAD was ordered to stand down. This is relevant to (C) because fuck you statist!

If one or more of you is up for such a discussion, just pick one of the four flights. After that we can come up with a number of labelled statements you believe are true. We would need to all agree that if all the statements are true, then the official narrative is false. If we manage to get that far, then we'll identify which of the sentences are in dispute and begin the presentation of evidence.

PS: After writing this but before posting, Netpyder posted
This is a little unclear, but let me try to put it into the kind of sentences I mean. This involves disambiguating pronouns such as "it." I'll pick the North Tower of the WTC to be specific, since we should focus on one flight.

(A) The official narrative says the North Tower was struck by Flight 11 at between 8am and 9am on 9/11.
(B) The official narrative says that the North Tower collapsed within the next two hours due to structural failure.
(C) The North Tower was not hit by an airplane.

I started to add "The North Tower was imploded," but I think we'd need to be more specific. There's no reason to consider the last part "and magically came down to earth." If we're being honest here, the official narrative says nothing about magic.

Now, while I included (B) it's actually irrelevant. We can probably all agree on this:

If (A) and (C), then the official narrative is false.

We probably also all agree (A) is true, as this is simply a well-known statement about the official narrative.

Where I'm sure we disagree is (C).

This means we don't even need to discuss or come to any agreement about why (or even if) the North Tower collapsed. Evidence for (C) would include video evidence, airline tracking evidence, and so on. I'm not sure what evidence there is against an airplane having struck the North Tower, but this is up to you guys to provide.
=======================
But I'm not here to pick the flight or argument for you. Take your best shot. But you have to commit to one flight and one argument against the official narrative in advance. And then you have to stick to it, only discussing relevant evidence for or against the specific statements in dispute.

i want to prove to you with mathematics and laws of physics that it was imploded and brought down not hit by an airplane and magically came down to earth...

U.S. gov added later     Where the fuck do you live?

Reminds me of a bit of a sci fiction book -


“Like, you know all those dudes screwing with us on the Internet forums?  All those punks on government jobs trying to get stupid momma’s boys to do bad stuff?”

“Yeah, so?”

“Well, here’s how it works.  There so damn many of them, they have to know who the other government dudes are so they can try to perp some that aren’t government, right?”

“I guess so.  Right, because they are from all kinds of governments.  But then how do they know each other?  Some of those are enemies.”

“Yeah, it’s like war, where each side has colors.  But here they don’t want to let on who they are.  So their forum handles all have a code they reduce to.  It’s really simple.   French secret agents, theirs is 0909.  USA agents forum code is 5252.  Just the checksum of the digits in their handles.”

“How does that work?”

“Say you are putting three agents on a forum.  They all have handles that reduce to 0909 checksums.  They know who each of their team is, and they can identify other countries’ guys the same way.”

“So I’m taking them all down.   All of them.”

It is simply a refutation of your claim about the steel.  You were wrong, admit it.  No reason to duck and dodge the matter.    

This is actually what is involve din "investigating the facts for themselves."

Regarding "NORAD standing down", this is you trying to do what?  Does it have any relation to the previous matter about steel?  If so please explain the relationship.

Fine, you go back and show, then, where you are right about the conductivity of steel, about it's melting and so forth.  Be my guest.

Please remember I'm sticking to high school level chemistry and physics, and that is adequate to refute problems which have been presented in this forum.

Leaving aside your childish flame bait attitude, no the picture does not support statist policy.

It simply points out a popular attitude among Palestinians.

It could for example, be approving of such attitudes.

Then again, it could be pointing out the utterly ridiculous.

In no sense is Israel, or the US, or statism, mentioned or reasonably inferred from the picture.  Even in the mind of a Jew-hater, the picture can't reasonably be construed as statist.  Therefore I conclude that you are making things up.

if i mathematically and with physics laws prove to you that it IS an inside job not a conspiracy THEORY... you would still not believe it

It is kind of hard to argue policy when not everyone is identifying the real problem. Anyway this thread isn't about policy. It is about 9/11. Most people now days are so ignorant of scientific method and or too apathetic to bother to read for themselves, and far too willing to tell themselves and others they know more than they actually do without actually putting any effort forth, so it is easy to sell a lot of people this slick soundbite schlock you are selling. It is in the media/government/corporations best interests to lie to you about the most important information. Their job is to manage the narrative for you so you don't go off having your own ideas and conclusions. Unfortunately for them there are still plenty of diligent people out there who are well educated in the actual sciences and commercial application of the structural engineering, chemistry, and physics involved that can plainly see that the narratives presented do not fall within the realm of actual physics.
Don't believe me, actually dedicate some time to looking into the subject seriously and ask critical questions. It won't take long before you realize the publicly presented narrative is too often self contradictory and does not make sense in the face of real science and real facts.

P.S. Does that make you the dogs ass? I was just talking about your impact, but since you are personifying things...

I guess this is in reference to dog shit, which you'll notice I didn't introduce into the conversation.

The common trope is to ask libertarians "Who will build the roads?" There are many people who've seriously thought and written about such questions. If this thread (and others) are good examples of your thinking skills, you'd answer: There are no such thing as roads! This whole "roads" idea is a Zionist conspiracy cooked up with American skull-and-bones Nazis like Prescott Bush! Then when someone presented evidence that there are, in fact, roads, you'd say: What a dumb government shill. He believes in "roads."

9/11 happened. Deal with it honestly.

Now, now. Even though you didn't direct this at me, what kind of people do you think are going to like at your view when you express it this way? Why, only the government people who pulled off the 9/11 disaster, of course.

You tried, but you can't do it. Bitcoin is working. The 9/11 government official scam doesn't.

If a reminder of a fact supports a statist policy you wish to oppose, perhaps you should advocate an alternative non-statist policy that the fact could also support. If support for the policies you advocate relies on people disbelieving facts, then you should reconsider something.

I like your image of a "turd falling out of a dogs [sic] ass when it hits the ground." Since I clearly had an impact on you, I suppose that makes you the ground.

You have about as much impact as a turd does falling out of a dogs ass when it hits the ground.

"My avatar is a reminder of a fact: Palestinians celebrated 9/11. How does pointing this out support a "statist policy"?"

It sure does support statist policy. Israeli statist policy, while also taking advantage of US statist policy to make it happen. I am not going to bother responding to the rest of your sensationalist distraction. Hope that answers your question (not that you are interested in actual discussion).

Aw, you guys. It's nice to know I've had an impact. Maybe if I were actually a shill for some nefarious forces, I'd get a well deserved bonus.

Here's a fun game: look through my post history, as TECSHARE suggests, and look for posts in which I support a "statist policy." Maybe you'll find one, but if so it was probably just poorly worded. I think what you'll find are posts written by someone who has a low tolerance for people posting obvious bullshit, especially bullshit that's racist and/or irrational. The fact that you confuse this with supporting "statist policies" says something about you. My avatar is a reminder of a fact: Palestinians celebrated 9/11. How does pointing this out support a "statist policy"? Let's say you wanted to eliminate the DHS or end government foreign aid. How does lying about 9/11 help that cause? It doesn't.

I do not believe the road to minimizing/eliminating the role of the state in the lives of individuals passes through Crazytown and Falseville. I think those of you who do promote these crazy ideas are so counterproductive to any cause you're attached to, that it's more likely you guys are government agents.

So there: J'accuse. You guys are government agents sent to cause discord in the cryptocurrency community. Your goal is to make it look like a fringe movement that's full of 9/11 truthers and people who want to kill the Jews. Why? So that when new people start looking into cryptocurrency they think Jesus fucking Christ, I'm not going anywhere near these crazy mother fuckers! If I'm right, some of you are doing a hell of a job. Kudos.

Like I said:

Thank you for clarifying >>> "No I don't."

If gravity were the only force involved, we wouldn't be able to build buildings at all.

Go out and play with the rest of the children.

Sorry but making a stack of links without understanding what they are comprised of is not "quality". Very simple questions like "Why did NORAD stand down?" are just ignored in favor of having a war of who can have the most links and technical jargon to drive people's attention to other topics. The fact is that anyone who really cares will do the work to investigate the facts for themselves, and Spendulus is simply using "science" as a shield for his indefensible arguments by simply building himself a impenetrable wall of paperwork to hide behind without being able to understand or explain in simple words his argument.  He does not want to have a debate but rather wants to bore everyone and overload them by unnecessarily posting tons of side data, making a cohesive discussion impossible while attempting to make himself look educated on the subject. He can't even answer direct questions. That's quality?

As far as shills, J.J. Phillips is probably the most obvious example on the forum. Just check his post history for a sample of all the statist policies he just so happens to vociferously and vigorously support ad nauseum. Just look at his avatar ffs. He very clearly is happy that the USA is being used as a tool in the middle east to secure Israel at the United State's expense.

I don't quite think the mound of rubble from the twin towers exactly resembles "falling into it's own footprint."

I think the rubble mound was pretty darn big wasn't it?

Regarding "blown over by the wind" this is not realistic for skyscrapers.

Acceleration due to gravity is straight down.