And how sidechains solve the scaling exactly? It just moves the bloat elsewhere where people will have to run full bloat sidechain nodes. It's a pathetic solution that complicates everything for almost no gain.
Sidechains are part of an orthogonal scaling solution. The "pathetic solution" is bloating Layer 1 until it loses it's unique properties, and then breaks. XT is the canonical implementation of such a pathetic solution. That's why it's fukkin' #R3KT, with no chance of ever winning.   Just wanna point out to you the contradictory observation of your signature exposing the debt-based money scam and your misunderstanding of the primary purpose of Bitcoin being creative destruction rather than scaling to fit a decrepit consumer culture created by the debt-based money scam in the first place...  Decentralization and fungibility must be kept to the maximum possible. Orthogonal scaling solutions are exactly the kind of thing we'd want, not a parallel fork. Imagine if TCP/IP had been bloated beyond 40-byte headers or larger maximum payloads? Increasing max block size also increases the applicability of the withholding timing attack. Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.
You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin. Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?
XT has already won
Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.
Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?
This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy. It is democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't. Are you sure you really actually understand what democracy (statism) is? Watch this... if you can handle it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5mZ5FBHg0A |
|
|
|
What are you really asking? And why are you asking it? I sure hope you are not in pain of some kind because of our back and forth discussion.  I mean that he is telling you that he is not interested in anything you have to say. His mind is completely closed (to any ideas not coming from perceived authority figures) and he is happy to stay there, living by other people's beliefs. What makes you imagine I would be in "pain of some kind"? You seem like an ultra-sensitive person... (odd cuz I seem to recall you were a little bit harsh on 'dank')... The fact that it bothers you so much about how I respond to Spendy makes me ask "Why?" If you were in agreement with him, I could understand it. But since you seem to be "awake" regarding the inside job, why would it bother you that someone is clarifying Spendy's illogical thinking? Are you trying to keep the 9/11 inside job idea from opening up a new drive for truth? Or are you trying to protect me from the powers that be, 'cause they see that I am clarifying the whole thing in ways they want to keep hidden? That's all. Just curious about your reasons. I understand that this is a forum, and you might simply be playing to get some answers yourself. It doesn't bother me at all; just thought I'd extend a helping hand. You just said what I was pointing out: You don't need anyone to show you any evidence. The Internet is bubbling over with evidence. You research it, if you are at all interested. Essentially what I'm suggesting to you is this: move on! For example, check out Larken Rose on YouTube. Or Max Igan. Or Bruce Lipton. Or Bashar. Just to name a few of the most interesting sources of information you may not yet be aware of.
In other words, "is it possible the mistakes were deliberate"?
I think it's more about the idea of the degree to which they believed they had control over the filtering of sources of information. There were also major mistakes (perhaps proportionally) in the test-run false flag operations preceeding 9/11 ... You may be confusing two different issues. 1) There have been a lot of 'terrorist' attacks in a lot of countries. 2) The 911 attacks stand out in that there are numerous pieces of evidence that appear absurd. In other words there is piece after piece that seems to draw 'skeptics' into questioning it. An example is the passport found on the sidewalk near the towers. 3) My question was whether it was possible that these might have been a deliberate part of some other motive. For example might someone have said "As part of this operation we need to leave a certain kind of trail, we need to leave evidence that points in several different directions and which will draw several conflicting groups into constructing competing theories". Was the passport dropped deliberately by someone after the fact? I am not saying that was the case, I was simply asking if the evidence points to that. 4) There is no question that psychological motives drive all sides of the investigation by anyone involved. The "official" investigators are largely motivated by a desire to get professional benefit, to further their job, to satisfy their professional roles etc. Others, in whatever way, will look for ways to get other benefits, either defensive or offensive. 5) The participation of individuals from several seemingly unrelated groups seems evident. a) There seems to be solid evidence that Saudi individuals motivated by religious or political fervor were involved. b) There seems to be solid evidence that Americans who were in positions of 'responsibility' were involved. c) There seems to be solid evidence that Zionists acting on nationalist motives were involved. And others etc Yes, I know what you mean. What I'm suggesting is that the perpetrators might not actually have cared to the degree that you are imagining, because all they really needed is control over the mainstream information-source filtration system. Consider the number of variables and unknown unknowns involved in the planning stage scenarios of an operation of this scale. It's the centuries-long shaping of the media that allowed them to create all the necessary NLP reversals (such as 'skeptics' becoming 'conspiracy theorists' and pseudoskeptical 'skeptics' defending the "official" story far more effectively than the "government" and media themselves) that would be necessary to entrance the majority of the subject minds and thus the human collective consciousness. It's like a 10,000,000-piece puzzle, and the hundreds or thousands of pieces found by a few independent-of-the-control-system researchers probably didn't bother them... at least until around 2005-2006, when Steven Jones was figuring out some of the major pieces. It is nonetheless possible that "As part of this operation we need to leave a certain kind of trail, we need to leave evidence that points in several different directions and which will draw several conflicting groups into constructing competing theories"... but to me it no longer seems to have been a necessary component. Notice how poorly constructed even the legend (trail) of the Arabs was. I think we underestimate the degree of influence of their main control vector (the media). BTW, what do you think about this site: http://www.awaker.cn/ |
|
|
|
Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event. There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it. If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people. If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"? Satoshi is not an omniscient god. The number of contacts he had was very limited. Using (questionable) Satoshi quotes as proof for an argument is plain stupidity. Gavin should get both his alert key and his commit access removed. That's not the point though. Are you suggesting that Gavin was on the dark side from the beginning? |
|
|
|
Gavin has not done squat for years (thankfully as much of his work when he was active was useless and counterproductive) and is now basically a pariah to most people who understand the XT hostile takeover attempt event. There is no compelling reason for him to have an alert key and there are risk associated with him having it. If he supports another hostile takeover attempt the key could be mis-used to burn a lot of innocent people. If that is so, how do you explain Satoshi handing over the lead developer role to Gavin, and saying that the project is "in good hands with Gavin and the others"? I defended the guy for years past his 'best before' date. My bad. Believe it or not I have to be pretty confident about the rottenness of someone or something before I really open up on them/it.
If Gavin planned to foster good-will in doing his early facet stuff as a PR stunt, it was one of the most brilliant moves in Bitcoin history. I still doubt that he did and still feel it mostly likely that his elevation was one of those accidents of caprice. And also that if Bitcoin survives him it will be one of the epic saves of all time.
I've never supported Gavin and made that clear for years. Oh, not for intellectual or philosophical reasons but because he looks like one of those kids I used to beat up in high school. lol Meaning that you notice that he seems to be someone who strongly believes in authority? What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations?
Your question reflects a misunderstanding about the possible effects of an unnecessary hardfork: So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority. [...] Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush? Why the urgency? [source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (2015-08-19)] |
|
|
|
...The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension ... One of the interesting aspects of 911 is that there are so many legitimate indications of inaccuracy in the 'official' story, as well, of course, as red herrings added to discredit 'conspiracy theorists'. A person could ask "is it possible for some group to make so many mistakes in such a short period of time"? In other words, "is it possible the mistakes were deliberate"? One constant in human actions is the tendency to justify misdeeds by framing them as benevolent acts. If a person has a murderous streak they do not say "I feel murderous, I think I'll commit violence", they say "Wow, the army / whatever / etc will let me protect my country and cancel evildoers from other countries. I think I'll do that." The perfect response to this of course is the Christian saying "sufficient unto the world is the evil thereof". But anyway, suppose that to some extent the stunning ineptness of the operators, the mind boggling incompetent stupidity in so many aspects of the crime, was deliberate, rather than simple incompetence. What would the motives be? Why would someone deliberately kill so many people in such a way that no clear fingerprint was left but rather numerous disparate fingerprints? Good question. I think it's more about the idea of the degree to which they believed they had control over the filtering of sources of information. There were also major mistakes (perhaps proportionally) in the test-run false flag operations preceeding 9/11 (i.e. 1st WTC bombing, OKC, TWA 800?, EgyptAir 990?, ...), and the older ones like the USS Liberty, which probably made them confident that it was enough to create a credible legend of foreign unknown Arabs for the drones in the law enforcement agencies to follow. The confusion and the magnitude of the event just made it take longer to figure out the crime for independent (agenda-free) investigators (several years). What are you really asking? And why are you asking it? I sure hope you are not in pain of some kind because of our back and forth discussion. I mean that he is telling you that he is not interested in anything you have to say. His mind is completely closed (to any ideas not coming from perceived authority figures) and he is happy to stay there, living by other people's beliefs. What makes you imagine I would be in "pain of some kind"? You seem like an ultra-sensitive person... (odd cuz I seem to recall you were a little bit harsh on 'dank')... |
|
|
|
@BADecker, Spendulus doesn't believe anything except what he already believes, unless it comes from a perceived authority figure. It's pretty obvious if you ask me. I am not "seeking answers," What more do you need? |
|
|
|
OP is correct; the degree to which these... epistemologically-crippled trolls support XT is so irrational that some kind of a covert agenda seems far more plausible. Let's ignore -- for a moment -- the IP blacklisting and Tor proxy bypassing and whatnot, and look at what this XT thing really means... What we do know, is that [Satoshi Nakamoto] was able to combine many interesting technologies into a system that worked. That doesn't make her a saint, it doesn't make her a prophet, it doesn't make her a god -- it doesn't even make her a good programmer; the first version of Bitcoin was a fucking mess! Absolutely we should use the incredible insights and intelligence shown by Satoshi Nakamoto in her paper, and in the rest of her writings online, but we shouldn't just accept this kind of appeal to authority -- so if, the prophet Nakamoto said this was the case, then that's the truth. Nobody could predict 5 years out what's going to happen with a system at this scale, and we need to be flexible and dynamic, and not start appealing. People were asking me, "do you endorse big blocks or small blocks?". Who gives a fuck wether I endorse it or not? What is this, is this some kind of celebrity vote? Do I have data? Do I have analysis, do I have interesting opinions that I can back with data and analysis? Maybe, and where I do have those I've expressed them -- but this isn't some kind of thing where Bitcoin will proceed according to the plan that received the maximum number of celebrity endorsements among the core developers, and a few talking heads like myself -- that's ridiculous, that's not how you do engineering. And neither do you do engineering in a system of mutually assured destruction and heckler's veto, where no progress can be made because one person says no. We all need to be a bit more flexible and less dogmatic on this issue. I'm glad this debate is happening, I'm disappointed in some of the dogma that's in it, but nevertheless, I'm confident that in the end, what it's showing is that Bitcoin consensus is much more broad, amorphous, and involves many more constituents than we see. Merchants, exchanges, miners, wallets, core developers -- they all have a role to play, and they all have a voice in the consensus mechanism, and in the end I think that consensus mechanism works. What I will say is -- this is my ultimate aphorism: You can be a small-blockist, or you can be a large-blockist. What you can't do is go against consensus. That will punish you with a 100% loss of income. [source: Andreas Antonopoulos: "We live in an era where fear has overcome reason" [at 39min] (2015-07-27)] So with all these scary uncertainties, you may ask why hasn’t Satoshi come out to speak on the behalf of one side or the other in order to settle the dispute? Indeed it would be akin to him coming out to act as a 3rd party mediator, such as when a parent comes in to break up a fight among siblings. There has in fact been a post by someone claiming to be Satoshi, from a valid known Satoshi email address, claiming pretty much that the XT fork is unnecessarily dangerous, see here: Satoshi? Despite the many allegations that if this was really Satoshi, he would have signed his message with a known PGP key or perhaps moved some of his coins to prove that it was him, he has not done so. I for one do not believe that he would. If you read the message, (ignoring for a second who it is from) he is saying that Bitcoin’s vision is not one where it is subject to the egos of charismatic leaders, including Satoshi Nakamoto. People who harp on the fact that Satoshi has not made a provably authenticated statement is clearly missing the whole point of this message. If he were to do so, rest assured the whole of the community will rally with him, but that is exactly what he doesn’t want to happen, a whole community blindly following authority! Consistently so, the author points out that if it takes a benevolent dictator to pull us out of this mess “deux ex machina” then Bitcoin, as a project in decentralized money resistant to authority, has failed. That tautological statement, is provably true if you can wrap your head around it. Therefore, if Satoshi wants it to succeed, he won’t use his ‘God card’ and settle disputes. If Bitcoin continually needs Satoshi to keep us from going astray, then Bitcoin isn’t worth saving. Considering that Satoshi has likely the most coins at risk than anyone else, and him coming forward to break the impasse would likely save us (and the value of his own coins) it is truly commendable that he has not done so. The fact that he hasn’t tells me that he (where ever he or she is) is truly acting in an altruistic manner. He is more willing to let Bitcoin die, than to let it continue on as a system that does not value consensus as its first and foremost priority. [...] Gavin and Hearn are trying to force consensus in an “Inception” like manner, betting on the fact that if 75% agree with him (whether they are well informed actors or not) then the 25% remaining will be forced to fall in line otherwise risk breaking Bitcoin for everyone. Why are they doing this? One can only imagine they feel that Bitcoin needs to grow otherwise risk being overtaken by a competing cryptocurrency. Although current transaction volumes are not hitting the limit yet, they believe that adding capacity will stimulate growth. That sounds more like strategy that Ben Bernanke or Janet Yellen might believe. What they may end up doing is that they will cause the end of Bitcoin themselves if the 25% minority believe it is better to continue running a reduced (hash power) version of Bitcoin that values consensus, over one that is run by a charismatic leader who is willing to force changes onto the network, or split it off into separate sects if he doesn’t get his way. If we choose that to be the overriding model of Bitcoin, then Bitcoin as Satoshi envisioned it, as far as an experiment in “collective consensus building money, free from authority”, has failed. So just ask yourself one question, given all the unknowns and potential existential risks to Bitcoin, — What is the rush? Why the urgency? [source: Bitcoin XT vs Core, Blocksize limit, the schism that divides us all (2015-08-19)] It seems to me that this whole Bitcoin XT hardfork thing is a mistake arising from the belief in "authority". It's a matter of "authority" believers (and authority brown-nosers/soldiers), despite being extremely technically advanced, not understanding the true value and purpose of the decentralized consensus mechanism, thus wanting to impose some kind of "let the market decide" democracy (illusion of choice, if not an outright "dictatorship" -- a term not unused in this context). Gavin seems innocent but philosophically unsophisticated. If you understood "what authority is", why would you pay attention to (and even go to speak at) organizations such as the CIA and the CFR? It's harder to see Mike Hearn (and any other dev talking about blacklisting/redlisting) as being driven by innocent foolishness (incomplete understanding/picture of what Bitcoin and decentralization means). |
|
|
|
|
@BADecker,
Understand the nature of cognitive dissonance and ego dishonesty. There is no shortage of zombified media consumers who will swallow whatever the "official" narrative is of whatever event is being "reported" on. The conspirators don't rely on covert operators who spend their time on some not-directly-related forum such as this one; they rely on the ability to control (and filter) sources of information, an ability which they had been consolidating for thousands of years... until the Internet came along and undid all their efforts! I would suggest to you that the "conspiracy theories" are in a sense just one layer (call it the first layer), of which anarchy is the logical extension (for this see especially: Larken Rose). The realization of self-ownership and sovereignty (internal monarchy, external anarchy) is itself the prelude to a metaphysical awakening. The rabbit hole doesn't end where you currently seem to think it ends, I would suggest from my perspective. Why "waste your time" with someone who is "more asleep" than yourself, instead of expanding the extent of your awakening? Unless it's VERY fun, LOL, in that case by all means keep trying!
Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
This wasn't directed at me, but I just wanted to point out the irony of it. Much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world: It's the fault of The Jews. Your post history suggests you're one of the people with this assumption. Change that to any other group and you'd be equally as correct. I observe that it's "more" the "fault" of "the Jews" than any other grouping of human beings, including "the Muslims" and "the US government"... but that doesn't come close to an accurate understanding of what's going on. Yes, "much of the world has a worldview based on a half-assed unquestioned assumption that neatly explains everything bad that happens in the world"... and those worldviews were drilled into your and all those other people's minds via the MSM... who are not really actually telling you anything about anything worth knowing. But, don't listen to me, I'm just someone you (falsely) believe to be a Jew. You're a human being filled with an extreme degree of hatred for anyone that you perceive is an enemy of Jewish supremacy... whether you really are Jewish or not is irrelevant. Perhaps one day you'd like to join the human race? |
|
|
|
^The answer is yes to both (1) and (2). It's a matter of interpretation and narrowness of definitions (to whom does this law apply?, etc). .....
Your Israelis attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the mid 1970s. Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide.
.....
Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL JOOOESSS!!! Here it is again, THE EVVOOOL MUUUUUZLIMZ!!! Oh, and when I say "Youtube is not an authoritative source," that does not give you license to assume that I have alternate "authoritative sources" that you can refute. It does not mean that you can leap to a conclusion that I agree with one or another government reports.
Authoritative sources I have used in this discussion are reference materials for high school chemistry and physics. Most of that I know, but I did look up a few melting points and heats of combustion and so forth. Way to ignore everything I said, such as the observation that you can't get yourself to believe (observe) that there was indeed molten metal. I didn't assume anything. You're the one whose entire worldview is made of a bunch of half-assed unquestioned assumptions. Then again, so are most people's worldview/selfview. There are no "authoritative sources" to which you can cling to neatly explain in your mind what happened. You're supposed to be the thinker/seeker/investigator -- if you're not, you're just a parrot. Again, why are you here? |
|
|
|
^ Folks, both types are "true Muslims", by definition, because they are using Islam as the basis and justification for their actions. Same goes for Christians and Jews. It's about how what is written in those "holy books" is interpreted; there is no "true interpretation", only peaceful and non-peaceful interpretations. A good example of an extremely (even insanely) hateful interpretation is that of our own J.J Philips above! Youtube is not exactly an authoritative source, is it? This is the root cause of your misperception of reality. You believe what you are told by "authoritative sources", when such sources are established as "authoritative" by the dominators who want to control you. I've done that with the "melting steel" question. Unless you refute my analysis, it stands. It's literally like saying that you have refuted the observation that the sky is blue. Truly pathetic. You actually believe that there couldn't've been any molten steel, therefore there wasn't any... but there was. You only ever paid attention to one side of the argument... the one you believed from the beginning. Why would any bad guy cook up a scheme to plant truly massive amounts of explosives of some totally mysterious type into buildings, then fly airplanes into buildings, AND THEN DETONATE THE EXPLOSIVES?
that just seems to me like it would have to involve hundreds of people and thousands would have known about it - it seems just impractical, impossible, improbable, and insane. Somehow you completely miss that the alternative scenario, which is what you have always believed is what happened, is far, far, far more preposterous! This is called brainwashing -- the equating of the idea of critical thinking with that which is presented as being accepted by "authoritative sources". Do you think it is a woman? How are you so sure? What you think is a head might be 50 feet behind two pieces of twisted metal that you think is an arm and a torso. You are utterly clueless as to the research that has been done, one both sides of the argument (truthers and debunkers). We know lots of details about this woman, we know who created the disinfo/misinfo about her, etc. Your Muslims attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the late 1970s. Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide. Your Israelis attacked the US on 911, just like they have attacked many other commerical airlines since the mid 1970s. Just like they continue to attack innocent victims worldwide. Actually I have no interest in the events of 911, but I do have interests in formal logic and debate and such. Then why are you spendulus your time here defending the biggest criminal gang the world has ever seen? What a clown! What are your interests then? Do you know anything about any subject in some way related to 9/11? Do you believe wars are for the good of mankind? Why are you posting here? |
|
|
|
... a commercial jet really did[n't] hit the Pentagon [...] USG disinformation campaign ... Except for those two ideas, spot on, yep. You are making such a barrage of assumptions, I'm not sure where you'd want me to start... No, it's not secret, nor is it a high explosive; the thermite would've been used to cut the core columns, and would explain the orange liquid pouring out and the pools of molten steel and high temperatures days/weeks later. Nanothermite does not exclude the use of high explosives; it's just that the evidence of high explosives is limited to video clips of explosion-type sounds.
How about you "please try to explain this 911 ["official"] conspiracy thing in a way that simply makes sense"?
Perhaps more relevantly, though, the real question here would be: why would you believe anything these people (politicans and the media's "news reports" about their actions) say about any subject whatsoever? What is it that makes you believe that they are benevolent "leaders" guiding you/us to a reasonable future?
...
Please look at what I bolded. I didn't say anything like that. Ever. What I did is simply note that the magical mystery "nanothermite" does not even make sense in this context. It does NOT cement a good conspiracy theory. That was the reason for what I said. It's very, very simple. I am saying "This conspiracy theory makes NO SENSE! Please show me one that does, at least in part." Nothing complicated. There isn't anything complicated about explaining pools of molten metal days later. There isn't anything complicated about "orange liquid," either. You can't blow off valid criticism of half bunked theories by snapping to a decision that the skeptic of the theory is a gullible fool who bought into the government story - that's called not addressing the point raised. Well yes sure, but from my perspective it's obvious that you are "a gullible fool who bought into the government story"... well, really the media story. You talking about "magical mystery nanothermite" does not make that theory any less plausible, and certainly does nothing to "cement" the media's "hijacked plane impacts + kerosene + gravity did it" conspiracy theory... which is the point, really. You don't have to believe in nanothermite or anything else whatsoever. The only real question is why do you believe the media story -- which is not only one of the most ridiculous "conspiracy theories" ever concocted, but is told and presented as if uncontrovertably true by the biggest liars in the world (whom you agree are not really benevolent leaders)? "There isn't anything complicated about explaining pools of molten metal days later. There isn't anything complicated about "orange liquid," either." - You really believe that? Then you haven't been paying attention... you're just desperately holding on to the story that "must" make sense in your mind. |
|
|
|
You missed my point, which is that if you want to know you have to investigate for yourself, not sit and wait for someone to tell you "the truth". This applies to any and all "truths" ever presented to you (by someone else), including, of course, the second world war. The precision/meticulousness characteristic of German minds can be used to your advantage, were you to decide to embark on such a "truth journey"... unless you really do "fight for [Angela] Merkel". |
|
|
|
I think that we will never know what really happened on that day. You won't ever know if you sit and wait for somebody else to tell you what happened. There are much, much bigger secrets than 9/11 though, that "they" don't want you to know. Is German your first language? |
|
|
|
You are making such a barrage of assumptions, I'm not sure where you'd want me to start... No, it's not secret, nor is it a high explosive; the thermite would've been used to cut the core columns, and would explain the orange liquid pouring out and the pools of molten steel and high temperatures days/weeks later. Nanothermite does not exclude the use of high explosives; it's just that the evidence of high explosives is limited to video clips of explosion-type sounds. How about you "please try to explain this 911 ["official"] conspiracy thing in a way that simply makes sense"? Perhaps more relevantly, though, the real question here would be: why would you believe anything these people (politicans and the media's "news reports" about their actions) say about any subject whatsoever? What is it that makes you believe that they are benevolent "leaders" guiding you/us to a reasonable future? Those who deny the existence of a US Government conspiracy which planned, financed, coordinated, executed, and covered up the 9/11 false flag operation are either willfully ignorant or dangerously arrogant, or both.
The truth is that you have scarce evidence of "a US Government conspiracy which planned, financed, coordinated, executed, and covered up the 9/11 false flag operation". I'd say there's slightly more evidence of a "Muslim group conspiracy" doing it (except covering it up, of course). Are you "willfully ignorant" of who it was that was actually arrested as suspects on the very day of the events, in multiple locations? (hint: it wasn't Muslims) |
|
|
|
|
In Soviet Russia, brain washes you!
|
|
|
|
|
You're ignoring the what and wondering about the how. If a murder is committed, an investigator does not ignore what happened if he first can't figure out how it happened.
The idea would be, in the nanothermite scenario (which seems to me like the most plausible scenario), that the remote detonation could be, by design, started from any floor number as part of the covert demolition plan, yes. Why that would be hard to imagine to you is kind of relevant... wouldn't you agree?
As for WTC7, the point is that, were you an honest investigator rather than a believer, you would want to start there, not on the twin towers (which, you know, did actually have airplanes smash into them!).
|
|
|
|
|
^ So you're a JFK conspiracy theorist but not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?? Hahaha, how bizarre.
So somehow somebody was able to pull of a coverup of the JFK assassination in 1962... but it's inconceivable that that same somebody, whom you presumably imagine "took over" control by murdering JFK, couldn't possibly have pulled off the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" that they wrote would be what would be needed to usher in "the new American century" they desired? LOL.
(It's also funny how your silly argument about the how ignores WTC7... not to mention completely bypasses the what!)
(Also, "the government" covered it up... what?? What bizarre thinking! Surely you must mean the media covered it up? The "government" can't even cover up minor things... without the media covering it up for them.)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
