That one looks fake to me. You can see it starting at the thorny crown. And that microphone... Besides, it doesn't even make sense. The right to offend Christians? No one's even questioning that. It would be bizarre. I'm pretty sure this one's the real one. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We can probably both agree that it was close to the line when Ricky Gervais' said Muhammed was an "illiterate violent paedophile pigfucker." I absolutely agree with his right to say it, but was it really helpful at a time like this? I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Physics dictates that explosive force would be required to blow 4 ton girders over 500 feet from their original position. You can play word games with your footprints all day, I never made any such claims.
Well, if the fall was ten seconds, it would need to be moving sideways at 50 feet per second, or about 35 mph. That doesn't seem to prove the need for explosives. Say something fell, then 100 feet down hit a section of the building that hadn't collapsed and spun off it at a slant. Acceleration due to gravity is 32 feet per second, so less than 2 seconds and you've got the velocity, then just need to translate it into sideways motion. Anyway, which is it? Bad guys with bombs that throw girders 500 feet, of the building "falling into it's own footprint"? I can't keep track of all the mutually contradictory conspiracy data factoids.... For people catching up, the situation appears to be this. One conspiracy theorist on the thread (BADecker) argues that the fact that the towers collapsed into their own footprint implies explosives were used. A different conspiracy theorist on the thread (TECSHARE) argues that the fact that the towers didn't collapse into their own footprint implies explosives were used. Brilliant. |
|
|
|
It's the event that forever changed the world we live in. From the loss of our Freedoms and most of our privacy, to the invasion of nation after nation in the name of fighting terrorism. No matter what your stance is on who committed 9/11 or how it was done, there is no denying that it has forever changed our world.
True. But so did Pearl Harbor, and lots of other things.  I'm fairly confident that gripflierGO was just making a short meaningless post to get his sig ad an extra view. A lot of users do that. It's annoying. |
|
|
|
Ricky Gervais posed as Muhammed on the cover of The New Humanist: If the bomb on his head looks familiar, it's from Kurt Westergaard's Muhammed drawing that caused controversy some years ago. (One of the Danish cartoons.) This was very brave of them. Usually these kinds of mainstream celebrities and magazines are only willing to mock safe religions like Christianity and avoid mocking Islam at all costs, so I think they deserve kudos. I tweeted about it here and it's getting some attention. https://twitter.com/JJaPhillips/status/596370841467789312I guess other people also want to show Ricky Gervais and The New Humanist some support.
Disclaimer: Some things in this post might not be technically true.
Pretty sure someone has just photoshopped that Muhammed head on him, the rest was legit though. I don't know. I think it's real. If he's not supposed to be Muhammed, then why is he holding that sword/knife? It fits with Ricky Gervais' style of comedy. I remember one routine he did where he called Muhammed an "illiterate violent paedophile pig-fucker." That's a little extreme for me, but I support his right to say these kinds of things. Ultimately it's about freedom of speech. |
|
|
|
To discredit an algorithm it is enough to say that the authority behind it is discredited.
This is incredibly stupidly wrong. It doesn't matter who creates/discovers an algorithm. What matters is what it does. There should be an option on bitcointalk that just translates all the posts of "no-ice-please" and its alts to their shortest logical equivalent: False. |
|
|
|
Back when the taliban was fighting the soviets is when lot's of these guys were given american weaponry and it's been a revolving door ever since. Give them the tools and then occupy their sacred areas and before ya know it they go on offense against you. It's a great tool for the military industrial complex to keep the money flowing as well as the trial and error for developing newer and advanced weapons.
It makes sense that the Americans wouldn't want to directly fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, especially after Vietnam went so badly. Too bad after the Soviets were kicked out of Afghanistan, the U.S. didn't propose a brief alliance with the Soviets for both of them to nuke the shit out of Afghanistan. It would've prevented a lot of problems. |
|
|
|
All you need do is look at the videos of the buildings coming down to see that there is imprecision all over the place.
Yet, there is precision in the "footprint falls." And there is precision in the near free fall falls. And there is precision in that Building 7 came down for no reason, at least in the way it came down. And there is precision in the fact that there is a lot of coverup in the whole thing.
I looked up a video of the South Tower collapse. It's the ABC footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6f9Jpfz1VoI resent having to relive this. I doubt these images will do anything to convince anyone, even though it's completely obvious what happened when one looks at it. If you're someone who has believed the demolition story, try to forget this belief for a few seconds and simply look at these images with an open mind. Yes, the government lies to you. Conspiracy theorists lie to you too. Look at it. This is the first second or so of the collapse of the South Tower. The camera is zoomed into the part where the plane crashed. Below the image I've included a version with blue and red lines roughly aligned to where the side of the building is. Note that the blue line stays vertical, as it is aligned with the part below the crash site. The red line shows the way the floors above started the collapse. The next two seconds after this make it very clear that the part above the crash site is collapsing at an angle. It's not collapsing straight down, and the collapse is beginning from the floors where the plane crashed. Then the camera zooms out as the floors beneath begin to pancake on top of each other. Not much is visible due to the massive cloud of debris. This is what conspiracy theorists call "falling into its own footprint." If I have my geography correct, the building in the foreground of the last frame is "Building 7" -- the building which collapsed later. The official narrative says Building 7 collapsed due to structural damage caused by the collapse of the two towers. Conspiracy theorists deny this. Does it look like it might have sustained serious damage on the side facing the towers?    Finally here are a few frames from several seconds later. This looks nothing like "falling into its own footprint." Note the massive cloud of debris which has at this point travelled several blocks and is several stories high. (I believe Building 7 is the tall building between the camera and where the South Tower was.) For people who managed to look at these images with an open mind, use your own judgement about what you see and how well it fits the two narratives under discussion. Be honest about what happened. Be honest about who did it. That's the least we owe the thousand or so people whose deaths are recorded in these images. |
|
|
|
The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example.
Huh? Sorry I meant "unsafe" not safe. The idea that buildings are safe unsafe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example. When I was watching it unfold, I didn't expect the buildings to collapse. I doubt most people did, including the firefighters and those who sent the firefighters into the buildings. After the first one collapsed, I waited for the second one to collapse. Now that we have these tragic examples, the physics behind why they collapsed is better understood. |
|
|
|
Geller's actions were a REACTION against violent jihad.
You could argue that jihad is a reaction against western (and Israel's) foreign policies towards oil rich countries in the middle east (not that it can used for justify nutcases like ISIS). Even the former MI5 chief admits the Iraq invasion increased the terrorist threat to the UK. “Arguably we gave Osama bin Laden his Iraqi jihad so that he was able to move into Iraq in a way that he was not before.”
Baroness Manningham-Buller I don't see the logic behind this. How could jihad be a response to anything the west has done of Shariah has been around for so long? Well, ultimately the need for jihad dates back to the pagans in Mecca rejecting Muhammed's message. If no one had ever rejected Muhammed's perfect message, then the world would be at peace. (I'm trying to decide if this requires an /s tag.) |
|
|
|
Ricky Gervais posed as Muhammed on the cover of The New Humanist: If the bomb on his head looks familiar, it's from Kurt Westergaard's Muhammed drawing that caused controversy some years ago. (One of the Danish cartoons.) This was very brave of them. Usually these kinds of mainstream celebrities and magazines are only willing to mock safe religions like Christianity and avoid mocking Islam at all costs, so I think they deserve kudos. I tweeted about it here and it's getting some attention. https://twitter.com/JJaPhillips/status/596370841467789312I guess other people also want to show Ricky Gervais and The New Humanist some support.
Disclaimer: Some things in this post might not be technically true.
|
|
|
|
There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.
Hi BADecker. These statements are a bit difficult to interpret. Let me try to find simpler statements that might correspond to what you're saying. You can clarify if I am misunderstanding you. First, there are preconditions without which the sentence makes no sense. (1) A plane X hit the South Tower. (2) The fuel from X caused a fire Y in the South Tower. Presumably we all agree on these. After this things become less clear. Here's something you might be asserting: (3) The fire Y could not have caused the steel girders in the South Tower to weaken enough to cause the South Tower to collapse. Are you asserting (3)? If you are, then we could discuss this simple proposition. However, I think Spendulus has already done calculations to argue against this. I haven't checked his calculations, but I'm willing to. If you are not asserting (3), then I think you're probably asserting (4) and/or (5): (4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P. The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is? The reference to "with probability P" in (4) is suggested by your second sentence "The odds against ..." It seems like you're not saying such a collapse is not impossible, but improbable. How improbable? Less than one chance in 100? Before going on, is (4) an accurate restatement of part of what you are saying? I haven't included your reference to the time required for the collapsed. I would restate that as follows: (5) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the collapse would take less than T seconds with probability P'. I said "less than T seconds" because I think you're suggesting that it should have collapsed more slowly if the official narrative were true, right? Again, "the odds against" suggest you think P'(T) with T between 11 and 14 would be low. How low? I haven't verified that the time for the collapses were between 11 and 14 seconds. I can if it becomes relevant. When you respond, it will be helpful if you refer to the numbered statements (1) - (5) to avoid confusion. Which of (1) - (5) are you asserting? All of them? * In the original post I wrote "minimum" instead of "maximum" here. As I've said before, trying to be precise is tricky. The more the words, the less the meaning. Precision isn't needed. What is needed is an overview of all the events. If the buildings came down as the official report indicated, RUN, because the buildings are all unsafe, right in their construction. The idea that buildings are safe after being hit by a plane full of jet fuel isn't shocking to most people, at least now that we have an example. I think it should be clear to anyone who reads our two posts that your beliefs on this subject are imprecise, and you prefer them to be imprecise. |
|
|
|
There is no way that the fuel from the plane that hit the South Tower could cause enough heat, so that it would penetrate the concrete enough to weaken the steel enough, so that the building would come down into its own footprint, in a fall-time of 11 to 14 seconds. The odds against something like this happening without controlled demolition are great enough that it couldn't happen this way.
Hi BADecker. These statements are a bit difficult to interpret. Let me try to find simpler statements that might correspond to what you're saying. You can clarify if I am misunderstanding you. First, there are preconditions without which the sentence makes no sense. (1) A plane X hit the South Tower. (2) The fuel from X caused a fire Y in the South Tower. Presumably we all agree on these. After this things become less clear. Here's something you might be asserting: (3) The fire Y could not have caused the steel girders in the South Tower to weaken enough to cause the South Tower to collapse. Are you asserting (3)? If you are, then we could discuss this simple proposition. However, I think Spendulus has already done calculations to argue against this. I haven't checked his calculations, but I'm willing to. If you are not asserting (3), then I think you're probably asserting (4) and/or (5): (4) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the debris field would have a maximum* radius of R meters with probability P. The "maximum radius of R meters" in (4) is to interpret "come down into its own footprint." I think you're suggesting that if the official narrative were correct, the debris field should be larger than the "footprint." A strict interpretation of "footprint" would mean the radius R equals the distance from the center of the South Tower to one of its corners. I suspect you don't really mean that. You probably mean an R bigger than that, since it's clear that the debris field was not confined to where the South Tower stood. Do you already have an idea what the radius R of the debris field is? The reference to "with probability P" in (4) is suggested by your second sentence "The odds against ..." It seems like you're not saying such a collapse is not impossible, but improbable. How improbable? Less than one chance in 100? Before going on, is (4) an accurate restatement of part of what you are saying? I haven't included your reference to the time required for the collapsed. I would restate that as follows: (5) If a building like the South Tower were to collapse due to steel girders being weakened, then the collapse would take less than T seconds with probability P'. I said "less than T seconds" because I think you're suggesting that it should have collapsed more slowly if the official narrative were true, right? Again, "the odds against" suggest you think P'(T) with T between 11 and 14 would be low. How low? I haven't verified that the time for the collapses were between 11 and 14 seconds. I can if it becomes relevant. When you respond, it will be helpful if you refer to the numbered statements (1) - (5) to avoid confusion. Which of (1) - (5) are you asserting? All of them? * In the original post I wrote "minimum" instead of "maximum" here. As I've said before, trying to be precise is tricky. |
|
|
|
|
[Deleted] I found an error in this post. I'll edit it and repost.
|
|
|
|
I thought hate-speech was already outlawed? Call someone a derogatory term for a jew or African American and you'll probably get arrested, but I bet you get a free pass on anti-muslim hatespeech. Guess there's always double standards.
Check it out. It's someone new who writes "jew" instead of "Jew." It's almost like there's one person with 100 alts. "Hate speech" (i.e., speech powerful people want to suppress) is outlawed in most of the world. It's in the process of happening in the U. S. This is further evidence that the human race is earning extinction. What? What does failing to capitalize the J in Jews have to do with anything? There are a lot of accounts on bitcointalk that do this, even though they capitalize other things. For example, in your case you write "African American" right after writing "jew". People do this because they hate Jews. It's like having to spit after saying the word. I suspect many of these accounts belong to the same person (or group) whose purpose on here is to demonize Jews. At this point in the U.S. it's difficult to arrest and charge someone simply because of what they said. The approach taken up until now is to find some other unrelated crime that has been broken. For example, in 2012 there was that guy who made a trailer for a film about Muhammed. The Obama administration decided to falsely blame that video for the Benghazi attack and demonize the guy who made the video. (One of the family members at the memorial service said that Hillary vowed, "We'll get the guy who made that video.") At this point in U.S. history they can't arrest him for making a video, but they did find that he had broken terms of his probation and were able to arrest him for that. This is a temporary situation, of course. They want to be able to arrest and imprison people for criticizing certain off-limit targets (Islam, Obama, etc.). It's essentially like that in Canada already. (People are brought before a "Human Rights Commission" for ungood speech.) That's the direction society is heading. Don't blame me. I voted for the Sweet Meteor of Death. (SMOD 2016!) |
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of Obama supporters who essentially do worship him. You can find videos of them online getting their children singing hymns to Obama. Fucking scary.
|
|
|
|
Anybody know "who" killed them?
Do you mean who killed the gunmen? Probably a cop or private security guard. Why do you ask? Are you making a list of names? |
|
|
|
Geller’s ad read, “support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” lmfao  Hi everyone, I just thought I'd translate this post for those who don't speak Nazi. UlijonHoth is implying that Jews/Zionists are puppetmasters controlling the world through the U.S. government. This has been a consistent element of Jew hatred for centuries. It's propagated by hateful sickos like UlijonHoth and Adolf Hitler. You say that while your avatar is suppose to be Palestinians celebrating 9/11 which is just propagating hate against Muslims. That is an actual photo of Palestinians celebrating 9/11. It is Palestinians celebrating their hate. That is Muslims hating. Yes it points out negative aspects of Muslim culture. Should they be hidden? Yes, it is Palestinians celebrating 9/11. It's from video footage. You can see a collection of news reports on 9/11 with the footage here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrH2r_6oDAUI, like many others, saw this footage on September 11. They are images burned into my mind. I will never forget and never forgive. Edit: This actually relates to the original quote from Geller's ad: "Support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad." Geller is a big fan of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand said she supported Israel because in a battle between civilization and barbarism, one should side with civilization. The footage in question demonstrates the primitive barbarism of Palestinian culture. |
|
|
|
@Netpyder: I'll check in tomorrow morning to see if one of the four flights has been chosen. If you start a new thread, please link to it here.
yes no worries
Better to just copy and paste his answers here. Remember Netyder the guy who has twice said a thread should be closed because it wasn't going "his way". He just wants to control the thread so he can delete posts, and close the thread if it doesn't go his way. Which it won't most likely. Well, after you pick one of the four flights, I will ignore anything that's not relevant to the one you picked. In fact, I'll see it as an act of bad faith if you keep bringing up things that are irrelevant. For example, if you pick Flight 93, everything about the Pentagon and WTC will be irrelevant. The point of focusing is to focus. I guess Netpyder is not going to take you up on this simple challenge. It's still early. In my experience when I try to write down clear, unambiguous sentences, the first attempts fail. Additionally, needing a collection of such sentences that implies a conclusion requires making a lot of "obvious" assumptions explicit. It's tricky. Also, the challenge isn't restricted to Netpyder. If someone else wants to choose a flight and commit to an argument with clear, unambiguous statements which together imply the official narrative is false, then that's fine. It has to be first-come-first-serve though because I don't have time to focus on more than one argument at a time. I have a hard copy of The 9/11 Commission Report that I bought many years ago and barely looked at. (I had to search for it.) At least that will mean a little less internet searching if/when the time comes. |
|
|
|
Freedom of speech.
It's more like freedom of preach, trash like Geller are just stiring up hatred under the guise of 'freedom'. Maybe Pamela should ask the Palestinians in Gaza what freedoms they have, I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation. How is freedom of speech in Graytown, OH? |
|
|
|
Freedom of speech.
It's more like freedom of preach, trash like Geller are just stiring up hatred under the guise of 'freedom'. Maybe Pamela should ask the Palestinians in Gaza what freedoms they have, I'm sure it would be an interesting conversation. I think you're stirring up more hatred than she is. Maybe someone should shut you up. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
