umaOuma said "most of them think ..." Can you suggest another way to determine if the statement that "most of them think X" as being true or false? It was someone on your side that made the "most people believe X" assertion. Do you think if someone in an argument says "Most people think X," the statement should just be allowed to stand as true without any possibility of rebuttal? That's a terrible way to argue.

By the way, most people don't believe Muhammed was a Prophet. That doesn't do anything to convince Muslims he wasn't. Polls are a terrible way of determine truth of statements other than those of the form "Most people believe X."

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.

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.

Criminalizing "hate speech" is the direction things are heading. I can't imagine U.S. Republicans stopping it. They'll just "evolve" a little slower than the U.S. Democrats.

The only solution I can see to this is people adopting radical anonymity/pseudonymity. There should be no more of this "if you have nothing to hide" bullshit. The governments of the world, along with a majority of their citizens, have decided freedom of speech is bad. The solution is to speak freely but make it difficult to find them.

Maybe good choices of pseudonyms would be to use the names/addresses of the fascists who support these policies.

You're confused about who the snake is. Look in the mirror.

Ha, yes, I'm the nutcase secret Jew. Why? Because I hope those of you who defend Jihadis who do the things I listed are the objects of their acts. Everything I listed is based on real events in the recent past. Some people are offended by the things these Jihadis do and speak out against them. You speak out against those who speak out against them. If you think you're not a Nazi, it's only because you're too dumb to know what a Nazi is.

Just got up. Looks like no one has picked one of the flights to focus on and given a sequence of clear, unambiguous statements that, if true, would disprove the official narrative. (If I missed it, please point it out to me.) Hopefully that means people are taking their time and being careful about it.

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 didn't know that. If my posts start getting deleted in a thread, I'll just leave. Anyway, I have to make one of my priorities not spending so much time on bitcointalk.

For anyone who has a reasonable understanding of cryptography, this is as silly as not trusting the number 0 because we're unsure who was the first culture to use it.

@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.

Great! We've gone from you finding me disgusting because you thought I was a dirty Jew, to you finding me disgusting even if I'm not a Jew. That's progress.

I've never heard of Barbara Spectre. Somehow I doubt she's been very important in making policy in Europe. Based on her Wikipedia page it looks like she's an American Jew who moved to Israel in the 1960s and then moved to Sweden in 1999. I doubt she was instrumental in making changes to Swedish immigration policy. But she's a Jew and so you want to try to blame her for things. Presumably in this case you want to blame her for importing Muslims into "white European countries."  "Blame" sounds like you think that's a bad thing. But I doubt you actually think there's anything bad about importing Muslims into "white European countries" do you? You don't seem like someone whose thought processes go further than, "Jews bad."

I just watched saddampbuh's video, and, yes, Barbara Spectre is a multiculturalist and believes the current wave of Jew hatred will die down and that Jews will be an important part of Swedish society. She's wrong. Jew hatred might die down after all the Jews are driven out or killed, but history shows that Islamic societies like future Sweden usually continue to hate Jews even after there are no Jews left. The video makes a big point about her saying "Jews will be resented because of our leading role." But do Jews really have a "leading role" in Sweden? Are you really asserting that? And then at the end is a message from famous KKK/holocaust denier/politician David Duke. This is what I expect from saddampbuh, who is an open Nazi, and better informed than most of the lazy Jew haters on this forum. But it is Nazi Jew hating propaganda about one particular Jew who has no real power in Sweden. I strongly encourage those of you who have been too lazy to look into the bullshit you've been repeating to look more closely. If you're going to be a Nazi, at least know you're a Nazi and know why you're a Nazi.

Incidentally, I don't think Muslim immigration is the real problem. I doubt most Muslims sympathize with Jihadis, but most are too cowardly to stand up to Jihadis. This is natural since they and their families will be killed if they stand up to Jihadis. It's like standing up to the mafia. In a free society in which it's safe to speak and criticize, things might be different for ordinary Muslims. But we don't have that society and people have decided they don't want to have that society.

What's truly unforgivable is that the rest of you are unwilling to even open your mouth and acknowledge what monsters Jihadis are, and that these monsters exist, and that they do in fact find their justifications in Islamic texts and beliefs. Worse than your silence is that you attempt to silence the people who point it out. You're making Western society dangerous for everyone except Jihadis, including being dangerous for moderate Muslims and ex-Muslims.

Some of you are doing it because you hate Jews so much that you'd rather live in an unfree Islamic society than a free society, if the unfree society will be Judenrein. That's disgusting. You know what's more disgusting? You Nazi fucks are probably in the majority.

Here is the world you have made, the world in which your daughters will be made sex slaves and you will not even be allowed to complain:

http://pamelageller.com/2013/05/uk-police-probe-at-least-54-more-muslim-child-sex-slavery-gangs.html/

"what if i prove it?"

We first have to agree on what "it" refers to. If "it" is something that I agree would prove the official narrative of 9/11 is false, then I will be someone who no longer believes the official narrative of 9/11. This wouldn't be such a huge victory since I'm just one person, but maybe the public posts would convince others. The most likely outcome is that we still disagree but at least we have a clearer view of what we're disagreeing about. But I've changed my mind about my interpretation of historical events before. (Many people do over the course of their lives.)

You mentioned some Larry Silverstein quote which I had to google. A possibility would be if he said "pull it" when he meant "pull out." He's over 70, and even people in their prime misspeak. But this is the kind of rabbit hole we could easily spend a lot of time on without it being relative to the actual statement you're trying to support. After all, if you decide to focus on Flight 93 or the Pentagon, Larry Silverstein's quotes will not be relevant at all.

Focus on one thing. It looks like you agree planes did hit the two towers. If you think the towers are the case where you have the best evidence, pick one of the two towers and try to give a clear argument why it's impossible that the towers could have collapsed due to the structural damage caused by the plane crashing into it. If you think you have clearer evidence that Flight 93 didn't go down in Pennsylvania, then choose that to focus on. If you think the Pentagon case is clearer, choose that. Just please pick one and then we can focus on only that one. Tell me which one you choose. Then let's try to determine precisely what you're asserting about that one.

We should determine the statements in the argument you're using before we start trying to support or refute the statements in dispute. To take an extreme case, you could say:

(A) If 1+1 = 2, then the official narrative is false.
(B) 1+1 = 2.

I could still believe the official narrative is true by rejecting (A). It wouldn't matter how convincing an argument you made for (B). We must determine what the relevant clear statements in dispute actually are.

Here's what she wrote about the EDL in 2011 and 2013:

http://pamelageller.com/2011/06/edl-shake-up.html/
http://pamelageller.com/2013/10/exclusive-tommy-robinson-kevin-carroll-pamela-geller-robert-spencer-breaking-with-edl.html/

That fact that she and people like Geert Wilders are banned from the UK says more about the totalitarian state the UK has become than anything else. Perhaps it's better to call it Airstrip One at this point.

The fact that you're attacking her instead of the Jihadi fascists and murderers she opposes makes me hope the following: I hope you and everyone you ever care about has to live in the world you're helping to create. What world is that? Look at Pakistan. Look at Saudi Arabia. Look at certain neighborhoods in Malmo, in Amsterdam, in Paris, in London. You are the cause of what's happening, because you and your kind are openly protecting the new Nazis, the Jew haters, the Jihadis. I hope your daughters are raped and made sex slaves. I hope after you find out she is a sex slave you go to the police and they arrest you for the hate crime of reporting it. I hope your hands are cut off. I hope you are stoned. I hope you are thrown off a building. I hope you are burned alive. There is no fate just enough for those who can so clearly see who they are standing with, and continue to stand with them.

It depends. I think shapeshift.io is the easiest, but probably not the cheapest. poloniex.com has pretty good volume if you have/are willing to create an account there. If you're looking to buy a significant amount, I think dooglus (of just-dice.com) has said he's open to buying/selling privately. He obviously has enough clams to sell. 

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 just wanted to repeat cypherdoc's advice before anyone's tempted to reply and get this thread going again.

Gorrammit I'm too late.

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.

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.

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.