Science is a place  where a proven fact invalidates "many reports."

Yes, he certainly could have meant that, in that total chaos of the moment.  Moreover it seems reasonable to issue an order to essentially "Move Back".  In other words, not just to "get out of the building" but to get men, equipment and supplies, including the fire trucks and vehicles, a safe distance away from that building.

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....

1. Most algo have same method.
2. Yeah you can create as many coin as you want.
3. No, I don't advertise anything.
4. PM me for the price if you're interested.
5. It's totally up to you. It can take like 1 or 2 days or 1 week maybe.
6. You can pool mine the coin if there's someone available to put it on pool. (I don't make pools nor I teach anyone how to make pools).
7. Ofcourse, you will be able to make a fully working coin using my kit.
8. NO.

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.

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.

Thanks, but to be honest about it, I don't really care if people are crazy or generate crazy conspiracy theories.  I'd just like the crazy theories to pass simple credibility tests from the physics and chemistry and science points of view.

Frankly it sounds like total absolute bullshit.   It was no secret that Islamic terrorists were planning some sort of attack, at least one report said using aircraft.  However the US intelligence agencies did not know the exact timing and did not know the cities involved.  No question Israeli intelligence were around in a mad scramble to try to figure it all out.

Your conspiracy theory is not worth discussion.

If I wanted to bend a piece of rebar, I wouldn't melt the whole thing.  Just heat it at one point.

Once Badecker fails at attempting to lay out the physics of why the Towers could not have came down by way of the jet fuel, then we can go on to the next step.

but then every expert in chemistry and physics as well as demolition of building and architects who said it was not possible would be wrong and you would be right.. right?

This is an appeal to authority argument, premises unstated, experts unstated, facts scrambled.  Try to be more specific.

also are your calculations based on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete that there was in the wtc or just steel? then, there were building which were on fire for nearly 24hours and none suffered the damage wtc had. now if you are talking about jet fuel which caused all that damage, then jet fuel did not even last 1hour in the flame.



Obviously you've never used a torch and melted steel, or heated to red hot and then bent it easily.  This is not complicated.  You were wrong, jet fuel combustion can reach 4000F and steel melts in the mid 2200-2400F range.

when a building is on fire, what is the colour of its smoke?


There is no need for you to "ask questions" for which the answers can easily be googled.  Smoke varies in color, it is used by firefighters as a clue to what is going on inside the fire.

what causes white smoke?

More complete combustion typically yields no carbons in output therefore white.

why was there smoke coming from the bottom of the wtc when it was the top floors which were burning?

Ever heard of elevator shafts?  Why are they sealed when a fire starts in a building?  Because fires rapidly move through elevator shafts.

how about those loud bangs right before the building collapses?

What about it?  You want it to be quiet?


how did the glasses broken into pieces in the lobby whilst the plane crashed at the top?

What do you expect, there to be no shock wave in the lobby?  1000 feet down from a 60 ton 500 mile per hour impact?

there were at least over 10 choppers around the wtc when the first plane crashed till the building were brought down, where are the tapes from the choppers? why not show it to the public?

I personally don't care.

ben laden and accolade did it right? why spend a decade to find him, capture him, then kill him and throw him in the sea? i mean is that even sound correct to you? why not bring him for a trial in the court of Law?
they brought saddam hussein for a trial and hanged him. why not ben laden?

Because they didn't want to create a martyr?

why benladens video always shows different ben laden? no video look alike.

Not interested in this.

how did a news reporter be able to track down ben laden, find his hideout and interview him, but usa military and spies could not find him?

Not interested.

why was wtc 6 imploded? it cannot have been exploded or come down because some of the lower floors are still standing whilst the middle of the building vanished?

If a building is structurally unsafe for use or not economic to rebuild, then destroy it of course.

how was wtc 7 suffered so much damage that the penthouse of the building started to drown and the building came down. wtc is over 1 football pitch away.

1 football field away?   Let's work through some numbers.  Plane hits building at 84th floor, 97th floor - just say 1000 feet above ground.  Things take 8 seconds to fall 1000 feet.  Now the plane was going say 500 mph, if it hits the building how far do pieces fly horizontally before they hit the ground?

Unless they are slowed down by the impact...
500 * 5280/3600 = 733 feet per second

In other words, 8 seconds after impact they will hit the ground a mile away.  So what is 1 football field?

if wtc was burnt down because of the heat, why did other building closer to wtc1 and 2 not destroyed or suffered damage?

Look at war zones.  You'll see weird shit, untouched buildings right in middle of total devestation.


how did that big piece of steel fly over 2 football pitch to crash against that building ?

See above calculation.


ok so how about witnesses?

Yeah how about them?  Relatives of mine in New York tell me what they saw.  Like one that left WTC1 to go across the street to a Starbucks right before the plane hit.  Don't lecture people in the US about stuff like this.

euhhh architects? construction company's managers and people who are in construction and demolition for more than a decade? will their words count? or maybe they are the one spreading about conspiracy theories?

Maybe some of them believe conspiracy theories. So what?

ok how about 9/11 commission saying that those hijackers might not be the one who attacked the usa on 9/11? and at least 7 of the 19 is still alive and are doing well?

I haven't read the reports.  

did you know that atta went to venise for 1 month and returned 2 days before the attack?
he rented a car , put his license, returned the car even. well if you know you are going to die in 2 days, why return the car? why take the pain to return it?

Wow, what a nice guy.  Yes, I'd return the car, too.

However, that's almost the thing that the Sunni's do.

I am so shocked that a Muslim would say this about a Christian.

True Christianity is believing in Jesus for salvation to Heaven. Take the offer before it expires... before the Netpyder web burns in the place where their "worm does not die and the fire is not quenched."

Non-Christians are the ones who have problems. Their biggest problem is that they don't know how big their problems really are.

However, that's almost the thing that the Sunni's do.

As an example, some joker might say to himself, I'm gonna become a Christian today. So, he goes to the store and gets a little cross necklace, puts it on, and declares, Now I'm a Christian. Is he a Christian?

A person can go and do some little thing that might have some little bit to do with anything, and go out and say, now I am one of them. Is he?

The bottom line point of Christianity is believing in Jesus for salvation. The second is attempting to live as righteous of a life here as possible. Any joker can call himself a Christian for any reason or no reason. That doesn't mean he is one. It is similar for the joker who says, Today I am an Islamite. Doesn't make it true just because he says it, or because the media says he is.

As an example, some joker might say to himself, I'm gonna become a Christian today. So, he goes to the store and gets a little cross necklace, puts it on, and declares, Now I'm a Christian. Is he a Christian?

Do you have any proof of him saying this.

Violent extremists in Syria and Iraq have nothing to do with Islam, President Barack Obama said on Thursday, as he tried to separate the growing threat from terrorism in the Middle East from a discussion about religion.

When you claim "where did that big airplane go?" and I reply "Well, actually are talking about slightly more than a 2 meter on a side cube of aluminum, melted on impact" I am just calculating the energy of a plane headed straight down at near the speed of a bullet and the energy required to melt aluminum.  I never read any government reports.

would love to see the calculations. or is it just assumptions?

So why you argue that kerosene can't melt iron, it's not your belief but comes from some Youtube video?

beliefs??  we are talking about logic and science here not beliefs


I just looked up the chemistry on iron on kerosene.  Is that complicated?  Is that a reason to accuse someone of anything?  Why in the world would you think youtube videos were a credible information source, anyway?

ok youtube videos are bad. not good information. fine. how did you know it was done by muslims? where you got the information? were you there? were you in their circle when they said they would do the 9/11 attack?


How about Isamofascism.  If I say those are the nuts who did 911, you call it hate speech against Muslims.  That's a bit crazy isn't it?

Notice I disagree completely with Badecker's assertions.