[Vote] Who did 911?

[Spendulus]

Da jooz did it.   

Who da jooz? 

Another term for The Evil Jews.  This term is used sarcastically against people who actually believe Jews are Evil and Do Nasty Stuff Like 911.

[1715209229]

1715209229

[1715209229]

1715209229

[1715209229]

1715209229

[1715209229]

1715209229

[1715209229]

1715209229

[BADecker]

....
Just trying to be a little more colorful. (chuckle)

Aren't we all a little tired of watching the government controlled planes run into the buildings?

I think what's tiring is links that don't come anywhere close to proving the conspiracy theory.

Links that don't pass the High School Math, Chemistry and Physics test.

I agree. The government's own conspiracy theory....

Let's see....The generally accepted 911 story does in fact pass high school Math, Chemistry and Physics tests.

Please come back and repost with alternatives that do pass these simple tests.

Well, perhaps it does... "pass high school Math, Chemistry and Physics tests."

But you forgot the most important high school part that it passes. It also passes high school application.

We aren't talking high school in the 9/11 betrayal. If we were, we wouldn't have all those professional mathematicians, chemists, and physics engineers professing how the government touted conspiracy theory is one of the worst among 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Bah.  Logical error "appeal to experts."  You don't have such people.  You've got one guy - me - refuting every single argument you come up with.  Seems like regardless what wacko says this or that on youtube it takes about one minute to refute them.

The problem is that your "claims" are basically lies.

I've said...
....The generally accepted 911 story does in fact pass high school Math, Chemistry and Physics tests.

And I've ASKED you to...
Please come back and repost with alternatives that do pass these simple tests.

So either do it or shut up.  And no youtube links that don't even say what you claim they do, please.

LOL! No, don't appeal to the experts. Rather appeal to the high school kids. LOL!

Many website links have been posted in previous pages of this thread that have information in them that shows why and how the official story is bunk. The info from those website pages could be posted directly, evermore filling up the servers that host Bitcointalk. But, what would be the use? You would simply say that it wasn't true, anyway.

You are welcome to believe what you want, of course, and certainly not because I say so. But realize. You are turning your reality into a cult by keeping yourself blind to the facts.

[Spendulus]

Many website links have been posted in previous pages of this thread that have information in them that shows why and how the official story is bunk. The info from those website pages could be posted directly, evermore filling up the servers that host Bitcointalk. But, what would be the use? You would simply say that it wasn't true, anyway.

Each and every time I have examined one of your links and applied high school level science to it, the claims were demonstrated to be false.

Your links can't even get a passing grade in high school.

Let's get real here.

[BADecker]

Many website links have been posted in previous pages of this thread that have information in them that shows why and how the official story is bunk. The info from those website pages could be posted directly, evermore filling up the servers that host Bitcointalk. But, what would be the use? You would simply say that it wasn't true, anyway.

Each and every time I have examined one of your links and applied high school level science to it, the claims were demonstrated to be false.

Your links can't even get a passing grade in high school.

Let's get real here.

Getting real is the whole idea. Some of those high school students just might go on to college for construction and/or demolition training. Let's hope they learn a little more than they learned in high school before they go on to building buildings or taking them down.

[Spendulus]

Many website links have been posted in previous pages of this thread that have information in them that shows why and how the official story is bunk. The info from those website pages could be posted directly, evermore filling up the servers that host Bitcointalk. But, what would be the use? You would simply say that it wasn't true, anyway.

Each and every time I have examined one of your links and applied high school level science to it, the claims were demonstrated to be false.

Your links can't even get a passing grade in high school.

Let's get real here.

Getting real is the whole idea. Some of those high school students just might go on to college for construction and/or demolition training. Let's hope they learn a little more than they learned in high school before they go on to building buildings or taking them down.

No ducking and dodging.  You are WELCOME to present the very best arguments for conspiracy theories of 911.  And I have committed to attempt to destroy them using ONLY high school science.

So far we are batting about 23 Spendulus, 0 Baddecker.

[BADecker]

Many website links have been posted in previous pages of this thread that have information in them that shows why and how the official story is bunk. The info from those website pages could be posted directly, evermore filling up the servers that host Bitcointalk. But, what would be the use? You would simply say that it wasn't true, anyway.

Each and every time I have examined one of your links and applied high school level science to it, the claims were demonstrated to be false.

Your links can't even get a passing grade in high school.

Let's get real here.

Getting real is the whole idea. Some of those high school students just might go on to college for construction and/or demolition training. Let's hope they learn a little more than they learned in high school before they go on to building buildings or taking them down.

No ducking and dodging.  You are WELCOME to present the very best arguments for conspiracy theories of 911.  And I have committed to attempt to destroy them using ONLY high school science.

So far we are batting about 23 Spendulus, 0 Baddecker.

Well, thanks for saying this, finally. Wished that I had seen it earlier if you had said it, or, if you didn't, that you had.

No reason to continue, because high school science isn't generally complex enough to apply to 9/11. Oh sure, individual pieces of science might easily apply. But the complexity of combining many aspects of several sciences simply doesn't, because it isn't taught in high school.

High school kids might get a kick out of trying to apply their knowledge of science in the complexity of ways that fit the 9/11 questions. But for us? Easy way out for both of us, right?



EDIT: Are you finally admitting that you know 9/11 was an inside job?

[btcusury]

The problem with Larken Rose and most other Americans is this. They can't get it through their heads that stepping into the legal system is not the way to do it. The Preamble, and the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments show government that it cannot keep people from moving in the ways that they did before government was around, to get relief from someone who has wronged them.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Do you listen to anyone or anything other than your own thoughts?

(Or are you high? LOL)

Now you see. Someone shows you the black and white paperwork of foundational law in America, and all you can say is, What are you talking about?

I know it might be hard for you, a slave, to comprehend freedom, but try, if you want to know what I am talking about.

Alright, so please walk me through it again... how does a piece of paper somewhere, written by some slave-owning men some centuries ago, somehow have anything at all to do with the idea of "foundational law" (which, btw, is Natural Law)?

You are right. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. However, if some government people adhere to it, then it does for them. It is your job, should they think that you are also a member of that paperwork, show them that you are not. It is so much easier to do when you can show them that their paperwork even says that you don't have to be a member of their paperwork.

Here is the trick why Larken lost. Larken told them that he wasn't a member of their paperwork. But he told them from what appeared to be a position of membership within their paperwork. And he didn't rebut that membership when they presumed it against him. So, even though he may not have been a member of their paperwork, he lost, because he looked and acted like he was a member even though he was saying that he wasn't a member.

What you seem to be saying is that Larken's piece of paper "authorizing" him to rob you is valid and applies to you UNLESS you show him that it doesn't apply to you. Do you not see how ridiculous that is? You seem to have fallen for a 2-dimensional mind-trap wherein pieces of paper with symbols on them ("foundational law"?) override the 3/4-dimensional reality (Natural Law) that you are experiencing... If Larken doesn't do it, I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I'll check out Karl Lentz though and get back to you on that.

You are finally coming close to understanding. Larken's piece of paper comes close to being the truth as it stands, because there is a claim of a man backing it. But the paper, itself, is only a means of showing the world. Larken would have to make a claim that he is willing to get on stand under oath, in his own court at the courthouse, before it standed a chance of being valid... in America, that is. If he did such, you better better be ready to, at some time, refute his claim in court. You would refute with a claim of your own, which would include that his false claim is costing you valuable time away from work... therefore money as compensation.

You are presuming the legitimacy of man-made law systems, when that whole idea is a distortion of the real law, which is Natural Law. In other words, you are operating under the assumption of moral relativism, not understanding what Natural Law is. You seem to be saying, for instance, that the Vatican owns your soul, because a papal decree (i.e. a piece of paper somewhere) says so, and you haven't done anything to refute the claim. Did you watch that video by Mark Passio?

Can you answer this: From where does the IRS, or any other gang of thugs, derive/obtain/acquire its supposed "authority"?

Did you ever watch a lion attack some other animal... perhaps on TV, or a DVD, or some video on Youtube? The lion uses the laws of nature to attack. If the other animal doesn't use the laws of nature that he has, to resist the attack, or if he hasn't positioned himself to be out of harms way in the first place (again, according to the laws of nature), he will almost certainly lose.

If the IRS or the Pope attack you, and you do not properly resist, you may and probably will lose. Law of nature.

This just shows that you don't know what Natural Law is. You are talking about self-defense (also known as the sacred masculine principle), which is distinct from the non-aggression principle (the sacred feminine principle). The keyword is the initiation of violence. You have the right of self-defense, but NEVER the right to initiate violence. You are not a moral human being if you don't embrace the non-aggression principle. Again I reiterate that I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I've seen a few videos from Karl Lentz... he's good at understanding THEIR game, but like you, he doesn't quite understand the real game that is the reality you are experiencing, which is "governed" not by rich old fucks in suits, but by the Natural Law. Check it out bro.

I agree. The government's own conspiracy theory - which they tout as the conspiracy truth - is one of the silliest conspiracy theories of all. So, let's get out there and find the truth.

If we don't find the truth, those government perpetrators are known by God. He will judge and punish them according to the amount of punishment that they truly deserve, a judgment/punishment thing that we couldn't do accurately, anyway.

So you've been religiously indocrinated? You can't break free from the belief in "authority" if you worship an external demiurgic entity... YOU are God, my friend... just temporarily pretending that you're not.

YOU get out there and find the truth. Don't assume you already know.

[BADecker]

Did you ever watch a lion attack some other animal... perhaps on TV, or a DVD, or some video on Youtube? The lion uses the laws of nature to attack. If the other animal doesn't use the laws of nature that he has, to resist the attack, or if he hasn't positioned himself to be out of harms way in the first place (again, according to the laws of nature), he will almost certainly lose.

If the IRS or the Pope attack you, and you do not properly resist, you may and probably will lose. Law of nature.

This just shows that you don't know what Natural Law is. You are talking about self-defense (also known as the sacred masculine principle), which is distinct from the non-aggression principle (the sacred feminine principle). The keyword is the initiation of violence. You have the right of self-defense, but NEVER the right to initiate violence. You are not a moral human being if you don't embrace the non-aggression principle. Again I reiterate that I bet Mark Passio will help clarify your belief system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgRjTuQ039g

I've seen a few videos from Karl Lentz... he's good at understanding THEIR game, but like you, he doesn't quite understand the real game that is the reality you are experiencing, which is "governed" not by rich old fucks in suits, but by the Natural Law. Check it out bro.

Didn't mean to confuse you by jumping to one of the most basic natural laws, that of self-defense.

It is hard to determine what Karl Lentz understands. But I don't blame him for not expressing things in a more orderly fashion. With all that study in the legal system, I can understand how it would be difficult to apply common law to everything, all the while saying nothing that someone might interpret as aggression. Karl DOES do a very good job of keeping his words away from aggression. As to what he understands about common law, who knows? He isn't into expressing philosophy, but into doing what works.

How do I know that Karl is having the success that he claims? I don't. But when you see the things that Bill Thornton and Richard Cornforth say, Karl is right on, even better than they are. So, he certainly could be having the successes he says.

I agree. The government's own conspiracy theory - which they tout as the conspiracy truth - is one of the silliest conspiracy theories of all. So, let's get out there and find the truth.

If we don't find the truth, those government perpetrators are known by God. He will judge and punish them according to the amount of punishment that they truly deserve, a judgment/punishment thing that we couldn't do accurately, anyway.

So you've been religiously indocrinated? You can't break free from the belief in "authority" if you worship an external demiurgic entity... YOU are God, my friend... just temporarily pretending that you're not.

YOU get out there and find the truth. Don't assume you already know.

Science that dispels universal cause and effect, or universal entropy, or universal complexity is science that has not been proven true. Thus, God exists.

I have not a clue as to how to create any of the things of the universe. As I grow older, I find that I grow weaker, a thing that I would turn around if I were God. In fact, it seems to be the opposite, sort of. The more I express the God of the Bible as God, the more my youthfulness seems to remain with me.

[Spendulus]

... YOU are God, my friend... just temporarily pretending that you're not.

YOU get out there and find the truth. Don't assume you already know.

Badecker is God?  Now that's a scary thought.

[BADecker]

... YOU are God, my friend... just temporarily pretending that you're not.

YOU get out there and find the truth. Don't assume you already know.

Badecker is God?  Now that's a scary thought.

Scary, but useful.   

[ThePrinceofTea]

who should have been there and wasn't? breakfast anyone?

If you mean in the Towers as they were going down, probably the President for sure, and at least some of the members of Congress, in addition to all the folks who DID the dastardly 9/11 deed.

Who do you think?

I don't know if it's true, but the rumor goes like this : there was a man, that every morning was having his breakfast on one of the top floor of one of the tower... every morning of the week but not this day. I don't know if it's true... it happen that it was the new owner of the tower full of asbestos and no fiber optics (if he knew that lasers would be coming...).

[BADecker]

You may have missed the video below. This is Morgan O. Reynolds, professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Centre at the National Centre for Policy Analysis headquarters in Dallas, TX.

Reynolds was the former Chief Economist under George W. Bush — he’d been on the job one week when the attacks happened on September 11.

And even this guy says it was an inside job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=4&v=LA59t3G7Xqk

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/even-george-w-bushs-former-chief-economist-says-911-was-an-inside-job_102015

[Spendulus]

You may have missed the video below.....

Yet another batshit crazy nutcase making a youtube video.

[popcorn1]

Many website links have been posted in previous pages of this thread that have information in them that shows why and how the official story is bunk. The info from those website pages could be posted directly, evermore filling up the servers that host Bitcointalk. But, what would be the use? You would simply say that it wasn't true, anyway.

Each and every time I have examined one of your links and applied high school level science to it, the claims were demonstrated to be false.

Your links can't even get a passing grade in high school.

Let's get real here.

The trouble with your high school science is you must of been taught the wrong science..
SPENDY ...what on earth did you get taught in school..now watch this video..
just watch how clever this girl is compared to your so called nasa scientist..

AND WERE DOES HER LOGIC COME FROM..WELL YOU WATCH AND SEE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjvCNDF4RYw..

Remember spendy the earth as been here longer than 2000 years..YOUR SCHOOLS ARE SHIT..
And also who does she thank for her logic..
Not your high school science

[protokol]

You may have missed the video below.....

Yet another batshit crazy nutcase making a youtube video.

I've been thinking a lot recently about why clever people believe stupid things, especially conspiracy/cover-up type ideas. There are many reasons, relating to things like confirmation bias and pattern recognition, but I believe there's another reason why this happens, and it relates to video documentaries (where the majority of conspiritards get their information).

There is no such thing as an unbiased documentary. They can get close, but the director will always have an angle that he/she wants to portray. They do this by weaving their ideas into a narrative.

With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

[BADecker]

You may have missed the video below.....

Yet another batshit crazy nutcase making a youtube video.

I've been thinking a lot recently about why clever people believe stupid things, especially conspiracy/cover-up type ideas. There are many reasons, relating to things like confirmation bias and pattern recognition, but I believe there's another reason why this happens, and it relates to video documentaries (where the majority of conspiritards get their information).

There is no such thing as an unbiased documentary. They can get close, but the director will always have an angle that he/she wants to portray. They do this by weaving their ideas into a narrative.

With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

It is reasons like this that make the government's own conspiracy theory to be one of the least plausible ideas on the planet.

People want security. They will often believe the conspiracy theory that is best suited to their feelings of security. When the truth about any conspiracy starts to come out, the people will tend to believe the truth.

Regarding 9/11 conspiracies, Google "percent people believe the official 9/11 story."

[leex1528]

Wow, seriously the majority of the people think it was actually the US govt?  I mean I am not completely throwing that out the window I am just surprised to see so many people think it was internal

[BADecker]

Wow, seriously the majority of the people think it was actually the US govt?  I mean I am not completely throwing that out the window I am just surprised to see so many people think it was internal

This isn't surprising. Think of taxes. People don't like taxes, but they like how government uses taxes even less. And think of the big real estate crash in 2008. It left many people homeless. True, it was the fault of many of these people and not the government, but the people had thought that the government had things covered for their protection. They found out differently.

The drone attacks against Pakistan haven't gone away even though much of the news about them seems to have. People don't trust that their own government wouldn't use drones on them, especially in the light of all the police brutality, lately.

There are lots of other things that are wearing on government trust.

[leex1528]

Wow, seriously the majority of the people think it was actually the US govt?  I mean I am not completely throwing that out the window I am just surprised to see so many people think it was internal

This isn't surprising. Think of taxes. People don't like taxes, but they like how government uses taxes even less. And think of the big real estate crash in 2008. It left many people homeless. True, it was the fault of many of these people and not the government, but the people had thought that the government had things covered for their protection. They found out differently.

The drone attacks against Pakistan haven't gone away even though much of the news about them seems to have. People don't trust that their own government wouldn't use drones on them, especially in the light of all the police brutality, lately.

There are lots of other things that are wearing on government trust.

Funny you bring up police brutality, when I think in most cases the brutality is justified.  Stop resisting arrest and you should be fine! 

Scary though, that the majority of people are so hateful toward the gov't they usually can't think straight, think of the people fighting police brutality for example.  I for one would hate to be a cop right now, because its way to dangerous and if you have to use force, people are going to hate you.

[Spendulus]

.....
With conspiracy-type documentaries, the narrative is often cleverly devised so that it seems to build on itself throughout the film, making a certain agenda seem more plausible than it actually is. This gives the impression of multiple pieces of information compounding to create a convincing case. Just look at how many people think "Ancient Aliens" is a legitimate factual documentary - people are very easily taken in by the narrative, even though there is basically no evidence whatsoever.

Also, documentaries like this are inherently more biased than any other, because the makers have nothing to lose and everything to gain: A film about a 9/11 cover-up doesn't need to worry about any academic criticism, because they are already telling an alternative story. This gives the director carte blanche to push as shocking/misleading an agenda as possible, subsequently getting more youtube hits, and more money.

It's almost like a "meta-conspiracy"  

Yes, youtube seems to somehow be a fantastically good collaborative assist to conspiracy theories.

Check out the "NASA didn't go to the Moon" stuff.  It's incredibly bad and devoid of critical thinking or reasoning.  Yet many of these videos have 1M+ views.  That's not quite Miley Cyrus view levels (800M) but it's very high.  Yet high school math and physics will easily debunk these.

What I see is typically arguments based on mis stated premises.  For example, assume that the Tower beams had to be melted for the Tower to fall, then proceed to show how jet fuel couldn't have done that.  Anyone who's used a torch to heat up and bend rebar would just shake their heads at this kind of idiotic logic.

But these guys just go on and on about it.