What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[JustDie]

maybe googling about this would be better LOL

[1714657868]

1714657868

[kartel616]

9/11, so many CONSPIRACY there, and muslim become the biggest enemy of public MAMARICA.

[arbitrage]

@Spendulus
US government is responsible for waging wars around the world, and motive is "spreading of democracy"
(and extraction of oil but this is not important).
Something sinister like this is surely capable to this to its people also.

I understand this point of view and do not agree with it.

You are actually defending illegal actions of US army all over the world, no matter what is cause, they don't have right to attack one sovereign nation and create chaos in lives of many people. Stories about terrorists will be used for gradual abolition of rights of free people, as you got Patriot Act. Why don't you see what is behind all this?
https://www.aclu.org/top-ten-abuses-power-911

[Spendulus]

@Spendulus
US government is responsible for waging wars around the world, and motive is "spreading of democracy"
(and extraction of oil but this is not important).
Something sinister like this is surely capable to this to its people also.

I understand this point of view and do not agree with it.

You are actually defending illegal actions of US army all over the world, no matter what is cause, they don't have right to attack one sovereign nation and create chaos in lives of many people. Stories about terrorists will be used for gradual abolition of rights of free people, as you got Patriot Act. Why don't you see what is behind all this?
https://www.aclu.org/top-ten-abuses-power-911

You are confusing several things.

In my opinion there is no relation between a "let's all hate america!" advocacy...

and a discussion of whether a hundred thousands gallons of jet fuel will bring a building down....

[majorX]

I think there is a lot someone does not what us to know about, there are to many unexplained things with 9-11, that will remain behind closed doors for ever

[Spendulus]

I think there is a lot someone does not what us to know about, there are to many unexplained things with 9-11, that will remain behind closed doors for ever

Certainly.

But that has nothing to do with promotion of crackpot theories based on wrong understandings of chemistry and physics.  It has nothing to do with all the nonsense about the US government being behind the attacks.  That is no more than trying to show the victim as the perp, a classic disinformation tactic.

A lot of it is theater of the absurd.  Trying to pass off paint chips as a mysterious, secret US government laboratory's "nano thermite."  Just one example.

Don't forget the very nature of propaganda is it's propagation.  By naive, innocent and often well meaning propagators.

[BADecker]

I think there is a lot someone does not what us to know about, there are to many unexplained things with 9-11, that will remain behind closed doors for ever

Certainly.

But that has nothing to do with promotion of crackpot theories based on wrong understandings of chemistry and physics.  It has nothing to do with all the nonsense about the US government being behind the attacks.  That is no more than trying to show the victim as the perp, a classic disinformation tactic.

A lot of it is theater of the absurd.  Trying to pass off paint chips as a mysterious, secret US government laboratory's "nano thermite."  Just one example.

Don't forget the very nature of propaganda is it's propagation.  By naive, innocent and often well meaning propagators.

And you assume, if you don't say it right out directly, that people will automatically consider other than the official story to be the "crackpot theories based on wrong understandings of chemistry and physics" that you are talking about. Rather, it is the official story that is possibly the most crackpot theory of all. This wouldn't be bad if the theorists of this official story theory, came out and stated that it was a theory. But, rather than state it as such, they attempt to cloud the minds of the people with the idea that it is the truth, when in reality, it is one of the weakest theories of all.

I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

[tvbcof]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

[Slowturtleinc]

Conspiracy theories make unhappy people as you start to find negativity in all aspects of life. If you are unable to stand up and make a change,its really just a waste of time getting to deep down any rabbit hole. Lets say you actually find out with facts that 9/11 was a inside job,you most likely would be found dead in a short matter of time or be publicly crucified to a extent that anything that came from you would be seen as complete loonie tunes.
Or you can make small changes in the world and create a strong foundation and stop wacking at branches and aim for the roots.

[Spendulus]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

[BADecker]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

Unfortunately, the physics and math you use is far from complete. Two areas that show this are:

1. Nobody has any more than guestimations regarding how much of the fuel burned, and how much of it boiled off in the form of the thick, black clouds of smoke. Why not? Because nobody was there to measure it. The fact that most of the fuel boiled off and kept the Towers reasonably cool can be seen in the photos of the smoke, and the people standing in the gaps in the buildings without coming close to being cooked to death by the heat.

2. When you Google "burning buildings," and look at the pictures, you can see that multitudes of buildings remained standing even though they are engulfed in great flames. Sure, there were flames in portions of the Towers. But the quantity and quality of the flames was not nearly sufficient to FOR A FACT cause a collapse like the Towers went down. Other buildings that were not designed to be as strong as the Towers lasted through much more punishment that the Towers did.

If these were the only two items that were against the official story, they would be enough. But there are many more. All you need do is Google for info on 9/11 conspiracy theories to see what they are.

[tvbcof]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

One is tempted to write off your 9/11 fail as being attributable to some sort of Zionist leanings or something, especially since you (alone) seem to keep coming back again and again to the 'Jewish' aspect of it, but you don't seem to be trying to torpedo the Trump campaign like most Zionists.  So that doesn't really fit.  

Again, BADecker seems to have the most plausible hypothesis about your behavior.  That is, you just want people pointing out the multitude of super obvious proof positives that the 'official conspiracy theory' promulgated by the establishment is a sham.

[Spendulus]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

One is tempted to write off your 9/11 fail as being attributable to some sort of Zionist leanings or something, especially since you (alone) seem to keep coming back again and again to the 'Jewish' aspect of it, but you don't seem to be trying to torpedo the Trump campaign like most Zionists.  So that doesn't really fit.  

Again, BADecker seems to have the most plausible hypothesis about your behavior.  That is, you just want people pointing out the multitude of super obvious proof positives that the 'official conspiracy theory' promulgated by the establishment is a sham.

Badecker only moved to personal criticism, after one after another of his crazy 911 ideas were refuted.  Ad hominem is all he had left.  Similarly it doesn't matter how you attempt to "explain the behavior of someone who refutes crazy ideas about 911."

All that matters is that you make a statement about 911, and then someone address the chemistry and physics of it from first principles.  Is that the way the physics works?  what do the numbers show?  Aside from that, make any conspiracy theory you like.  Makes no difference to me.

However, if you defend a conspiracy theory about 911 based on wrong understanding of the physics, prepare to have it destroyed. 

I come back again and again to ridicule the "Evil Jews theories" because they crop up continually, always without any evidence whatsoever.  Because those are particularly ridiculous.  I ridicule them, instead of "disproving them."  Specific facts can be disproven, but irrefutable hypothesis cannot be disproven.  Example.

"There is a God."

"No, there is not."

"Oh really?  If there's no God, then prove it!"



Another curiousity of 911 conspiracy theories is the extent to which various conspiracy theories are mutually contradictory.  This is in opposition to the JFK killing, where the was simply "Was there just one gunman?"

[BADecker]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

One is tempted to write off your 9/11 fail as being attributable to some sort of Zionist leanings or something, especially since you (alone) seem to keep coming back again and again to the 'Jewish' aspect of it, but you don't seem to be trying to torpedo the Trump campaign like most Zionists.  So that doesn't really fit.  

Again, BADecker seems to have the most plausible hypothesis about your behavior.  That is, you just want people pointing out the multitude of super obvious proof positives that the 'official conspiracy theory' promulgated by the establishment is a sham.

Badecker only moved to personal criticism, after one after another of his crazy 911 ideas were refuted.  Ad hominem is all he had left.  Similarly it doesn't matter how you attempt to "explain the behavior of someone who refutes crazy ideas about 911."

All that matters is that you make a statement about 911, and then someone address the chemistry and physics of it from first principles.  Is that the way the physics works?  what do the numbers show?  Aside from that, make any conspiracy theory you like.  Makes no difference to me.

However, if you defend a conspiracy theory about 911 based on wrong understanding of the physics, prepare to have it destroyed. 

I come back again and again to ridicule the "Evil Jews theories" because they crop up continually, always without any evidence whatsoever.  Because those are particularly ridiculous.  I ridicule them, instead of "disproving them."  Specific facts can be disproven, but irrefutable hypothesis cannot be disproven.  Example.

"There is a God."

"No, there is not."

"Oh really?  If there's no God, then prove it!"



Another curiousity of 911 conspiracy theories is the extent to which various conspiracy theories are mutually contradictory.  This is in opposition to the JFK killing, where the was simply "Was there just one gunman?"

You haven't refuted the heat factor's I mentioned vvv in https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1385160.msg14284410#msg14284410:

Unfortunately, the physics and math you use is far from complete. Two areas that show this are:

1. Nobody has any more than guestimations regarding how much of the fuel burned, and how much of it boiled off in the form of the thick, black clouds of smoke. Why not? Because nobody was there to measure it. The fact that most of the fuel boiled off and kept the Towers reasonably cool can be seen in the photos of the smoke, and the people standing in the gaps in the buildings without coming close to being cooked to death by the heat.

2. When you Google "burning buildings," and look at the pictures, you can see that multitudes of buildings remained standing even though they are engulfed in great flames. Sure, there were flames in portions of the Towers. But the quantity and quality of the flames was not nearly sufficient to FOR A FACT cause a collapse like the Towers went down. Other buildings that were not designed to be as strong as the Towers lasted through much more punishment that the Towers did.

If these were the only two items that were against the official story, they would be enough. But there are many more. All you need do is Google for info on 9/11 conspiracy theories to see what they are.

So, since you are having a difficult time refuting, you start attacking me ad-hominem when you say "Badecker only moved to personal criticism, after one after another of his crazy 911 ideas were refuted.  Ad hominem is all he had left. "

That wasn't enough, but you had to bring the God idea in, when neither you nor anybody else has refuted the scientific proofs that God exists. You focus on the idea that nobody can prove that God doesn't exist. But that wasn't the point about God. The point was that science absolutely proves that God DOES exist. The closest anyone has come to refuting that God exists is simply to say that He doesn't exist. No refutation in that. The fact that you are bringing it up in this thread, and the fact that you are trying to take the focus off the REAL God question, shows that you are trying to take the focus off the fact that the official 9/11 story is one of the weakest conspiracy theories of all.

And then you bring JFK into the mix? Why don't you simply admit that you made a mistake about 9/11? Or if you don't want to go that far, you might at least say that there is more to all those unofficial conspiracy theories than you had thought before.

Stop! While you can. You are going down with the Towers.

[Jordan23]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

Read Operation Northwoods, especially the part about drone planes. Have a great day.

[Spendulus]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

Read Operation Northwoods, especially the part about drone planes. Have a great day.

Go back and read what I said.  I don't have any complaint with conspiracy theories.  Just with physics and chemistry that are flat wrong. 

This is all pretty simple.

[Jordan23]

So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.

   6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide
additional provocation.  Harassment of civil air, attacks on
surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft
by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions.
An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they
saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were
to announce such fact.  The primary drawback to this suggestion
appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modify-
ing an aircraft.  However, reasonable copies of the MIG could
be purchased from US resources in about three months.

Page 13

   7. Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft
should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the
government of Cuba.  Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban
civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

   8. It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate
convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down
a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States to
Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela.  The destination would
be chosen only to cause the flight plan   route to cross Cuba.
The passengers could be a group of college students off on a
holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to
support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

      a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and
   numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered
   aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the
   Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be
   subsituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
   loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under
   carefully prepared aliases.  The actual registered
   aircraft would be converted to a drone.

      b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
   aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
   Florida.  From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
   aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
   into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
   have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
   aircraft to its original status.  The drone aircraft
   meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.  When
   over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
   national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
   is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.  The transmission
   will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
   be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio
Appendix to
Enclosure A
10
Page 14


   stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
   has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
   "sell" the incident.

[Jordan23]

...
I want to thank you for continually playing the game that the official story is truth or near truth. If you didn't, and if nobody did, I wouldn't be prompted to continually show people the stupidity of the official story theory.

Wow!  That is the most rational explanation I've ever heard for Spendy's otherwise inexplicable blind-spot about 9/11 and total rejection of science.  It's really not characteristic of his identity in other areas.  I'm embarrassed not to have thought it up on my own.

Lol, I can't be a rejector of science, because I have repeatedly used basic physics math to refute poorly thought out "theories of 911."

Does not mean you are not welcome to come up with a well reasoned theory.  Be my guest.  But if you would do it based on "nano thermite" or "puddles of melted steel" or one in a million wacho claiming it wasn't a jet that hit the towers, when hundreds of thousands were watching the second jet hit the towers, expect your theory to be destroyed.

Then there's the "no airliners" lunatics.  Where did the people and the planes go?

And best of all, there's the "Evil Jews did it" bug eyed fanatic defenders of Islam.

Read Operation Northwoods, especially the part about drone planes. Have a great day.

Go back and read what I said.  I don't have any complaint with conspiracy theories.  Just with physics and chemistry that are flat wrong. 

This is all pretty simple.

It was 19 cavemen. You got it buddy!

[Spendulus]

So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.
.....

Here is your problem.  You are trying to make up something then claim that I believe it.

That's called lying.

Why not just look at what I have actually said or calculated.

I'm sure there's enough there you won't like.

[Jordan23]

So Splendaboy believes government? So sad. Why would the US government plan this?.?.
.....

Here is your problem.  You are trying to make up something then claim that I believe it.

That's called lying.

Why not just look at what I have actually said or calculated.

I'm sure there's enough there you won't like.

No explain why the US government would plan to blow up its own military ships. Make exact copies of planes and fabricate a story like it was shot down, and on and on TO CONVINCE SHEEP LIKE YOU TO GO TO WAR.

I don't have to read anymore. You are still wondering where the people and planes may have gone. Same place as the fake plane in Operation Northwoods maybe?

Maybe this will guide you....

      b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual
   aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of
   Florida.  From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying
   aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly
   into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will
   have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the
   aircraft to its original status.  The drone aircraft
   meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.  When
   over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-
   national distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he
   is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft.  The transmission
   will be interrupted by the destruction of aircraft which will
   be triggered by radio signal. This will allow IACO radio
Appendix to
Enclosure A
10
Page 14


   stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what
   has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to
   "sell" the incident.


You are the easy "sell".