|
bitrebel (OP)
|
 |
September 11, 2011, 06:39:52 PM |
|
|
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each block is stacked on top of the previous one. Adding another block to the top makes all lower blocks more difficult to remove: there is more "weight" above each block. A transaction in a block 6 blocks deep (6 confirmations) will be very difficult to remove.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
PinkiePie
Member
 Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
GROUNDED FOR TROLLING
|
|
September 11, 2011, 07:47:29 PM |
|
Why does everyone have to do nothing but talk about this stupid terrorist attack. It was like ten years ago, this is a HAPPY day for some of us.
|
--
MOST HONEST FORUM MEMBER AWARD 2011
Cross my heart and hope to fly, stick a cupcake in my eye!
|
|
|
|
Grouver (BtcBalance)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 07:56:33 PM
Last edit: September 11, 2011, 08:13:54 PM by Grouver (BtcBalance) |
|
I know for a fact the goverment isn't telling the truth about what caused 9/11. But I cannot agree with the stuff that is displayed as the truth in this video. |
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:00:54 PM |
|
I know for a fact the goverment isn't telling the truth behind 911. But I cannot agree with the stuff that is displayed as the truth in this video. Can you explain what it is that you do not agree with? Which positions, or facts displayed? What is it exactly you do not agree with? |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:48:45 PM |
|
Inconclusive. Demonstrates nothing. Most of everything in there is based upon faulty assumptions or flawed analysis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Inedible
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:49:52 PM |
|
Why does everyone have to do nothing but talk about this stupid terrorist attack. It was like ten years ago, this is a HAPPY day for some of us.
lol - I had to read that twice to make sure I hadn't read it wrong. |
If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 08:53:36 PM |
|
Inconclusive. Demonstrates nothing. Most of everything in there is based upon faulty assumptions or flawed analysis. You cannot say one single thing that retorts anything in the video. As a typical operative, you will avoid all issues demonstrated in the video. You will never ever bring to the table, the contrasting opinion. You will leave it out completely, by saying things like just said. You are clearly delusional or intentionally misleading. You said absolutely nothing in your post to rebut anything stated in the video. You showed no evidence you even watched it at all. So far, you fail. |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:14:59 PM |
|
Inconclusive. Demonstrates nothing. Most of everything in there is based upon faulty assumptions or flawed analysis. You cannot say one single thing that retorts anything in the video. As a typical operative, you will avoid all issues demonstrated in the video. You will never ever bring to the table, the contrasting opinion. You will leave it out completely, by saying things like just said. You are clearly delusional or intentionally misleading. You said absolutely nothing in your post to rebut anything stated in the video. You showed no evidence you even watched it at all. So far, you fail. Ok, here's an easy one. The "multiple axis" argument is bullshit as clearly the cameras are on different axis and at different heights. How about the one where it's like, "what happened to the backdrop?!" and "the plane is coming in parallel to the ground here, and it's divebombing here?" Yeah, no shit, cause one camera is clearly positioned above the tower (you can see the top of the roof) and the other is clearly positioned beneath the top of the tower. In one case, you will see the sky cause camera is pointed up, in the other case, you will see the ground cause camera is pointed down. This can also create the impression that in one case the plane is 'divebombing' and in the other it is not. Here's another one. The nose of the plane going through and coming out the other side of the tower? A skyscraper is like a huge column of air. If you displace the air in that column quickly, it has to go somewhere. So, if plane flying 550 mph flies into the tower, compressed air will burst out the opposing side. By the way, this is why in other conspiracy videos when they argue that you can see "explosions" at the bottom of the WTC immediately preceding its collapse, the explosions are not really explosions at all. When the tower begins to collapse, all that compressed air gets pushed down and so all the windows get blown out at the bottom before it has even fallen. It's extremely plausible that the 'nose' you see coming out of the building is debris of a similar shape. The audio analysis is equally bullshit. Do you have any idea how different the same sound can seem when it's recorded with different mics in different locations with different wind/environmental noises? Overwhelmingly loud sounds can also spike the limiter on your mic such that it clips and you won't hear anything at all. It's quite possible you could be recording with a particular type of mic and not hear any explosion. Also, if you have a drum kit, that 'reverse cymbal loop' sounds nothing like a cymbal at all. By the way, I own a drum kit, a recording program with a professional drum sampler, and various mics. Just a few. |
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:26:25 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
|
|
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:33:06 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
That's why arguing plausibility/implausibility is much easier than arguing definitively one way or the other. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:56:51 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
That's why arguing plausibility/implausibility is much easier than arguing definitively one way or the other. The thing is I heard every theory you people are discussing now and those you don't 10 years ago on #wtc during the broadcast. |
|
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 09:59:25 PM |
|
It's freaking hilarious to hear the same arguments over and over from different people on different boards all the time.
If you ask me the WTC wasn't even blown up on the same day as the TV broadcast. But I have no way to prove it and no incentive to even attempt it which is also my point in this discussion.
You people are like arguing soccer fanatics who aren't even fit enough to run for 20minutes.
That's why arguing plausibility/implausibility is much easier than arguing definitively one way or the other. The thing is I heard every theory you people are discussing now and those you don't 10 years ago on #wtc during the broadcast. Yep. Sad isn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:00:45 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
|
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:03:58 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? |
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:06:24 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:11:18 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. Haha alright bro. I told you why that video proves nothing. If you care to rebut, feel free. |
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:12:01 PM |
|
I've shown the video http://www.septemberclues.info to at least a dozen people, in person. Friends of mine and people I know. Every single one of them agreed they were fooled completely by the lies and the media and the government. They ALL concluded the film was very intriguing and accurate as far as they could tell. Most people who have watched it will agree. But there is always some jackass agent or operative on board to try to discredit the movie. Watch it for yourself and see. |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:12:39 PM |
|
I've shown the video http://www.septemberclues.info to at least a dozen people, in person. Friends of mine and people I know. Every single one of them agreed they were fooled completely by the lies and the media and the government. They ALL concluded the film was very intriguing and accurate as far as they could tell. Most people who have watched it will agree. But there is always some jackass agent or operative on board to try to discredit the movie. Watch it for yourself and see. Did watch it. Faulty analysis, inconclusive, and I told you why. |
|
|
|
|
|
trentzb
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:13:59 PM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. Personal attacks are not necessary are they? What could you possibly gain by a personal attack. If he doesn't agree with your point of view how would that negatively affect you? |
|
|
|
|
|
ctoon6
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:14:14 PM |
|
i think you guys need to answer one question before you start making anymore theories, WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO SLAM PLANES INTO SOME BUILDINGS?
edit: or make it look like some planes did hit some buildings.
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 10:22:20 PM |
|
i think you guys need to answer one question before you start making anymore theories, WHY WOULD THEY WANT TO SLAM PLANES INTO SOME BUILDINGS?
edit: or make it look like some planes did hit some buildings.
***** Patriot Act ***** |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
September 11, 2011, 11:15:34 PM |
|
I did not question the official story for a few days after the event, but by a few weeks into it, as I recall, I had already crossed the 50% probability threashold toward thinking it was likely an 'inside job'. At this point I am up into the 'near certainty' range given the mountains of evidence uncovered over the decade.
9/11, and the wars that it facilitated were, to me personally, a giant gift. I started seeking alternatives to USD for mainly ethical reasons and stumbled into PM's.
Over the years I have come to the belief that 9/11 can indeed be considered a 'necessity' for the 'wellbeing' of our nation. I suspect that without control of Iraq and the central Asian areas we have, the US monetary system very likely would have collapsed by now and the US people could not enjoy a quarter of the worlds resources. One of my remaining beefs has to do with the distribution of the spoils amongst our population...not a lot of it, by percentage, goes to the bullet stopper class who does the heavy lifting (as was more the case after WW-II.) We still have obesity problems amongst the lowest class however so it is not fair to say that we all do not benefit...for now at least.
The 'sacrifices' in blood on 9/11 were surprisingly minimal. The pesky Enron investigation vanished in building 7, and Sliverstein did not have to worry about his asbestos problem and got quite an insurance settlement instead. Nicely done! Not sure what happened to the gold in the vaults under the place, but I'm sure it found a good home. There were a great many winners from 9/11 and not to many losers. The losers in follow-up wars can feel good about sacrificing with the name of God and Country.
But 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (and likely soon, Iran) are just band-aids to buy some time. Certainly not a whole 'New American Century's worth I don't believe, and I feel that Eastasia has a stronger hand when they decide to play it. I'll expect more 9/11's and Osama's and so on and be positioning myself to graze in whatever pasture end up being the most green.
|
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
the joint
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1020
|
|
September 11, 2011, 11:22:51 PM |
|
Funny though...
If I didn't own a TV or have access to the web, 9/11 would never have even existed in my conscious experience.
This is a big reason why I don't let things like 9/11 or wars affect me emotionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bitrebel (OP)
|
|
September 11, 2011, 11:37:11 PM |
|
Funny though...
If I didn't own a TV or have access to the web, 9/11 would never have even existed in my conscious experience.
This is a big reason why I don't let things like 9/11 or wars affect me emotionally.
So, what you're saying, in essence, is that you are a chatbot who been assigned to a forum member identity? |
Why does Bitrebel have 65+ Ignores?
Because Bitrebel says things that some people do not want YOU to hear.
|
|
|
naypalm
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1272
Merit: 1012
howdy
|
|
September 12, 2011, 02:24:54 AM |
|
Building 7  |
|
|
|
|
Grouver (BtcBalance)
|
|
September 12, 2011, 08:25:55 AM |
|
We were shown Previously produced CGI video on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001
There were no hijackers, and the eye witnesses to planes were paid actors and SIMS that never existed.
That's the unbelievable truth.
Yep, sure it is. Cause the video said so, right? You are one of the most ignorant people in the whole world. Go back to sleep. You have never been awoken and likely never will be. Personal attacks are not necessary are they? What could you possibly gain by a personal attack. If he doesn't agree with your point of view how would that negatively affect you? It affects him cause he is the OP of this thread and 'the joint' is making fun of it. |
|
|
|
ClownCoins
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 18
Merit: 0
|
|
September 12, 2011, 11:28:21 AM
Last edit: September 12, 2011, 11:40:37 AM by ClownCoins |
|
WHY YOU WANT QUESTION OFFICIAL VERSION OF WHAT HAPPEN? IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH AS DISPLAYED ON YOUR TV? YOU THINK NEEDS IMPROVEMENT? THEN MAYBE YOU FIND JOB WITH MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OR BILDERBERG GROUP! YOU HAVE DRINKS WITH DICK CHENEY, TRADE STORIES OF MANY COVER STORIES DESIGNED AND SCHOOL FOR PSYOPS!
OR MAYBE YOU DO NOT DO THIS. PROBABLY IS BECAUSE YOU NEVER DESIGN GOOD COVER STORY IN WHOLE LIFE. YOU LOOK AT FINE OFFICIAL VERSION, YOU THINK IT NEED CRAZY SHIT STICK ON ALL SIDES OF STORY. YOU HAVE DISEASE OF AMERICAN CAPITALIST, CHANGE THING THAT IS FINE FOR NO REASON EXCEPT TO LOOK DIFFERENT. YOU PUT THERMITE IN STEELWORK ON ONE SIDE OF STORY, YOU PUT PREFABRICATED (PROBABLY IN CHINESE SLAVE FACTORY SINCE AMERICA MAKE NO THINGS OF ITS OWN) COMPUTER GRAPHICS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF STORY. MAYBE YOU PUT SEX DILDO ON YOUR DVD PLAYER TO FUCK YOURSELF IN ASSHOLE FOR MAKING SHAMEFUL TRAVESTY OF STORY OF KEAN COMMISSION, NO?
STORY IS FINE. YOU FUCK IT, IT ONLY GET LESS BELIEVABLE AND YOU STILL NO CONVINCE ANYONE. GO TO LIBRARY, PRACTICE WITH READING MANY BOOKS OF SUPERIOR QUALITY TO THOSE OF AYN RAND. THEN YOU NOT NEED DUMB SHIT ON YOUR STORY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
