Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.skeptic > #117510 > unrolled thread

Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it?

Back to article view | Back to sci.skeptic

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 10:37 -0700
    Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? Moebius <moebius@example.invalid> - 2026-06-07 19:55 +0200
      Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 11:23 -0700
    Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 14:34 -0500
      Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> - 2026-06-07 17:01 -0400
        Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 16:20 -0500
          Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> - 2026-06-07 17:37 -0400
      Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 15:49 -0700
        Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 18:30 -0500
          Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 17:29 -0700
            Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 19:52 -0500
              Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 18:12 -0700
                Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 20:19 -0500
                  Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> - 2026-06-07 23:06 -0400
                    Re: the official 911 narrative is incredibly bs isn't it? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:23 -0700
                    Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 22:29 -0500
                      Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:35 -0700
                        Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 22:58 -0500
                          Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 23:07 -0700
                            Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 00:13 -0700
                              Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-12 18:01 -0700
                            Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 08:10 -0500
                              Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Noah Sombrero <fedora@fea.st> - 2026-06-08 09:52 -0400
                                Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 09:27 -0500
                                  Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:02 -0700
                                    Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 11:22 -0500
                                      Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 09:31 -0700
                                        Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 11:46 -0500
                                          Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 11:08 -0700
                                            Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 14:51 -0500
                                              Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 14:22 -0700
                                                Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 16:44 -0500
                                                Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 17:08 -0700
                                                  Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-09 19:24 -0700
                                                    Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-09 20:27 -0700
                                              Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 16:58 -0700
                                                Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 20:45 -0500
                                                  Re: the official 911 narrative is incredibly bs isn't it? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-08 20:43 -0700
                                                    Nick's WTC Jewish Conspiracy Theory Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-10 16:28 -0700
                                Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-08 11:51 -0700
                  Re: the official 911 narrative is incredibly bs isn't it? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-06-07 20:16 -0700
                    Re: the official 911 narrative is incredibly bs isn't it? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 21:16 -0700
                  Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 20:57 -0700
        Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-06-07 20:55 -0700

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#117510 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it?

On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>
>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>
>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>> building
>>
>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>> consideration.

WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not hit 
by a jet

>>
>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of events
>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.

uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office 
fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns

there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
  - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
  - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
  - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
  - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above

they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the 
videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just a 
modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me 
question the nature of human intelligence...

it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 
fire-safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the 
primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of 
skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, 
across the entire history of building large buildings. which is really 
quite amazing considering our safety standards in building these things 
even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.

> 
> Thank you very kindly for this bit of info.

lol, he literally just made a bare assertion without any explanation.

ur just confirming a bias noah

talk about con-level of acceptance

> 
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#117511

Am 07.06.2026 um 19:37 schrieb dart200:
> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>
>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>> building
>>>
>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken into
>>> consideration.
>>> 
> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not hit 
> by a jet

Right. I mixed that up. Sorry, about that.

Concerning WTC 7 I don't have anything so say.

But the following source might be helpful:
https://www.asminternational.org/news/videos/-/journal_content/56/10192/2033672/VIDEO/

-- 
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast-Antivirussoftware auf Viren geprüft.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117512

On 6/7/26 10:55 AM, Moebius wrote:
> Am 07.06.2026 um 19:37 schrieb dart200:
>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>
>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>> building
>>>>
>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken into
>>>> consideration.
>>>>
>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not 
>> hit by a jet
> 
> Right. I mixed that up. Sorry, about that.

cutting out my response u can't handle ain't an apology dud...

don't be dishonest bruh, who appreciates that???

> 
> Concerning WTC 7 I don't have anything so say.
> 
> But the following source might be helpful:
> https://www.asminternational.org/news/videos/-/ 
> journal_content/56/10192/2033672/VIDEO/
> 

yes that's the NIST explanation with the incredibly problematic details.

ultimately, those chucklefucks are trying to claim a _single_ column 
failure lead to a progressive collapse of the entire building,

that as per the many angles of _video_ evidence we have: proceeded at 
free fall for several seconds, neatly right right into it's food print,

this explanation basically just shits all over the rather skilled and 
precise practice of demolitioning building to do that exact thing,

nvm shitting all over the practice engineering buildings that don't 
fucking just entirely unwind from a _single_ column failure,

nvm shitting all over the practice of firefighting by never producing 
any meaningful recommendations on how to watch out for this. no one 
studies this as a textbook case study because the case of this being 
fire induced so nonsensably weak

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117513 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>
>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>> building
>>>
>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>> consideration.
> 
> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not hit 
> by a jet
> 
>>>
>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of events
>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
> 
> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office 
> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns
> 
> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
> 
> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the 
> videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just a 
> modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me 
> question the nature of human intelligence...
> 
> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 fire- 
> safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the primary 
> and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of skyscrapers 
> collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, across the 
> entire history of building large buildings. which is really quite 
> amazing considering our safety standards in building these things even 
> penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
> 

The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
government would murder thousands of US citizens
for political advantage is (at that time) too
unreasonably implausible.

alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
I spent many years there.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117514 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 14:34:55 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>
>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>> building
>>>>
>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>> consideration.
>> 
>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not hit 
>> by a jet
>> 
>>>>
>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of events
>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>> 
>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office 
>> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns
>> 
>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
>> 
>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the 
>> videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just a 
>> modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me 
>> question the nature of human intelligence...
>> 
>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 fire- 
>> safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the primary 
>> and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of skyscrapers 
>> collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, across the 
>> entire history of building large buildings. which is really quite 
>> amazing considering our safety standards in building these things even 
>> penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>> 
>
>The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>government would murder thousands of US citizens
>for political advantage is (at that time) too
>unreasonably implausible.

Even now, the idea would blow up my mind.  Little particles of it
scatter over the landscape.

>alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
>I spent many years there.

Hi, Peter.  So it is you.  I remember you from apz, so Tang must have
been crossposting your stuff.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117515 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 4:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 14:34:55 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>>> building
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>>> consideration.
>>>
>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not hit
>>> by a jet
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of events
>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>
>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office
>>> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns
>>>
>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
>>>
>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the
>>> videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just a
>>> modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me
>>> question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>
>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 fire-
>>> safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the primary
>>> and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of skyscrapers
>>> collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, across the
>>> entire history of building large buildings. which is really quite
>>> amazing considering our safety standards in building these things even
>>> penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>
>>
>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>> unreasonably implausible.
> 
> Even now, the idea would blow up my mind.  Little particles of it
> scatter over the landscape.
> 
>> alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
>> I spent many years there.
> 
> Hi, Peter.  So it is you.  I remember you from apz, so Tang must have
> been crossposting your stuff.

IDK. Did alt.zen die?

I try to subscribe to it and it acts like
it works and then does not work.

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117516 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:20:16 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/7/2026 4:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 14:34:55 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>
>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not hit
>>>> by a jet
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of events
>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>
>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office
>>>> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns
>>>>
>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
>>>>
>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the
>>>> videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just a
>>>> modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me
>>>> question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>
>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 fire-
>>>> safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the primary
>>>> and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of skyscrapers
>>>> collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, across the
>>>> entire history of building large buildings. which is really quite
>>>> amazing considering our safety standards in building these things even
>>>> penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>> unreasonably implausible.
>> 
>> Even now, the idea would blow up my mind.  Little particles of it
>> scatter over the landscape.
>> 
>>> alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
>>> I spent many years there.
>> 
>> Hi, Peter.  So it is you.  I remember you from apz, so Tang must have
>> been crossposting your stuff.
>
>IDK. Did alt.zen die?
>
>I try to subscribe to it and it acts like
>it works and then does not work.

I get about 55 messages since Apr 19.  It looks like some from here
added az to their crosspost list, so what you see there is the same as
short fat guy for those that crosspost.  There is one guy that calls
himself heartdoc that is not from short fat guy.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117517 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>
>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>> building
>>>>
>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>> consideration.
>>
>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not 
>> hit by a jet
>>
>>>>
>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of events
>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>
>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office 
>> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns
>>
>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
>>
>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the 
>> videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just a 
>> modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me 
>> question the nature of human intelligence...
>>
>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 fire- 
>> safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the primary 
>> and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of skyscrapers 
>> collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, across the 
>> entire history of building large buildings. which is really quite 
>> amazing considering our safety standards in building these things even 
>> penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>
> 
> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
> government would murder thousands of US citizens
> for political advantage is (at that time) too
> unreasonably implausible.

it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall

> 
> alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
> I spent many years there.
> 


-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117518 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>>> building
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>>> consideration.
>>>
>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not 
>>> hit by a jet
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of 
>>>>> events
>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>
>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office 
>>> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural columns
>>>
>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
>>>
>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like the 
>>> videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing just 
>>> a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has made me 
>>> question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>
>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 fire- 
>>> safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the primary 
>>> and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of skyscrapers 
>>> collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to fire, across the 
>>> entire history of building large buildings. which is really quite 
>>> amazing considering our safety standards in building these things 
>>> even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>
>>
>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>> unreasonably implausible.
> 
> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
> 

I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
the airplane wreckage?

It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
reasonable plausible.


>>
>> alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
>> I spent many years there.
>>
> 
> 


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117519 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in the
>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>
>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not 
>>>> hit by a jet
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of 
>>>>>> events
>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>
>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal office 
>>>> fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* structural 
>>>> columns
>>>>
>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural columns
>>>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the videos
>>>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor above
>>>>
>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like 
>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing 
>>>> just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has 
>>>> made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>
>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 
>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the 
>>>> primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of 
>>>> skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to 
>>>> fire, across the entire history of building large buildings. which 
>>>> is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in building 
>>>> these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>
>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>
> 
> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
> the airplane wreckage?
> 
> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
> reasonable plausible.
> 

this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a 
guilt-by-association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of 
red herrings,

i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of 
conventional physics,

and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the official 
narrative

> 
>>>
>>> alt.zen used to be the best Buddhist group
>>> I spent many years there.
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117520 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column in 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was not 
>>>>> hit by a jet
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of 
>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal 
>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* 
>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>
>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural 
>>>>> columns
>>>>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the 
>>>>> videos
>>>>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor 
>>>>> above
>>>>>
>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like 
>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in doing 
>>>>> just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it really has 
>>>>> made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>
>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 
>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as the 
>>>>> primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples of 
>>>>> skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due to 
>>>>> fire, across the entire history of building large buildings. which 
>>>>> is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in 
>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>
>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>
>>
>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>> the airplane wreckage?
>>
>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>> reasonable plausible.
>>
> 
> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt-by- 
> association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red herrings,
> 
> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of 
> conventional physics,
> 
> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the official 
> narrative
> 

Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.


-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117521 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction job.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column 
>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be taken in
>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was 
>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course of 
>>>>>>>> events
>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal 
>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* 
>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural 
>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the 
>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor 
>>>>>> above
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like 
>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in 
>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it 
>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 
>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as 
>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples 
>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due 
>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings. 
>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in 
>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>
>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>
>>>
>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>
>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>
>>
>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt- 
>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red 
>> herrings,
>>
>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of 
>> conventional physics,
>>
>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the 
>> official narrative
>>
> 
> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
> 

WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does 
_not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...

WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it was 
_also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117522 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius 
>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction 
>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column 
>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be 
>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was 
>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course 
>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal 
>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* 
>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural 
>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the 
>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor 
>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like 
>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in 
>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it 
>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 
>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as 
>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples 
>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due 
>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings. 
>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in 
>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>
>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>
>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>
>>>
>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt- 
>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red 
>>> herrings,
>>>
>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of 
>>> conventional physics,
>>>
>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the 
>>> official narrative
>>>
>>
>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>
> 
> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does 
> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
> 
> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it was 
> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint

Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117523 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius 
>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction 
>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column 
>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be 
>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was 
>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course 
>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal 
>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all* 
>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>>>   - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural 
>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>   - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the 
>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>   - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>   - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor 
>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like 
>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in 
>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it 
>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1 
>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as 
>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples 
>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due 
>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings. 
>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in 
>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt- 
>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red 
>>>> herrings,
>>>>
>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of 
>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>
>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the 
>>>> official narrative
>>>>
>>>
>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>
>> 
>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does 
>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>> 
>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it was 
>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>
>Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?

oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
he does not.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117525 — Re: the official 911 narrative is incredibly bs isn't it?

On 6/7/26 8:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius
>>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be
>>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was
>>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course
>>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal
>>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all*
>>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural
>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the
>>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor
>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like
>>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in
>>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it
>>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1
>>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as
>>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples
>>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due
>>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings.
>>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in
>>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt-
>>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red
>>>>> herrings,
>>>>>
>>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of
>>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>>
>>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the
>>>>> official narrative
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does
>>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>>>
>>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it was
>>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>>
>> Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>> is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?

  > that's just a blatant ad hominem dud, do better
  >
  > #god

> 
> oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
> experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
> the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
> he does not.

believing WTC7 came down due to an office fire causing a single
column failure as demonstrated by a simulation that doesn't even
remotely match the videos in a novel event never witnessed again
or even taken seriously as a noteworthy case study by the
firefighting practice more generally 25 years later...

is a 47-story skyscraper of abject physical absurdity that ur
pathetic attempts at fallacy will never collapse into it's
footprint at fucking freefall 🫳

                               🎤

(unless ur some zionist warkawk joo with novel, engineered
  thermitic-explosives, in which case 🖕🖕🖕 for being america's
  #1 enemy of the 21st century)

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃
ps: get a 21st century reader noah

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117526 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 10:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius
>>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be
>>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was
>>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course
>>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal
>>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all*
>>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural
>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the
>>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the floor
>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like
>>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in
>>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it
>>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1
>>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as
>>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples
>>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due
>>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings.
>>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in
>>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt-
>>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red
>>>>> herrings,
>>>>>
>>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of
>>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>>
>>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the
>>>>> official narrative
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does
>>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>>>
>>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it was
>>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>>
>> Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>> is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?
> 
> oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
> experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
> the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
> he does not.

Not at all.
We use Socratic Questioning and ask him:
How the Hell do you explain the airplanes in any
"inside job" narrative?

BZZZTT Bing short-circuit !!!

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117527 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/26 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2026 10:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius
>>>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was
>>>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course
>>>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal
>>>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all*
>>>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural
>>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches the
>>>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the 
>>>>>>>>>> floor
>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks like
>>>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in
>>>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it
>>>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1
>>>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as
>>>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few examples
>>>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due
>>>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings.
>>>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety standards in
>>>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt-
>>>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of red
>>>>>> herrings,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of
>>>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the
>>>>>> official narrative
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does
>>>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>>>>
>>>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet it 
>>>> was
>>>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>>>
>>> Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>>> is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?
>>
>> oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
>> experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
>> the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
>> he does not.
> 
> Not at all.
> We use Socratic Questioning and ask him:
> How the Hell do you explain the airplanes in any
> "inside job" narrative?
> 
> BZZZTT Bing short-circuit !!!
> 

because airplanes hit the buildings to put all the attention and blame 
on muzzies ...

and then zionist warhawk joos blew up the buildings to seal the deal for 
the _wAr On TeRrOR_

neither of these fact contradict each other, u've short-circuited nothing

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117530 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 6/7/26 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2026 10:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius
>>>>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ column
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was
>>>>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal
>>>>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all*
>>>>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST that:
>>>>>>>>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all structural
>>>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely matches 
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the 
>>>>>>>>>>> floor
>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks 
>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in
>>>>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it
>>>>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1
>>>>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as
>>>>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few 
>>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone due
>>>>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings.
>>>>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety 
>>>>>>>>>>> standards in
>>>>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a guilt-
>>>>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella of 
>>>>>>> red
>>>>>>> herrings,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of
>>>>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the
>>>>>>> official narrative
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>>>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes does
>>>>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>>>>>
>>>>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet 
>>>>> it was
>>>>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>>>>
>>>> Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>>>> is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?
>>>
>>> oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
>>> experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
>>> the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
>>> he does not.
>>
>> Not at all.
>> We use Socratic Questioning and ask him:
>> How the Hell do you explain the airplanes in any
>> "inside job" narrative?
>>
>> BZZZTT Bing short-circuit !!!
>>
> 
> because airplanes hit the buildings to put all the attention and blame 
> on muzzies ...
> 
> and then zionist warhawk joos blew up the buildings to seal the deal for 
> the _wAr On TeRrOR_
> 
> neither of these fact contradict each other, u've short-circuited nothing
> 

You just showed the short-circuit.
You cannot coherently explain the airplanes
within the frame-of-reference of an "inside job".

-- 
Copyright 2026 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
reliably computable for the entire body of knowledge.
The complete structure of this system is now defined.

The entire body of knowledge expressed in language is
comprised of two types of relations between finite strings:
(a) *Axioms* Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true.

My system bridges the analytic/synthetic distinction by
expressly encoding all empirical "atomic facts" in a formal
language such as CycL of the Cyc project.

(b) *Inference Rules* Expressions of language that are semantically
entailed syntactically from (a) and/or (b).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117532 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/26 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/7/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 6/7/26 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2026 10:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it was
>>>>>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal
>>>>>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all*
>>>>>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST 
>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all 
>>>>>>>>>>>> structural
>>>>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely 
>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the
>>>>>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> floor
>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that looks 
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in
>>>>>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it
>>>>>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human intelligence...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an type-1
>>>>>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to fire as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few 
>>>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let alone 
>>>>>>>>>>>> due
>>>>>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large buildings.
>>>>>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety 
>>>>>>>>>>>> standards in
>>>>>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a 
>>>>>>>> guilt-
>>>>>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella 
>>>>>>>> of red
>>>>>>>> herrings,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of
>>>>>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the
>>>>>>>> official narrative
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>>>>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes 
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet 
>>>>>> it was
>>>>>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>>>>>
>>>>> Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>>>>> is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?
>>>>
>>>> oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
>>>> experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
>>>> the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
>>>> he does not.
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>> We use Socratic Questioning and ask him:
>>> How the Hell do you explain the airplanes in any
>>> "inside job" narrative?
>>>
>>> BZZZTT Bing short-circuit !!!
>>>
>>
>> because airplanes hit the buildings to put all the attention and blame 
>> on muzzies ...
>>
>> and then zionist warhawk joos blew up the buildings to seal the deal 
>> for the _wAr On TeRrOR_
>>
>> neither of these fact contradict each other, u've short-circuited nothing
>>
> 
> You just showed the short-circuit.
> You cannot coherently explain the airplanes
> within the frame-of-reference of an "inside job".
> 

yes you can. the cia, saudis, and mossad had already funneled billions 
of USD and weapons to mujahideen in the 80s to fight the soviets. they 
already knew they way around funding afgan bushmen. which they helped 
covertly train and execute for the 911 job. and i mean covertly, so they 
did this using assets who didn't come off as westerners dummy, and the 
muzzies were ofc happy to oblige.

the point was to enter america into the _wAr On TeRrOR_

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117533 — Re: the official 911 narrative is kinda bs isn't it? --- Alternatives

On 6/7/26 11:07 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 6/7/26 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/7/2026 10:35 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 6/7/26 8:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2026 10:06 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 20:19:32 -0500, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 8:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 7:29 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 4:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 5:49 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 12:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/2026 12:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/7/26 8:07 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2026 16:44:14 +0200, Moebius
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <moebius@example.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 07.06.2026 um 15:23 schrieb dart200:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/6/26 7:04 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The 9/11 fall of WTC-7 was not an inside planted 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destruction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> job.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fires don't cause near-simultaneous failure of _every_ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> column
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hint: This was not just an ordinary "fire". This has to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taken in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consideration.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WTC7 involved a fairly normal office fire, unlike WTC1/2 it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not hit by a jet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sophisticated Computer-simulations have SHOWN that the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of events
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is totally "plausible" i.e. possible in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uhhh ... no computer simulation has shown how a fairly normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> office fire can cause near-simultaneous failure across *all*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural columns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is an incredibly weak, "official" argument from NIST 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (a) didn't show near-simultaneous failure of all 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structural
>>>>>>>>>>>>> columns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (b) didn't result in a progression that remotely 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> videos
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (c) didn't model column-girder connections correctly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    - (d) didn't model shear studs bolting the girders to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the floor
>>>>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they left out details and didn't produce anything that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> looks like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the videos. it is incredible how unwilling most people are in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing just a modicum of critical thinking, and witnessing it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really has made me question the nature of human 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is worth noting that WTC7 is the *only* example of an 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> type-1
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire- safe skyscraper proposed to have collapsed due to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fire as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the primary and sole cause. there are in fact _very_ few 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of skyscrapers collapsing at all, let alone fully, let 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alone due
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to fire, across the entire history of building large 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is really quite amazing considering our safety 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> standards in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> building these things even penetrates the 3rd world quite 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The alternative back in Sept 2011 that the US
>>>>>>>>>>>> government would murder thousands of US citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>> for political advantage is (at that time) too
>>>>>>>>>>>> unreasonably implausible.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it was zionists in the US govt, not the US govt overall
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I personally know a guy that honestly believes that the
>>>>>>>>>> airplanes that crashed into the twin towers never existed
>>>>>>>>>> and were planted in the minds of witnesses through CIA mind
>>>>>>>>>> control devices. What about the video tapes? What about
>>>>>>>>>> the airplane wreckage?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is possible that a giant purple space alien that
>>>>>>>>>> is living inside the hollow Moon did it. It is not
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable plausible.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this is called a nut-picking fallacy, in an attempt to form a 
>>>>>>>>> guilt-
>>>>>>>>> by- association fallacy, which falls under the larger umbrella 
>>>>>>>>> of red
>>>>>>>>> herrings,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> i assure you that nothing about 9/11 truth breaks known laws of
>>>>>>>>> conventional physics,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and rather unexplained physics is a contention i have with the
>>>>>>>>> official narrative
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Believing that it is an inside job ignores the airplanes.
>>>>>>>> Believing that the airplanes never existed resolves this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTC1 and WTC2 were hit by airplanes, but getting hit by airplanes 
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> _not_ contradict the subsequent demolitions...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WTC7, a 47 story skyscraper, was not even hit by an airplane, yet 
>>>>>>> it was
>>>>>>> _also_ demolitioned, to collapse at free fall into it's footprint
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Believing that the whole thing was an inside job
>>>>>> is totally nuts, are you totally nuts?
>>>>>
>>>>> oooh, good one.  Now all you need to do is convince him that the
>>>>> experts who spent three years analyzing what happened and concluded
>>>>> the building was not destroyed by a bomb actually might know something
>>>>> he does not.
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>> We use Socratic Questioning and ask him:
>>>> How the Hell do you explain the airplanes in any
>>>> "inside job" narrative?
>>>>
>>>> BZZZTT Bing short-circuit !!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> because airplanes hit the buildings to put all the attention and 
>>> blame on muzzies ...
>>>
>>> and then zionist warhawk joos blew up the buildings to seal the deal 
>>> for the _wAr On TeRrOR_
>>>
>>> neither of these fact contradict each other, u've short-circuited 
>>> nothing
>>>
>>
>> You just showed the short-circuit.
>> You cannot coherently explain the airplanes
>> within the frame-of-reference of an "inside job".
>>
> 
> yes you can. the cia, saudis, and mossad had already funneled billions 
> of USD and weapons to mujahideen in the 80s to fight the soviets. they 
> already knew they way around funding afgan bushmen. which they helped 
> covertly train and execute for the 911 job. and i mean covertly, so they 
> did this using assets who didn't come off as westerners dummy, and the 
> muzzies were ofc happy to oblige.

i'm not denying that the muzzies didn't play their part. not every 
religion is it so easy to put together a plane full of fucking suicide 
terrorists...

my prescription there is the same prescription everyone:

   > free speech or get glassed
   >
   > #god

> 
> the point was to enter america into the _wAr On TeRrOR_
> 

-- 
why are we god?
let's end war 🙃

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.skeptic

csiph-web