Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Other Religions => Topic started by: AtheistMoFo on January 19, 2014, 09:48:42 PM

Title: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 19, 2014, 09:48:42 PM
I am starting this new topic as a fork from the discussion of Israel and its  history of false flag attacks.  In that discussion, I stated that World Trade Center Building No. 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.  Obviously, controlled demolition shoots holes in the official conspiracy theory that "al qaeda dunnit (with no insider help)" and raises the question of who on the inside helped Osama bin Laden and his merry band of 19 jihadists.  Please keep in mind that I don't know who brought WTC 7 down.  I am not flat out accusing the israel and/or the jews, (I only say they had the motive, the technical expertise, and a long history of covert false flag attacks).  But one thing I do know for a fact: "normal office fires" could not have possibly brought WTC 7 down at freefall acceleration.

THE SMOKING GUN

Anyone who has studied high school physics would know that the definition of freefall is an object being pulled to the ground by gravity with nothing to resist its fall.  CORRECTION: Anyone who has learned high school physics (big difference between studied and learned).  So if there was structural resistance at 5:20:00 PM but at 5:20:01 PM there was zero resistance, how is that possible?  Other than controlled demolition, it isn't.

As further proof of this, I offer that at a technical briefing on August 26, 2008, NIST director Dr. S. Shyam Sunder even said so.  (At the time of the briefing, NIST's official position was that freefall did not occur.)  However, even NIST subsequently had to admit freefall when it stared them in the face, and they admit it in their final report.  Note that the report did not even attempt to explain this discrepancy with the laws of nature because they knew full well that controlled demolition is in fact the only plausible explanation.

Anyone have any theories about how the laws of physics were suspended for a few seconds on September 11, 2001?  (If your theory is that Allah did it, first you will have to prove Allah exists!  chuckle #-o  chuckle #-o )


LINKS:
Technical briefing where Dr. Sunder denies possibility of freefall
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY&feature=related
(00:02:40)

NIST Final Report, confirming that freefall did occur
//http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(see Page 44, Section 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 19, 2014, 10:01:52 PM
In other news, tin foil stocks plummet as hat manufactures decide tin foil doesn't seem to sell well on hatwear.  :shock:

the thing is that even though something fishy happened the official gubnit line is and will continue to be terrorism.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 19, 2014, 10:07:16 PM
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature)

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ade-center (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 19, 2014, 10:32:18 PM
You know, the government supposedly knew about the attack and diverted airplanes that could have intercepted the hijacked airliners... perhaps the U.S. government was actually the one behind the attack!

How else would you explain them getting enough explosives into the WTC without noticing?!?!

And then, what if like... hold your tits... the U.S. government is the one pushing the "Jews did it!" because they know the conspiracy theorists who are onto them will by it!

But then what if Israel was the one that told the U.S. government to promote this conspiracy so that people didn't blame the American government but also knew that America wouldn't do shit towards Israel!?

AND WHAT IF OSAMA BIN LADEN IS ACTUALLY HITLER WHO HAD SURGERY TO APPEAR YOUNGER AND THAT'S WHY HE HAD THE BEARD?!?!?!


Holy shit. 9/11 proves that the Nazi's actually won WW2 and the U.S. government answers to Hitler himself.

On a serious note...

Quote..."normal office fires" ...

Yes, buildings have jets full of fuel and a shit load of kinetic force run into them often enough that we consider it a "normal office fire"...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 19, 2014, 10:46:12 PM
Conspiracy theories, like the twin towers, fall apart under their own weight.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 19, 2014, 11:16:59 PM
There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Atheon on January 20, 2014, 12:01:58 AM
Time for the "911 Truthers" to fade away for good... they're as embarrassing as Creationists and Birthers.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 20, 2014, 12:45:14 AM
Oh...Obama did it.







Just to clear things up.. :popcorn:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 20, 2014, 04:21:56 AM
Have you ever heard the phrase "straw that broke the camel's back"? I'm going to assume that you have, and if you haven't you can Google it.

Anyways imagine you're a happy little office building, doing what happy little office building do. You have two really tall neighbors, and all of you are good friends. One sunny, clear morning you see a plane in the distance going a bit lower than usual, but you think nothing about it.

Then, suddenly, HOLY FUCKING SHIT the plane slams head first into one of your neighbors. You're fine for the moment, but your neighbor looks badly hurt. You and your other neighbor try to console him for a while, but then FUCK FUCK FUCK another goddamn plane hits your other neighbor. Once again you're ok for the most part, some damage here and there but nothing major.

At this point you're pretty fucking scared; what if a plane hits you? You're sitting there worrying when all of a sudden WHAT IN THE EVER LOVING FUCK your buddy just collapses into a pile of rubble! Fucking gigantic pieces of metal and burning material slam into you. You're badly hurt now: you're on fire, huge pieces of you are gone, but you think you'll make it. The shock from the first building going down has barely passed when JESUS TITTY FUCKING CHRIST your other friend goes down. Once again large pieces of metal and burning shit slam into you with no mercy. You're really badly hurt now; there's a really big gash in your side and a really fucking hot fire raging inside you.

Hours pass and the fire burns on. Your steel beams aren't melting, but they are buckling under the intense heat of the inferno. What isn't helping the matter is the fact that large pieces of you are missing, thus transferring the load onto the already damaged and weakened beams. The fire burns and burns, and the beams get weaker and weaker. Eventually they get so weak that they can't hold up your weight anymore, and the floors above come crashing down. In the span of a few seconds you, along with all your hopes and dreams, are nothing more than a pile of rubble.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Sal1981 on January 20, 2014, 04:41:51 AM
^I doubt even explained in a narrative will get through their tinfoil-hat protection.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: barbarian on January 20, 2014, 04:55:33 AM
The only conspiracies that happened in 9/11 are the cover ups to keep our government look like they are competent and save our nation from even a larger embarrassment of why they couldn't catch it and prevent it from happening, or at least one less plane...

Which I do understand one went down in PA but it is still the fact that all 4 intended planes got hijacked, what happen next is what we all know, yet not one hijacking was prevented from occurring. I want to be clear on the fact that 4 planes did get hijacked whether or not they made it to their intended targets. That's the stab in the ass and where the cover-ups began, IMO.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 20, 2014, 05:08:32 AM
It's been over ten years.  Bury your dead and get on with life.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 20, 2014, 07:21:58 AM
Quote from: "Jason78"It's been over ten years.  Bury your dead and get on with life.

I concur. But we seem to like to mull over shit. They are still fighting the Civil War here in some places.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Atheon on January 20, 2014, 07:31:11 AM
Quote from: "barbarian"The only conspiracies that happened in 9/11 are the cover ups to keep our government look like they are competent and save our nation from even a larger embarrassment of why they couldn't catch it and prevent it from happening, or at least one less plane...
And, of course, the one in which 19 religious hijackers conspired to fly planes into buildings.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 20, 2014, 12:25:57 PM
Some of you may be wondering why I posted this in the "other religions" category.  Or even if you are not, I will inform you anyway.  Simply because like theists, many of you stand on the claim that you have long held despite no hard evidence of what you believe.  In fact, even when it is proven without a doubt to be false, you still can not give up your faith that the muslims did it and the israelis are innocent.

Exactly as I predicted.  There are 13 posts attacking my OP with straws at the time of this writing.  NOT EVEN ONE person who posted here even bothers to come up with a lame ass excuse of how the laws of physics could have been suspended for a few seconds on September 11.  My point was, and still is, freefall is impossible if controlled demolition is ruled out.

Instead of trying to refute what is obviously true, people make assinine remarks about tinfoil hats.  How does that prove freefall was possible without controlled demolition?  Links that don't work.  Links to WTC 1 and WTC 2 but no links related to WTC 7.  Parodies about the US government being behind the attacks.  More nonsense about conspiracy theories.  BUT NOT ONE FUCKIN MENTION of the laws of physics and how they were supposedly suspended on that day.

I believe this proves my point.  Freefall is proof of controlled demolition.  Nobody can refute that.  No one has tried.  Only a lot of unrelated garbage.  Just like any other theist when cornered.  Hurl a lot of insults and slurs.  Ignore the facts and keep babbling about stuff that has nothing to do with what the OP said.

What do you guys call your religion anyway?  The religion of Conspiracy By 19 Jihadists?  Osama's Angels?  Church of the 72 Virgins?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 20, 2014, 12:38:55 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.

(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/WTC_aerial2.jpg) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/WTC_aerial2.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 20, 2014, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.

[ Image (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/WTC_aerial2.jpg.html) ]
WTC 6 was significantly shorter than WTC 7. This photo proves nothing. The following video, on the other hand:

[youtube:2kvg96ln]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4[/youtube:2kvg96ln]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 20, 2014, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Some of you may be wondering why I posted this in the "other religions" category.  Or even if you are not, I will inform you anyway.  Simply because like theists, many of you stand on the claim that you have long held despite no hard evidence of what you believe.  In fact, even when it is proven without a doubt to be false, you still can not give up your faith that the muslims did it and the israelis are innocent.

Four planes were hijacked by terrorists.   They then used those planes as weapons.   We know this to be true.

You are the one acting like a theist with your belief in the existence of controlled demolition charges that no one has ever seen.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Exactly as I predicted.  There are 13 posts attacking my OP with straws at the time of this writing.  NOT EVEN ONE person who posted here even bothers to come up with a lame ass excuse of how the laws of physics could have been suspended for a few seconds on September 11.  My point was, and still is, freefall is impossible if controlled demolition is ruled out.

If you're predicting something after the fact, then you're doing prediction wrong.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Instead of trying to refute what is obviously true, people make assinine remarks about tinfoil hats.  How does that prove freefall was possible without controlled demolition?  Links that don't work.  Links to WTC 1 and WTC 2 but no links related to WTC 7.  Parodies about the US government being behind the attacks.  More nonsense about conspiracy theories.  BUT NOT ONE FUCKIN MENTION of the laws of physics and how they were supposedly suspended on that day.

I believe this proves my point.  Freefall is proof of controlled demolition.  Nobody can refute that.  No one has tried.  Only a lot of unrelated garbage.  Just like any other theist when cornered.  Hurl a lot of insults and slurs.  Ignore the facts and keep babbling about stuff that has nothing to do with what the OP said.

What do you guys call your religion anyway?  The religion of Conspiracy By 19 Jihadists?  Osama's Angels?  Church of the 72 Virgins?

If you've got any documented evidence of these demolition charges, or how they were rigged in all of the buildings without anyone noticing, please share it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 20, 2014, 01:49:52 PM
Quote from: "Jason78"If you've got any documented evidence of these demolition charges, or how they were rigged in all of the buildings without anyone noticing, please share it.
Otherwise known as: If you look at a 20 story gash in the back of the building that puts weight load onto structural supports in the process of being weakened by extreme heat and call it "normal office fires," we're gonna call bullshit.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 20, 2014, 01:59:08 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"So if there was structural resistance at 5:20:00 PM but at 5:20:01 PM there was zero resistance, how is that possible?  Other than controlled demolition, it isn't.

This is incorrect.  Steel will lose structural strength after continued exposure to high heat, and its failure can be sudden.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Freefall is proof of controlled demolition.  Nobody can refute that.  

It doesn't matter how much you embolden your text, or underline it.  This is clearly wrong.  It ignores the objection I've made above, firstly; and secondly, it's logically absurd.  Free-fall is only evidence that the structural support of the building has been removed.  It doesn't prove a single thing about the cause(s).  

Consider it refuted.  Move onto your next "point", please.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 20, 2014, 02:29:09 PM
My favorite thing about 9/11 conspiracies is that they completely forget that there were other planes than just the ones that hit the towers. I always feel a bit sorry for the Pentagon. It had a plane fly into it too! Why isn't it getting any attention? :cry:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 20, 2014, 02:32:59 PM
QuoteSome of you may be wondering why I posted this in the "other religions" category.

Tl;dr, but I would assume it's because you make a claim with little to no evidence and then say that the burden of proof is on everyone else to prove you wrong... even though you are the one making the crazy claim, just like theists do with god.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 20, 2014, 05:20:59 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"There's a video somewhere showing that the side of Building 7 facing the Twin Towers was completely shredded and pretty much standing on toothpicks toward the end. (I seem to have lost the link, but I think it was dprjones who featured it in one of his debunking videos.) It would be far more surprising if it hadn't collapsed, given what the video shows.

[ Image (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/WTC_aerial2.jpg.html) ]
WTC 6 was significantly shorter than WTC 7. This photo proves nothing. The following video, on the other hand:

[youtube:2re82f7s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEgPNNcdtu4[/youtube:2re82f7s]


Thx

So much for freefall control demolition... :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 20, 2014, 07:46:11 PM
Some of you guys if you looked at yourselves from a different angle you would be amazed at how ridiculous your claims sound.  If I had not read it with my own eyes, I would not believe that I am being accused of sounding like a theist for having blind faith in the Law of Conservation of Energy.  But because I can not point a finger at who placed the explosive charges, and because I can not describe in detail how they managed to rig the demolition, that is seen as sufficient proof that demolition could not have happened.

But, when two buildings across the street are struck by airplanes, each plane carrying 10 thousand gallons of jet fuel, and both buildings across the street come tumbling down, that is cited as sufficient proof that the Law of Conservation of Energy was suspended at Ground Zero on 9/11.  If you said Allah waved his magic wand and spoke, "Let there be a suspension of the laws of nature" it would hardly be more plausible.  (You might get some muslims to believe you though.)
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Consider it refuted.  Move onto your next "point", please.
Wow.  Consider it refuted.  No reasoning, no logic, no evidence, but Thumpalumpacus refutes the laws of physics, and presto, they are refuted.  Do you realize how intelligent that statement sounds?  Because Dr. Sunder (leader of the investigation of WTC 7's demise at the National Institute of Standards and Technology) clearly stated that freefall could not have occurred in WTC 7 because there were structural components resisting the fall.

Sure, fires that burn hot enough can cause steel to loose some of its strength.  I never claimed otherwise.  It is a gradual process that causes the steel to get weaker and weaker with the passage of time.  Theoretically it could cause a building to collapse, even though it never happened before 9/11 and never since.  But steel does not instantaneously loose all of its strength at once.  Full support to zero support in a tiny fraction of a second.  Only some type of incindiary device can do that.  Furthermore, pointing out that one side of the building was burning fiercely while the other side was relatively unharmed only supports the claim that the building could not have come down symetrically if not for cutter devices.

The reason I do not mention the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, or the one at the Pentagon, or even the two that crashed into the Twin Towers is that I do not have conclusive irrefutable proof of anything related to those planes at this time.  What I do have is conclusive irrufutable proof that WTC 7 came down at freefall acceleration, thus intention controlled demolition.

I have furnished you with the proof.  If your faith in what you have believed for years prevents you from accepting the facts of life, fine.  Go on living in your fantasy world.

But remember... Next time you try to reason with a theist you will no longer be able to use science to prove your point, because you have refuted science in this discussion.  Can't have your science and refute it too!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 20, 2014, 07:59:55 PM
Since everybody else posting to this topic is totally sidestepping the issues and merely babbling a lot of gibberish, let me add my own bit of nonsense.  (What the hell, I've already proved my point.)

I keep hearing this term "conspiracy theory" being used in a mocking way.  The people who use the term seem to believe there was no conspiracy behind the 9/11 attacks.  They never really explain their own theory, all they do is parrot what has been pounded into their heads over and over, just like any other religious indoctrinee.

So here is what I assume the Church of the No Conspiracy followers must believe.  (Correct me if I am wrong.)

[center:3963tfi3]CHURCH OF THE NO CONSPIRACY[/center:3963tfi3]
On the morning of 9/11, an Arab businessman on his way to a jihad conference boarded his flight.  After take off and the fasten seat belt lights were turned out, he suddenly got the urge to hijack the aircraft.  Luckily, he happened to be carrying a box cutter.  He stood up, brandishing the box cutter and shouted, "Hey, ya'll.  I'm hijacking this infidel plane.  Anyone with me?"

Another muslim also on his way to the jihad conference (who also just happened to have a box cutter) jumped to his feet.  "Count me in.  Allah is awesome!"  Then another, "Me too!  Death to America!"

The first man asked his two new-found partners, "Can either of you fly this infidel contraption?"  But neiter could.  Looked like their jihad was doomed, until another muslim sprang to his feet, "I can fly a single engine Cessna!  Long live Allah!"

Forcing their way into the cockpit (the third and fourth men also had box cutters by the way) they took over the controls and headed toward WTC 1.  An idea occurred to them: Maybe some other muslims on other planes would join their jihad?

One of them picks up the intercom mic and asks the passengers, "Anybody back there with a cell phone who wants to collect 72 virgins?"  Another muslim (who had a cell phone) piped up, "Did you say 72 virgins?  Allah here I come!"  So the hijackers took turns on the cell phone calling all their other muslim friends on different flights and told them of the plan.  In this way, four airplanes were hijack, all on the spur of the moment, and there was never a conspiracy.

And they all died happily ever after (with their 72 virgins).

The End
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 20, 2014, 08:01:38 PM
Okay then. Say... it was a demolition. I'll humor you. Why the planes then? What about the Pentagon? Do you have any proof that that wasn't a plane attack? And what about the fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, which has an audio track from it's black box detailing the hijacking, reclaiming, and subsequent crash of the plane?
The reason why we're comparing you to theists is twofold: first, you are very active in defending your own ideas from criticism, yet expect us to immediately switch sides upon your words. Second, your argument is a classic example of the logic that is used in the "God of the Gaps" theory, that is, if X did not happen then it MUST be Y. Even if we accept that the buildings didn't fall from being hit by various planes and debris. You have presented no conclusive evidence that their destruction came from a controlled demolition, as opposed to something else. Your racism and bigotry do not help your argument either.
Also, why are you so obsessed with 9/11? So far we've had 3 or 4 threads about it in the past month, and almost all your posts have been about it. Is it really so important as to dedicate all your efforts into discrediting the official claims?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 20, 2014, 08:01:46 PM
So please explain how they rigged the buildings to collapse without a single person noticing.

This is why you sound like a theist...

"I don't believe it's possible it happened naturally, therefor an even more ridiculous claim is the only possible answer!"
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 20, 2014, 08:06:20 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"I have furnished you with the proof.  If your faith in what you have believed for years prevents you from accepting the facts of life, fine.  Go on living in your fantasy world.

But remember... Next time you try to reason with a theist you will no longer be able to use science to prove your point, because you have refuted science in this discussion.  Can't have your science and refute it too!
You haven't refuted a single point made in this thread. Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.) You claim that steel does not suddenly buckle and collapse under weight, but you seem to forget that by the time it fell Building 7 was almost literally standing on toothpicks:

(//http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg)
The dust is not smoke, but debris. You're looking at a giant hole in the south side of the building. The collapse of the north tower sent debris crashing into Building 7, basically gutting it. The building had little to no support, the remaining supports eventually buckled under the weight, and the building basically imploded because there was literally nothing in the center or the back holding it up.

If you still believe it was a controlled demolition then by all means, explain this.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 20, 2014, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Okay then. Say... it was a demolition. I'll humor you. Why the planes then? What about the Pentagon? Do you have any proof that that wasn't a plane attack? And what about the fourth plane, United Airlines Flight 93, which has an audio track from it's black box detailing the hijacking, reclaiming, and subsequent crash of the plane?
Why the planes?  I do not know.  But I would like to see an investigation so that we could find out.
What about the Pentagon?  No, I don't have proof that it was not an airplane.  And I never claimed it was.  Why are you so many others asking me to back up claims I never made?

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"The reason why we're comparing you to theists is twofold: first, you are very active in defending your own ideas from criticism, yet expect us to immediately switch sides upon your words.
No, I don't expect you to "just switch sides."  Most of you are much too brainwashed.  I am simply trying to show you how theists can be as thick headed as they are by putting YOU into their shoes.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Second, your argument is a classic example of the logic that is used in the "God of the Gaps" theory, that is, if X did not happen then it MUST be Y. Even if we accept that the buildings didn't fall from being hit by various planes and debris. you have presented no conclusive evidence that their destruction came from a controlled demolition, as opposed to something else.
For the obvious reason that controlled demolition is the only possibility.  Even if there were other possibilities, controlled demolition being the most obvious and most likely, Occam's Razor would have it that an investigation should be carried out from that perspective.

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Also, why are you so obsessed with 9/11? So far we've had 3 or 4 threads about it in the past month, and almost all your posts have been about it. Is it really so important as to dedicate all your efforts into discrediting the official claims?
Well, I am not dedicating ALL my efforts to discrediting the official conspiracy theory, but I admit that I dedicate much effort.  The reason being that 9/11 has had an enormous impact on society not only in the United States, but around the world.  How many Iraqis were killed or died from lack of sanitation etc. brought on but their country being invaded?  How many Afghani and Pakistani women and children have been murdered by rouge drones?  How have things like freedom of speech, innocent until proved guilty, no cruel or unusual punishment, no search without warrant and so many more gone from a way of life to things of the past?

All of those things were made possible by 9/11.  That is why we need to know what really happened.  I do not know what really happened and I want to find out.  I owe it to my grandchildren to make the effort to find out the truth.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 20, 2014, 08:50:24 PM
We are not brainwashed.We reached our own decisions based on evidence, none of which you have refuted. The "official conspiracy theory" you mentioned is the only one backed up by a large amount of evidence. Your theory has conjecture and speculation to back it up, which is to say it has nothing to back it up at all.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 20, 2014, 09:14:49 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"For the obvious reason that controlled demolition is the only possibility.  Even if there were other possibilities, controlled demolition being the most obvious and most likely, Occam's Razor would have it that an investigation should be carried out from that perspective.
You don't get to say this until you respond to the posts I've made in this thread. You've yet to address a single one of my criticisms.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 20, 2014, 09:16:42 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)
I could, but I won't.  Why should I bother?  

 You would not bother to look at the links even if I posted them (again) and this is obvious from the fact that you did not bother to click the links when I provided them in my OP.  I posted two links in my original post kicking off this discussion.  And I don't understand how a person can "know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster" when even NIST eventually had to admit freefall as a fact.

They denied it at first, and it was while they were still denying freefall when Dr. Sunder explained how freefall was impossible.  But when the evidence stared them in the face, they finally had to admit the truth.

Oh, but why am I writing what I have already written?  You did not read it the first time I wrote it, so you will not read it now.  Deny what I say without even knowing what I said.  Sound familiar?

Did anybody, Hijiri Byakuren or anyone else, anybody click even one of the two links in my OP?  Show of hands, please?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 20, 2014, 09:19:46 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)
I could, but I won't.  Why should I bother?  
Aaaaaand this is where I stopped reading. If the reason isn't obvious, then you're an idiot who has no business spouting this bullshit off as fact.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 20, 2014, 09:21:36 PM
You know the fucktards like to harp on about Building 7 being the first steel structure building to collapse from fire, but how many steel structure buildings have had to deal with a large, out of control fire for several hours? Shit, how many with construction similar to Building 7 have had to do that?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 20, 2014, 09:24:19 PM
Look, just stop this childish banter, Mofo. We have stated our opinion and given evidence for it multiple times by this point, and insulting us will not get us to change our minds.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 20, 2014, 09:26:49 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You know the fucktards like to harp on about Building 7 being the first steel structure building to collapse from fire, but how many steel structure buildings have had to deal with a large, out of control fire for several hours? Shit, how many with construction similar to Building 7 have had to do that?
Especially since the inside of the building was totally consumed by fire because the sprinkler system didn't have the water pressure for a fire of that size; not to mention that half the fucking building was already gouged out by the debris flying out of the north tower. But then again, why would 9/11 "Truthers" be concerned about such small details? :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 20, 2014, 10:03:27 PM
Mofo, you're barking up the wrong demolition. It's been refuted, but conspiracies take on their own life then take over the lives of their theorists.  I used to buy into this foolishness too until it was explained to me why it's nonsense then I simply moved on.
But hey! Conspiracies exist and theories exist. Find a few that make real sense like Chris Christie.  :-k
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 21, 2014, 06:11:15 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I had not read it with my own eyes, I would not believe that I am being accused of sounding like a theist for having blind faith in the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Conservation of Energy doesn't really enter into it.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"But because I can not point a finger at who placed the explosive charges, and because I can not describe in detail how they managed to rig the demolition, that is seen as sufficient proof that demolition could not have happened.

You can't even show that demolition charges were placed at the site.  Let alone specify what explosive was used, who placed them, or how they were detonated.  Until you provide a scrap of evidence that hints at demolition, your ideas are pure conjecture.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Sure, fires that burn hot enough can cause steel to loose some of its strength.  I never claimed otherwise.  It is a gradual process that causes the steel to get weaker and weaker with the passage of time.  Theoretically it could cause a building to collapse, even though it never happened before 9/11 and never since.  But steel does not instantaneously loose all of its strength at once.  Full support to zero support in a tiny fraction of a second.  Only some type of incindiary device can do that.

Fire, and don't forget that some of those load bearing steel girders would have been removed by the several tons of plane slamming into them.  The towers didn't instantly collapse when they were hit by planes.  They stayed up for a little bit while the steel gradually got weaker and weaker until the force exerted by the weight of the stories above exceeded the sheer strength of the steel.  At that point I'd expect the support to approach zero fairly instantaneously.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 21, 2014, 06:21:07 AM
It's funny to see someone with a very strong opinion engage with people with a weak, but opposing opinion. Generally speaking, people with very strong opinions are much more likely to be wrong because it takes more to convince them.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 21, 2014, 07:16:10 AM
Mofo..the notion jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steal makes sense if all you do is pour a bit of kerosene on it and toss a match on it. You're lucky to melt a beer can then, but toss several hundred tons of older building material,  plastic,  furniture, who knows what else and extreme violent forces into a funnel that creates a vacuum and now you have a giant blow torch and melting steel becomes pretty fucking easy.
You're spending to much time up by the tracks by the grassy knoll. Come on down and look at reality. It's pretty nice down here.  :roll:
I'm not an engineer, but did auto body work for years so I have some knowledge of violent forces and steel and I've done more than my share of welding. Steel isn't that tough to weaken with even lower temperatures. It's not as if structural steel is the same stuff they drill oil wells with.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 21, 2014, 07:21:10 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Mofo..the notion jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steal makes sense if all you do is pour a bit of kerosene on it and toss a match on it. You're lucky to melt a beer can then, but toss several hundred tons of older building material,  plastic,  furniture, who knows what else and extreme violent forces into a funnel that creates a vacuum and now you have a giant blow torch and melting steel becomes pretty fucking easy.

(//http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jet_fuel.png)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 21, 2014, 07:26:26 AM
Good one..  =D>  =D>  :lol:
I once bought into that except the chemtrail theory..
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 10:46:33 AM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 11:33:14 AM
Quote from: "jumper"[snip]
Not that I want to interrupt your little group therapy session here, but I still see an awful lot of conjecture and zero evidence. Meanwhile, the rest of us are are providing evidence in copious amounts and being ignored. So why don't y'all stop pontificating about how awesome you are for two seconds, and actually address some of the criticisms we have. Don't talk about how "brave" you are for standing up to us when all the two of you have done thus far is act like a couple goddamn cowards.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 21, 2014, 11:44:35 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Wow.  Consider it refuted.  No reasoning, no logic, no evidence, but Thumpalumpacus refutes the laws of physics, and presto, they are refuted.  

Actually, I didn't refute the laws of physics, which you'll see if you reread my point: I refuted your argument, not any laws of physics.  

I did so using logic, specifically, pointing out that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise; it's a non sequitur (//http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Non_sequitur_(logic).html).  Saying that free-fall "proves" demolition is illogical, because it could also be caused by, y'know, burning steel losing structural strength.

I'm sure the fact that you're ignoring that alternative explanation is in no way connected to the fact that it completely undermines your point.  

You've based your entire argument upon a logical fallacy. Pretty easy to refute that, and no need to address physics at all.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 21, 2014, 11:47:59 AM
QuoteAnd 'the Iraqis that brought down the world trade center'?  

I don't even... Iraqis?

*sigh*

(//http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1314882171384.gif)

First they smuggled copious (ridiculous, one might say) amounts of explosives into the world trade centre, then they did so and wired them without being noticed, then a government that cant keep secrets to save its life has kept it a secret all this time, then buildings that are missing huge chunks of their support and are drenched in jet fuel and other burning shit (as well as having wind gusts fanning the flames from these huge holes in them and intensifying the heat) fall but that is too ridiculous to believe could happen naturally... so therefor it HAD to have been the Jews or the government (or both) in an even more complex and elaborate conspiracy that has little reward to make up for the ridiculous risk they were taking...

I don't even...

(//http://alexoloughlinintensestudy.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/313-sigh.gif?w=300)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 11:54:42 AM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 21, 2014, 11:56:39 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Sure, fires that burn hot enough can cause steel to loose some of its strength.  I never claimed otherwise.  It is a gradual process that causes the steel to get weaker and weaker with the passage of time.  Theoretically it could cause a building to collapse, even though it never happened before 9/11 and never since.

This is incorrect.  Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA)

You'll notice that the failure happens in a very short time (0:49 - 0:52) -- not a gradual process, as you've asserted several times.

 
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"But steel does not instantaneously loose all of its strength at once.  Full support to zero support in a tiny fraction of a second.  Only some type of incindiary device can do that.

This is nonsense.  Gravity being always at play, the moment steel cannot support the weight laid upon it, it fails.  It's true that it takes time for steel to lose structural strength, but once it does, failure is most often catastrophic. If the building itself doesn't collapse instantaneously, well, that's probably because they're built with redundant support members and such.

 
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"But remember... Next time you try to reason with a theist you will no longer be able to use science to prove your point, because you have refuted science in this discussion.  Can't have your science and refute it too!

If that's the case, you'd best stop using logic. You've violated it here, and don't even realize it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 21, 2014, 11:58:00 AM
WHERE. IS. THE . PROOF. OF. EXPLOSIVES? SHOW. ME.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 11:59:28 AM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 12:00:38 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 12:04:58 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 21, 2014, 12:12:06 PM
If you don't believe that, then don't say it like you do and then get pissy when people assume you do.

Also; the Universe is too complex, therefor God MUST HAVE created it. The evidence is in how complex the universe is.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 21, 2014, 12:12:46 PM
Quote from: "jumper"THE. WAY. IT. FELL. IS. THE. PROOF.
No it is not. At this point you have said only why (you think) the towers could not have fallen from a plane crash, not why it had to  be a controlled demolition, nor have you described how said demolition took place.
Also, no theories I've heard have even addressed flight 93, and you still haven't talked about how the Pentagon attack happened if it was not a plane.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 21, 2014, 12:20:46 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)
I could, but I won't.  Why should I bother?  
Aaaaaand this is where I stopped reading. If the reason isn't obvious, then you're an idiot who has no business spouting this bullshit off as fact.
Like that matters.  You never read any of my posts anyway.  If you did, you would know that I already provided you with all the information you are asking for.

Quote from: "Jason78"Conservation of Energy doesn't really enter into it.
Conservation of Energy... How does it NOT enter into it?  What it means is that you've got only a finite amount of energy.  You can not create new energy out of thin air.  Now, freefall means that 100% of energy is being used to propel the building toward the ground.  Id est, there is 0% energy remaining to crush the structural steel and concrete.  Even if the steel was weakened by the heat, you could not pulverize concrete with zero energy nor could you turn "weakened" steel into pretzels.  Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete and bend weakened steel?  I would like to see a demonstration.

Quote from: "Jason78"You can't even show that demolition charges were placed at the site.  Let alone specify what explosive was used, who placed them, or how they were detonated.  Until you provide a scrap of evidence that hints at demolition, your ideas are pure conjecture.
No, I can not show you that demolition charges were placed at the site any more than you can show me Osama bin Laden masterminded the attack.  If you do your own research, you will find plausible theories as to how the charges were placed, but those theories are nothing but plausible theories.  I am not saying I have proof for anything other than that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.  How, who, why, etcetera need to be investigated.  That is why I advocate a real investigation.


Quote from: "Jason78"Fire, and don't forget that some of those load bearing steel girders would have been removed by the several tons of plane slamming into them.  The towers didn't instantly collapse when they were hit by planes.  They stayed up for a little bit while the steel gradually got weaker and weaker until the force exerted by the weight of the stories above exceeded the sheer strength of the steel.  At that point I'd expect the support to approach zero fairly instantaneously.
Several tons of plane slamming into WTC 7? ? ? ? ?   :shock:
First time I ever heard that!  Can you provide me with a link or something to show that WTC 7 was hit by a plane?  If so, which plane?  One plane hit WTC 1, a second plane hit WTC 2, a third plane hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed into a field.  Was there a fith plane that crashed into WTC 7?  Or did one of the planes hit two buildings?  or what?


Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Mofo..the notion jet fuel doesn't get hot enough to melt steal makes sense if all you do is pour a bit of kerosene on it and toss a match on it.
:Hangman:
Call me retarded, but please explain how jet fuel got into WTC 7?


Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Good one..  =D>  =D>  :lol:
I once bought into that except the chemtrail theory..
So now you are saying chemtrails caused some sort of quantum shift, resulting in the suspension of the laws of physics? ? ?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 12:22:34 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 21, 2014, 12:30:17 PM
QuoteFirst they smuggled copious (ridiculous, one might say) amounts of explosives into the world trade centre, then they did so and wired them without being noticed, then a government that cant keep secrets to save its life has kept it a secret all this time, then buildings that are missing huge chunks of their support and are drenched in jet fuel and other burning shit (as well as having wind gusts fanning the flames from these huge holes in them and intensifying the heat) fall but that is too ridiculous to believe could happen naturally... so therefor it HAD to have been the Jews or the government (or both) in an even more complex and elaborate conspiracy that has little reward to make up for the ridiculous risk they were taking...

Again; what you propose is far more ridiculous than believing that steel gets weaker when its heated and collapsed. Add onto that gas lines and electrical fires exploding and heating up the metal even more and I just don't see how you can say, "Nope, that sound's ridiculous... therefor it HAD to be a cover-up on a scale never-before seen!".
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 21, 2014, 12:39:09 PM
ITT: Morons who can't understand that gradual processes can bring about sudden and catastrophic results.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 21, 2014, 12:39:40 PM
QuoteNo, I can not show you that demolition charges were placed at the site any more than you can show me Osama bin Laden masterminded the attack.

He can, however, show probable cause/the fact that OBL claimed responsibility/the fact that the hijackers were under OBL's command... which gives him a bit more credibility than explosives magically appearing without anyone knowing about them.

QuoteI am not saying I have proof for anything other than that WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition with zero evidence of explosives having been planted. Damn.

QuoteSeveral tons of plane slamming into WTC 7? ? ? ? ?  :shock:
First time I ever heard that! Can you provide me with a link or something to show that WTC 7 was hit by a plane?

He was talking about the towers. He did however post a nice little video of how much damage WTC 7 took from the tons and tons of debris that slammed into it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 01:35:23 PM
Quote from: "jumper""In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure."
You're right, and they didn't in this case either. Notice the hole:

(//http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on January 21, 2014, 01:37:05 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"ITT: Morons who can't understand that gradual processes can bring about sudden and catastrophic results.


It's called Chaos Theory.

BTW, Einstein had discovered chaos motion in a paper he published in 1917. But nobody picked that up. It was only in the 1970's that people realized Einstein had already thread those waters before anyone else. This is conclusive proof that a genius like Einstein can advance human knowledge by half a century.

If only the Conspiracy Theorists would take a page from that. But I digress...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 01:43:54 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 21, 2014, 01:44:07 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)
I could, but I won't.  Why should I bother?  

I'd actually like to see the math :)  I like numbers.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"No, I can not show you that demolition charges were placed at the site any more than you can show me Osama bin Laden masterminded the attack.

So we're agreed.  You don't know what charges were used, where they were placed, who placed them, how they were detonated, or when.  But you still expect me to believe that your demolition theory is correct.  Even though there is documented evidence (//http://web.archive.org/web/20110711003559/http://www.firehouse.com/stateprovince/new-york/deputy-chief-peter-hayden) of the building slowly deforming and then suddenly giving way.

I don't know why I would show you evidence that Osama masterminded the attack.  I've never asserted that he had.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Jason78"Fire, and don't forget that some of those load bearing steel girders would have been removed by the several tons of plane slamming into them.  The towers didn't instantly collapse when they were hit by planes.  They stayed up for a little bit while the steel gradually got weaker and weaker until the force exerted by the weight of the stories above exceeded the sheer strength of the steel.  At that point I'd expect the support to approach zero fairly instantaneously.
Several tons of plane slamming into WTC 7? ? ? ? ?   :shock:
First time I ever heard that!  Can you provide me with a link or something to show that WTC 7 was hit by a plane?  If so, which plane?  One plane hit WTC 1, a second plane hit WTC 2, a third plane hit the Pentagon, and a fourth plane crashed into a field.  Was there a fith plane that crashed into WTC 7?  Or did one of the planes hit two buildings?  or what?

Sorry, I misspoke.  WTC 7 collapsed after being by the substantial debris flying out of WTC 1.  See paragraph L.2.1 (//http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 01:56:28 PM
Quote from: "jumper"Do you think that damaged side of that building made it collapse like it did?
Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by "hole."

(//http://www.godzilla-movies.com/media/godzilla2014-trailer-screenshot-033.jpg)

Picture that, but bigger, and not quite reaching the other side. You don't get the kind of smoke cloud Building 7 had without that kind of damage.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 21, 2014, 02:26:32 PM
You know, forensic teams at the site would have picked up evidence of explosives. So for those of you stating that a controlled demolition took place you also have to account for the fact that out of the hundreds of forensic scientists, materials specialists, explosives experts, and other assorted people trained to notice this sort of thing NOT ONE of them came forward and said ANYTHING.

 These aren't people associated with the government, they're civilians from all walks of life who spent years sifting through and studying the debris, and yet not a single fucking one has come forward to suggest that explosives were used. When you suggest that explosive charges were used you are contradicting the largest forensic investigation of its kind. The burden of evidence is on you to prove that explosives were used, and "the buildings didn't fall in the way I expected them to" doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 02:55:53 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 03:04:18 PM
Quote from: "jumper"[ Image (//http://investigate911.org/Red-Thermite-Chips-Superthermite-Super-Nano-Thermate-Thermitic-Jones-Dust-911-World-Trade-Center-WTC-investigate911-org-Nano-Thermite.jpg) ]

Nano-thermite explosives shown above were gathered from the WTC debris shortly after the towers fell on 9/11.  Brigham Young University Physics Professor, Dr. Steven Jones, discovered the explosives and joined an international team of nine scientists for further analysis.  Through extensive laboratory testing, the scientists concluded that the samples were Nano-thermitic explosives.

http://investigate911.org/Nano-thermite.htm (http://investigate911.org/Nano-thermite.htm)

Oh, and did you know that there was $40million spent on investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, but only $14 million spent on investigating the 9/11 events?
Thermite doesn't burn like that. (//http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 21, 2014, 03:24:03 PM
Quote from: "jumper"Oh, and did you know that there was $40million spent on investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, but only $14 million spent on investigating the 9/11 events?
That was money spent on the commission alone. You're conveniently leaving out what was spent on other organisations investigating 9/11. So congrats, you're either dishonest and misleading or really dumb. Take your pick.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on January 21, 2014, 03:44:01 PM
Considering no one here actually knows what happen leaves the question of what really happen unknown. It does seem strange to me that three building went down from two planes, and our CIA had no idea it was going to happen, considering they were attacked before, and France warned them that they had a warning of an attack on the Eifel Tower by a plane. Also, these buildings were constructed to take a hit from a 747 jumbo jet. Not all conspiracy theories are without evidence they were planned ahead, including JFK and his brother. Spying on us by the government was just a theory before the truth came out. Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 03:44:09 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 21, 2014, 04:02:12 PM
Quote from: "jumper"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "jumper"Oh, and did you know that there was $40million spent on investigating the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, but only $14 million spent on investigating the 9/11 events?
That was money spent on the commission alone. You're conveniently leaving out what was spent on other organisations investigating 9/11. So congrats, you're either dishonest and misleading or really dumb. Take your pick.

I should have stated, That's what the gov't spent on investigating 9/11. Strange they didn't spend more on it though, right? I mean, this was a huge event. Bigger, IMO, than Lewinsky. And now here we are spending trillions on the wars. You've said people should just let 9/11 go? No way. Do you forget what is going on over seas since 9/11 because of what the gov't told us happened on 9/11!? Shutting that out and just spewing "Oh, let 9/11 go, it was YEARS ago!" To me, that's dumb.
That was ONE government commission. While I can't find details of how much they were funded, the FBI spent nearly 4 million hours by June of 2002 investigating 9/11 under PENTTBOM. It was their largest and most extensive investigation ever. They used 7000 agents in their investigation efforts. 7000 out of the 11000 they had at the time.

 NIST was allocated $16 million in September 2002 to investigate.

Now add to that the investigations by insurance companies and other parties and the costs are fucking astronomical.

Dishonest or dumb, what are you?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 21, 2014, 04:10:08 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Now, freefall means that 100% of energy is being used to propel the building toward the ground.  Id est, there is 0% energy remaining to crush the structural steel and concrete.  Even if the steel was weakened by the heat, you could not pulverize concrete with zero energy nor could you turn "weakened" steel into pretzels.  Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete and bend weakened steel?  I would like to see a demonstration.

You seem to have forgotten this basic bit of physics: F=m*a
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 21, 2014, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"Considering no one here actually knows what happen leaves the question of what really happen unknown. It does seem strange to me that three building went down from two planes, and our CIA had no idea it was going to happen, considering they were attacked before, and France warned them that they had a warning of an attack on the Eifel Tower by a plane. Also, these buildings were constructed to take a hit from a 747 jumbo jet. Not all conspiracy theories are without evidence they were planned ahead, including JFK and his brother. Spying on us by the government was just a theory before the truth came out. Solitary
Again, the WTC attacks were not the only ones. If you have a theory that includes the other two attacks, fell free to share. So far the most of gotten out of any of these theories regarding the other two planes is a I don't know and a it wasn't a plane.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 04:43:47 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 21, 2014, 04:49:41 PM
Here, I found a link that talks alllll about various 9/11 "theories" and how ridiculous they are. Please read. They specifically address the "thermite theory" as well.
 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 21, 2014, 04:50:24 PM
Quote from: "jumper"The 9/11 commission was Bush and congress' way 'to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks.' And they spent as minimal as they could.

(//http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnfhmsYw7H1qh0epb.gif)

Great job ignoring my post where I pointed out the extensive costs from government agencies other than the Commission. You're really grade A, top of the line aren't ya?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 05:26:08 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "jumper"The 9/11 commission was Bush and congress' way 'to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks.' And they spent as minimal as they could.

[ Image (//http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lnfhmsYw7H1qh0epb.gif) ]

Great job ignoring my post where I pointed out the extensive costs from government agencies other than the Commission. You're really grade A, top of the line aren't ya?
Don't be too surprised. He's ignored everything of mine as well.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 21, 2014, 05:55:55 PM
(//http://oi45.tinypic.com/2m2f03a.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 21, 2014, 06:13:07 PM
@AtheistMoFo: Cybercommuter, is that you?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 21, 2014, 08:13:43 PM
I've been to the grassy knoll, even passed out drunk there before. You wouldn't believe all the telephone poles with mind control probes. Most of them move now. We call them tourists,  but anyone who's ever lived near Dallas can tell you they're really mind probing androids...big cell phones with legs.. :shock:  :-$  :-$  :-$
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 21, 2014, 10:15:10 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This is incorrect.  Look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA)
You'll notice that the failure happens in a very short time (0:49 - 0:52) -- not a gradual process, as you've asserted several times.
Somebody switched the videos on you between the time you posted this and when I watched.  What I saw (0:49 - 0:52) was a partial and uneven collapse, with so much smoke that it is impossible to determine the exact timing of the collapse.  Quite unlike the video I posted of the WTC 7 symetrical total collapse that is in plain sight and easliy measurable.  Also, we do not know when/where your builiding collapse took place or whether it was controlled demolition or not.
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"
Quote from: "jumper"THE. WAY. IT. FELL. IS. THE. PROOF.
No it is not. At this point you have said only why (you think) the towers could not have fallen from a plane crash, ...
Duh.  I think Jumper was talking about WTC 7, not WTC 2 or WTC 2.  But even those collapses are very suspicious.  Suspicious enough to call for a REAL investigation, which has never happened.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "jumper""In over 100 years of experience with steel-framed buildings, fires have never caused the collapse of a single one, even though many were ravaged by severe fires. Indeed, fires have never caused the total collapse of any permanent steel structure."
You're right, and they didn't in this case either. Notice the hole:...
If you are making a claim that the debris from either or both of the towers caused the collapse, you are contradicting the findings of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) because they say "normal office fires" were the cause of the WTC 7 collapse.  If you claim the hole in WTC 7 caused it to collapse, where is your evidence?  You are so keen on demanding evidence from Jumper and me, but you make claims and no need to back up?  You don't get to say the hole caused the collapse until you show us the evidence.
Quote from: "Jason78"I'd actually like to see the math :)  I like numbers.
Then by all means please do!  I posted links in my OP.
Quote from: "Jason78"So we're agreed.  You don't know what charges were used, where they were placed, who placed them, how they were detonated, or when.  But you still expect me to believe that your demolition theory is correct.
Actually I do have a pretty good idea, but I am not making that argument in this thread.  If you really wanted to know, you could do your own research and you would easily find the answers you are looking for.  My point is that WTC 7 was intentionally demolished, and freefall is the smoking gun.
Quote from: "Jason78"I don't know why I would show you evidence that Osama masterminded the attack.  I've never asserted that he had.
And this is coming from the person who talks about "...girders would have been removed by the several tons of plane slamming into them.  The towers ..." when the only claims I have ever made are about WTC 7?  Sheesh!   :rollin:
Quote from: "Jason78"Sorry, I misspoke.  WTC 7 collapsed after being by the substantial debris flying out of WTC 1.  See paragraph L.2.1 (//http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf)
You not only misspoke.  You also misLinked.See paragraph L.2.1 (//http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) brings up only a blank page.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by "hole."
Oh, no!  Now you are trying to blame Godzilla!  Man, I have heard some outrageous theories, but...
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You know, forensic teams at the site would have picked up evidence of explosives. So for those of you stating that a controlled demolition took place you also have to account for the fact that out of the hundreds of forensic scientists, materials specialists, explosives experts, and other assorted people trained to notice this sort of thing NOT ONE of them came forward and said ANYTHING.
The fact is, there are MANY such scientists and specialists.  But seek not, find not.  Why not try looking for them rather than just make up claims that they don't exist?  Same for the official investigators at ground zero, they did not find evidence of controlled demolition, but they also admit that they did not look for evidence of controlled demolition.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 21, 2014, 10:17:21 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Now, freefall means that 100% of energy is being used to propel the building toward the ground.  Id est, there is 0% energy remaining to crush the structural steel and concrete.  Even if the steel was weakened by the heat, you could not pulverize concrete with zero energy nor could you turn "weakened" steel into pretzels.  Have you ever tried to pulverize concrete and bend weakened steel?  I would like to see a demonstration.

You seem to have forgotten this basic bit of physics: F=m*a
Ah!  You've switched sides !

F = M times A is exactly what I have been talking about this whole time!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 10:28:08 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"You're right, and they didn't in this case either. Notice the hole:...
If you are making a claim that the debris from either or both of the towers caused the collapse, you are contradicting the findings of NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) because they say "normal office fires" were the cause of the WTC 7 collapse.  If you claim the hole in WTC 7 caused it to collapse, where is your evidence?  You are so keen on demanding evidence from Jumper and me, but you make claims and no need to back up?  You don't get to say the hole caused the collapse until you show us the evidence.
I have presented a plausible explanation gathered from the facts; fuck NIST, they don't enter into it. Also, you have yet to present any evidence that explosives were planted in any of the buildings, not to mention explain how they got in there unnoticed, as well as how and why they thought planes would be needed to fake the whole thing. Your explanation of explosives also accounts for none of the events surrounding the plane that hit the Pentagon, nor the one that crashed in Pennsylvania that was headed for the Capitol Building. So don't give me this crap about "you don't get to say" such and such when you have presented less evidence than the people you are accusing.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Perhaps you're not understanding what I mean by "hole."
Oh, no!  Now you are trying to blame Godzilla!  Man, I have heard some outrageous theories, but...
You're a fucking retard.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 10:30:32 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Ah!  You've switched sides !

F = M times A is exactly what I have been talking about this whole time!
Then how about some math, bitch? We're all waiting with baited breath.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 11:09:30 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 11:16:38 PM
Quote from: "jumper"a Godzilla-like hole
Yes, yes, let's focus on the fact that the picture happens to be from Godzilla, and not on the fact that you had to have it explained to you that when people say "hole," they do not mean, "the side of a building got scraped." We're talking about an event that resulted in around 3000 people dying, and you and Mofo need to be guided through simple terms as though you're small children. I might have turned on the forum's ignore feature by now, if not for my astonishment that two human beings who have not undergone a process of indoctrination can nevertheless cling to a belief in the face of massive evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 21, 2014, 11:27:34 PM
Speaking of holes, did you see the one in the pentagon that was apparently from a 757?

(//http://notafreemason.com/the7thfire/pentagonxox30.jpg)

Nevermind, let's not go there.  8-[
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 21, 2014, 11:40:00 PM
Quote from: "jumper"Nevermind, let's not go there.  8-[
Smartest thing you've said this whole thread, but let's entertain this for a moment:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... s-pentagon (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-pentagon)
QuoteWhy wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 12:35:10 AM
Quote from: "jumper"Rocks, I'm not ignoring, just have not had time to respond to everything today. Ok, so yes there was more than $14,000 spent on investigating 9/11. I admit that.

How about where you didn't answer anything back about your feelings on insisting we 'let 9/11 go' even though we have been in decade long wars...

And at some point, you stated
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"These aren't people associated with the government, they're civilians from all walks of life who spent years sifting through and studying the debris, and yet not a single fucking one has come forward to suggest that explosives were used.

And I answered back with
Quote from: "jumper"Nano-thermite explosives shown above were gathered from the WTC debris shortly after the towers fell on 9/11. Brigham Young University Physics Professor, Dr. Steven Jones, discovered the explosives and joined an international team of nine scientists for further analysis. Through extensive laboratory testing, the scientists concluded that the samples were Nano-thermitic explosives.

And if you clicked the link, you'd see that "After a rigorous peer-review process, their paper was published in the Bentham Chemical Physics Journal, which has been endorsed by Nobel Laureates and is respected within the scientific community."

But wait..
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"and yet not a single fucking one has come forward to suggest that explosives were used

So, now, are you being dishonest or dumb?

And 2 things Hijiri. First, it really doesn't matter, but I'm a she  :-| And second, Ok, so you believe that a Godzilla-like hole along with the fires and ground shaking caused building 7 to fall like it did. Ok, if that's what you believe that's fine with me. I get it though, that they claim it was more than fire that brought it down. Still, to me, it looks like a controlled demolition.

Seriously this debate could go on and on and on. I'm just stating what I think. I have no idea what really happened that day or the following days. I just get angry that we've been at war for years because of this whole 9/11 story, that I find completely suspicious.
They found "active thermite" material. Do you have any idea what "active thermite" material is? Aluminum and iron oxide. What do they make planes out of? Aluminum. What do they make buildings out of? Steel, some of which is oxidized. What happens when a plane hits a steel building? Dust is produced. Now if they found reacted thermite (the products of a thermite reaction: aluminum oxide and free iron) in sufficient quantities you'd have something to show.

Also I do apologize, but Betham being a respected journal? Are you fucking kidding me? The same assholes who nearly accepted a nonsense article for money? Their peer review process is at best applied inconsistently.

As per Jones, I can't find anything that indicates he was an official investigator of the 9/11 attacks. He was a scientist, all right, but not an actual investigator of the attacks.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 01:03:04 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You know, forensic teams at the site would have picked up evidence of explosives. So for those of you stating that a controlled demolition took place you also have to account for the fact that out of the hundreds of forensic scientists, materials specialists, explosives experts, and other assorted people trained to notice this sort of thing NOT ONE of them came forward and said ANYTHING.
The fact is, there are MANY such scientists and specialists.  But seek not, find not.  Why not try looking for them rather than just make up claims that they don't exist?  Same for the official investigators at ground zero, they did not find evidence of controlled demolition, but they also admit that they did not look for evidence of controlled demolition.
I sought and I didn't find any official investigators who have challenged the official report. If I am wrong in that then please direct me to someone who actually worked compiling evidence at the scene who challenged the official report, maybe my Google-fu is rusty.

They didn't specifically look for evidence of a controlled demolition, but even if they didn't specifically look for evidence of a controlled demolition they would have found it if it existed. Explosives of all types leave behind a shit ton of evidence. All it would take to find the chemical reactants of an explosion would be to take a chemical sample of the debris. If you're going to suggest that they didn't do that then you have no fucking idea how a forensic investigation works.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 22, 2014, 03:41:06 AM
Can I ask a really dumb question? If they blew up the WTC with explosives, why the hell were they dumb enough to make it freefall when this is clearly evidence that explosives have been used and that's exactly what they were trying to avoid showing?  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 05:01:12 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Can I ask a really dumb question? If they blew up the WTC with explosives, why the hell were they dumb enough to make it freefall when this is clearly evidence that explosives have been used and that's exactly what they were trying to avoid showing?  :roll:

Dude shut up, don't you know it's reverse psychology? They made it look like a controlled demolition so you would think it was a terrorist attack. Just like Jesus buried dinosaur bones so you'd believe in him.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 22, 2014, 05:35:47 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Jason78"I'd actually like to see the math :)  I like numbers.
Then by all means please do!  I posted links in my OP.

Hang on...  You're the one that's asserting that the building fell in a controlled demolition.  You're the one that said you could do the math to show it.

I'm not doing your homework for you!


Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Jason78"So we're agreed.  You don't know what charges were used, where they were placed, who placed them, how they were detonated, or when.  But you still expect me to believe that your demolition theory is correct.
Actually I do have a pretty good idea, but I am not making that argument in this thread.

So you're still making the argument that WTC fell by controlled demolition, and you have some sort of idea how it occurred;  yet you aren't going to tell us.  

Okay...
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Jason78"Sorry, I misspoke.  WTC 7 collapsed after being by the substantial debris flying out of WTC 1.  See paragraph L.2.1 (//http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf)
You not only misspoke.  You also misLinked.See paragraph L.2.1 (//http://web.archive.org/web/20070809030232/http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf) brings up only a blank page.

I made a mistake and I admitted it.  Which is more than you've done in this thread.   Did you even try waiting for the PDF to load?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Atheon on January 22, 2014, 06:06:44 AM
Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 22, 2014, 09:51:03 AM
Quote from: "Atheon"Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI)
Ah, thanks, I was looking for that. No wonder I couldn't find it, I thought it was dprjones who had done it, not Edward.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on January 22, 2014, 11:20:45 AM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Atheon"Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI)
Ah, thanks, I was looking for that. No wonder I couldn't find it, I thought it was dprjones who had done it, not Edward.
I think dprjones video was on (one of) the twin towers
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on January 22, 2014, 01:07:59 PM
Quote from: "Atheon"Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI)

This. When conspiracy nuts think that the entire building fell at freefall, they willfully disregard the fact that the penthouse collapsed about 8 seconds prior, which was a sign that the building was already falling.

Also, the building was never the most well-built one to begin with, as it was built around a pre-existing ConEd power substation and as such was quite a bit of engineering schenannigans down at the base. Add in the fact that there had been the energy equivalent of an entire squadron of B-52 bomber loadouts in the form of the twin towers collapsing right next to it, it's surprising that the building stayed up as long as it did.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 22, 2014, 02:01:52 PM
Quote[And I answered back with
Quote from: "jumper"Nano-thermite explosives shown above were gathered from the WTC debris shortly after the towers fell on 9/11. Brigham Young University Physics Professor, Dr. Steven Jones, discovered the explosives and joined an international team of nine scientists for further analysis. Through extensive laboratory testing, the scientists concluded that the samples were Nano-thermitic explosives.

And if you clicked the link, you'd see that "After a rigorous peer-review process, their paper was published in the Bentham Chemical Physics Journal, which has been endorsed by Nobel Laureates and is respected within the scientific community."
From the article I posted:
Thermite was used to cut structural members in the buildings

Rebuttal: This is based on a few pictures of vertical beams that had been sheared off by recovery workers. Although a thermite reaction is highly exothermic, it is nearly impossible to effectively channel it sideways to cut a vertical beam, since it tends to pour straight down as it burns. Some creative truthers have suggested the use of "thermite straps"; given that thermite is generally a powder delivered from a cone-shaped cup, it's not clear that such a device is even possible, much less practical. This was later amended to thermate, a variation which includes sulfur, and appeared when there were chemicals were found that matched what was found in the debris. However, such claims ignore the natural occurrence of these chemicals, do not match the chemical signatures that were found in the debris, and do not have corresponding traces of two major byproducts from thermate, aluminum oxide[10] and barium nitrate.[11]

Moreover, the thermite reaction is highly exothermic. Supposed evidence of thermite use is the presence of unreacted thermite in the WTC debris. This, however, comes as close to falsifying the hypothesis of thermite use as one can reasonably get: any place containing significant amounts of elemental aluminum and iron oxide (unreacted thermite), yet not far higher amounts of aluminum oxide and elemental iron (the reaction products), can be safely assumed to be not even close to where a thermite reaction recently occurred. This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue. But this would require attaching some 100 metric tons[12] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure, in hundreds or even thousands of small packages, with nobody noticing. And even if that were true, the corresponding amount of reacted thermite has simply failed to turn up. Finding thermite educts yet failing to find the appropriate amount of thermite products turns the supposed "proof" of thermite use into a quite robust refutation of thermite use.

In any case, "unreacted thermite" is composed (in bulk) of elemental aluminum and iron oxide. Commercial aircraft contain enormous amounts of aluminum, and the WTC was a steel-frame building. If an airliner crashes at high speed into a large steel-frame building, causing an enormous explosion, fire, and building collapse, we can expect to find aluminum and iron oxide in the debris, and no thermite charges are required to explain it.

A more recent truther claim is that traces of red-gray chips and iron-rich microspheres in the WTC rubble are best explained by thermite. This is held as their "smoking gun." A study of the dust from Ground Zero contradicts this: "There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips..."[13] Essentially, the chips are epoxy resins. Unfortunately, any explosives or their markers were never officially tested
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 22, 2014, 02:45:38 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This is incorrect.  Look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA)
You'll notice that the failure happens in a very short time (0:49 - 0:52) -- not a gradual process, as you've asserted several times.
Somebody switched the videos on you between the time you posted this and when I watched.  What I saw (0:49 - 0:52) was a partial and uneven collapse, with so much smoke that it is impossible to determine the exact timing of the collapse.  Quite unlike the video I posted of the WTC 7 symetrical total collapse that is in plain sight and easliy measurable.  Also, we do not know when/where your builiding collapse took place or whether it was controlled demolition or not.

That was posted in response to your claim that no steel-framed building had ever, in history, collapsed.

And that it wasn't as complete as you'd like doesn't mean that it didn't collapse; it doesn't mean that WTC7 was demolished; and it doesn't mean that you're right.  The collapse in this case was partial likely because some of the other redundant members of the building weren't damaged by a collapsing skyscraper next door.  Had this building suffered from physical impact as well as fire damage then perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly.   But the fact remains that despite your claim to the contrary, a steel-framed building has, in history, collapsed as a result of fire.

You're clearly wrong.  Steel-framed building do collapse, due to fire. You've been presented with evidence.

Furthermore, the building in the video collapsed as a result of fire, not demolition.  Look it up.

In short, this is special pleading on your part.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 22, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
And once again, to cause a building to cave in a certain way requires a considerable amount of deconstruction. It would take weeks and require many, many people, tons of explosives and there is no way you could hide that activity from discovery. Watch a video of how professionals bring down high rise buildings. You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else. You have to physically cut columns with power tools and insert explosives at hundreds of locations to make it detonate sequentially in a specific pattern.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 03:36:37 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"And once again, to cause a building to cave in a certain way requires a considerable amount of deconstruction. It would take weeks and require many, many people, tons of explosives and there is no way you could hide that activity from discovery. Watch a video of how professionals bring down high rise buildings. You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else. You have to physically cut columns with power tools and insert explosives at hundreds of locations to make it detonate sequentially in a specific pattern.
But...but in the video it looked like a controlled demolition! Why are you being such a meanie with your reason and logic?
(//http://snowder.com/blog/crybaby_02.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on January 22, 2014, 04:39:22 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else.
Much (all?) of which could be be damaged or destroyed by fire.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: FrankDK on January 22, 2014, 04:40:37 PM
>  NOT EVEN ONE person who posted here even bothers to come up with a lame ass excuse of how the laws of physics could have been suspended for a few seconds on September 11. My point was, and still is, freefall is impossible if controlled demolition is ruled out.

No one needed to explain how the laws of physics were suspended, because there is no evidence that they were.  Measurements based on multiple videos of the collapses show that the disintegration of the towers proceeded at about 2/3 freefall, which is what you would expect under the circumstances.  The continued claim that they fell at the rate of freefall is simply a lie.

Why did the second tower struck fall first?  If it were controlled demolition, the first tower struck would have been scheduled for demolition first.

Why didn't anyone notice the hundreds of workers who would have been needed to install the demolition materials?

Why hasn't even one person of the thousands who would have been in on such a conspiracy come forward by now?  There have been many other whistle-blowers on many other issues.  Why not one on this one?

And most damaging to your delusion is the question, where did you get the idea that the Bush administration was competent to pull off anything at all, let alone something of this magnitude?

Your claims, like the story of Noah's Ark, fall apart under the least scrutiny.

Frank
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 04:56:12 PM
Quote from: "Poison Tree"
Quote from: "stromboli"You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else.
Much (all?) of which could be be damaged or destroyed by fire.
Lol wut?

The point here isn't that the wires and such would've been found, but rather that installing all of that while people are still working at the building and having no one at all notice is ridiculous to say the least. Can you covertly place bombs in a building? Certainly! Can you covertly place them in such a manner as to cause a controlled demolition? Hell no.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on January 22, 2014, 06:11:29 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "Poison Tree"
Quote from: "stromboli"You have miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else.
Much (all?) of which could be be damaged or destroyed by fire.
Lol wut?

The point here isn't that the wires and such would've been found, but rather that installing all of that while people are still working at the building and having no one at all notice is ridiculous to say the least. Can you covertly place bombs in a building? Certainly! Can you covertly place them in such a manner as to cause a controlled demolition? Hell no.
My comment was intended to say that, if I had wired a building for controlled demolition, I'd be nervous that 7 hours of out of control fire would damage the "miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else" so that they may not work as intended once it is finally time to bring down the building.

Even if an army of ninjas had rigged the building to blow, the fire would likely have destroyed some of their work.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 06:23:25 PM
Quote from: "Poison Tree"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Lol wut?

The point here isn't that the wires and such would've been found, but rather that installing all of that while people are still working at the building and having no one at all notice is ridiculous to say the least. Can you covertly place bombs in a building? Certainly! Can you covertly place them in such a manner as to cause a controlled demolition? Hell no.
My comment was intended to say that, if I had wired a building for controlled demolition, I'd be nervous that 7 hours of out of control fire would damage the "miles of cables, wires, Primacord, connection junctions and who knows what else" so that they may not work as intended once it is finally time to bring down the building.

Even if an army of ninjas had rigged the building to blow, the fire would likely have destroyed some of their work.

Ah, ok then. :)

Yeah, it's not like the miles of cords, time delays, and other such things are the most robust system. If the timing is off by even a fraction of a second, or heaven forbid some of your cord has been knocked out by flying debris and fire for some odd reason, then your carefully planned demolition would end in failure.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 22, 2014, 06:36:48 PM
Are yous peoples still debating this? It was Obama.. everyone knows it. [-(
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 06:45:33 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Are yous peoples still debating this? It was Obama.. everyone knows it. [-(
It was reptilian Russian space Jews dumbass.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 22, 2014, 07:15:53 PM
Alright..it's solved once and for all. 911 was a Supertramp conspiracy. Don't believe in the Supertramp conspiracy? Fiest your grubby unbelievers eyes.  :shock: ..uhh...err..*feast*
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/21/how_sup ... cies_ever/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/01/21/how_supertramp_got_involved_in_one_of_the_weirdest_911_truther_conspiracies_ever/)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 22, 2014, 07:56:44 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Here, I found a link that talks alllll about various 9/11 "theories" and how ridiculous they are. Please read. They specifically address the "thermite theory" as well.
 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)
On November 10, 2001, G.W. Bush said, "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."  And yet, that is exactly what has happened.  Some people subscribe to the mini-nuke theory, others say it was a satellite based particle beam weapon, and at least one person seems to buy into the "Godzilla did it" theory.

But of all the wacky theories, the one that has to be most outrageous of them all is the Osama bin Laden and his al qaeda gang.  One would think this RationalWiki website formed by a group of renegades who bolted from Conservapeda and whose self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas" would at least have picked up on the Godzilla theory.  But no, they don't mention Godzilla.  Nor do they mention the Al Qaeda theory.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I have presented a plausible explanation gathered from the facts; fuck NIST, they don't enter into it. Also, you have yet to present any evidence that explosives were planted in any of the buildings, not to mention explain how they got in there unnoticed, as well as how and why they thought planes would be needed to fake the whole thing. Your explanation of explosives also accounts for none of the events surrounding the plane that hit the Pentagon, nor the one that crashed in Pennsylvania that was headed for the Capitol Building. So don't give me this crap about "you don't get to say" such and such when you have presented less evidence than the people you are accusing.
Fuck NIST.  Okay, got it.

You have presented plausible evidence of nothing.  And perhaps you should take another look at the title of this thread.  The question is not HOW they smuggled the explosives into the buildings.  That would be a topic for a whole new thread.  If you really wanted to know, you would google it.  Then start your own new thread.  But, just like the investigators who did not find evidnece of controlled demolition because they did not LOOK for evidence of controlled demolition, you can't find an explanation of how the explosives got into the building because you don't look for an explanation.  A while back someone in this discussion mentioned jet fuel being in the building.  Why not ASK HIM how the jet fuel got into WTC 7?

My point was, has been, still is, and always will be that freefall is an impossibility according to the laws of physics unless ALL structural support is removed instantaneously.  Not gradually, but within a small fraction of a second.  And by that I mean ALL support columns would have to be removed across the whole building, evenly distributed, not just a column failing here, another over there a few minutes later, and another minutes after that.  You have not demonstrated how that is possible due only to normal office fires.  Show me evidence of YOUR theory.

Have you ever seen a wooden structure burn to the ground?  Wood has nowhere near the strength of concrete and steel.  Have you ever seen the entire wooden structure fall in one fell swoop?  Even a one or two story house, you will have beams falling apart here, and there, and when the whole thing comes crashing down, section by section, does it come down uniformly and at freefall acceleration?  I have never seen that happen.

In WTC 7 we are talking about the 18 story section that visibly came down at measurable freefall acceleration.  Explain that.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 08:07:15 PM
Quotemeasurable freefall acceleration

You keep on saying that as if it's a fact.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 22, 2014, 08:36:40 PM
Supertramp did it. Case closed.  :evil:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 22, 2014, 09:09:29 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"I sought and I didn't find any official investigators who have challenged the official report. If I am wrong in that then please direct me to someone who actually worked compiling evidence at the scene who challenged the official report, maybe my Google-fu is rusty.
Good grief!  Private investigators find evidence of explosives but official investigators don't?  You are not implying a coverup, are you?
"...evidence would have been found if it existed even if they didn't look for it" is not very convincing considering that others (who DID look) found it.  Can you provide evidence that it would have been found even when not looking for it?  Come on now, if you are going to make the claim, back it up!

Quote from: "Plu"Can I ask a really dumb question? If they blew up the WTC with explosives, why the hell were they dumb enough to make it freefall when this is clearly evidence that explosives have been used and that's exactly what they were trying to avoid showing? :roll:
Excellent point, Plu.  Not dumb at all.  How about conducting a REAL investigation, find the criminals, and ASK them?

According to the Joseph Goebbels theory, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."  But you will have to ask Goebbels for the proof.  (Except he's dead.)

Quote from: "Jason78"I made a mistake and I admitted it. Which is more than you've done in this thread. Did you even try waiting for the PDF to load?
I did not admit making a mistake because I have not made one yet in this discussion.  When I do, I will admit it.  As for waiting for the PDF to download, my connection was indeed a bit slow earlier today -- 2.66 Mbps, but now it is back up to 20.38 Mbps, give or take.  I clicked on the link and went and did other stuff then came back.  1 hour 50 minutes and 20 seconds have elapsed as of this writing, but still no PDF.

Sometimes web browsers sneak those "suspected fraud" filters in on you when you are not looking, and they block sites on lists maintained by who knows who.  Will check my browser settings and try again later.

Quote from: "Atheon"Here's a non-woo, non-conspiracy-nut explanation of the collapse.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI)
Interesting.  The steel beam seen collapsing at about 00:45 did not collapse in a fraction of a second, though.  It would have been necessary for ALL the beams in WTC 7 to collapse at the very same instant, within a small fraction of a second of each other to bring the building down the way it came down.  Tell us *your* theory about how this would happen when only one side of the building was burning?  Everybody is asking me to prove this or that, so how about a little proof from your side, please?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 22, 2014, 09:51:50 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"I sought and I didn't find any official investigators who have challenged the official report. If I am wrong in that then please direct me to someone who actually worked compiling evidence at the scene who challenged the official report, maybe my Google-fu is rusty.
Good grief!  Private investigators find evidence of explosives but official investigators don't?  You are not implying a coverup, are you?
"...evidence would have been found if it existed even if they didn't look for it" is not very convincing considering that others (who DID look) found it.  Can you provide evidence that it would have been found even when not looking for it?  Come on now, if you are going to make the claim, back it up!
Chemical analysis would have picked up trace amounts of the reactants of the explosives used, even if they weren't looking for it. Bombs aren't exactly the most subtle things, and they leave a shit ton of evidence in the form of chemical remains.

Imagine that I shot someone 50 times with a shotgun, then hid the body but didn't bother to clean up the blood spatter. If, on the next day, the cops raided my house looking for drugs do you think they would suddenly ignore the evidence that a murder took place because they weren't looking for evidence of murder?

As per "private investigators" finding evidence of explosives, if you're referring to "active nano-thermite particles" that's already been debunked in this thread.

If there's evidence of another type of explosive then please, don't hold out. Bring it to the table.

QuoteExcellent point, Plu. Not dumb at all. How about conducting a REAL investigation, find the criminals, and ASK them?

I know this is addressed to Plu but I just had to ask: what if your "REAL" investigation  came to the same conclusion that the official reports did? Would you call for a REAL REAL investigation?

QuoteI did not admit making a mistake because I have not made one yet in this discussion.

Lulz
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 22, 2014, 10:09:04 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Then how about some math, bitch? We're all waiting with baited breath.
Already gave it to you.  Click the fucking links.  Or have someone who can read show you which link to click.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"We're talking about an event that resulted in around 3000 people dying...
Another new on me!  
Most people think all the casualties were from the twin towers and the airplanes.  But 3000 deaths in Building No. 7?  
Show us the evidence, bitch.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"When conspiracy nuts think that the entire building fell at freefall, they willfully disregard the fact that the penthouse collapsed about 8 seconds prior, which was a sign that the building was already falling.
Are you forgetting that in the video I posted in my OP David Chandler clearly addresses that point.  Thing is, Chandler times the ROOF of the building as it falls, and it does fall at freefall acceleration as is clearly visible in the video.  Saying that the ROOF begins to fall at the moment when the penthouse begins to fall is a blatant fallacy.  It would be like saying a bomb is *beginning to explode* the moment it is dropped from the hatch of the drone rather than the moment it hits a muslim woman in the head.

Oh, I just re-read what you wrote.  You were talking about "conspiracy nuts"! I thought you were referring to us.  
Disregard what I wrote.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And that it wasn't as complete as you'd like doesn't mean that it didn't collapse; it doesn't mean that WTC7 was demolished; and it doesn't mean that you're right. The collapse in this case was partial likely because some of the other redundant members of the building weren't damaged by a collapsing skyscraper next door. Had this building suffered from physical impact as well as fire damage then perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly. But the fact remains that despite your claim to the contrary, a steel-framed building has, in history, collapsed as a result of fire.
"...perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly."
OK.  And perhaps it would not have.  Perhaps is not proof.  Show us the proof.

But you are right about one thing.  From now on I should be more careful to specically say that no steel framed building has ever collapsed completely and uniformly at freefall acceleration due to fire.

PS to Jason78: I made a mistake.  I should have said "no steel framed building has ever collapsed completely and uniformly at freefall acceleration due to fire."

Quote from: "FrankDK"... twin towers...
Not entertaining questions about the twin towers at this time.  Too busy fighting off strawmen.  Maybe later.  If you want to ask questions about the twin towers, start your own thread.

Quote from: "Jason78"Sorry, I misspoke. WTC 7 collapsed after being by the substantial debris flying out of WTC 1. See paragraph L.2.1
My turn to apologize.  Tried the link using an application other than Firefox and it did download.  Weird that Firefox would do that.  But I have the PDF now.
[spoil:3idrhjhy]L.2.1
Damage from WTC 1 and WTC 2 Collapses
To place the events leading to the global collapse of WTC 7 into context, it is helpful to summarize the
events of September 11, 2001:
8:46 a.m.
9:03 a.m.
9:59 a.m.
10:28 a.m.
5:21 p.m.
WTC 1 was struck by an aircraft
WTC 2 was struck by an aircraft
WTC 2 collapsed
WTC 1 collapsed
WTC 7 collapsed
After WTC 1 collapsed, the south face of WTC 7 was obscured by smoke, making direct observation of
damage from photographs or videos difficult or impossible. The source of the smoke is uncertain, as
large fires were burning in WTC 5 and WTC 6, as well as those noted below in WTC 7. The light but
prevalent winds from the northwest caused the smoke to rise on the leeward, or south, side of the
building. The following information about damage seen in WTC 7 was obtained from interviews of
people in or near the building:
After WTC 2 collapsed:
• Some south face glass panes were broken at lower lobby floors
• Dust covered the lobby areas at Floors 1 and 3
• Power was on in the building and phones were working
• No fires were observed
Reported close to time of WTC 1 collapse:
• East stair experienced an air pressure burst, filled with dust/smoke, lost lights
• West stair filled with dust/smoke, lost lights, swayed at Floors 29 through 30, and a crack was
   felt (in the dark) on the stairwell wall between Floors 27 through 28 and Floors 29 through 30
• Floors 7 and 8 had no power, air was breathable but not clear
•Phone lights on Floor 7 were on but could not call out
After WTC 1 collapsed:
• Heavy debris (exterior panels from WTC 1) was seen on Vesey Street and the WTC 7
   promenade structure at the third floor level
• Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
• Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels
   between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the
  extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.
• Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are
   mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions:
? middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to
   the ground
? large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
? debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the
   atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
? from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars
   were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the
  visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side
 possibly indicating damage extending to the west
At 12:10 to 12:15 p.m.:
• Firefighters found individuals on Floors 7 and 8 and led them out of the building
• No fires, heavy dust or smoke were reported as they left Floor 8
• Cubicle fire was seen along west wall on Floor 7 just before leaving
• No heavy debris was observed in the lobby area as the building was exited, primarily white
   dust coating and black wires hanging from ceiling areas were observed
Photographs support some of these reports and show additional damage at the upper portions of the
building. Figure L–21 is an aerial view of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1. There is no visible debris
on the roof; some minor damage is seen on the south side at the parapet wall. Figures L–22a and L–22b
show the reported damage between Floors 8 to 18 at the southwest corner. Much of the damage above
Floor 18 appears to be nonstructural. The black areas on the facade indicate areas of burned out fires.
Note the heavy smoke obstructing any observations along the south face. Study of this photograph
indicates that at least two exterior columns were severed. Figures L–23a and L–23b show the debris on
Vesey Street in front of WTC 7 after the collapse of WTC 1. The pedestrian bridge (L–23a) and the promenade (L–23b) appear to be standing, although damaged. Exterior panels from WTC 1 can be seen
on Vesey Street and on the promenade. The approximate extent of possible damage due to debris from
WTC 1 is shown in Fig. L–23c.
(photo)
(photo)
(photo)
(photo)[/spoil:3idrhjhy]Show me the exact paragraph where it says the damage caused by fire and falling debris was great enough to alter the laws of physics?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 22, 2014, 10:21:38 PM
To bring a building down we are not talking "trace elements." We are talking about tons of explosives. These were two of the biggest buildings in existence. The wreckage would have piles of wiring and cable routers a hundred feet high. There would be control boxes, unburned Primacord and so on.There would be obvious degradation of key support structures at key junctures, dedicated remote control boxes and an enormous pile of evidence. Fuck the trace element bullshit.

Watch a video to see what it takes to prepare a structure for demolition. It takes a dedicated, knowledgeable crew of many men weeks to wire and detonate a building. And this all happened for weeks prior to the airplane attack, dozens of men running around with power saws, stringing miles of cable and arranging and testing control boxes and then somehow hiding all that from view? Not hardly.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on January 22, 2014, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"NIST Final Report, confirming that freefall did occur
//http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(see Page 44, Section 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION)
Did you actually read your own link?
QuoteThe time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s. [. . .] Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.
Quote]In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t= 1.75 s and t= 4.0 s.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).

As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first
18 stories of descent.

So this free fall you are so hyped up about accounted for less than half the collapse, measured both in time and distance.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 22, 2014, 10:59:41 PM
*yawn* Sorry, I was asleep- I mean, using the ignore feature. Based on the responses I'd say I'm not missing much.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 22, 2014, 11:12:07 PM
With all them tiny particles of radiation coming from the sky every day you can't tell me the sun isn't hot. It's Supertramps fault.  [-(
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 23, 2014, 12:31:09 AM
Quote from: "Poison Tree"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"NIST Final Report, confirming that freefall did occur
//http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(see Page 44, Section 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION)
Did you actually read your own link?
QuoteThe time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s. [. . .] Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.
Quote]In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t= 1.75 s and t= 4.0 s.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).

As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first
18 stories of descent.

So this free fall you are so hyped up about accounted for less than half the collapse, measured both in time and distance.
Annnnd...your entire premise for this thread just vanished, AtheistMoFo.

Congratulations, someone finally read your link like you wanted, and it fucked you.

(//http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/tumblr_lo2zqb6h5P1qzsyre.gif)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 23, 2014, 12:35:56 AM
It took that long to figure out his tin hattedness? Amazing.  :-k
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 23, 2014, 01:07:04 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"It took that long to figure out his tin hattedness? Amazing.  :-k
We realized it, we just like things to kick around. I'm sure there's more derp coming. Hopefully he/she'll go full potato now.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 23, 2014, 01:47:20 AM
The people that went through the debris at ground zero were firefighters. I can guarantee you, after losing 343 of their brothers on 9/11, they were definitely interested in what was in the debris. There were also many fire investigators involved. Firefighters and inspectors know what to look for and what is out of place and wrong, and in any purposeful arson or demolition there would be a massive pile of "wrong." And if such evidence had been found, the outrage by them alone would be more than any conspiracy theory that came later.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Cocoa Beware on January 23, 2014, 07:33:20 AM
QuoteNano-thermite explosives shown above were gathered from the WTC debris shortly after the towers fell on 9/11. Brigham Young University Physics Professor, Dr. Steven Jones, discovered the explosives and joined an international team of nine scientists for further analysis. Through extensive laboratory testing, the scientists concluded that the samples were Nano-thermitic explosives.

Im familiar with this story. Jones wrote a paper on this phenomenon which resulted in a more or less permanent suspension from BYU.

Why? Because he doesn't have a degree in architecture, engineering, combustion engineering or anything like that. Its a complete waste of time for him to write a paper on the subject.

Its even more of a waste of time for the scientific community to attempt to verify such a paper. To do so impedes scientific progress.

Jones also wrote a paper about how Jesus visited the indigenous people of North America. Do you believe that one too?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 23, 2014, 08:17:49 AM
So, in conclusion:

QuoteIs Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

No.  And from the evidence presented, it didn't freefall.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 23, 2014, 11:14:19 AM
Let us hope that this is the end of all this nonesense.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 23, 2014, 11:19:02 AM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Let us hope that this is the end of all this nonesense.

lulz.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 23, 2014, 01:42:09 PM
Also found, and  this is crucial was two I beams welded together among over 100 floors of welded I beams at right angles. They formed a t! What were the odds?  :shock:  Godidit.  :-$
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 23, 2014, 02:10:18 PM
RECAP OF FIRST THREE DAYS of this thread.  There may have been additional points raised since my most recent post which may not be reflected here.

Let's take look at the major arguments so far.

The Controlled Demolition Theory camp (CDT'ers) have documented that WTC 7 did in fact fall at freefall acceleration, and insist that freefall is impossible unless all structural support is removed instantaneously across the entire building.  Freefall has been denied by some in the Official Conspiracy Theory camp (OCT'ers), ignored by others, or "Fuck NIST, they don't count."  (Noboy has suggested that Isaac Newton should be fucked, but his principles are rejected by the OCT'ers regardless.)

The CDT'ers have no documented evidence of how the explosives were smuggled into and planted inside WTC 7 and offer no plausible or even remotely possible scenario of how.

The OCT'ers have not presented any evidendence, plausible or even remotely possible, of how the hijackers smuggled box cutters past security guards at the two airports from which the planes were hijacked.  (Not relevant to the discussion, but curious to note that security at both airports was managed by an israeli company.  But please disregard, as it is irrelevant and racist.)

The OCT'ers have claimed Gozilla did it, and presented evidence consisting of still photo from a Godzilla movie (filmed in Japan).  This theory has not been refuted by CDT'ers and remains open to further discussion.

OCT'ers have claimed there was jet fuel in WTC 7, but presented no hard evidence, not even a possible scenario of how it got there.

OCT'ers have claimed that a fifth airplane crashed into WTC 7 (or perhaps one of the other planes crashed into two of the buildings?) but presented no documentation of this.

Other OCT'ers have presented various evidence of planes smashing into the Twin Towers and the crumbling of the towers, but have offered no explanation of how this impacts the freefall acceleration of WTC 7.

CDT'ers have offered evidence of finding thermite as documented by a peer reviewed paper, but this has been refuted by the OCT'ers because of
1) peer reviewed papers can be faked,
2) none of the parties who found thermite work for the government, and
3) if thermite had been present it would have been found by government agents who were not looking for it.

OCT'ers have claimed that non-authenticated videos of Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attack is proof of exoneration of all other suspects, but have offered no evidence or theories on how or why it automatically exonerates everyone else even if the video could be authenticated.  (Unfortunately, we can not question bin Laden himself about the "confession" because he was sentenced to summary execution before his trial.)

Although "high speed" of the jets smashing into the Twin Towers has been brought up, the approximate speed at which they were travelling at the time of impact was not estimated by either side.  Nor has there been any explanation that would tie this "fact" in with WTC 7.

Any major points I missed?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 23, 2014, 02:15:37 PM
QuoteAny major points I missed?

Other than logic and common sense you've got it covered.  =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 23, 2014, 02:24:51 PM
They make tin-foil earmuffs so you cant hear a thing anyone else says? That's pretty niffty.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 23, 2014, 02:35:59 PM
Quote from: "Shiranu"They make tin-foil earmuffs so you cant hear a thing anyone else says? That's pretty niffty.
He's up to date. They're tin foil ear buds.  :-?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 23, 2014, 02:39:10 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Quote from: "Shiranu"They make tin-foil earmuffs so you cant hear a thing anyone else says? That's pretty niffty.
He's up to date. They're tin foil ear buds.  :-?
Those sound painful.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 23, 2014, 06:23:09 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Quote from: "Shiranu"They make tin-foil earmuffs so you cant hear a thing anyone else says? That's pretty niffty.
He's up to date. They're tin foil ear buds.  :-?
Those sound painful.
Just imagine how much the tin foil buttplugs hurt. Gotta have something to clog you up enough so all the shit comes outta your mouth.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 23, 2014, 06:30:40 PM
Ok, this has seemingly taken a decisively ugly turn in the dialog.  :butthead:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on January 23, 2014, 07:05:10 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Any major points I missed?
That the source you put forward to prove free fall says 40% slower than free fall; free fall accounted for less then half the collapse measured in time or distance. That's only looking at the north exterior face collapse, ignoring horizontal motion caused by internal cascading floor failures and the collapse of the east pent house.

I'm still baffled as to why you started off with the NIST paper, one that not only disagrees with your claim of free fall, but also with your claim that explosives were used
QuoteBlast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7. Based on visual and audio evidence and the use of specialized computer modeling to simulate hypothetical blast events, NIST concluded that blast events did not occur, and found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event. Blast from the smallest charge capable of failing a critical column (i.e., Column 79) would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile if unobstructed by surrounding buildings (such as along
Greenwich Street or West Broadway). This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. There were no witness reports of such a loud noise, nor was such a noise heard on the audio tracks of video recordings of the WTC 7 collapse.

How about you ignore all us forum monkeys, Godzillas, extra planes, jet fuel, ect, and just focus on taking apart your own source's disagreements with you.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 23, 2014, 10:37:40 PM
Quote from: "Shiranu"They make tin-foil earmuffs so you cant hear a thing anyone else says? That's pretty niffty.
Really?  How much do they cost?  Where do you buy yours?

Quote from: "Poison Tree"That the source you put forward to prove free fall says 40% slower than free fall; free fall accounted for less then half the collapse measured in time or distance. That's only looking at the north exterior face collapse, ignoring horizontal motion caused by internal cascading floor failures and the collapse of the east pent house.
It does not matter that it came down at freefall for only part of the descent. Freefall as pointed out numerous times means there is zero structural support, so freefall is not possible at all, not for the whole building, not for 8 stories

NCSTAR 1A
[spoil:yazq882f]3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION
The timing of global collapse of WTC 7, as indicated by downward motion of the north exterior face, was
investigated using a video of the collapse taken from the vantage point of West Street near Harrison Street
(Camera No. 3, Figure 5-183 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9). An initial analysis compared the observed time it
took for the roofline to fall approximately 18 stories to the free fall time under the force of gravity.
A
more detailed analysis examined the vertical displacement, velocity, and acceleration through different
stages of the collapse process. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 12)
The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 s. The
theoretical time for free fall (i.e., at gravitational acceleration) was computed from
t=[square root of]2h/g
where t = time, s; h = distance, m (ft); and g = gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2 (32.2 ft/s2). This time
was approximately 3.9 s. Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video
evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.
A more detailed examination of the same video led to a better understanding of the vertical motion of the
building in the first several seconds of descent. NIST tracked the downward displacement of a point near
the center of the roofline, fitting the data using a smooth function.3 (The time at which motion of the
roofline was first perceived was taken as time zero.) The fitted displacement function was then
differentiated to estimate the downward velocity as a function of time, shown as a solid curve in Figure 3-
15. Velocity data points (solid circles) were also determined from the displacement data using a central
difference approximation.4 The slope of the velocity curve is approximately constant between about
1.75 s and 4.0 s, and a good straight line fit to the points in this range (open-circles in Figure 3-15)
allowed estimation of a constant downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was
32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g.
For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in Figure 3-15:
• In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage
   corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.
  By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft).
• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns
   provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued
  for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and
 t = 4.0 s.

• In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the north face
   encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between
  4.0 s and 5.4 s, the north face corner fell an additional 39.6 m (130 ft).
As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first
18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to Stage 1.
The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global
collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9.[/spoil:yazq882f]
40% slower that freefall is exactly what they want you to think.  Take a good look at the sleigh of hand they are using.  They talk about three stages of the collapse.  They say the *AVERAGE* time of the three stages is 40% longer than free fall.  But they are not denying free fall, they are confiming it.
Stage 1, slower than free fall
Stage 2, free fall
Stage 3, slower than free fall.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."

They start the clock when the penthouse falls, but if you look at the video, you see that the roofline does not actually begin to move until after a considerable delay after thr penthouse falls.  WTC 7 building was damaged, yes, but to call the collapse of the penthouse the start of the collapse is misleading.  They could have called the debris hitting the building the start of the collapse and say it took six hours to come down.  Much, much slower than freefall.  But that would have made the trickery way too obvious.  What it says if you read between the lines is that the building was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, falling 8 stories, for a distance of 32 meters (105 feet).

PS to Shiranu: Next time you are at your tinfoil hat dealer, why not ask them if they have any smart pills.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on January 23, 2014, 11:52:27 PM
Well I'm going to stick my neck out on this one, so get your axes ready. What brought down the nearby Building 7, it wasn't hit by a plane or the falling towers enough to bring it all the way down? Why did many people in the building and firefighters say they heard explosions before the Towers came down. As to the way controlled demolition experts do it isn't the way the military does it, and the military uses nano-thermite that burns at 2500 degrees Centigrade and able to melt steel that airplane fuel can't do. What has always bothered me is how our military that was on test maneuvers at the time and Traffic Controllers never saw 4 planes go out of their flight pattern and never contacted NORAD, and our government and CIA, SS, or FBI never had a clue it could happen after there were explosives put at the base of the twin towers (How did they do it?) and set off before this happened, and France had warned them that they stopped some high Jackers from taking down the Eifel tower with a plane and it could happen here. All planes have Black Boxes now, why were non ever found, even at the Pentagon? I guess this was a good excuse to go to war again in Iraq, even though the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and their money was used to train them. You know, the Royal Family, that are the Bush family favorites.  :shock:  :P   :popcorn: Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 24, 2014, 12:08:13 AM
They started the clock when then penthouse fell because that's when the collapse started happening. The penthouse falling is a sign that there is something very fucking wrong with the internal structure of the building.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 24, 2014, 12:20:55 AM
Quote from: "Solitary"Well I'm going to stick my neck out on this one, so get your axes ready. What brought down the nearby Building 7, it wasn't hit by a plane or the falling towers enough to bring it all the way down? Why did many people in the building and firefighters say they heard explosions before the Towers came down. As to the way controlled demolition experts do it isn't the way the military does it, and the military uses nano-thermite that burns at 2500 degrees Centigrade and able to melt steel that airplane fuel can't do. What has always bothered me is how our military that was on test maneuvers at the time and Traffic Controllers never saw 4 planes go out of their flight pattern and never contacted NORAD, and our government and CIA, SS, or FBI never had a clue it could happen after there were explosives put at the base of the twin towers (How did they do it?) and set off before this happened, and France had warned them that they stopped some high Jackers from taking down the Eifel tower with a plane and it could happen here. All planes have Black Boxes now, why were non ever found, even at the Pentagon? I guess this was a good excuse to go to war again in Iraq, even though the terrorist were from Saudi Arabia and their money was used to train them. You know, the Royal Family, that are the Bush family favorites.  :shock:  :P   :popcorn: Solitary
[youtube:hamoq4u9]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKReoE3IOkE[/youtube:hamoq4u9]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 24, 2014, 12:28:34 AM
And while I'm at it:

[youtube:3qxvk3ch]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8VAsoVuShM[/youtube:3qxvk3ch]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 24, 2014, 01:06:51 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"RECAP OF FIRST THREE DAYS of this thread.  There may have been additional points raised since my most recent post which may not be reflected here.

Let's take look at the major arguments so far.

The Controlled Demolition Theory camp (CDT'ers) have documented that WTC 7 did in fact fall at freefall acceleration, and insist that freefall is impossible unless all structural support is removed instantaneously across the entire building.  Freefall has been denied by some in the Official Conspiracy Theory camp (OCT'ers), ignored by others, or "Fuck NIST, they don't count."  (Noboy has suggested that Isaac Newton should be fucked, but his principles are rejected by the OCT'ers regardless.)

The CDT'ers have no documented evidence of how the explosives were smuggled into and planted inside WTC 7 and offer no plausible or even remotely possible scenario of how.

The OCT'ers have not presented any evidendence, plausible or even remotely possible, of how the hijackers smuggled box cutters past security guards at the two airports from which the planes were hijacked.  (Not relevant to the discussion, but curious to note that security at both airports was managed by an israeli company.  But please disregard, as it is irrelevant and racist.)

The OCT'ers have claimed Gozilla did it, and presented evidence consisting of still photo from a Godzilla movie (filmed in Japan).  This theory has not been refuted by CDT'ers and remains open to further discussion.

OCT'ers have claimed there was jet fuel in WTC 7, but presented no hard evidence, not even a possible scenario of how it got there.

OCT'ers have claimed that a fifth airplane crashed into WTC 7 (or perhaps one of the other planes crashed into two of the buildings?) but presented no documentation of this.

Other OCT'ers have presented various evidence of planes smashing into the Twin Towers and the crumbling of the towers, but have offered no explanation of how this impacts the freefall acceleration of WTC 7.

CDT'ers have offered evidence of finding thermite as documented by a peer reviewed paper, but this has been refuted by the OCT'ers because of
1) peer reviewed papers can be faked,
2) none of the parties who found thermite work for the government, and
3) if thermite had been present it would have been found by government agents who were not looking for it.

OCT'ers have claimed that non-authenticated videos of Osama bin Laden claiming responsibility for the attack is proof of exoneration of all other suspects, but have offered no evidence or theories on how or why it automatically exonerates everyone else even if the video could be authenticated.  (Unfortunately, we can not question bin Laden himself about the "confession" because he was sentenced to summary execution before his trial.)

Although "high speed" of the jets smashing into the Twin Towers has been brought up, the approximate speed at which they were travelling at the time of impact was not estimated by either side.  Nor has there been any explanation that would tie this "fact" in with WTC 7.

Any major points I missed?
Recap of the thread: Mofo ignores everything we have said and also cannot understand jokes like Hijiri's Godzilla pic. More specifically, he posits that thermite explosives where present in the Twin Towers, despite multiple rebuttals, thinks that a worldwide terrorist organization cannot steal planes, and has still not addressed any of the other 9/11 attacks in his mad crackpot "theory". Did I miss anything, thread?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on January 24, 2014, 01:07:41 AM
Oh, how silly of me. Mofo doesn't want to talk about September the 11th; he wants to talk about 2.25 seconds. Nothing what so ever to say about four hijackings--expect to scoff at the notion that there were any Muslim hijackers. Planes hitting two towers, the Pentagon and a field; far beyond his scope. Two towers collapsing, the second sending burning debris into building 7 and causing some structural damage; why drag up ancient history. Hours of fire; wake him when something important happens. Firefighters becoming concerned the building may fall; someone should tell them fire doesn't bring down steel buildings. The building starts to kink and sag and deform; Mofo is still not interested. Floors are collapsing, supports bucking, building shifting more; getting close. Penthouse collapses; not yet. The roof starts to fall, slowly; almost.

For two and a quarter seconds--8 of 47 floors--the tower is at free fall speed; Mofo springs into action! "Controlled demolition, controlled demolition! Them damn JEws. Read the NIST report--no not that part, or that part. Read between the these lines in the report. All you sheeple clinging to faith that the Muslims, not the jews, did it. laws of physics FTW!!!11!! Full support to zero support."

Fall of building 7 no longer at free fall; "no, you missed it, go back". Years of investigation, simulations, papers, analysis; "Ignore that; 2.25 seconds free fall laws of physics"
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 24, 2014, 04:41:05 AM
Quote40% slower that freefall is exactly what they want you to think. Take a good look at the sleigh of hand they are using. They talk about three stages of the collapse. They say the *AVERAGE* time of the three stages is 40% longer than free fall. But they are not denying free fall, they are confiming it.
Stage 1, slower than free fall
Stage 2, free fall
Stage 3, slower than free fall.
"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s."

So the argument has become that they used explosives to take out approximately 8 stories of the building, and then let fire and other damages do the rest? And they timed the use of the explosives to be exactly coincided with the rest of the building coming down from natural causes? That seems totally plausible.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: DunkleSeele on January 24, 2014, 08:27:46 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"A shitload of conspiracy crap
So, Cybercommuter... looks like you didn't keep your promise to not show up on this forum any more, now did you?
And why are you using a sockpuppet? Are you trying to give yourself a new credibility after you thoroughly discredited yourself the last time? Moron.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 24, 2014, 09:28:57 AM
As I said a few pages ago, I happen to know freefall would have been much faster. Maybe if he'd read his own links, he would have figured out how I knew that. :lol:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on January 24, 2014, 11:29:41 AM
:popcorn: This is hilarious because no one here knows what actually happen. How many here believe they saw the first plane it the Tower on the day it happened. If people are fooled by the second plane hitting the Tower from different views thinking it was the first plane, what does that tell you?  :-k  Think about it, there is no way anyone could have seen on TV the first plane hit on the day it happened because the video of the first plane wasn't released until the next day. Don't believe me, check it out for yourself or just use good old plain logic. The News camera crew has to have the time and a place to set up to film. They could not have been there to see when the first plane hit the Tower.  The videos prove nothing about what actually happened, only that people can be fooled either way. :roll:  Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 24, 2014, 01:46:43 PM
Solitary, please don't do this. I know you're smarter than that. We've presented bounds of textual and visual evidence to credit the official story. This argument, which never should have been an argument in the first place, should be over. Please, just let it die.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 24, 2014, 01:51:28 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"They could not have been there to see when the first plane hit the Tower.
[youtube:27xymb6d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk[/youtube:27xymb6d]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on January 24, 2014, 03:24:57 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Solitary"They could not have been there to see when the first plane hit the Tower.
[youtube:h0foganm]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk[/youtube:h0foganm]


This is not a recording made by the media the day it happen. It was released the next day. Give me a break, are people so illogical here they don't realize a media footage couldn't have been made when the first plane hit on the same day unless they were there waiting for it? It's not my point they were, it's my point that no one saw the footage on the day it happen because they weren't there to see the first plane hit. Check the dates when the footage of the first plane hitting was released. Someone did film it, but it wasn't the media that did it on the same day. If someone else filmed it the media has to acquire it and have it released to them---after they find out if someone filmed it which takes time.  :roll:  Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 24, 2014, 03:42:04 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"="...perhaps it would have collapsed more completely, or more uniformly."
OK.  And perhaps it would not have.  Perhaps is not proof.  Show us the proof.

I've shown you the only proof I need to show to demonstrate my point, which is that your claim that no steel-framed building has ever collapsed is incorrect. I need not show "proof" for any hypothetical statement.  That's why I included the word "perhaps": because I'm not afraid to say "I don't know".  Predicting the complex behavior of systems failures is out of my pay grade.  But I do know that among the many possibilities of a building collapse is that two support structures have a statistical chance to fail at roughly the same time.  You are here stating that there is no way that that can explain the fall of WTC7, but the fact remains that there is indeed a miniscule chance that such could've happened.  

You haven't demonstrated your hypothesis to the exclusion of any others. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate conclusively that it was controlled demolition.  You have not done so; you have inferred it from a flawed premise, and that is why you're finding such tough sledding.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 24, 2014, 03:52:45 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Solitary"They could not have been there to see when the first plane hit the Tower.
[youtube:bmn5xo14]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys41jnL2Elk[/youtube:bmn5xo14]


This is not a recording made by the media the day it happen. It was released the next day. Give me a break, are people so illogical here they don't realize a media footage couldn't have been made when the first plane hit on the same day unless they were there waiting for it? It's not my point they were, it's my point that no one saw the footage on the day it happen because they weren't there to see the first plane hit. Check the dates when the footage of the first plane hitting was released. Someone did film it, but it wasn't the media that did it on the same day. If someone else filmed it the media has to acquire it and have it released to them---after they find out if someone filmed it which takes time.  :roll:  Solitary
I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 24, 2014, 03:58:03 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"It does not matter that it came down at freefall for only part of the descent. Freefall as pointed out numerous times means there is zero structural support, so freefall is not possible at all, not for the whole building, not for 8 stories


Oddly enough, you just got finished arguing with me that my video wasn't evidence of anything because it wasn't a true freefall.  Now you're saying that for your argument, that is acceptable.

This is special pleading.  Your building went slower than freefall because why? Because not all the members failed at the same time.

I think you've just rebutted yourself.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on January 24, 2014, 04:03:16 PM
Quote6:00 a.m.

6:00: Mohammed Atta travels Colgan Air from Portland International Jetport in Portland, Maine to Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, along with Abdulaziz al-Omari.

6:45: Atta and al-Omari arrive at Logan International Airport.

6:52: Marwan al-Shehhi calls Atta from another terminal at Logan to confirm that the plans for the attack are set.

7:00 a.m.

7:35: Atta and al-Omari board American Airlines Flight 11.

7:40: The rest of the Flight 11 hijackers board the airplane.

7:59: American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767 carrying 81 passengers and 11 crew members, departs 14 minutes late from Logan International Airport in Boston, its destination being Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in Los Angeles, California.

8:00 a.m.

8:13: Flight 11 has its last routine communication with the FAA's Boston Center.

8:14: Flight 11 is hijacked when hijackers Waleed and Wail al-Shehri rise from seats 2A and 2B and stab two female flight attendants. Atta rises from seat 8D and approaches the cockpit. Within minutes, he is at the controls.

8:14: Flight 11 fails to heed air traffic controller's instruction to climb to 35,000 feet.

8:14: United Airlines Flight 175, another fully fueled Boeing 767, carrying 56 passengers and nine crew members, also departs from Logan International Airport in Boston; its destination was also Los Angeles International Airport. Five hijackers are aboard. One of them communicated with Mohammed Atta shortly before Flight 11's takeoff.

8:19: Betty Ong, a flight attendant on Flight 11 alerts American Airlines via an airphone, "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class—and I think there's Mace—that we can't breathe—I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then tells of the stabbings of two flight attendants.

8:20: The Federal Aviation Administration's Boston Center flight controllers decide that Flight 11 has probably been hijacked.

8:20: American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 with 58 passengers and six crew members, departs from Washington Dulles International Airport in Fairfax and Loudoun Counties, Virginia, for Los Angeles International Airport. Five hijackers are aboard.

8:21: Flight 11's transponder signal is turned off, but can still be tracked via primary radar by Boston Center. (Prior to the 9/11 Commission's report, news organizations reported this time as 8:13 or immediately thereafter.)

8:24: A radio transmission comes from Flight 11: "Eh..... We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport." It is believed Atta mistakenly held a button directing his voice to radio rather than to the plane's cabin as he intended. A few seconds later, Atta's voice says, "Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." Air traffic controllers hear the transmission.

8:25: Boston Center flight controllers alert other flight control centers regarding Flight 11. NORAD is not yet alerted.

8:26:30: Flight 11 makes a 100-degree turn to the south heading toward New York City.

8:34: A third transmission from Flight 11: "Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

8:34: Dan Bueno from Boston Center notifies the tower controller at Otis Air National Guard Base at Cape Cod of the hijacking of Flight 11. The controller directs Bueno to contact Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), the northeast sector of NORAD. The controller then notifies Otis Operations Center that a call from NEADS might be coming. Two F-15 pilots begin to suit up.

8:37: Flight 175 confirms sighting of hijacked Flight 11 to flight controllers, 10 miles (16 km) to its south.

8:37:52: Boston Center control notifies NEADS of the hijacking of Flight 11, the first notification received by NORAD that Flight 11 had been hijacked. The controller requests military help to intercept the jetliner.


 


 Cockpit view of the World Trade Center towers from the Hudson River – the flightpath of American Flight 11
8:41: The FAA's New York Center requests information about Flight 11 over the radio. Flight 175 responds: "[...]ah we heard a suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston ah with someone ah, ah sound like someone sound like someone keyed the mike and said ah 'everyone ah stay in your seats'". New York Center acknowledges and says it will pass the information on.

8:42: United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757, takes off with 37 passengers and seven crew members from Newark International Airport (now Newark Liberty International Airport), bound for San Francisco International Airport, following a 40-minute delay due to congested runways. Four hijackers are aboard. Its flight path initially takes it close to the World Trade Center, which is 3 minutes away from being struck, before moving away westwards.

8:42 to 8:46 (approx.): Flight 175 is hijacked.

8:44: Flight attendant Amy Sweeney, aboard Flight 11, reports by telephone to Michael Woodward at the American Airlines Flight Services Office in Dallas, "Something is wrong. We are in a rapid descent... we are all over the place." A minute later, Woodward asks her to "describe what she sees out the window". She responds, "I see the water. I see the buildings. I see buildings..." After a short pause, she reports, "We are flying low. We are flying very, very low. We are flying way too low." Seconds later she says, "Oh my God, we are way too low." The call ends with a burst of very loud, sustained static.

8:46: Two F-15 fighter jets are ordered to scramble from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts, intended to intercept Flight 11. Because Flight 11's transponder is off, the pilots do not know the location of their target. NEADS spends the next several minutes watching their radar screens in anticipation of Flight 11 returning a radar contact.


 


 Seconds after American Airlines Flight 11 impacted North Tower
8:46:30[10] Flight 11 crashes at roughly 466 mph (790 km/h or 219m/s or 425 knots) into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99. (Many early accounts gave times between 8:45 and 8:50). The aircraft enters the tower intact. It plows to the building core, severing all three gypsum-encased stairwells, dragging combustibles with it. A powerful shock wave travels down to the ground and up again. The combustibles and the remnants of the aircraft are ignited by the burning fuel. As the building lacks a traditional full cage frame and depends almost entirely on the strength of a narrow structural core running up the center, fire at the center of the impact zone is in a position to compromise the integrity of all internal columns. People below the severed stairwells start to evacuate—no one above the impact zone is able to do so.

French filmmakers Jules and Gedeon Naudet and Czech immigrant Pavel Hlava videotape the crash of Flight 11 with their video cameras from different locations. A WNYW TV camera records the sound, but not the image, of the crash.

8:46:43: Chief of the New York City Fire Department's 1st Battalion, Joseph Pfeifer, makes the first fire department radio message advising the FDNY Manhattan Fire Dispatch Office of the crash. Chief Pfeifer and personnel from other fire companies were several blocks north, on the corner of Church Street and Lispenard Street investigating an odor of gas in the street, and witnessed the attack, along with the Naudet brothers, who were accompanying the firefighters at the time:

Battalion 1 Chief: "Battalion 1 to Manhattan."

Manhattan Dispatch: "Battalion 1, k."

Battalion 1 Chief: "We just had a plane crash into the upper floor of the World Trade Center. Transmit a 2nd Alarm and start re-located companies into the area."

Manhattan Dispatch: "10-4(Message Received), Battalion 1."

8:48 to 10:28: At least 100 people (some accounts say as many as 250), primarily in the North Tower, trapped by fire and smoke in the upper floors, jump to their deaths.[citation needed] One person at street level, firefighter Daniel Suhr, is hit by a jumper and dies. No form of airborne evacuation is attempted as smoke is too dense for a successful landing on the roof of either tower and New York City lacked helicopters equipped for horizontal rescue.

8:48:08: The first television report of an incident at the World Trade Center is broadcast locally in New York by WNYW less than two minutes after the plane crashed into the North Tower. WNYW breaks into a Paramount Pictures movie trailer for Zoolander with the first live TV pictures of black smoke coming from the North Tower, relayed by a WNYW cameraman at ground level. One of the station's camera crews already had been out on the street that morning for New York's mayoral primary election. As WNYW broadcasts the first live pictures of smoke, the voice of reporter Dick Oliver is heard from the scene:

" "Jim (referring to WNYW's Jim Ryan, who was not in the studio at the time), just a few moments ago, something believed to be a plane crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. I just saw flames inside, you can see the smoke coming out of the tower; we have no idea what it was. It was a tremendous boom just a few moments ago. You can hear around me emergency vehicles heading towards the scene. Now this could have been an aircraft or it could have been something internal. It appears to be something coming from the outside, due to the nature of the opening on about the 100th floor of the South Tower of the World Trade Center." "

Three minutes later, Jim Ryan corrected the location of the first plane crash from the South Tower to the North Tower.

Around the same time the first radio report of the incident is heard on WCBS-AM through traffic reporter Tom Kaminski. WCBS' traffic reports are delivered every ten minutes "on the 8s", meaning that Kaminski's traffic report was to come within two minutes of the initial impact of Flight 11 (although there is no record of how much time actually passed). At the time Kaminski was in "Chopper 880", WCBS' helicopter that he reports from for morning and evening rush hour traffic reports. The following consists of WCBS anchor Pat Carroll tossing to Kaminski in the chopper before he files his report.

" Pat Carroll: WCBS news time, 8:48, it's traffic and weather together sponsored by Henry Miller's Theatre. Tom Kaminski, Chopper 880.
Tom Kaminski: Alright uh, Pat, we are just currently getting a look...at the World Trade Center, We have something that has happened here at the World Trade Center. We noticed flame and an awful lot of smoke from one of the towers of the World Trade Center. We are just coming up on this scene, this is easily three-quarters of the way up...we are...this is...whatever has occurred has just occurred, uh, within minutes and, uh, we are trying to determine exactly what that is. But currently we have a lot of smoke at the top of the towers of the World Trade Center, we will keep you posted. "


 


 CNN breaking the news of a plane crash at the World Trade Center
8:49:34: The first network television and radio reports of an explosion or incident at the World Trade Center. CNN breaks into a Ditech commercial at 8:49. The CNN screen subtitle first reads "WORLD TRADE CENTER DISASTER." Carol Lin, the first TV network anchor to break the news of the attacks, says:

" This just in. You are looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center, and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. CNN Center right now is just beginning to work on this story, obviously calling our sources and trying to figure out exactly what happened, but clearly something relatively devastating happening this morning there on the south end of the island of Manhattan. That is once again, a picture of one of the towers of the World Trade Center. "

Just a minute later, Sean Murtagh, CNN vice-president of finance, in an on-air phone call, says from his office in the CNN New York bureau that a large passenger commercial jet was seen to hit the World Trade Center. Murtagh is the first network employee on the air. The first email bulletins of breaking news from CNN and MSNBC report "fire at tower of World Trade Center". Both CNN and MSNBC's websites receive such heavy traffic that many servers collapse. BBC News' website is active and shows a picture of the North Tower on fire. Minutes later, email news bulletins revise the reports of fire to a plane crash.

8:50: NEADS is notified that a plane has struck the World Trade Center as they continue to try to locate the flight on radar.

8:50 to 8:54 (approx.): Flight 77 is hijacked.

8:51: A flight controller at the FAA's New York Center notices that Flight 175 had changed its transponder code twice four minutes earlier; he tries to contact the flight.

8:52: Lee Hanson receives a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175, who says "I think they've taken over the cockpit-An attendant has been stabbed- and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines-Tell them it's Flight 175, Boston to LA." Also on Flight 175 a flight attendant aboard calls a United Airlines office in Chicago, reporting that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.

8:52: The F-15s at Otis Air National Guard Base are airborne. Still lacking an intercept vector to Flight 11 (and not aware that it has already crashed), they are sent to military controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13.

8:54: Flight 77 deviates from its assigned course, turning south over Ohio.

8:55 (approx.): Announcements are made over the building-wide PA system by officials in the still-undamaged South Tower of the World Trade Center, reporting that the building is "secure" and that people should return to their offices. Some do not hear it; others ignore it and evacuate anyway; others congregate in common areas like the 78th floor sky lobby.

8:55: President George W. Bush is at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida as part of a scheduled visit to promote education when White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who is with Bush, informs him that a small twin-engine plane has crashed into the World Trade Center. Before entering the classroom, the President speaks to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who is at the White House. She first tells him it was a twin-engine aircraft—and then a commercial aircraft—that had struck the World Trade Center, adding "that's all we know right now, Mr. President."

8:56: Ten minutes after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was hit by Flight 11, the transponder on Flight 77 is turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft is lost. During radar blackout Flight 77 turns east, unnoticed by flight controllers. When primary radar information is restored at 9:05, controllers searching for Flight 77 to the west of its previous position are unable to find it. Flight 77 travels undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east toward Washington, D.C.

8:58: Flight 175 takes a heading toward New York City.

9:00 a.m.


 


 The Twin Towers burning from the impact of flights 11 and 175.
9:00: Lee Hanson receives a second call from his son Peter, aboard Flight 175: "It's getting bad, Dad. A stewardess was stabbed. They seem to have knives and Mace. They said they have a bomb. It's getting very bad on the plane. Passengers are throwing up and getting sick. The plane is making jerky movements. I don't think the pilot is flying the plane. I think we are going down. I think they intend to go to Chicago or someplace and fly into a building. Don't worry, Dad. If it happens, it'll be very fast. My God, my God." The call ends abruptly, as Lee Hanson hears a woman scream.

9:01 to 9:02: A manager from the FAA's New York Center tells the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon, Virginia, "We have several situations going on here. It's escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us. . . We're, we're involved with something else, we have other aircraft that may have a similar situation going on here."

9:01: FAA's New York Center contacts New York terminal approach control and asks for help in locating Flight 175.

9:02: Evacuation is ordered by FDNY Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer (North Tower). An announcement is made over the PA system to evacuate the buildings.

9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes at about 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s or 513 knots) into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 77 and 85.[15] All 65 people on board the aircraft die instantly on impact, and unknown hundreds in the building as well. By this time, several media organizations, including the three major broadcast networks (who have interrupted their morning shows), are covering the first plane crash—millions see the impact live. Parts of the plane, including the starboard engine, leave the building from its east and north sides, falling to the ground six blocks away.

A massive evacuation begins in the South Tower below its impact zone. One of the stairwells in the South Tower remains unblocked from the top to the bottom of the tower because of the plane hitting at an offset from the vertical center line of the building, but it is filled with smoke. This leads many people to mistakenly go upwards towards the roof for a rooftop rescue that never comes. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey kept the two sets of heavy metal doors leading to the building's only roof exit tightly locked. The impact severs communication with several television and radio broadcast towers at the WTC; local station WPIX's satellite feed freezes on an image of the second impact which is all the station broadcasts until alternate transmitters are set up hours later.

Because of the North Tower's obstruction of the South Tower from certain camera angles, some are originally unaware that a second plane has struck the South Tower, and instead mistakenly believe that the second explosion has occurred in the North Tower. As instant replays of the second plane crash are shown, the anchors on the three major broadcast networks speculate on whether they are witnessing a terrorist attack or some sort of very rare accident. CNN changes its headline to read "Second plane crashes into World Trade Center." On the local station WABC-TV (which CNN was simulcasting at that moment), anchor Steve Bartelstein first assumes that the explosion seen was caused when the fuselage of the first plane exploded. As other sources and eyewitnesses correct him that it was actually a plane that had hit the South Tower, the WABC anchor then initially suggests it was a rare accident, saying that the two crashes might have been caused by navigational system failure.

Several eyewitness accounts and camera footage reveal that the plane was coming in at an angle, and was seen to turn drastically to the left to be able to hit the tower, unlike its predecessor, Flight 11, which had been able to hit the North Tower straight on. Thus, it is believed that had the plane continued flying straight, it would have at least simply clipped the side of the building with its left wing, or even missed the building entirely. (Flight 175 came in from the southwest, apparently heading for the Empire State Building, but turned right, then left into the South Tower.)


 


 George W. Bush being told by his Chief of Staff Andrew Card about the second plane hitting the WTC
9:03: President Bush enters a classroom as part of his school visit.

9:03: FAA's New York Center notifies NORAD (NEADS) of the hijacking of Flight 175, at the same time it crashes.

9:04 (approximately): The FAA's Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center stops all departures from airports in its jurisdiction (New England and eastern New York State).

9:05: After brief introductions to the Booker elementary students, President Bush is about to begin reading The Pet Goat with the students when Chief of Staff Andrew Card interrupts to whisper to the president, "A second plane has hit the second tower. America is under attack." The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.

9:06: The FAA bans takeoffs of all flights bound to or through the airspace of New York Center from airports in that Center and the three adjacent Centers — Boston, Cleveland, and Washington. This is referred to as a First Tier groundstop and covers the Northeast from North Carolina north and as far west as eastern Michigan.

9:08: The FAA bans all takeoffs nationwide for flights going to or through New York Center airspace. ABC News reports later that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the agency that runs the New York-area airports, asked the FAA for permission to close down the New York Center airspace.

9:11: The last PATH train leaves the World Trade Center. The station was vacant when the towers collapsed.

9:13: The F-15 fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base leave military airspace near Long Island, bound for Manhattan.

9:14: President Bush returns to a holding room commandeered by the Secret Service shortly before 9:15. The holding room contains a telephone, a television showing the news coverage, and several senior staff members. The president speaks to Vice President Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller, and prepares brief remarks.

9:15: NBC News' Today program reports unconfirmed statements from employees at United Airlines that an American Airlines aircraft had been hijacked prior to its destruction.

9:17: The FAA closes down all New York City-area airports.The city had initially asked the FAA to close down the airports.

9:17:02: CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart in Washington mentions that in the intelligence community, Osama bin Laden is a probable suspect.

9:18: CNN makes reference to foul play for the first time, stating the FBI was investigating a report of plane hijacking. CNN headline: "AP: Plane was hijacked before crashes".

9:21: All bridges and tunnels into Manhattan closed.

9:23: Flight 93 receives warning message text from United Airlines flight dispatcher: "Beware any cockpit intrusion- Two a/c [aircraft] hit World Trade Center."

9:24: The FAA notifies NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector about the suspected hijacking of Flight 77. The FAA and NORAD establish an open line to discuss Flight 77, and shortly thereafter Flight 93.

9:25: The Otis-based F-15s establish an air patrol over Manhattan.

9:25: A video teleconference begins to be set up in the White House Situation Room, led by Richard A. Clarke, a special assistant to the president, that eventually includes the CIA, the FBI, the departments of State, Justice, and Defense, and the FAA.

9:25: The Associated Press informs CNN that the two plane crashes in the World Trade Center appeared to be an "act of terrorism" (terrorist attack).

9:26: The FAA bans takeoffs of all civilian aircraft regardless of destination—a national groundstop. All military bases in the United States are ordered to increase threat conditions to Delta status.[citation needed]

9:28: Hijackers storm the cockpit on Flight 93 and take over the flight. The entry of the hijackers is overheard by flight controllers at Cleveland.

9:29: President Bush makes his first public statements about the attacks, in front of an audience of about 200 teachers and students at the elementary school. He states that he will be going back to Washington. Today, we've had a national tragedy, he starts. Two airplanes... have crashed... into the World Trade Center... in an apparent terrorist attack on our country, and leads a moment of silence. No one in the President's traveling party has any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing.

9:32: A radio transmission from Flight 93 is overheard by flight controllers at Cleveland: "Ladies and gentlemen here... is the captain please sit down... Keep remaining [sic] sitting. We have a bomb on board."

9:32: Controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control in Virginia observe "a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed", referring to Flight 77.

9:33 to 9:34: Tower supervisor at Reagan National Airport tells Secret Service operations center at the White House that "an aircraft [is] coming at you and not talking with us," referring to Flight 77. The White House is about to be evacuated when the tower reports that Flight 77 has turned and is approaching Reagan National Airport.

9:34: The FAA's Command Center relays information concerning Flight 93 to FAA headquarters.

9:35: The President's motorcade departs from the elementary school, bound for Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport and Air Force One.

9:35: Flight 93 reverses direction over Ohio and starts flying eastwards.

9:35: Based on a report that Flight 77 had turned again and was circling back toward the District of Columbia, the Secret Service orders the immediate evacuation of the Vice President from the White House.

9:36: Cleveland advises the FAA Command Center that it is still tracking Flight 93 and inquires whether someone had requested the military to launch fighter aircraft to intercept the aircraft.

9:37: Vice President Cheney enters an underground tunnel leading to a security bunker.


 


 A Lincoln Town Car taxicab was hit by a lightpole as American Airlines Flight 77 passed over Washington Boulevard and crashed into the Pentagon.

9:37:46: Flight 77 crashes into the western side of the Pentagon at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) and starts a violent fire. The section of the Pentagon hit consists mainly of newly renovated, unoccupied offices. All 64 people on board are killed, as are 125 Pentagon personnel.

9:39: Another radio transmission is heard from Ziad Jarrah aboard Flight 93: "Uh, this is the captain. I would like you all to remain seated. We have a bomb on board and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands, so please remain quiet."

9:39: Fox News Channel reports, "We -- we are hearing -- right now that another explosion that -- has taken place. At the Pentagon."

9:39: NBC and MSNBC report an explosion at the Pentagon.

9:40: Video teleconference in White House Situation Room begins with the physical security of the President, the White House, and federal agencies. They are not yet aware of the Pentagon crash.

9:40:49: CNN's Breaking News bulletin reads "Reports of fire at Pentagon."

9:42: Ben Sliney of the FAA issues the execution order for SCATANA grounding all air traffic over the United States and diverting any incoming international traffic to alternate destinations.

9:43: Abu Dhabi TV reports it received a call from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, claiming responsibility for the World Trade Center attack, but this is soon denied by a senior officer of the group.[23]

9:43: The White House and the Capitol are evacuated and closed.

9:45: United States airspace is shut down. No civilian aircraft are allowed to take off, and all aircraft in flight are ordered to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible. Nearly all international flights headed for the U.S. are redirected to Canada, while some flights from South America were diverted to Mexico. Transport Canada, Canada's transportation agency, also closes down its airspace, but the Mexican airspace did not shut down. The FAA announces that civilian flights are suspended until at least noon September 12, while Transport Canada gives similar orders; the FAA further ordered that diverted U.S.-bound international flights should be taken in, launching the agency's "Operation Yellow Ribbon". The groundings would eventually last until September 14. Military and medical flights as well as Con Air flights continue.

This is the fourth time all commercial flights in the U.S. have been stopped, and the first time a suspension was unplanned. All previous suspensions were military-related (Sky Shield I-III), from 1960 to 1962. Many newspapers (including The New York Times) mistakenly print that this is the first time flights have been suspended. This was also the first time commercial flights in Canada have been stopped.

Further information: Operation Yellow Ribbon

9:45: CNN receives initial reports that, in addition to a fire at the Pentagon, there is also a fire at the National Mall. These reports on the National Mall, however, are later proven to be false.

9:49: The FAA Command Center at Herndon suggests that someone at FAA headquarters should decide whether to request military assistance with Flight 93. Ultimately, the FAA makes no request before it crashes.

9:50 (approximately): The Associated Press reports that Flight 11 was apparently hijacked after departure from Boston's Logan Airport. Within an hour this is confirmed for both Flight 11 and Flight 175.

9:51: FDNY Battalion Chief Orio Palmer reaches the 78th Floor Sky Lobby of the South Tower along with Fire Marshal Ronald Bucca. Palmer reports that there are two pockets of fire and numerous dead bodies.[citation needed]

9:52: The National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a known associate of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and someone in the Republic of Georgia, announcing that he had heard "good news", and that another target was still to be hit.

9:53: CNN confirms a plane crash at the Pentagon.

9:55: A CNN correspondent mentions Osama bin Laden as someone determined to strike the US.

9:55: Air Force One leaves Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport.

9:57: Passenger revolt begins on Flight 93.

9:57: President Bush leaves Sarasota, Florida, on Air Force One. The plane reaches cruising altitude and circles for approximately 40 minutes while the destination of the plane is discussed.

9:58:59: The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, 56 minutes after the impact of Flight 175. Its destruction is viewed and heard by a vast television and radio audience. As the roar of the collapse goes silent, tremendous gray-white clouds of pulverized concrete and gypsum rush through the streets. Most observers think a new explosion or impact has produced smoke and debris that now obscures the South Tower, but once the wind clears the smoke it becomes clear that the building is no longer there. On ABC News' Good Morning America, correspondent Don Dahler, who was home at the time of the incident and lived near the site, reports to anchor Peter Jennings on air that he has witnessed the tower collapse; this is perhaps the first official word of the collapse as Dahler's report is filed seconds after the building collapsed.

Further information: Collapse of the World Trade Center

10:00 a.m.

10:00: Moments after the South Tower fell, FDNY Battalion Chief Joseph Pfeifer (inside of North Tower) said on the radio the order to all firemen, at least twice, "Evacuate the building". Due to many communication limitations, numerous firefighters within the tower did not receive this transmission.

10:01: The FAA Command Center advises FAA headquarters that an aircraft had seen Flight 93 "waving his wings," the hijackers' efforts to defeat the passengers' counterattack.

10:02: Communicators with the Vice President in the security bunker begin receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft — presumably hijacked — heading toward Washington. This is Flight 93.

10:02: CNN announces that the Sears Tower in Chicago has been evacuated.

10:03 (approximately): The National Military Command Center learns from the White House of Flight 93's hijacking.

10:03:11: United Airlines Flight 93 is crashed by its hijackers and passengers at 583 mph (926 km/h, 272 m/s, or 509 knots), due to fighting in the cockpit 80 miles (129 km) southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.[26] Later reports indicate that passengers had learned about the World Trade Center and Pentagon crashes on cell phones and at least three were planning on resisting the hijackers; the resistance was confirmed by Flight 93's cockpit voice recording, on which the hijackers are heard making their decision to down the plane before the passengers succeed in breaching the cockpit door. The 9/11 Commission believed that Flight 93's target was either the United States Capitol building or the White House in Washington, D.C.

10:05: Andrea Mitchell, reporting on NBC from outside the Pentagon, reports that Osama bin Laden may have been involved in the attacks.

10:05: CNN's headlines read: "SOUTH TOWER AT WTC COLLAPSES."

10:05: The IDS Center in Minneapolis is evacuated.

10:07: NBC reports for the first time that the South Tower of the World Trade Center has collapsed. Prior to this time they have said only that a section of the building has fallen away.

10:07: NEADS, controlling the only set of fighters over Washington, first learns of the hijacking of Flight 93, 4 minutes after it actually crashed.

10:08: Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Herndon reports to FAA headquarters that Flight 93 may be down near Johnstown, Pennsylvania; at 10:17 the Command Center concludes it is so.

10:10: Part of the west side of the Pentagon collapses.

10:10: NEADS emphatically tells fighter pilots over Washington, "Negative clearance to shoot."

10:10 to 10:15 (approximately): Vice President Cheney, unaware that Flight 93 has crashed, authorizes fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane, reported to be 80 miles (129 km) from Washington, based not on radar (from which it has disappeared) but speed and trajectory projections.

10:13: Thousands are involved in an evacuation of the United Nations complex in New York.

10:13 to 10:22: The 9/11 Commission's estimated arrival of Flight 93 over Washington had it not crashed in Pennsylvania.

10:14 to 10:19: A lieutenant colonel at the White House repeatedly relays to the NMCC that the Vice President has confirmed that fighters are cleared to engage inbound aircraft if they can verify that the aircraft was hijacked.

10:18: NBC reports that Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has denied complicity in the attacks and is appalled by them.

10:20: President Bush, aboard Air Force One, tells Vice President Cheney that he has authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary.

10:23: The Associated Press reports a car bomb has exploded outside the State Department in Washington, D.C. This and several other reports of terrorist acts in the capital are quickly found to be false.

10:24: Two men who were being evacuated through the underground shopping mall below the South Tower when it collapsed on them are able to climb up through thirty feet of debris to safety.

10:28:22:[10] The North Tower of the World Trade Center collapses. Due to the destruction of the gypsum-encased stairwells on the impact floors (most skyscraper stairwells are encased in reinforced concrete), no one who was above the impact zone in the North Tower escapes the collapse. The Marriott Hotel, located at the base of the two towers, is also destroyed. The second collapse is also viewed live on television and heard on radio. The North Tower collapses 1 hour, 42 minutes after the impact of Flight 11, meaning the building had burned during the whole duration of the attacks.

Several long-distance videos of the collapse, such as CNN, were able to notice that, after the cloud of dust had partially cleared away, a portion of the building was still standing. It appeared to be the lower half of the northwest corner column of the North Tower, which, like a spire, grew larger and had more structure still standing near the bottom. The portion rose to a fairly good height considering the collapse around it, as it appeared to rise nearly forty stories off the ground. This piece remained standing for a few seconds after the initial collapse before it also came down.

10:31: NORAD first communicates the Vice President's shootdown authority to NEADS.

10:35: Air Force One, carrying the president, turns for Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, Louisiana.

10:37: Associated Press reports that officials at the Somerset County airport confirm that a large plane has crashed in western Pennsylvania. CNN's Aaron Brown passes along reports that a 747 is "down" in Pennsylvania. He stresses these reports are unconfirmed. He also, in the confusion, reports another plane heading for the Pentagon.

10:37: The Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, is evacuated and closed.

10:39: Another hijacked jumbo jet is claimed to be headed for Washington, D.C. F-15s are scrambled and patrol the airspace above Washington, D.C. while other fighter jets sweep the airspace above New York City. They have orders, first issued by Vice President Cheney and later confirmed by President Bush, to shoot down any potentially dangerous planes that do not comply with orders given to them via radio. Eventually, the aircraft is revealed to be a medevac helicopter on its way to the Pentagon.

10:41: NBC News confirms that a plane has "gone down" in Somerset County. The earlier unconfirmed statements about an incident at the State Department in Washington, D.C. are reported as false.

10:43: CNN reports that a mass evacuation of Washington, D.C. and New York has been started. A few minutes later, New York mayor Rudy Giuliani orders an evacuation of Lower Manhattan.

10:49: Fox News Channel is the first of the United States news networks to implement a news ticker at the bottom of its screen for supplementary information about the attacks. CNN adds one at 11:11, and MSNBC adds one at approximately 2:00 pm. All three cable networks have used a news ticker continuously in the years since (and many local television stations have followed suit).

10:50:19: Five stories of part of the Pentagon collapse due to the fire.

10:53: New York's primary elections are canceled.

10:53: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld orders the U.S. military placed at DEFCON 3, for the first time since the Yom Kippur War in 1973.

11:00 a.m.

11:00: Transport Canada halts all aircraft departures until further notice, except for police, military, and humanitarian flights, as part of Operation Yellow Ribbon. The operation was well underway as international flights headed for the U.S. had already started to land at Canadian airports, beginning at CFB Goose Bay. Fourteen other airports follow, including Halifax, Lester B. Pearson in Toronto, Montréal-Dorval, and Vancouver.

11:05: The FAA confirms that several planes have been hijacked in addition to American Airlines Flight 11.

11:16: American Airlines confirms the loss of its two aircraft.

11:26: United Airlines confirms the loss of Flight 93 and states that it is "deeply concerned" about Flight 175.

11:53: United Airlines confirms the loss of its two aircraft.

11:55: The border between the U.S. and Mexico is on highest alert, but is not closed.

12:00 p.m.

12:01 (approximately): Fourteen people, including twelve firefighters, who were in a section of a stairwell in the North Tower that held together during the collapse, climb the stairs to the top of the Ground Zero rubble field.

12:04: Los Angeles International Airport, the intended destination of Flights 11, 77 and 175, is shut down.

12:15: San Francisco International Airport, the intended destination of Flight 93, is shut down.

12:15 (approximately): The airspace over the 48 contiguous United States is clear of all commercial and private flights.

12:30 (approximately): Secretary of State Colin Powell boards a plane in Lima, Peru, for Washington, D.C.

12:39: On CNN, Senator John McCain characterizes attack as an "act of war."

12:41: Senator Orrin Hatch tells CNN, "Both the FBI and our intelligence community believe that this is Bin Laden's signature."

1:00 p.m.

1:00 (approximately): At the Pentagon, fire crews are still fighting fires. The early response to the attack had been coordinated from the National Military Command Center, but that had to be evacuated when it began to fill with smoke.

1:04: President Bush puts the U.S. military on high alert worldwide (known as Force Protection Condition Delta). Taped remarks from the President were aired from Barksdale Air Force Base, stating that "freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward and freedom will be defended." He also said that the "United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts." He then leaves for a U.S. Strategic Command bunker located at Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Nebraska.

1:27: Mayor Anthony A. Williams of Washington, D.C., declares a state of emergency; the District of Columbia National Guard arrives on site.

2:00 p.m.

2:39: At a press conference New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is asked to estimate the number of casualties at the World Trade Center. He replies, "More than any of us can bear."

2:50: President Bush arrives at Offutt Air Force Base, Bellevue, Nebraska to convene a National Security Council teleconference via the U.S. STRATCOM bunker.

3:00 p.m.

3:00 (approx.): Pasquale Buzzelli, who lost consciousness in a North Tower stairway during the collapse, awakens to find himself lying atop the debris with only a fractured foot.

4:00 p.m.


 


 Smoke plume emanating from the World Trade Center as seen from the ISS (4:00 p.m. EST)
4:00: National news outlets report that high officials in the federal intelligence community are stating that Osama bin Laden is suspect number one.

4:25: The New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ, and the American Stock Exchange report that they will remain closed Wednesday, September 12.

4:36: President Bush departs Offutt Air Force Base on Air Force One.

5:00 p.m.

5:20:27: The penthouse on top of 7 World Trade Center crumbles apart, only about 6 seconds before the entire building would begin to collapse.

5:20:33: 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story building, collapses. The building contained New York's emergency operations center, operated by the NYC Office of Emergency Management, originally intended to respond to disasters such as the September 11 terrorist attacks. Due to the emergency personnel having more than enough time to evacuate the building since the collapse of the North Tower, there are no injuries or deaths as a result of the collapse.

6:00 p.m.

6:00: Explosions and tracer fire are reported in Kabul, Afghanistan, by CNN and the BBC. The Northern Alliance, involved in a civil war with the Taliban government, is later reported to have attacked Kabul's airport with helicopter gunships.

6:00: The last of the aircraft headed for the U.S. lands in Canada at Vancouver International Airport, since it was flying over the Pacific.

6:54: President Bush arrives at the White House.

7:00 p.m.

7:00: Efforts to locate survivors in the rubble that had been the twin towers continue. Fleets of ambulances are lined up to transport the injured to nearby hospitals, but they stand empty. "Ground Zero", as the site of the WTC collapse becomes known henceforth, is the exclusive domain of New York City's Fire Department and Police Department, despite volunteer steel and construction workers who stand ready to move large quantities of debris quickly. Relatives and friends of victims or likely victims, many displaying enlarged photographs of the missing printed on home computer printers, have appeared around New York. The New York Armory at Lexington Avenue and 26th Street and Union Square Park at 14th Street and Broadway become centers of vigil.

7:24: Members of Congress join on the steps of the United States Capitol and sing "God Bless America".

7:30: The U.S. government denies any responsibility for the reported explosions in Kabul, capital of Afghanistan.

8:00 p.m.

8:00 (approx.): Port Authority Police Officer Will Jimeno, who was in an underground corridor between the two towers, is found alive in the rubble, and eventually freed at approximately 11:00 p.m.

8:30: President Bush addresses the nation from the White House. Among his statements: "Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts," "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve," and "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts...we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

As Bush speaks, members of Congress tell CNN that during private briefings with senior administration officials, they were told that the administration had enough evidence that it was "confident" the attacks are the work of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist network.

9:00 p.m.

9:00: President Bush meets his full National Security Council, followed roughly half an hour later by a meeting with a smaller group of key advisers. Bush and his advisers have evidence that Osama bin Laden is behind the attacks. CIA Director Tenet says that al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan are essentially one and the same. Bush says, "Tell the Taliban we're finished with them."

10:00 p.m.

10:00: There are reports (later proven incorrect) of many survivors buried in rubble in New York making cell phone calls. Only two more survivors will be pulled from the rubble on September 12 and neither of them had made cell phone calls.

11:00 p.m.

11:00: After 13 hours, the NYPD, FDNY and PAPD finally dig out Will Jimeno. They learn that Port Authority police sergeant John McLoughlin is also trapped. The NYPD, FDNY and PAPD dig him out at 8:00 am the next morning after he has been there for almost a day.

11:30: Before sleeping, President Bush enters into his journal: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."
This is what happened time framed. Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 24, 2014, 04:03:54 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"[...]  able to melt steel that airplane fuel can't do.

Factually incorrect, and built on a false premise as well.

Firstly, under the right circumstances, jet fuel can bring steel to its failure point.  

Secondly, after 30 minutes at around a thousand degrees F, steel only has 60% of its tensile strength.  Steel need not melt to fail; it must only lack the tensile strength to support the load placed upon it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 24, 2014, 04:27:11 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "Solitary"[...]  able to melt steel that airplane fuel can't do.

Factually incorrect, and built on a false premise as well.

Firstly, under the right circumstances, jet fuel can bring steel to its failure point.  

Secondly, after 30 minutes at around a thousand degrees F, steel only has 60% of its tensile strength.  Steel need not melt to fail; it must only lack the tensile strength to support the load placed upon it.
This is the big thing people seem to not understand, and I've never figured out why. Anyone who has ever cooked something or watched their trash burn can plainly see that solid objects have a failure point long before they actually melt. Yet 9/11 Truthers seem to think steel has all of its strength all the way until it melts. That's right up there with Creationists and the "no transitional forms" line.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on January 24, 2014, 04:36:20 PM
I've read many timelines for the whole event, and they are all very specific in mentioning footage of the first crash not being publicly available until the day after.

 Do you actually think the French film crew said to the firefighters, "wait can we drop this footage off to the media before we go and try to save any lives?"

 COME ON quit lying to yourselfs!

 The only footage of the first plane is from the french brothers following the fire crew, only shown the next day (what with the french brothers being involved and unable to get out) and i think some security camera footage that came out even later

 the ONLY footage shown on sept 11 2001 was of the second plane hitting


 They showed the smoke coming from the first tower continually until the second plane hit, after that they repeatedly showed the second plane hitting. This is the point, if people are fooled by the media that they saw the first plane hit the Towers, they can be fooled by them as to what really happened also. Let me see, if air plane fuel can weaken steel by heat, how did the steel all the way down weaken? Was the entire building on fire when people escaped going down before the whole building collapsed? Also, I did say nano-thermite. Bombs were already used at the base of the Tower and it never came down. How did the terrorist manage to do that? The building had a center support structure that could be very easy to put bombs in that are remote controlled to explode without wires. The military does it all the time. Look how much time it took for the military to respond to what was happening. Just think if they were hydrogen bombs missiles from a submarine hijacked. I have seen enough when I was younger to not even trust our government and what it says after the fact. Bush didn't want to upset the kids when he hear about it, but didn't mind sending their fathers and mothers to a war by lying.  :shock:  :rollin:  :roll: Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 26, 2014, 03:36:34 PM
Hey, thanks for that How to Spot Bullshit video, Hijiri Byakuren.  Couldn't agree more that Bullshit is everywhere, all around us, it's been for thousands of years.  And especially agree that "people with bullshit ideas tend to do a lot of the same things."  I think we all basically agree that most theists don't come up with their bullshit ideas on their own.  Someone comes up with the idea, and others tend to go along with the crowd.

Same could be said for the Official Conspiracy Theory.  Corporate America came up with the OCT about Osama bin Laden, 15 Saudis and several other muslims and like so many sheep, the majority just went along with the crowd believing what everyone else believed.  (Corporate America, i.e. same folks who brought you the Saddam Husein / Weapons of Mass Destruction theory.)  If we apply the same scrutiny and logic to the OCT that we apply to theism, the OCT just disappears into thin air from whence it came.  We point our fingers at theists and bring up Occam's Razor, usually to no avail.

The irony is that even while most OCT'ers are of the opinion that there are many corporate and government officials who are nothing but thievin' scoundrels, to suggest that several of these scoundrels conspired in the murder of nearly 3000 New Yorkers on September 11, 2001, this is unthinkable.  Contrary to Occam's Razor, OCT'ers would rather believe that a passport made of paper survived a fireball that vaporized the person whose pocket it was in as well as vaporizing the two black boxes aboard the same aircraft in which the passport was travelling.  OCT'ers would rather believe that a 757 could travel at 500 miles per hour at an altitude very low to the ground than to think that a handful of scoundrels participated in mass murder.  "Scoundrels intimidate us and take our money, they sell us unsafe products, they make laws to protect themselves at our expense.  But American and israeli scoundrels would *never* participate in a plot to kill 3000 of us!  Only muslim scoundrels would do that!"

OCT'ers would rather believe all muslims are so evil they would not hesitate to plot the murder of a few thousand innocent Americans.  No matter that it would result in retaliation from the world's most formidable military power, killing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of thier own.  But entertaining the thought that scoundrels sitting around in board rooms might be happy to profit from the sales of war machines and war reconstruction projects in the defeated war-torn nation?  Never happen.

Occam's Razor does not apply to situations when it makes more sense to capture a teenage goat herder boy from some mountain village in Afghanistan and hold him in a torture facility for a decade than it does to capture the alleged mastermind of the crime of all time *alive* and torture him or even interogate him at all.  Yes, sir, why waste good tax money on a trial for Osama bin Laden when it is much easier to sentence him to summary execution in absentia and do him in Mafia style then feed his body to the fish.  Finding out who hired bin Laden... well, no, we don't even want to go there.  Dead men tell no tales.  Let's leave it that way.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 26, 2014, 03:44:05 PM
AtheistMoFo, I need your help! Was it the Jews, the Germans, the Illuminati, Godzilla, or Corporate America that brought down the Titanic? I'm sure one of your intelligence has researched this in depth, and I need to know!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 26, 2014, 04:09:39 PM
I still don't know who shot JR. SURE the show said it was whatsisface, but I still have my doubts.

OBAMA did it!  :shock:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 26, 2014, 04:47:19 PM
Quote from: "Solitary"Let me see, if air plane fuel can weaken steel by heat, how did the steel all the way down weaken? Was the entire building on fire when people escaped going down before the whole building collapsed?

It doesn't need to weaken all the way down.  It only needs to weaken at one floor, and then fail.  Subsequent to that, you are imposing loads upon members which cause them to fail ... especially once you take into account the kinetic energy of the collapse itself, which you clearly aren't doing when you ask this question.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 26, 2014, 07:16:18 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It doesn't need to weaken all the way down.  It only needs to weaken at one floor, and then fail.  Subsequent to that, you are imposing loads upon members which cause them to fail ... especially once you take into account the kinetic energy of the collapse itself, which you clearly aren't doing when you ask this question.
Show us your calculations of the kinetic energy of the collapse, and how much kinetic energy was required, please?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: billhilly on January 26, 2014, 07:53:47 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"I still don't know who shot JR. SURE the show said it was whatsisface, but I still have my doubts.

OBAMA did it!  :shock:


It was Bushitler, not Obama who shot JR, killed Kennedy, knows where Hoffa is, and blew up the towers.  Obama just wrecked the economy, spies on everybody, and is turning the US into gay, muslim communists.  I think maybe Reagan had something to do with the Edmund Fitzgerald though.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 26, 2014, 09:37:18 PM
(//http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Tripping+Balls_1c98a5_3904283.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 27, 2014, 12:46:03 AM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"AtheistMoFo, I need your help! Was it the Jews, the Germans, the Illuminati, Godzilla, or Corporate America that brought down the Titanic? I'm sure one of your intelligence has researched this in depth, and I need to know!
Didn't you see the animated movie? It was an octopus, and nobody died! Duh, everyone knows that. :P
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 27, 2014, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It doesn't need to weaken all the way down.  It only needs to weaken at one floor, and then fail.  Subsequent to that, you are imposing loads upon members which cause them to fail ... especially once you take into account the kinetic energy of the collapse itself, which you clearly aren't doing when you ask this question.
Show us your calculations of the kinetic energy of the collapse, and how much kinetic energy was required, please?

I haven't calculated exact numbers.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect.  Or, are you yourself now changing the laws of physics?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 27, 2014, 03:02:31 PM
I fought a few structural fires during my time as a firefighter. Trust me, steel girders can fail more easily than you think. A steel girder or beam subject to heat doesn't have to melt to lose structural integrity. Metal expands and contracts. Get it hot it will expand considerably. Expanding beams that can't stretch will twist and buckle. I had one that I was standing on fail underneath me in the roof of a building, so I speak from experience. It was socketed on both ends and couldn't stretch, so it twisted and sagged, with me on it. And this in a 4 story building, not a skyscraper.

The remains of a fire is much more than a pile of ash. A great amount of the remainder will be structural members and attached debris. If there are explosive devices attached to supporting structures, there would be huge amounts of evidence, not "trace elements." there would be clearly cut beams obvious evidence of explosives, large amounts of nitrous residue and so forth. The evidence would be so obvious it would be impossible to ignore.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 27, 2014, 04:35:55 PM
^ as I said, explosives aren't the most subtle things.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: baronvonrort on January 27, 2014, 06:41:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It doesn't need to weaken all the way down.  It only needs to weaken at one floor, and then fail.  Subsequent to that, you are imposing loads upon members which cause them to fail ... especially once you take into account the kinetic energy of the collapse itself, which you clearly aren't doing when you ask this question.
Show us your calculations of the kinetic energy of the collapse, and how much kinetic energy was required, please?

Try this link-
//http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

It came from here-//http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 27, 2014, 06:56:50 PM
what a stupid thing to argue about.  Here, I will say it, yes your right all mighty physics gawd.  Your a genius.    How did it take u so long?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 27, 2014, 07:01:18 PM
Quote from: "Poison Tree"That the source you put forward to prove free fall says 40% slower than free fall; free fall accounted for less then half the collapse measured in time or distance. That's only looking at the north exterior face collapse, ignoring horizontal motion caused by internal cascading floor failures and the collapse of the east pent house.
Ya' know, I always used to think atheists have more sense of logic and reasoning than theists, and maybe as a general rule it is so, but atheists can sometimes be every bit as illogical as theists.  Here is a little allegory to demonstrate.

<allegory>
At 10:00 sharp, Poison Tree passes through the toll gate and enters the toll highway and his receipt is stamped with the time.  After driving for an hour at the legal speed limit of 60 miles per hour, he stops at a rest area to pee.  As he exits the rest room, he notices a an attractive brunette coming out of the ladies room.  "Yowza, yowza, yowza!  I just gotta get that broad's phone number!"  He strikes up a conversation and nearly an hour later, he finally gets her phone number.  Getting back in his car, Poison Tree realizes the time.  "Fuck!  I was supposed to meet my ol' lady at noon.  She gonna be pissed!"  He starts hauling ass down the highway pedal to the metal.  Then he sees the lights flashing in his rear view mirror and hears the siren, "Curses!"

In court, the cop presents his data showing the exact place where he nabbed Poison Tree and the speed at which the speeder had been clocked.  Showing his time-stamped toll receit, Poison Tree pleads, "But your honor, I passed through the toll gate at 10 o'clock, and the occifer pulled me over at 12 noon 72 miles beyond the toll gate.  Two hours, 72 miles, that's an average of 36 miles an hour, 40% slower than the speed limit."

The judge does the math, pounds his gavel and says, "Case dismissed!"
</allegory>

In Poison Tree's dreams!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 27, 2014, 07:04:47 PM
mo fo, are u employed? As?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 27, 2014, 07:07:06 PM
It's fucking cold outside y'all!!!!   How's the weather?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 27, 2014, 07:25:23 PM
Quote from: "fingerscrossed2013"It's fucking cold outside y'all!!!!   How's the weather?
Cloudy with a chance of reptilian space Jew conspiracy.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 27, 2014, 08:02:32 PM
Of fuck Rocks, that's every day it seems.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 27, 2014, 08:07:49 PM
Quote from: "fingerscrossed2013"Of fuck Rocks, that's every day it seems.
Nah, Wednesdays we get gay Nazi commie Muslims.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 27, 2014, 08:12:36 PM
Oh shit. Why do I always forget that.  Speaking of Wednesday, why do xtians go to church then?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 27, 2014, 08:15:26 PM
The Templar-Mason-illuminati world order beams mind control into their brains so as to distract them from the development of the Elvis clones they used to kill JFK.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 27, 2014, 10:04:10 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 27, 2014, 10:07:37 PM
I didn't say it was a stupid topic.  I said it was stupid to ARGUE about it      No your stupid, no your stupid
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 27, 2014, 10:14:54 PM
Quote from: "jumper"
Quote from: "fingerscrossed2013"what a stupid thing to argue about.

Maybe you think so, but there's some people who don't just simply believe what was reported.



Oh, and the thread must always turn into talk of tin foil hats, or JFK, or Elvis. I mean, really?
Fine, I'll mix it up. Aliens made the pyramids, the MKULTRA program is still around, and dinosaurs are a hoax perpetuated by ghost Abe Lincoln.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 28, 2014, 04:11:14 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Poison Tree"That the source you put forward to prove free fall says 40% slower than free fall; free fall accounted for less then half the collapse measured in time or distance. That's only looking at the north exterior face collapse, ignoring horizontal motion caused by internal cascading floor failures and the collapse of the east pent house.
Ya' know, I always used to think atheists have more sense of logic and reasoning than theists, and maybe as a general rule it is so, but atheists can sometimes be every bit as illogical as theists.  Here is a little allegory to demonstrate.

<allegory>
At 10:00 sharp, Poison Tree passes through the toll gate and enters the toll highway and his receipt is stamped with the time.  After driving for an hour at the legal speed limit of 60 miles per hour, he stops at a rest area to pee.  As he exits the rest room, he notices a an attractive brunette coming out of the ladies room.  "Yowza, yowza, yowza!  I just gotta get that broad's phone number!"  He strikes up a conversation and nearly an hour later, he finally gets her phone number.  Getting back in his car, Poison Tree realizes the time.  "Fuck!  I was supposed to meet my ol' lady at noon.  She gonna be pissed!"  He starts hauling ass down the highway pedal to the metal.  Then he sees the lights flashing in his rear view mirror and hears the siren, "Curses!"

In court, the cop presents his data showing the exact place where he nabbed Poison Tree and the speed at which the speeder had been clocked.  Showing his time-stamped toll receit, Poison Tree pleads, "But your honor, I passed through the toll gate at 10 o'clock, and the occifer pulled me over at 12 noon 72 miles beyond the toll gate.  Two hours, 72 miles, that's an average of 36 miles an hour, 40% slower than the speed limit."

The judge does the math, pounds his gavel and says, "Case dismissed!"
</allegory>

In Poison Tree's dreams!

So you truly believe they only used explosives to take out 8 specific floors at the exact moment the rest of the building collapsed? That's what your allegory says.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 28, 2014, 04:22:00 AM
Why is this thread still happening?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 28, 2014, 04:24:57 AM
'cause mofo is kinda hilarious and also I am bored.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 28, 2014, 06:02:50 AM
That's a good a reason as any I guess :D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 28, 2014, 12:35:32 PM
I like nuts
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MitchellDaBomb on January 28, 2014, 08:58:01 PM
Ive written papers on 9/11 and i totally believe it was a demolition. Witnesses said they heard explosions coming from the basement. Theres also a few studies on the seismic activity below ground. Check it out
http://www.911truth.org/were-explosives ... r-11-2001/ (http://www.911truth.org/were-explosives-the-source-of-the-seismic-signals-emitted-from-new-york-on-september-11-2001/)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on January 28, 2014, 09:03:00 PM
What frightens me is that the people that supposedly know this is a mass governmental cover-up and start discussions such as this one ... go to sleep at night just fine.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: baronvonrort on January 29, 2014, 12:36:26 AM
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"Ive written papers on 9/11 and i totally believe it was a demolition. Witnesses said they heard explosions coming from the basement. Theres also a few studies on the seismic activity below ground.


Try google for implosion world 911 and read the pdf from those who do explosive demolitions, tell us why they didnt take the base out first like every other explosive demolition with buildings, why do those who do explosive demolitions say this was not an explosive demolition?

You nutjobs should read this link and cite anything you have problems with-
//http://www.debunking911.com
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 29, 2014, 12:56:28 AM
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WATCH A VIDEO that shows what demolition experts have to do to make a building come down. How many times do I have to repeat this? It takes weeks of work, requires hundreds of pound of explosives, requires the stringing of miles of cable, Primacord, detonators, control boxes and connectors.

Imagine dozens of men strapped with tools, carrying K-12 saws, power drills, dragging bundles of cable down stairwell after stairwell, removing sections of wall to get to support structures, drilling or cutting into mainframe building components, installing large junction controls.

Explosive experts require years of training. They have to be licensed and registered to do their jobs. Explosives are tracked and registered. Somebody tell me how you sneak tons of dynamite into a building over weeks of time and nobody noticed. I swear to god, you people are clueless.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MitchellDaBomb on January 29, 2014, 04:17:19 AM
Quote from: "baronvonrort"
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"Ive written papers on 9/11 and i totally believe it was a demolition. Witnesses said they heard explosions coming from the basement. Theres also a few studies on the seismic activity below ground.


Try google for implosion world 911 and read the pdf from those who do explosive demolitions, tell us why they didnt take the base out first like every other explosive demolition with buildings, why do those who do explosive demolitions say this was not an explosive demolition?

You nutjobs should read this link and cite anything you have problems with-
//http://www.debunking911.com

There was a petition of over 2000 architects, engineers, and demolition experts who said it was a controlled demolition...Tell me how an unscathed steel-framed building falls from "fires" in 6 seconds.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2014, 04:24:32 AM
QuoteThere was a petition of over 2000 architects, engineers, and demolition experts who said it was a controlled demolition

A sample group of 0.0000066% of the population isn't very impressive. You can probably get an equally large group of people to say that the president is secretly a reptile or that aliens built the pyramids.
And unless you can list the petition and the professional credentials of all the people on it, along with proof that they said it, it's basically just a meaningless statement.


Also, this whole topic is about explaining how a building can collapse from fire. As to unscathed buildings; if you have any example of unscathed buildings collapsing, I'd like to see. Because the building in question wasn't unscathed at all.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: baronvonrort on January 29, 2014, 04:36:28 AM
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"
Quote from: "baronvonrort"
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"Ive written papers on 9/11 and i totally believe it was a demolition. Witnesses said they heard explosions coming from the basement. Theres also a few studies on the seismic activity below ground.


Try google for implosion world 911 and read the pdf from those who do explosive demolitions, tell us why they didnt take the base out first like every other explosive demolition with buildings, why do those who do explosive demolitions say this was not an explosive demolition?

You nutjobs should read this link and cite anything you have problems with-
//http://www.debunking911.com

There was a petition of over 2000 architects, engineers, and demolition experts who said it was a controlled demolition...Tell me how an unscathed steel-framed building falls from "fires" in 6 seconds.

Argumentum ad numerum is a logical fallacy, there are probably more than 200000 people who think Elvis is still alive not to mention the JFK nutjobs, should we consider Elvis is still alive because of a few nutjobs?

Architects contract engineers to do engineering, architects are not qualified as engineers so are they qualified to talk about engineering?

There must be millions of engineers and architects and all they could get was around 2000, what about all those engineers like me who have no doubt the building was brought down by fundamental muslims crashing aircraft into it?

I am also a qualified pilot so the nutjob theories about what nutjob pilots say is codswallop,a 757 can climb faster than they descended on 9/11, try youtube for a 747 doing a barrel roll, commercial pilots are restricted from doing things so passengers dont hit the roof or end up with hot drinks in their laps, i like flying upside down.

Implosion world hold/held world records for explosive demolitions, they wrote a PDF explaining why it had nothing in common with a explosive demolition, try google for implosion world 911 and read the pdf and take note how every building in the history of explosive demolition takes the base out first.

Which building are you ignorantly claiming was unscathed and fell in 6 seconds?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 29, 2014, 04:56:18 AM
Quote from: "stromboli"PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WATCH A VIDEO that shows what demolition experts have to do to make a building come down. How many times do I have to repeat this? It takes weeks of work, requires hundreds of pound of explosives, requires the stringing of miles of cable, Primacord, detonators, control boxes and connectors.

Imagine dozens of men strapped with tools, carrying K-12 saws, power drills, dragging bundles of cable down stairwell after stairwell, removing sections of wall to get to support structures, drilling or cutting into mainframe building components, installing large junction controls.

Explosive experts require years of training. They have to be licensed and registered to do their jobs. Explosives are tracked and registered. Somebody tell me how you sneak tons of dynamite into a building over weeks of time and nobody noticed. I swear to god, you people are clueless.


I think this needs to be in a 72 point font on every page of this thread.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MitchellDaBomb on January 29, 2014, 05:03:03 AM
Building 7...its highly improbable that fires melted all of the columns...and you don't need to remove the base...thermite or any other highly concentrated explosive attached to the columns anywhere near the base would do the trick. Also pictures shown of the columns are cleanly cut. I dont see why you think nutjobs are people who question the official story written by the media (owned by only 5 companies)...not to mention  the report for 9/11 was written behind closed doors.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2014, 05:36:37 AM
Have you ever seen thermite explode? Because it's not exactly a highly concentrated explosive. As far as I know it's primarily used as a welding material. I've seen experiments with it in high school, and the worst it did but burn through a terracotta vase. It looks and sounds really cool, but it's a piss poor explosive from what I saw.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 29, 2014, 06:55:04 AM
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"Building 7...its highly improbable that fires melted all of the columns...and you don't need to remove the base...thermite or any other highly concentrated explosive attached to the columns anywhere near the base would do the trick. Also pictures shown of the columns are cleanly cut. I dont see why you think nutjobs are people who question the official story written by the media (owned by only 5 companies)...not to mention  the report for 9/11 was written behind closed doors.
As has been explained to you idiots a number of times already, the failing point of steel occurs well before its melting point. In fact, you can apply that principle to every substance known to man. Anyone who has ever cooked food or burned trash knows this.

Steel loses 90% of its strength at 800 degrees celcius, and a typical fire will burn at upwards of ~982 degrees. Steel holding up a structure such as a skyscraper will easily collapse long before this point. As for how the whole structure of each building collapsed: what exactly do you think happens when 3+ floors fail and several tons of tower comes crashing down on the floors below? There is a technical term for this; personally, I like to refer to it as "squishy squishy."
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 29, 2014, 07:19:05 AM
](*,)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on January 29, 2014, 07:45:12 AM
This thread is fascinating.

Also, I had no idea we had so many explosives and demolition experts on this board.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2014, 07:48:54 AM
Quote from: "Jason78"This thread is fascinating.

Also, I had no idea we had so many explosives and demolition experts on this board.

You can't set the bar too high if you want to collect the autographs of 2000 of them :P

(Sidenote: behold the explosive powers of thermite. Or rather, the lack of them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5kDOtkfIGw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5kDOtkfIGw)
 Unsurpisingly the term "nanothermite" doesn't even exist outside of 9/11 conspiracy theories; there doesn't really appear to be such a thing.)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 29, 2014, 09:40:37 AM
Fuck  all they need is vinegar and baking soda.   BAM   the job is done
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 29, 2014, 09:59:22 AM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9-11_conspiracy_theories)

Enough said.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 29, 2014, 03:30:58 PM
I already posted that Stromboli, and even referenced their section on Nano thermite,  and it was just ignored. Mofo just accused the rational wiki of being "irrational" about Al-Qaeda being able to hijack planes.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 29, 2014, 03:48:32 PM
I know you did, and I reposted it just for reinforcement. There is no question who hijacked the planes. There was a previous attempt to bomb the Twin Towers, which everybody forgets- a rental truck full of explosives in the basement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World ... er_bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing)
Also done by Islamic terrorists.
It makes absolutely no sense to assume that Jews would attack a building where Jewish people work in concert with an attack by Al Qaeda terrorists. Obviously the building was a target of Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is just conspiracy theory BS.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 29, 2014, 04:05:03 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 29, 2014, 04:23:32 PM
Quote from: "jumper"
Quote from: "stromboli"Obviously the building was a target of Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is just conspiracy theory BS.


So, why do you believe we over in Iraq and Afghanistan? Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are our attempt to free those countries from these same Islamic terrorists?
Did anyone here even say they supported the war in Iraq?

They didn't even use 9/11 as a pretense for Iraq. They used claims that Saddam was producing "weapons of mass destruction". Iraq would have happened regardless of 9/11.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 29, 2014, 04:26:45 PM
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"Building 7...its highly improbable that fires melted all of the columns...and you don't need to remove the base...thermite or any other highly concentrated explosive attached to the columns anywhere near the base would do the trick. Also pictures shown of the columns are cleanly cut. I dont see why you think nutjobs are people who question the official story written by the media (owned by only 5 companies)...not to mention  the report for 9/11 was written behind closed doors.
You know how I can tell you didn't read any part of this thread before slinging your shit into the ring? Just guess.

Also columns were cleanly cut? Gee, I wonder why. I mean shit man, you got me there...unless they were cut for search and rescue operations or cleanup or something like that, but that never happens after a major disaster.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: jumper on January 29, 2014, 04:37:42 PM
...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 29, 2014, 04:38:05 PM
You know SA what really happened was GOD punished everyone killed or injured on 911 just because of YOUR sexual orientation.  You probably didn't realize that you were so influential did you?  :)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2014, 04:42:50 PM
There's a big difference between a government shamefully using a tragedy to further it's own goals (which seems totally reasonable and expected of most governments) and a government risking complete revolution and anarchy by causing a tragedy (which seems completely ridiculous and pointless)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 29, 2014, 04:45:13 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"You know SA what really happened was GOD punished everyone killed or injured on 911 just because of YOUR sexual orientation.  You probably didn't realize that you were so influential did you?  :)
Damn, so God killed all of those people because of a gay 10 year old boy.

I need to find a way to use my powers for good.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 29, 2014, 04:47:49 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"You know SA what really happened was GOD punished everyone killed or injured on 911 just because of YOUR sexual orientation.  You probably didn't realize that you were so influential did you?  :)
Damn, so God killed all of those people because of a gay 10 year old boy.

I need to find a way to use my powers for good.
You have to pray for that.. Damn..you should know that! [-X
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 29, 2014, 04:48:58 PM
Those of us who have taken the time to learn a little bit of history know that "all warfare is based on deception."  One such deception is known as the false-flag attack.  Examples of false flag attacks go back to the stone age.  If there is any reason for ruling out the possibility of false flag, I would like to know why?

From the starting point of any analysis, we should not rule out any *plausible* senario.
(Note: anyone who wants to talk about Godzilla or aliens from another galaxy, please fuck off.  Thank you.)

Let us examine three plausible scenarios...

Scenario 1: cave-dwelling jihadists attacked and struck a grave blow on the world's most technologically advanced military without any help from insiders,
Scenario 2: jihadists led by Osama bin Laden planned the whole thing and enlisted the help of a few insiders,
Scenarior 3: it was planned by two or more insiders who enlisted help from jihadist patsies such as former CIA stooge Osama bin Laden.

Which of the above scenarios entails the fewest assumptions?

Scenario 1, we have to assume that the jihadists somehow expected to benefit from the attack.  Assume that they somehow knew the air command would be conducting drills on that particular day and at that time.  Assume 19 men were able to get through airport security with box cutters.  Assume that was only coincidence that airport security at both Logan and Newark was managed by the same israeli company.  Assume the hijackers left flight training manuals in their vehicle because they were doing some last minute cramming before their final test of flying 757s and 767s.  Assume a fireball that vaporized bodies and vaporized aircraft black boxes somehow did not vaporize the passport that fell to the street below.  Assume all of the support columns of Building No. 7 failed due to intense heat at exactly the same instant.  Assume that the two co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission both said the commission was set up to fail because they needed an excuse for their own failures.  Assume it was a coincidence that everything turned out exactly as PNAC had hoped for.  Assume that the summary execution (hit) ordered on Osama bin Laden was the result of Obama's desire to get it over with without further ado (even as goat herders are still being tortured in Guantanamo for their intelligence value).  And there are even more assumptions, let's leave those for another day.

Scenario 2, we only need to assume that a few people in positions of authority wanted the jihadists to succeed.

Scenario 3, we only need to assume that it WAS a false flag operation and that at least a few insiders in positions of authority were in on it.

So, using Occam's Razor, analyze the above.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 29, 2014, 04:53:30 PM
SA, please use your new found powers to get mofo to knock it off.  =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: TheLittlestLepton on January 29, 2014, 04:56:42 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"Obviously the building was a target of Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is just conspiracy theory BS.
Hi I'm new to these forums! Please Consider My views with the minimal scorn possible.
:-k
Honestly I think this is just a little close-minded, as scientists we must always consider that the theory we believe is true isn't necessarily true until it is proven. Although I do agree that it seems unlikely that World Trade Center was taken down with a controlled demolition I don't rule it out completely because there is not enough evidence to be able to state with 100% certainty that it wasn't.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on January 29, 2014, 04:59:46 PM
Quote from: "TheLittlestLepton"
Quote from: "stromboli"Obviously the building was a target of Islamic terrorists. To think otherwise is just conspiracy theory BS.
Hi I'm new to these forums! Please Consider My views with the minimal scorn possible.
:-k
Honestly I think this is just a little close-minded, as scientists we must always consider that the theory we believe is true isn't necessarily true until it is proven. Although I do agree that it seems unlikely that World Trade Center was taken down with a controlled demolition I don't rule it out completely because there is not enough evidence to be able to state with 100% certainty that it wasn't.

Welcome and true enough, but you also realize that ruling out the unlikely leaves the likely. You can make an assumption without knowing all the facts, if the majority of the facts indicate certain findings.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 29, 2014, 04:59:48 PM
I'm not a scientist so my level of needing 100% proof is uhmm..minimal.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2014, 05:01:07 PM
QuoteScenario 1: cave-dwelling jihadists attacked and struck a grave blow on the world's most technologically advanced military without any help from insiders,

Those cave-dwelling jihadists have been trained in the art of warfare by the CIA and have been operating as a terrorist cell for decades. You should maybe cut them some slack.

The fact that you are unable to make an unbiased post to save your life should really say enough about much time we should spend on your opinions. It's a good thing we've got so many bored people here.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 29, 2014, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WATCH A VIDEO that shows what demolition experts have to do to make a building come down. How many times do I have to repeat this? It takes weeks of work, requires hundreds of pound of explosives, requires the stringing of miles of cable, Primacord, detonators, control boxes and connectors.
Thank you for your input.  This brings up one of the further assumptions I mentioned.  If there had been no insiders in on the plot, wouldn't it have been pretty much impossible to rig the building(s) for demolition?

Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteThere was a petition of over 2000 architects, engineers, and demolition experts who said it was a controlled demolition
A sample group of 0.0000066% of the population isn't very impressive. You can probably get an equally large group of people to say that the president is secretly a reptile or that aliens built the pyramids.
And unless you can list the petition and the professional credentials of all the people on it, along with proof that they said it, it's basically just a meaningless statement.
Obviously you have not bothered to look at their website.  If you had, you would know that they go through painstaking effort to verify that every architect and engineer is truly qualified.  Spend a little more time on the website and you might even discover that 19 out of every 20 architects and engineers who watch their videos end up joining the group.  If you have any evidence that 19 out of 20 people who watch videos about the president being a reptile end up believing it, link please?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 29, 2014, 05:09:38 PM
QuoteThank you for your input. This brings up one of the further assumptions I mentioned. If there had been no insiders in on the plot, wouldn't it have been pretty much impossible to rig the building(s) for demolition?

It would be impossible to rig the building for demolition even with inside help.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on January 29, 2014, 05:10:40 PM
Quote from: "TheLittlestLepton"I don't rule it out completely because there is not enough evidence to be able to state with 100% certainty that it wasn't.
This modus operandi is faulty from the very onset.
Are you omnipotent? So you can't know god doesn't exist, therefore can't be atheist.
If I publicly accuse you of being a rapist, then by your logic we mustn't rule out that possibility on any other basis short of 100% certainty. So it would become your burden to satisfactorily prove that to us, lest you remain suspected of being a rapist.
It's faulty thinking. Rid yourself of it :)

Same applies with this line of reasoning
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Those of us who have taken the time to learn a little bit of history know that "all warfare is based on deception."  One such deception is known as the false-flag attack.  Examples of false flag attacks go back to the stone age.  If there is any reason for ruling out the possibility of false flag, I would like to know why?
"Well this happened in the past so we must automatically carry the burden of disproving it first"
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 29, 2014, 05:10:45 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Those of us who have taken the time to learn a little bit of history know that "all warfare is based on deception."  One such deception is known as the false-flag attack.  Examples of false flag attacks go back to the stone age.  If there is any reason for ruling out the possibility of false flag, I would like to know why?

From the starting point of any analysis, we should not rule out any *plausible* senario.
(Note: anyone who wants to talk about Godzilla or aliens from another galaxy, please fuck off.  Thank you.)

Let us examine three plausible scenarios...

Scenario 1: cave-dwelling jihadists attacked and struck a grave blow on the world's most technologically advanced military without any help from insiders,
Scenario 2: jihadists led by Osama bin Laden planned the whole thing and enlisted the help of a few insiders,
Scenarior 3: it was planned by two or more insiders who enlisted help from jihadist patsies such as former CIA stooge Osama bin Laden.

Which of the above scenarios entails the fewest assumptions?

Scenario 1, we have to assume that the jihadists somehow expected to benefit from the attack.  Assume that they somehow knew the air command would be conducting drills on that particular day and at that time.  Assume 19 men were able to get through airport security with box cutters.  Assume that was only coincidence that airport security at both Logan and Newark was managed by the same israeli company.  Assume the hijackers left flight training manuals in their vehicle because they were doing some last minute cramming before their final test of flying 757s and 767s.  Assume a fireball that vaporized bodies and vaporized aircraft black boxes somehow did not vaporize the passport that fell to the street below.  Assume all of the support columns of Building No. 7 failed due to intense heat at exactly the same instant.  Assume that the two co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission both said the commission was set up to fail because they needed an excuse for their own failures.  Assume it was a coincidence that everything turned out exactly as PNAC had hoped for.  Assume that the summary execution (hit) ordered on Osama bin Laden was the result of Obama's desire to get it over with without further ado (even as goat herders are still being tortured in Guantanamo for their intelligence value).  And there are even more assumptions, let's leave those for another day.

Scenario 2, we only need to assume that a few people in positions of authority wanted the jihadists to succeed.

Scenario 3, we only need to assume that it WAS a false flag operation and that at least a few insiders in positions of authority were in on it.

So, using Occam's Razor, analyze the above.
Okay, someone needs to say this: if that "cave-dwelling jihadists" comment, along with your previous comments about "infidel machines ", is meant to insinuate that Arabs or Muslims, even the jihadist ones, are ignorant or stupid, you need to stop right now. Seriously, claiming that an entire disparate group is stupid beyond belief is in of itself, stupid beyond belief.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on January 29, 2014, 05:15:37 PM
AtheistMoFo, how do you sleep at night, knowing 911 was an inside job?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 29, 2014, 05:25:26 PM
MoFo, if you knew the answer to your topic question, why the fuck did you ask?  I don't believe anyone denies that anything is possible in life, but to argue when people don't answer your question, with the answer you want...let's just say childish :'(
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on January 29, 2014, 05:26:52 PM
It's a mind game
http://www.thenew-renaissanceman.com/mind-games-2.html (http://www.thenew-renaissanceman.com/mind-games-2.html)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: DunkleSeele on January 29, 2014, 05:43:30 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Those of us who have taken the time to learn a little bit of history know that "all warfare is based on deception."  One such deception is known as the false-flag attack.  Examples of false flag attacks go back to the stone age.  If there is any reason for ruling out the possibility of false flag, I would like to know why?

From the starting point of any analysis, we should not rule out any *plausible* senario.
(Note: anyone who wants to talk about Godzilla or aliens from another galaxy, please fuck off.  Thank you.)

Let us examine three plausible scenarios...

Scenario 1: cave-dwelling jihadists attacked and struck a grave blow on the world's most technologically advanced military without any help from insiders,
Scenario 2: jihadists led by Osama bin Laden planned the whole thing and enlisted the help of a few insiders,
Scenarior 3: it was planned by two or more insiders who enlisted help from jihadist patsies such as former CIA stooge Osama bin Laden.

Which of the above scenarios entails the fewest assumptions?

Scenario 1, we have to assume that the jihadists somehow expected to benefit from the attack.  Assume that they somehow knew the air command would be conducting drills on that particular day and at that time.  Assume 19 men were able to get through airport security with box cutters.  Assume that was only coincidence that airport security at both Logan and Newark was managed by the same israeli company.  Assume the hijackers left flight training manuals in their vehicle because they were doing some last minute cramming before their final test of flying 757s and 767s.  Assume a fireball that vaporized bodies and vaporized aircraft black boxes somehow did not vaporize the passport that fell to the street below.  Assume all of the support columns of Building No. 7 failed due to intense heat at exactly the same instant.  Assume that the two co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission both said the commission was set up to fail because they needed an excuse for their own failures.  Assume it was a coincidence that everything turned out exactly as PNAC had hoped for.  Assume that the summary execution (hit) ordered on Osama bin Laden was the result of Obama's desire to get it over with without further ado (even as goat herders are still being tortured in Guantanamo for their intelligence value).  And there are even more assumptions, let's leave those for another day.

Scenario 2, we only need to assume that a few people in positions of authority wanted the jihadists to succeed.

Scenario 3, we only need to assume that it WAS a false flag operation and that at least a few insiders in positions of authority were in on it.

So, using Occam's Razor, analyze the above.
Cybercommuter, you forgot a fourth scenario: you are a moron. Using Occam's razor, I'm pretty confident it's the most likely one.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on January 29, 2014, 07:05:09 PM
QuoteScenario 1, we have to assume that the jihadists somehow expected to benefit from the attack.

And your entire premise is automatically irrelevant from there. Perhaps you should stop telling others to study history and do so yourself.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 29, 2014, 07:17:15 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"SA, please use your new found powers to get mofo to knock it off.  =D>
There are some things that even sodomy can't accomplish. If I conjured up a natural disaster to shut him up he would just claim that was a conspiracy too.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on January 29, 2014, 08:27:13 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Those of us who have taken the time to learn a little bit of history know that "all warfare is based on deception."  One such deception is known as the false-flag attack.  Examples of false flag attacks go back to the stone age.  If there is any reason for ruling out the possibility of false flag, I would like to know why?

From the starting point of any analysis, we should not rule out any *plausible* senario.
(Note: anyone who wants to talk about Godzilla or aliens from another galaxy, please fuck off.  Thank you.)

Let us examine three plausible scenarios...

Scenario 1: cave-dwelling jihadists attacked and struck a grave blow on the world's most technologically advanced military without any help from insiders,
Scenario 2: jihadists led by Osama bin Laden planned the whole thing and enlisted the help of a few insiders,
Scenarior 3: it was planned by two or more insiders who enlisted help from jihadist patsies such as former CIA stooge Osama bin Laden.

Which of the above scenarios entails the fewest assumptions?

Scenario 1, we have to assume that the jihadists somehow expected to benefit from the attack.  Assume that they somehow knew the air command would be conducting drills on that particular day and at that time.  Assume 19 men were able to get through airport security with box cutters.  Assume that was only coincidence that airport security at both Logan and Newark was managed by the same israeli company.  Assume the hijackers left flight training manuals in their vehicle because they were doing some last minute cramming before their final test of flying 757s and 767s.  Assume a fireball that vaporized bodies and vaporized aircraft black boxes somehow did not vaporize the passport that fell to the street below.  Assume all of the support columns of Building No. 7 failed due to intense heat at exactly the same instant.  Assume that the two co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission both said the commission was set up to fail because they needed an excuse for their own failures.  Assume it was a coincidence that everything turned out exactly as PNAC had hoped for.  Assume that the summary execution (hit) ordered on Osama bin Laden was the result of Obama's desire to get it over with without further ado (even as goat herders are still being tortured in Guantanamo for their intelligence value).  And there are even more assumptions, let's leave those for another day.

Scenario 2, we only need to assume that a few people in positions of authority wanted the jihadists to succeed.

Scenario 3, we only need to assume that it WAS a false flag operation and that at least a few insiders in positions of authority were in on it.

So, using Occam's Razor, analyze the above.
(//http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/Head_desk___Forkke_by_NeoSlashott.gif)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on January 29, 2014, 08:42:15 PM
Mofo, do you live in your moms basement?  Nothing against that, but your a psycho. And I figure life and people have dealt you a "bad hand".
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 30, 2014, 01:54:52 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Okay, someone needs to say this: if that "cave-dwelling jihadists" comment, along with your previous comments about "infidel machines ", is meant to insinuate that Arabs or Muslims, even the jihadist ones, are ignorant or stupid, you need to stop right now. Seriously, claiming that an entire disparate group is stupid beyond belief is in of itself, stupid beyond belief.

You must have missed his "Jew motherfuckers (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=987891#p987891)" comment.  Real winner we have here, obviously qualified to call everyone here irrational.

As I said in that thread, he clearly has an emotional investment in his argument.  That emotional investment is skewing his ability to analyze facts.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 30, 2014, 02:27:34 PM
Oh, I didn't miss it, I just wanted to keep him fairly generic with his statements, and keep him from going full blown anti-Semite again.
Is it sad that I was 4 at the time, yet treat this incident with more logic and respect than someone who is most likely a fully grown adult, at least in the physical capacity?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 30, 2014, 04:09:30 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"SA, please use your new found powers to get mofo to knock it off.  =D>
There are some things that even sodomy can't accomplish. If I conjured up a natural disaster to shut him up he would just claim that was a conspiracy too.
Just go give him a nice, gentle pat on the ass then.  :)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 30, 2014, 08:03:24 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Okay, someone needs to say this: if that "cave-dwelling jihadists" comment, along with your previous comments about "infidel machines ", is meant to insinuate that Arabs or Muslims, even the jihadist ones, are ignorant or stupid, you need to stop right now. Seriously, claiming that an entire disparate group is stupid beyond belief is in of itself, stupid beyond belief.
Rocky, are your powers of observation so minimal that you do not even realize my use of terms like "cave dwellers" and "arab muslim jihadists" is just my way of denigrating the Official Conspiracy Theory?  And when I speak of *your* powers of observation, I mean not only you alone but all of you who seem to think this concept was my idea.  Makes me wonder if you even know what the Official Conspiracy Theory you subscribe to really is.  Let me point out a couple of simple facts.

According to the Official Conspiracy Theory, 9/11 was pulled off by a gang of muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia, and all of them Arabs.  Their motive, according to the OCT, was to carry out jihad, a religious war sanctioned by their god or maybe even commanded by their god.  Therefore, the arab muslim jihadist concept originates not with me, but it is an integral part of the OCT.  So without realizing it, your claims that the term muslim arab jihadist is racist actually reflects back on the OCT, which I agree is racist.

Ditto for cave-dwellers.  According to the OCT, these Saudi Arabian muslim jihadists lived in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan.

At least now I am beginning to understand why so many people believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory despite George W Bush's warning to "never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."  The reason is that none of you OCT'ers even know what the OCT is all about!  Maybe if you did you would realize how outrageous it really is.  Arab muslim jihadists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, America's strongest ally in the muslim world, hid out in caves in Afghanistan and waged jihad on the the world's only remaining military superpower on 11th September 2001.

But at this point, it has not even begun to get outrageous yet.  The 19 hijackers, according to the OCT, had no insider help.  And yet they picked the exact day and time when NORAD was conducting drills simulating hijacked jetliners suicide diving into landmark buildings, including WTC and Pentagon.  If they had no help from insiders, were they extremely lucky to have picked that day and time?

Normally, whenever any commercial or private jet strays off course, it is intercepted by fighter planes (having top speeds of over 1500 - 1700 miles per hour) within a few minutes.  But on that day, four jetlines flew wildly off course for hours, and never encountered a fighter jet.

Not outrageous enough yet?  Just wait until you hear the part about Hani Hanjour.  His piloting skills were so poor that he was refused when he attempted to rent a single engine propellor plane.  And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral in a 757 which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is impossible even for the most skilled pilot.  And he bloody well hit the target!  Amazing!  ... or outrageous?

The deeper you go, the more outrageous it gets.

Typically, whenever I make a post, it is followed up by insults to my intelligence and/or meaningless derision and accusations about Godzilla or something equally stupid.  Some people like to quote my entire post, then rather than challenging even one of my facts or my conclusions drawn from the facts, they make some dumb childish remark.

So I ask all of you OCT'ers... please stop making yourselves look stupid.

Either prove my facts wrong, or challenge my conclusions using reason and logic.  If you are incapable of doing that, please retire to the kindergarten page and call me all the names you want over there.


PS:
Download a copy of the Official 9/11 Commission Report if you don't already have a copy in your possession.  The Commission created a separate timeline for each one of the airplanes.  When I first started to analyze the report, I wondered why they made four separate timelines, one for each of the planes.  After extracting each timeline and compiling them into one single consolidated timeline, the answer was clear.

And the rabbit hole goes deeper...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 30, 2014, 08:25:56 PM
Just a quick show of hands... How many of you actually read that wall of conspiratorial text?  :-k
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 30, 2014, 08:28:08 PM
You'd make a much better mad scientist mofo and more interesting for the plot.   :)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 30, 2014, 09:08:01 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Okay, someone needs to say this: if that "cave-dwelling jihadists" comment, along with your previous comments about "infidel machines ", is meant to insinuate that Arabs or Muslims, even the jihadist ones, are ignorant or stupid, you need to stop right now. Seriously, claiming that an entire disparate group is stupid beyond belief is in of itself, stupid beyond belief.
Rocky, are your powers of observation so minimal that you do not even realize my use of terms like "cave dwellers" and "arab muslim jihadists" is just my way of denigrating the Official Conspiracy Theory?  And when I speak of *your* powers of observation, I mean not only you alone but all of you who seem to think this concept was my idea.  Makes me wonder if you even know what the Official Conspiracy Theory you subscribe to really is.  Let me point out a couple of simple facts.

According to the Official Conspiracy Theory, 9/11 was pulled off by a gang of muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia, and all of them Arabs.  Their motive, according to the OCT, was to carry out jihad, a religious war sanctioned by their god or maybe even commanded by their god.  Therefore, the arab muslim jihadist concept originates not with me, but it is an integral part of the OCT.  So without realizing it, your claims that the term muslim arab jihadist is racist actually reflects back on the OCT, which I agree is racist.

Ditto for cave-dwellers.  According to the OCT, these Saudi Arabian muslim jihadists lived in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan.

At least now I am beginning to understand why so many people believe in the Official Conspiracy Theory despite George W Bush's warning to "never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."  The reason is that none of you OCT'ers even know what the OCT is all about!  Maybe if you did you would realize how outrageous it really is.  Arab muslim jihadists, mostly from Saudi Arabia, America's strongest ally in the muslim world, hid out in caves in Afghanistan and waged jihad on the the world's only remaining military superpower on 11th September 2001.

But at this point, it has not even begun to get outrageous yet.  The 19 hijackers, according to the OCT, had no insider help.  And yet they picked the exact day and time when NORAD was conducting drills simulating hijacked jetliners suicide diving into landmark buildings, including WTC and Pentagon.  If they had no help from insiders, were they extremely lucky to have picked that day and time?

Normally, whenever any commercial or private jet strays off course, it is intercepted by fighter planes (having top speeds of over 1500 - 1700 miles per hour) within a few minutes.  But on that day, four jetlines flew wildly off course for hours, and never encountered a fighter jet.

Not outrageous enough yet?  Just wait until you hear the part about Hani Hanjour.  His piloting skills were so poor that he was refused when he attempted to rent a single engine propellor plane.  And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral in a 757 which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is impossible even for the most skilled pilot.  And he bloody well hit the target!  Amazing!  ... or outrageous?

The deeper you go, the more outrageous it gets.

Typically, whenever I make a post, it is followed up by insults to my intelligence and/or meaningless derision and accusations about Godzilla or something equally stupid.  Some people like to quote my entire post, then rather than challenging even one of my facts or my conclusions drawn from the facts, they make some dumb childish remark.

So I ask all of you OCT'ers... please stop making yourselves look stupid.

Either prove my facts wrong, or challenge my conclusions using reason and logic.  If you are incapable of doing that, please retire to the kindergarten page and call me all the names you want over there.


PS:
Download a copy of the Official 9/11 Commission Report if you don't already have a copy in your possession.  The Commission created a separate timeline for each one of the airplanes.  When I first started to analyze the report, I wondered why they made four separate timelines, one for each of the planes.  After extracting each timeline and compiling them into one single consolidated timeline, the answer was clear.

And the rabbit hole goes deeper...
1. We know what the official "theory" is, as does anyone with two working brain cells.
2. Hijacking a plane is not that difficult. It has happened countless times in the past. Here's some examples:
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings
3. We've proven that your hole filled "theory" is more unlikely and improbable than the sun setting in the North.
4. Even if everything you said about the official story being untrue was right, that does not automatically dictate that your baseless speculation is the only other way.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 31, 2014, 12:22:38 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just a quick show of hands... How many of you actually read that wall of conspiratorial text?
Point taken.  Thanks for the advice.  Nobody bothers reading my posts, but the strawmen continue to blindly attack without reading.  So from here on, I shall try to limit my posts to sound bytes consisting of around 100 words or less to make it easy for the simple minds of the strawmen with two working brain cells to comprehend.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on January 31, 2014, 12:43:28 AM
Can you stop being such a condescending jerk for a little bit? I read your post, was not impressed, and I responded. Does that placate you for a little bit, at least?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: baronvonrort on January 31, 2014, 12:44:28 AM
Quote from: "MitchellDaBomb"Building 7...its highly improbable that fires melted all of the columns...and you don't need to remove the base...thermite or any other highly concentrated explosive attached to the columns anywhere near the base would do the trick. Also pictures shown of the columns are cleanly cut. I dont see why you think nutjobs are people who question the official story written by the media (owned by only 5 companies)...not to mention  the report for 9/11 was written behind closed doors.

The fire didnt have to melt the columns all it had to do was heat them up to weaken them and that would reduce the factor of safety the columns had, are the nutjobs ignorant about basic metalwork?

As for thermite i would suggest looking at the many youtube videos and take note of what thermite can do,can it cut a horizontal line in a vertical column, are the nutjobs ignorant about thermite ?

Journalists are always looking for a story to become famous, why are the credible journalists not agreeing with the nutjobs?
Why are mainstream respected journalists ignoring the nutjobs, can you buy shares in these media companies?

You claimed building 7 was unscathed, more ignorance from the nutjobs, watch this youtube video and see how building 7 was damaged.
[youtube:2ihpjzhz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI[/youtube:2ihpjzhz]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on January 31, 2014, 02:24:45 AM
I actually read all of it. I needed the laugh this morning.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 31, 2014, 02:52:57 AM
And the plot thickens!  :-k
The last we heard of our hero he was trying to sell us on some bullshit conspiracy theory then from nowhere two planes crash into some buildings and HOLY JESUS! Two cross members collided and GOD made a conspiracy! Praise be jesus!  [-o<  [-o<
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 31, 2014, 01:24:50 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"1. We know what the official "theory" is, as does anyone with two working brain cells.
2. Hijacking a plane is not that difficult. It has happened countless times in the past. Here's some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... hijackings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings)
3. We've proven that your hole filled "theory" is more unlikely and improbable than the sun setting in the North.
4. Even if everything you said about the official story being untrue was right, that does not automatically dictate that your baseless speculation is the only other way.

100 words or less sound byte:

1. Congratulations for having two working brain cells.
2. Never tried it, but take your word for it.
3. Ever been to the South Pole?
 HINT: watch the sunset and check your compas... (just sayin')
4. Therefore we do not need a true, unbiased investigation?  We should just close our eyes?  The Official Conspiracy Theory is demonstratedly pure bullshit.  Because of it, hundreds of thousand of people have died.  Just drop it?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on January 31, 2014, 01:41:00 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Just a quick show of hands... How many of you actually read that wall of conspiratorial text?  :-k

I did.

The "descending 330° spiral" being "almost impossible" is nonsense.  Tex Johnston barrel-rolled the 707 prototype (a plane with a significantly worse thrust-weight ratio [4.75/1, vs the 757's 2.93/1]) in 1955.  The key to airframe integrity is to maintain g-forces inside the airframe's safe envelope, and to keep the turn steady.  330° descending spirals are a regular feature of landings occurring at West Coast airports such as LAX or SFO, because the prevailing winds demand an east-to-west approach, which  means planes from Hawaii (many of which are 757s) must make descending spirals routinely.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 31, 2014, 02:20:57 PM
100 words or less sound byte:

MoFo has been accused of racism for mentioning cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists.  However, the idea that the terrorists were all arabs and all muslims and all jihadists is part of the Official Conspracy Theory, not invented by MoFo.  The contention that they lived in caves in Afghanistan, ditto.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 31, 2014, 02:34:29 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"1. We know what the official "theory" is, as does anyone with two working brain cells.
2. Hijacking a plane is not that difficult. It has happened countless times in the past. Here's some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ai ... hijackings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings)
3. We've proven that your hole filled "theory" is more unlikely and improbable than the sun setting in the North.
4. Even if everything you said about the official story being untrue was right, that does not automatically dictate that your baseless speculation is the only other way.

100 words or less sound byte:

1. Congratulations for having two working brain cells.
2. Never tried it, but take your word for it.
3. Ever been to the South Pole?
 HINT: watch the sunset and check your compas... (just sayin')
4. Therefore we do not need a true, unbiased investigation?  We should just close our eyes?  The Official Conspiracy Theory is demonstratedly pure bullshit.  Because of it, hundreds of thousand of people have died.  Just drop it?
And if your "unbiased investigation" was conducted and came to the same conclusion as the "official conspiracy theory" would you drop the matter? I highly doubt it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 31, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The "descending 330° spiral" being "almost impossible" is nonsense. Tex Johnston barrel-rolled the 707 prototype (a plane with a significantly worse thrust-weight ratio [4.75/1, vs the 757's 2.93/1]) in 1955.
100 words or less sound byte:

Not to argue with your hypothesis, Thump, that test pilot Johnston's barrel roll is proof Hani Hanjour could execute a spiral descent from 7000 feet at an estimated speed of 530 mph, hitting a target with a 33-foot margin of error.  Even though HH could not be trusted behind the controls of a single engine Cessna, after all, he did have at least 46 minutes of flight time experience at the controls of a four-engine passenger jet.  Just think of all the practice dives he could have under his belt by that time.

Do you believe your own claims?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on January 31, 2014, 08:03:34 PM
I bet you're in on that fake snow conspiracy too, huh?
Snow won't burn now!  :shock:

http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/22132 (http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/22132)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on January 31, 2014, 09:42:54 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"And if your "unbiased investigation" was conducted and came to the same conclusion as the "official conspiracy theory" would you drop the matter? I highly doubt it.
100 words or less sound byte:

On what basis do you doubt it?  Has there ever been an unbiased investigation of 9/11 in the past which I did not believe?  Try me.  Sign the petition for an unbiased investigation, and if/when one is made, we shall see.

The real question is, if there were an unbiased investigation that came to the conclusion there had to be at least a few insiders, would YOU accept the outcome?  Probably not!  If you can believe Hani Hanjour with 46 minutes flying time in a jumbo jet did what even pilots with hundreds of hours flying time say they can't.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on January 31, 2014, 10:37:18 PM
Nice job skipping around the question.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 01, 2014, 12:56:06 AM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Nice job skipping around the question.
100 words or less sound byte:

Sorry 'bout that.  Thought my reply would be clear even to a person with only two working brain cells, but apparently not.  So to answer your question, YES.  If an unbiased investigation that had thoroughly researched the 9/11 attacks came to the conclusion that Osama and a bunch of cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists pulled off the attack without any help from the inside, I would give it up.

Your turn.  If the same investigation came to the conclusion that they DID have inside help, would you give up your fantasy about cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists doing it on their own?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 01, 2014, 01:33:58 AM
I do apologize, but your earlier statement had said:
QuoteOn what basis do you doubt it? Has there ever been an unbiased investigation of 9/11 in the past which I did not believe? Try me. Sign the petition for an unbiased investigation, and if/when one is made, we shall see.

I only saw "try me" and "we shall see". I didn't see a yes or no. If one is in there you could point them out. Otherwise it looks like you skipped the question with a vague non-answer.

As per your question: Certainly, though I think the extensive investigations by multiple organizations and individuals, not all of them connected to the government, were unbiased enough.

Now, who should fund this investigation? Can't be the federal government. If you think they'd allow such an investigation to take place under their watch after supposedly orchestrating the most complex, well pulled off conspiracy ever, then you're delusional.

Can't be the conspiracy nuts either. If they funded it the whole thing would be biased.

Edit: also loving the "cave dwelling" comments, like that is suppose to imply that they were dumbasses or something. Caves are the perfect natural bunkers when you don't have the resources to build a bunker, or when building a bunker would attract attention. They also make nice places to plan things clandestinely...things like terrorist attacks or something.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 01, 2014, 12:12:24 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"I only saw "try me" and "we shall see". I didn't see a yes or no. If one is in there you could point them out. Otherwise it looks like you skipped the question with a vague non-answer.
There it is folks.  In all caps and in bold, but TSA has choosen not see it.  Even though MoFo limits his rebuttals to sound byte size of within 100 words or less so even a simpleton should be able to comprehend.  But why is MoFo not surprised?  Well, 'cuz TSA can't even see that 9/11 could not have been pulled off without help from the inside.  What should we expect from a person who only sees what he (she?) wants to see?


Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Can't be the conspiracy nuts either. If they funded it the whole thing would be biased.
Guess by "conspiracy nuts" you include yourself and all the other proponents of the Official Conspiracy Theory!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Poison Tree on February 01, 2014, 04:10:06 PM
Funny that, while trying to look objective, you come right out and say
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"9/11 could not have been pulled off without help from the inside.  
Sounds like you've definably made up you mind already, hypothetical unbiased investigation be damned.

But since you are so busy being outraged that Skeletal missed your answer to his first question, it seems you missed reading his second; who could head an investigation that you would accept as unbiased ?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"What should we expect from a person who only sees what he (she?) wants to see?
indeed
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 01, 2014, 04:46:57 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"What should we expect from a person who only sees what he (she?) wants to see?
Take a look at your posts.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 01, 2014, 05:02:23 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The "descending 330° spiral" being "almost impossible" is nonsense. Tex Johnston barrel-rolled the 707 prototype (a plane with a significantly worse thrust-weight ratio [4.75/1, vs the 757's 2.93/1]) in 1955.
100 words or less sound byte:

Not to argue with your hypothesis, Thump, that test pilot Johnston's barrel roll is proof Hani Hanjour could execute a spiral descent from 7000 feet at an estimated speed of 530 mph, hitting a target with a 33-foot margin of error.  Even though HH could not be trusted behind the controls of a single engine Cessna, after all, he did have at least 46 minutes of flight time experience at the controls of a four-engine passenger jet.  Just think of all the practice dives he could have under his belt by that time.

Do you believe your own claims?

Well, that's a nice straw-man.  Pity that's not what I said.  I said that Johnston's barrel-roll is evidence that a 757 (a stronger plane, with a better power ratio and better maneuverability) could make the much easier  maneuver of a descending spiral.  See, here's what you had written:

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral in a 757 which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is impossible even for the most skilled pilot.

Clearly you are claiming that "even the most experienced pilot" would find this maneuver impossible.  When I point out that it is routinely accomplished at West Coast airports (albeit  at lower speeds, but from much higher altitudes), you appeal to HH's inexperience.  Was he an awful pilot?  I don't know.  But the fact is, you've made so many fanciful claims that I don't believe you, and won't take you at your word. What I did do is show that an experienced pilot could barrel-roll a plane much more difficult to handle: no computers on a 707!

The evidence that I'm right and you're wrong about 757s doing spirals is to be found at LAX, SFO, Tenerife, Toncontin and numerous other airports around the world.  

Here, go to 3:20 for a good shot of the plane's low-speed maneuverability.  


[youtube:lnzi376u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3OyhU8rftk[/youtube:lnzi376u]

Then remember that in a 7000' descent, you've got gravity working with you.  Tell me, what were the throttle settings on the planes which struck the towers?

Sorry I exceeded 100 words, but I trust you'll be able to cope.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 01, 2014, 05:26:08 PM
Forget it, Thump. The skull is too thick on this one.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 01, 2014, 07:50:31 PM
As this post will address issues raised by Thupalumpcus, it will necessarily exceed the sound byte size.  So all of you who can not handle posts of greater than 100 words please skip this one.  And feel free to criticize it without reading anyway, as many of you often do.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"See, here's what you had written:
Quote from: "MoFo"And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral in a 757 which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is impossible even for the most skilled pilot.
You are correct, Thump.  I stand corrected.  What I intended to say was:
"And yet he managed to pull off a decending 330 degree spiral [insert] from 7000 feet  [/insert] in a 757[insert], enter ground effect doing 460 knots, and still manage to hit a target with a 33 foot margin of error [/insert] which pilots having hundreds of hours flight experience in 757 class planes say is [strike] [s:2jedxoiy]impossible[/s:2jedxoiy] [/strike] [insert]  extremely difficult  [/insert] even for the most skilled pilot."  I apologize for my error and stand by my corrected version.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"...you appeal to HH's inexperience. Was he an awful pilot? I don't know. But the fact is, you've made so many fanciful claims that I don't believe you, and won't take you at your word.
Nor would I expect you to take my word for it.  After all, neither would I take your word for anything.  Please google it.  See what the instructors at flight schools HH attended have to say about his skills.  And the rental companies who refused to rent out their Cessnas to him.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Here, go to 3:20 for a good shot of the plane's low-speed maneuverability.
How does low-speed maneuverability fit into the picture when the plane was estimated to be moving at 530 knots and a few feet off the ground when it crashed into the building?

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Tell me, what were the throttle settings on the planes which struck the towers?
Tell me, why are the throttle settings of the planes that struck the towers relevant to Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of the 757 that flew into the Pentagon?  If you really want to know, look it up yourself.  But the throttles of A77 allgedly being piloted by HH had been advanced to maximum power when the plane crashed into the Pentagon at an estimated 530 mph.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 02, 2014, 12:35:53 AM
QuoteAs this post will address issues raised by Thupalumpcus, it will necessarily exceed the sound byte size.  So all of you who can not handle posts of greater than 100 words please skip this one.  And feel free to criticize it without reading anyway, as many of you often do.
Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.
And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 02, 2014, 02:27:53 AM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"
QuoteAs this post will address issues raised by Thupalumpcus, it will necessarily exceed the sound byte size.  So all of you who can not handle posts of greater than 100 words please skip this one.  And feel free to criticize it without reading anyway, as many of you often do.
Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.
And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?
Well obviously the Pentagon was hit by a missile, because you can see it on video camera. Not like those planes you saw hitting the Twin Towers: those were holograms perfectly synchronized with timed demolition charges.

Flight 93 actually wasn't related to the other attacks, they just happened to put PCP into the plane's air circulation by mistake that day.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 02, 2014, 05:04:36 AM
Dude, it was all bees.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 02, 2014, 06:59:28 AM
I don't want to derail this train wreck of a thread, but...

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"would you give up your fantasy about cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists doing it on their own?

Seriously.   Do you actually believe that those aircraft hijackings weren't carried out by a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 02, 2014, 08:54:11 AM
Quote from: "Jason78"I don't want to derail this train wreck of a thread, but...

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"would you give up your fantasy about cave-dwelling arab muslim jihadists doing it on their own?

Seriously.   Do you actually believe that those aircraft hijackings weren't carried out by a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists?

Blasphemy. Those muslim jihadists weren't pissed off, they were obeying Allah's will, pbuh.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on February 02, 2014, 11:40:26 AM
#-o  :lol:  :popcorn:  Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 02, 2014, 11:42:28 AM
Solitary, don't you know never to eat popcorn while laughing? It's dangerous! You might choke on a kernel!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 02, 2014, 06:30:25 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Tell me, why are the throttle settings of the planes that struck the towers relevant to Hani Hanjour, the alleged pilot of the 757 that flew into the Pentagon?  If you really want to know, look it up yourself.  But the throttles of A77 allgedly being piloted by HH had been advanced to maximum power when the plane crashed into the Pentagon at an estimated 530 mph.

What does the Pentagon crashing have to do with WTC 7?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 02, 2014, 07:55:13 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.
Ridiculous condescension?  At the risk of being accused of racism again, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?


Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?
What about the Pentagon and flight 93?  According to advocates of the "no conspiracy theory," those would have to have been isolated events.  Seems pretty unlikely to me, but that is what the "no conspracy" theorists are saying.  (See Hijiri Byakuren's post above.)

Be specific.  What is your question?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 02, 2014, 08:20:31 PM
Quote from: "Jason78"Seriously. Do you actually believe that those aircraft hijackings weren't carried out by a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists?
Seriously, is anybody going to listen to what I say instead of what you think I said?

What I believe is that a bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists must have had a little help from some unknown number of people holding key positions.

Either that, or the whole thing may have been planned by persons in the United States who set up the bunch of pissed off muslim jihadists to take the fall.  A crime of that magnitude is not going to be ignored.  So if you plan a crime of that magnitude, you obviously need to frame some patsy.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 02, 2014, 08:59:25 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Can you knock off your ridiculous condescension? Seriously, this conversation wouldn't be anywhere near as frustrating if you weren't acting so childish.
Ridiculous condescension?  At the risk of being accused of racism again, isn't that a case of the pot calling the kettle black?


Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"And though this is most likely the tenth or so time I've pointed this out, it still needs to be said. I'll try and ask more politely.
If we assume your theory is correct, how do you account for the attack on the Pentagon, as well as the destruction of flight 93?
What about the Pentagon and flight 93?  According to advocates of the "no conspiracy theory," those would have to have been isolated events.  Seems pretty unlikely to me, but that is what the "no conspracy" theorists are saying.  (See Hijiri Byakuren's post above.)

Be specific.  What is your question?

It should be noted that those whom you are calling "no conspiracy" theorists actually think that there was a conspiracy, which encompasses 93 and the Pentagon strike as well as WTC.

The difference is that some conspiracies are more believable than others.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 02, 2014, 10:41:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Seems pretty unlikely to me, but that is what the "no conspracy" theorists are saying.  (See Hijiri Byakuren's post above.)
Did you just use what was obviously a joke on my part to say that "this is what [we] really think"? Look, I already knew you're dumber than a sack of rocks before you said that, but... really? Really!?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 03, 2014, 02:51:46 PM
Well, we know what mofo looks like now..
//http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kpyENa0nSUg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DkpyENa0nSUg
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 03, 2014, 05:57:04 PM
*This is going to be a long post.  If you are literacy-challenged, please skip.*
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It should be noted that those whom you are calling "no conspiracy" theorists actually think that there was a conspiracy, which encompasses 93 and the Pentagon strike as well as WTC.
FINALLY you have figured out what I have been trying to get across from the get-go.  The idea that ALL conspiracy theories are necessarily bullshit is preposterous.  But many of the participants in this debate persist in the childish bickerings of "You are a conspiracy theorist, a conspracy nut, therefore everything you say is bullshit."

Since the get-go, I have been trying to get the OCT camp to admit that we do agree on at least one thing:  There WAS a conspiracy.  There can be no question.  It is the "who, how and why" part we disagree on.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The difference is that some conspiracies are more believable than others.
Right again!  So the argument is not whether or not there was a conspiracy, but which theory is more believable.

My contention is that when you look at all the factors from a neutral perspective, the Official Conspracy Theory is the most outrageous one of them all.  A few pages back I listed several facts that should make everyone raise an eyebrow, including the passport surviving the fireball inferno, terrorists cramming for their final flight test on their way to the airport, and the very topic of this thread itself; freefall acceleration of WTC 7.  But those are only a few drops in one very large bucket.  There are far too many strange coincidences to not even be suspicious.

Popular Mechanics makes a valiant attempt to explain away all the oddities, but under close scrutiny, their claims do not stand up.  And the media is relentless in their harping on how Al Qaeda and the muslims declared war on the United States.  They have to keep reinforcing the image to prevent it from fading.  (Jus like traditional religions have to keep reinforcing their bullshit on their indoctrinees.)  Can't you see the elephant in the living room?

The Official Conspiracy Theory contends that Osama bin Laden, 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 UAE persons, 1 Egyptian, and a Lebanonese, plus the phantom "20th hijacker" (assumedly muslim) plotted the entire crime.  But why should we rule out the possibility that non-arab, non-muslims may have been in on it?  Maybe even some israelis?  Or Americans?  The only reason many of you now rule out that possibility is because you believe the official dogma.  It was all Al Qaeda, and no one else.  If you would think objectively, you would at least have to question the OCT.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 03, 2014, 06:00:18 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Did you just use what was obviously a joke on my part to say that "this is what [we] really think"? Look, I already knew you're dumber than a sack of rocks before you said that, but... really? Really!?
See my reply to Thumpalumacus above.  Or have someone read it to you if it is too long to read yourself.

Oh, wait!  It was the guy with the funny hat whose attention span was unable to cope with more than sound byte size posts.  Oh, well.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 03, 2014, 06:07:30 PM
Mofo..someone said Elvis is hiding under your bed. :shock:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 03, 2014, 07:29:24 PM
QuotePopular Mechanics makes a valiant attempt to explain away all the oddities, but under close scrutiny, their claims do not stand up.
Sort of like your theory? The theory with multiple holes the size of the Marianas Trench in them? The theory that, if true, would only explain one aspect of the 9/11 attacks, and does not even adress any motive or means on how the demolitionists managed to do such?
Somehow I don't think Popular Mechanics has to worry about any competition.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 03, 2014, 07:40:43 PM
It's all pimple cream dude..911 threw all that dust up and some kid's got dust particles in their sweat pores and SON OF A BITCH..pimples.. thus selling pimple cream to generations of acne covered teenage grease balls.
Anything to make a buck.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 04, 2014, 04:32:24 AM
I can't believe that this thread is still happening.

And AtheistMoFo has yet to even turn up one stick of dynamite.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 04, 2014, 04:35:29 AM
QuoteFINALLY you have figured out what I have been trying to get across from the get-go. The idea that ALL conspiracy theories are necessarily bullshit is preposterous. But many of the participants in this debate persist in the childish bickerings of "You are a conspiracy theorist, a conspracy nut, therefore everything you say is bullshit."

You got the order backwards. It's "everything you say is bullshit, therefor you are a conspiracy nut".
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 04, 2014, 05:06:16 AM
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteFINALLY you have figured out what I have been trying to get across from the get-go. The idea that ALL conspiracy theories are necessarily bullshit is preposterous. But many of the participants in this debate persist in the childish bickerings of "You are a conspiracy theorist, a conspracy nut, therefore everything you say is bullshit."

You got the order backwards. It's "everything you say is bullshit, therefor you are a conspiracy nut".
no don't you see, we refuse to blindly accept his claims at face value and demand crazy things like "proof" and "evidence" thus proving that we are all part of the conspiracy and trying to keep the public ignorant!

AtheistMoFo, the black helicopters are heading to your secluded cabin in the woods as we speak. (or type anyway.)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 04, 2014, 09:34:00 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"See my reply to Thumpalumacus above.  Or have someone read it to you if it is too long to read yourself.
I think Thumpalumpacus is doing a plenty decent job at tearing you a new asshole right now. I have no particular desire to butt in. :)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 04, 2014, 10:39:03 AM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"The difference is that some conspiracies are more believable than others.
Fair enough.

To borrow an analogy from J.B. Bury in his 1914 book, History of Freedom of Thought...
"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a [s:2akciilt]theological[/s:2akciilt] (insert) political (/insert) doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter. ... If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated (insert) on FOX News, CNN, MSNBC et al. (/insert) often enough, through the potent force of suggestion."

MINDGAME: We know that police plant fake evidence on suspects only in movies and never in real life.  However, since 9/11 resembles a movie in so many ways, let's just hypothesize police planting a fake passport on the street close to the scene of the WTC destruction but at sufficient distance so it is not buried in the rubble.  Or on the other hand, let's hypothesize a passport (made of paper) survives an inferno that vaporizes the bodies of all passengers on the plane, as well as the two indestructible black boxes carried on every aircraft.  Which is more believable?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 04, 2014, 10:47:04 AM
Of course the first is much more likely. But that still leaves your explanation of the events as an even larger pile of bull than the official story. (Which already contains a lot of bull.)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 04, 2014, 10:52:02 AM
I don't think that you can build a case on a single passport that seemed to survive the impact.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 04, 2014, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Mofo..someone said Elvis is hiding under your bed. :shock:
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Sort of like your theory? The theory with multiple holes the size of the Marianas Trench in them? The theory that, if true, would only explain one aspect of the 9/11 attacks, and does not even adress any motive or means on how the demolitionists managed to do such?
Somehow I don't think Popular Mechanics has to worry about any competition.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"It's all pimple cream dude..911 threw all that dust up and some kid's got dust particles in their sweat pores and SON OF A BITCH..pimples.. thus selling pimple cream to generations of acne covered teenage grease balls.
Anything to make a buck.
Quote from: "Jason78"I can't believe that this thread is still happening.

And AtheistMoFo has yet to even turn up one stick of dynamite.
Quote from: "Plu"You got the order backwards. It's "everything you say is bullshit, therefor you are a conspiracy nut".
Quote from: "Damarcus"no don't you see, we refuse to blindly accept his claims at face value and demand crazy things like "proof" and "evidence" thus proving that we are all part of the conspiracy and trying to keep the public ignorant!

AtheistMoFo, the black helicopters are heading to your secluded cabin in the woods as we speak. (or type anyway.)
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I think Thumpalumpacus is doing a plenty decent job at tearing you a new asshole right now. I have no particular desire to butt in. :)

When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 04, 2014, 10:56:00 AM
When you can't wield logic, everything sounds like an insult.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 04, 2014, 11:00:37 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Mofo..someone said Elvis is hiding under your bed. :shock:
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Sort of like your theory? The theory with multiple holes the size of the Marianas Trench in them? The theory that, if true, would only explain one aspect of the 9/11 attacks, and does not even adress any motive or means on how the demolitionists managed to do such?
Somehow I don't think Popular Mechanics has to worry about any competition.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"It's all pimple cream dude..911 threw all that dust up and some kid's got dust particles in their sweat pores and SON OF A BITCH..pimples.. thus selling pimple cream to generations of acne covered teenage grease balls.
Anything to make a buck.
Quote from: "Jason78"I can't believe that this thread is still happening.

And AtheistMoFo has yet to even turn up one stick of dynamite.
Quote from: "Plu"You got the order backwards. It's "everything you say is bullshit, therefor you are a conspiracy nut".
Quote from: "Damarcus"no don't you see, we refuse to blindly accept his claims at face value and demand crazy things like "proof" and "evidence" thus proving that we are all part of the conspiracy and trying to keep the public ignorant!

AtheistMoFo, the black helicopters are heading to your secluded cabin in the woods as we speak. (or type anyway.)
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I think Thumpalumpacus is doing a plenty decent job at tearing you a new asshole right now. I have no particular desire to butt in. :)

When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.


But when the logic is faulty, the insults are deserving. But those insults don't always work, as the person with the faulty logic is trapped and, like a dog chasing its own tail, he goes round and round, endlessly.  :P
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 04, 2014, 11:02:24 AM
Quote from: "Jason78"I don't think that you can build a case on a single passport that seemed to survive the impact.
Right.  This was another point I have tried to make that none of you guys seem to get.  One odd occurence by itself means nothing.  But when taken in context of all the other events that defy common sense, you have to start wondering.

Gotta go to work now, so will only give one more instance for now and be back later with more.

Hani Hanjour  (Since we have already mentioned him.)

Considering that he had a total of 46 minutes experience in a 757, which is more likely: this pilot who can not safely fly a single engine Cessna performed a manoeuver that experienced pilots would find very difficult, or HH was not at the controls of AA77 when it hit the Pentagon?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 04, 2014, 11:04:26 AM
How many Cessna's did he crash for the conclusion to be reached that he could not safely fly one? Or was it just this one instance of him not being rented a Cessna by one company that led you to the conclusion that he must be unable to fly?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 04, 2014, 01:21:28 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Jason78"I don't think that you can build a case on a single passport that seemed to survive the impact.
Right.  This was another point I have tried to make that none of you guys seem to get.  One odd occurence by itself means nothing.  But when taken in context of all the other events that defy common sense, you have to start wondering.

Aircraft that size rarely crash into buildings as big as the WTC.   Since we've got so few data points to go on, it seems a bit premature to pick out something like that as odd.  It's all odd.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Considering that he had a total of 46 minutes experience in a 757, which is more likely: this pilot who can not safely fly a single engine Cessna performed a manoeuver that experienced pilots would find very difficult, or HH was not at the controls of AA77 when it hit the Pentagon?

Could a pilot with next to no training crash a plane?   I'd say that's a damn near certainty!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 04, 2014, 01:23:55 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Jason78"I can't believe that this thread is still happening.

And AtheistMoFo has yet to even turn up one stick of dynamite.
When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.

That wasn't an insult.

That was an observation.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 04, 2014, 02:02:44 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"When you can't trump logic, just hurl insults.  That always works.
Much like Creationists, you fail to be self-aware of when your statements get so ridiculous that we can no longer take you seriously.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 04, 2014, 03:19:11 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"*This is going to be a long post.  If you are literacy-challenged, please skip.*
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"It should be noted that those whom you are calling "no conspiracy" theorists actually think that there was a conspiracy, which encompasses 93 and the Pentagon strike as well as WTC.
FINALLY you have figured out what I have been trying to get across from the get-go.  The idea that ALL conspiracy theories are necessarily bullshit is preposterous.  But many of the participants in this debate persist in the childish bickerings of "You are a conspiracy theorist, a conspracy nut, therefore everything you say is bullshit."

Since the get-go, I have been trying to get the OCT camp to admit that we do agree on at least one thing:  There WAS a conspiracy.  There can be no question.  It is the "who, how and why" part we disagree on.

I don't know if you were here when we were discussing JFK's murder, but I believe that that was the result of a conspiracy.  I "finally" figured out that conspiracies do sometimes happen in, oh, 1985 or so, thanks.

Just because some conspiracies have occurred in history doesn't make your particular theory correct, though.  And my rejection is not out-of-hand, but rather, after careful consideration.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Right again!  So the argument is not whether or not there was a conspiracy, but which theory is more believable.

My contention is that when you look at all the factors from a neutral perspective, the Official Conspracy Theory is the most outrageous one of them all.

That is where you and I part company.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"The Official Conspiracy Theory contends that Osama bin Laden, 15 Saudi Arabians, 2 UAE persons, 1 Egyptian, and a Lebanonese, plus the phantom "20th hijacker" (assumedly muslim) plotted the entire crime.  But why should we rule out the possibility that non-arab, non-muslims may have been in on it?  Maybe even some israelis?  Or Americans?  The only reason many of you now rule out that possibility is because you believe the official dogma.  It was all Al Qaeda, and no one else.  If you would think objectively, you would at least have to question the OCT.

You urging anyone else to "think objectively" on this matter is laughable.  Your subjective dislike of Jews, which has been made clear in several of your posts, clearly colors your appraisal of ambiguous facts, and causes you to discard facts which undermine your hypothesis (and I'm being generous using that word).  We have seen that in this very thread.

Also, the official theory includes KSM in the planning circle.  I wouldn't doubt if the circle of support the hijackers relied upon was larger than what is currently known or thought, myself.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MINDGAME: We know that police plant fake evidence on suspects only in movies and never in real life.  However, since 9/11 resembles a movie in so many ways, let's just hypothesize police planting a fake passport on the street close to the scene of the WTC destruction but at sufficient distance so it is not buried in the rubble.  Or on the other hand, let's hypothesize a passport (made of paper) survives an inferno that vaporizes the bodies of all passengers on the plane, as well as the two indestructible black boxes carried on every aircraft.  Which is more believable?

This is another ridiculous claim.  FDRs aren't "indestructible".  They are digital storage (or magnetic tape recorders) protected by tensile steel and include thermal protection, but they can be and have been destroyed in crashes before. Here's a photo of the CVR from American 77:

(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Flight_77_CVR.jpg)

Here are the current survivability standards for FDRs:

QuoteFire (High Intensity)   - 1100°C flame covering 100% of recorder for 30 minutes. (60 minutes if ED56 test protocol is used)
Fire (Low Intensity)   - 260°C Oven test for 10 hours
Impact Shock   - 3,400 Gs for 6.5 ms
Static Crush   - 5,000 pounds for 5 minutes on each axis
Fluid Immersion   - Immersion in aircraft fluids (fuel, oil etc.) for 24 hours
Water Immersion   - Immersion in sea water for 30 days
Penetration Resistance   - 500 lb. Dropped from 10 ft. with a ¼-inch-diameter contact point
Hydrostatic Pressure   - Pressure equivalent to depth of 20,000 ft.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flig ... order_(FDR (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Flight_Data_Recorder_(FDR))

I've emphasized a couple of standards which probably got a damned good stress-test that day.

And here's the lead from a news article about the Dana Air crash in Nigeria:

QuoteThe Director of Engineering with the Accident Investigation Bureau (AIB), Mr. Emmanuel Dialla has revealed that the Flight Data Recorder (FDR), an essential component of the Dana Air plane, has been destroyed by post-crash inferno.

Mr Dialla who continued his testimony on Monday told the Coroner inquiring into the cause of death of the 153 persons on the Dana Air Crash of June 3rd, that the recorder was burnt due to the failure of extinguishing the post-crash inferno that lasted for 24hours.

http://www.channelstv.com/home/2012/08/ ... royed-aib/ (http://www.channelstv.com/home/2012/08/06/dana-air-crash-flight-data-recorder-is-destroyed-aib/)

Take note of the conditions said to have caused the FDR to be destroyed in Nigeria. The plane crashed into a building and then the data storage was subjected to long-term high heat from fire.  Sound familiar?

That is not the only instance of the destruction of FDR/CVRs.  You could certainly look up more, if you were so inclined.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 04, 2014, 09:02:19 PM
[center:3kttdp2b]Which is more believable?[/center:3kttdp2b]
Despite that up until 9/11 whenever commercial or private jets went off course, high-speed NORAD jets chased them down and normally intercepted the flight within a matter of 10 to 15 minutes.  But on the day that will live in infamy, four commercial airliners went way off course and flew around for considerable time, even after it was known that the country was under attack.  They were never intercepted due to NORAD's incompetence.

Or would you believe that orders were intentionally given to stand down?
[spoil:3kttdp2b]The following data is all taken from the Official 9/11 Commission Report.  Don't take my word for it, please check it yourself.

8:14 AA11 apparently hijacked
8:25 AA11 unquestionably hijacked
8:44 UA 175 apparently hijacked
8:46 AA11 slams into WTC North
8:51 AA77 apparently hijacked
8:52 UA 175 reported hijacked by flight attendant
8:54 AA77 deviates from flight plan course
8:56 AA77 undoubtedly hijacked
9:03 UA 175 slams into WTC South
9:28 UA93 apparently hijacked
9:32 AA77 Dulles tower (DC airspace) observes fast-moving unidentified craft (AA77) on radar
9:36 UA93 reported hijacked by flight attendant
9:37 AA77 slams into Pentagon
10:03 UA93 crashes in field in Pennsylvania[/spoil:3kttdp2b]
AA11  -  flew for 30 minutes after it was suspected to have been hijacked, 19 minutes after known to be hijacked
UA175 -  flew for 19 minutes after known to have been hijacked (even though WTC 1 was hit two minutes after UA175 known to be hijacked)
AA77  -  flew for 46 minutes after apparently hijacked and  WTC had already been hit
UA93  -  33 minutes after known to have been hijacked and it was known that the country was under attack
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 04, 2014, 09:13:36 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"[center:9sjcyo2r]Which is more believable?[/center:9sjcyo2r]
Despite that up until 9/11 whenever commercial or private jets went off course, high-speed NORAD jets chased them down and normally intercepted the flight within a matter of 10 to 15 minutes.  But on the day that will live in infamy, four commercial airliners went way off course and flew around for considerable time, even after it was known that the country was under attack.  They were never intercepted due to NORAD's incompetence.

Or would you believe that orders were intentionally given to stand down?
[spoil:9sjcyo2r]The following data is all taken from the Official 9/11 Commission Report.  Don't take my word for it, please check it yourself.

8:14 AA11 apparently hijacked
8:25 AA11 unquestionably hijacked
8:44 UA 175 apparently hijacked
8:46 AA11 slams into WTC North
8:51 AA77 apparently hijacked
8:52 UA 175 reported hijacked by flight attendant
8:54 AA77 deviates from flight plan course
8:56 AA77 undoubtedly hijacked
9:03 UA 175 slams into WTC South
9:28 UA93 apparently hijacked
9:32 AA77 Dulles tower (DC airspace) observes fast-moving unidentified craft (AA77) on radar
9:36 UA93 reported hijacked by flight attendant
9:37 AA77 slams into Pentagon
10:03 UA93 crashes in field in Pennsylvania[/spoil:9sjcyo2r]
AA11  -  flew for 30 minutes after it was suspected to have been hijacked, 19 minutes after known to be hijacked
UA175 -  flew for 19 minutes after known to have been hijacked (even though WTC 1 was hit two minutes after UA175 known to be hijacked)
AA77  -  flew for 46 minutes after apparently hijacked and  WTC had already been hit
UA93  -  33 minutes after known to have been hijacked and it was known that the country was under attack
You are overestimating the compentancy and attention span of bored national defence workers, who 95 percent of the time don't do anything. For example, the planes that led the attack on Pearl Harbor were detected multiple times before the attack proper, but were shrugged off by command as a inbound flight of B-17's. That was just one of the many warning signs that was ignored. In summary, never attribute to malice what can be adequetly explained by stupidity.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 04, 2014, 11:14:55 PM
Quote from: "Plu"When you can't wield logic, everything sounds like an insult.
that's great, putting it in my sig.

QuoteWhen you can't trump logic, just hurl insults. That always works.
I'm not trying to trump your logic, because I have better things to do with my time. I don't think you are willing to change your mind on this, so why should I be willing to change mine?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 05, 2014, 03:43:12 AM
I've been sigged! My life's work completed  :rollin:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 05, 2014, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: "Plu"How many Cessna's did he crash for the conclusion to be reached that he could not safely fly one? Or was it just this one instance of him not being rented a Cessna by one company that led you to the conclusion that he must be unable to fly?
In view of the shallowness of your post, my first reaction was that I would just skip over it.  But considering the possibility that at least one open minded person may some day actually come across this thread, I changed my mind, and will respond after all.

- HH reportedly applied to the civil aviation school in Jeddah after returning home, but was rejected.
- In 1996, Hanjour returned to the United States from Saudi Arabia to pursue flight training, after being rejected by a Saudi flight school.
- For three months in 1996 and again in December 1997, HH applied to CRM Airline Training Center, Scottsdale, Arizona, but never finished the coursework for a license.  Applied again in 2000, but was turned down.
- Duncan Hastie, owner of CRM Flight School: "He was a pain in the rear, we didn't want him back at our school because he was not serious about becoming a good pilot."
- August, 2001: Flight instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, Freeway Airport, Bowie, Md took HH up on three test runs and found that he had difficulty controlling and landing the Cessna 172.  Chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

How many profession opinions are required to come to the conclusion that HH was a piss poor pilot?

And PS, if you think "crashing a plane should be a piece of cake" for a piss poor pilot, HH did not simply "crash a plane."  He executed a very complex manouver that experienced professional pilots would find very difficult.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 05, 2014, 07:37:48 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"don't know if you were here when we were discussing JFK's murder, but I believe that that was the result of a conspiracy. I "finally" figured out that conspiracies do sometimes happen in, oh, 1985 or so, thanks.

Just because some conspiracies have occurred in history doesn't make your particular theory correct, though. And my rejection is not out-of-hand, but rather, after careful consideration.
I do not remember making any claims about conspiracies being a historical fact as proof of anything, except to say it is proof of possibility of conspiracy, and this possibility should not automatically be ruled out.  Examine all the evidence, and then decide.

In fact we KNOW there was a conspiracy.  Whether or not any non Al Qaeda members were part of the conspiracy is the point.  You say there were not, I say the evidence points to the conclusion that there were.  Who or how many, I do not know.  Whether the conspiracy originated with Al Qaeda and others joined in, or whether it originated elsewhere and Al Qaeda was recruited so they could take the rap, again, I do not know.



Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You urging anyone else to "think objectively" on this matter is laughable. Your subjective dislike of Jews, which has been made clear in several of your posts, clearly colors your appraisal of ambiguous facts, and causes you to discard facts which undermine your hypothesis (and I'm being generous using that word). We have seen that in this very thread.
My prejudice toward jews and israel is not a matter of debate.

All my life up until about a decade ago I always had empathy for jews and felt it was unfair how they have been persecuted and disliked throughout the ages.  If anything, I had negative feelings toward arabs and muslims.

But then I began to take more interest in history and current events.  I learned things they never taught me in school.  And thanks to the Internet, I was able to see current events from a variety of perspectives.  That is when I began, little by little, to understand why the jews have always been disliked.

And I am not suggesting that anyone else should change their views in regard to jews.  You think what you choose to think about them, I will think what I choose to think about them.  That said, I will not waste any more time discussing my prejudices.



Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"This is another ridiculous claim. FDRs aren't "indestructible". They are digital storage (or magnetic tape recorders) protected by tensile steel and include thermal protection, but they can be and have been destroyed in crashes before. Here's a photo of the CVR from American 77:
Wow!  That black box allegedly from AA77 really is one mangled wreck?  Imagine what would happen to something made of paper aboard the same aircraft, like a paper passport for instance.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on February 05, 2014, 09:28:15 PM
As an observer, let's for a moment say I accept your premise, AtheistMoFo, that 9/11 was an inside job.
What point are you driving at?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 05, 2014, 11:27:52 PM
Quote from: "Shol'va"As an observer, let's for a moment say I accept your premise, AtheistMoFo, that 9/11 was an inside job.
What point are you driving at?
Thank you for asking.

As you no doubt have noticed, I am very strongly convinced that 9/11 was definitely an inside job.  When arabic language flight manuals and korans were discovered in a car parked at Logan Airport, and a passport magically dropped out of the sky, I started getting suspicious.  Then within a matter of a few days congress handed the president a blank check to invade any country he saw fit, by then I was at least 50% convinced something was fishy.  As the saga unfolded, every step of the way I became more and more convinced it had to be an inside job.  Eventually I began doing my own research and came to the conclusion that the Official Conspiracy Theory has no more credibility than the bible myths. Can I say it with 100% certainty?  No, but I am as certain about 9/11 as I am certain about the god theory.

But back to your question.

What is my point?  Well, I grew up in an environment where a person was innocent until proved guilty.  We had what was called habeas corpus.  We were free to travel as we pleased without being molested by TSA agents or having our naked bodies scanned.  When we talked about a "free speech zone" we were referring to entire countries, not some fenced in parking lot far away from places where we wanted to excercise our right to freedom of speech and freedom of assebmly.

All that is gone now.  I want it back.  Not for myself so much as for my grandchildren.  And in my opinion the best way to get it back is for there to be a mass awakening of the population to the realities of life.  The mass awakening starts with the realization that as sure as there are criminals in walking the streets around us, there are also criminals among the elected and non-elected government officials who control our every move.

A mass awakening is like an avalanche.  No single snowflake can do it on his own.  My job is to wake up as many sleeping snowflakes as I can awaken.  That is my point.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on February 06, 2014, 12:22:30 AM
Okay. I hear you. So what are you doing about it all? And do you believe 9/11 is that necessary to illustrate that point, much as it is hotly debated against, as you see here? As an observer I can't help but see better, more immediately observable and testable examples of government corruption or shit for brains elected officials. Yes, I agree, the TSA is security theater.
9/11 inside job. Which authority? Which party? It's all water under the bridge now. How do we apply that moving forward? I have a hard time thinking anyone out there genuinely has no concerns about government
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 06, 2014, 02:44:16 AM
If such is your goal, you've chosen the worst possible way to try and accomplish it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 06, 2014, 06:43:37 AM
Quote from: "Plu"If such is your goal, you've chosen the worst possible way to try and accomplish it.
They could always get jobs as preachers preaching to all those choir members. :wink:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 06, 2014, 07:00:59 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Quote from: "Plu"If such is your goal, you've chosen the worst possible way to try and accomplish it.
They could always get jobs as preachers preaching to all those choir members. :wink:

Actually those are accomplishing their goals just fine, it's just that their goals are "obtain power, attention and/or money" :p
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 06, 2014, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: "Plu"
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Quote from: "Plu"If such is your goal, you've chosen the worst possible way to try and accomplish it.
They could always get jobs as preachers preaching to all those choir members. :wink:

Actually those are accomplishing their goals just fine, it's just that their goals are "obtain power, attention and/or money" :p
Well there ya go. What better way to weed out corruption than to have power,  attention & money?  :-"
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 06, 2014, 07:56:46 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"And PS, if you think "crashing a plane should be a piece of cake" for a piss poor pilot, HH did not simply "crash a plane."  He executed a very complex manouver that experienced professional pilots would find very difficult.

That doesn't surprise me.  Professional experienced pilots are trained not to crash into things.  I imagine it would be quite difficult to override those trained responses.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 06, 2014, 08:37:49 AM
It also doesn't surprise me that he was rejected based on "he doesn't seem serious about becoming a good pilot", since that apparently wasn't his goal. :P
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 06, 2014, 01:18:32 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"And I am not suggesting that anyone else should change their views in regard to jews.  You think what you choose to think about them, I will think what I choose to think about them.  That said, I will not waste any more time discussing my prejudices.

Considering the bearing it has in this discussion, and how it is affecting your analysis, it's pretty pertinent; it is strong evidence of bias.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Wow!  That black box allegedly from AA77 really is one mangled wreck?  Imagine what would happen to something made of paper aboard the same aircraft, like a paper passport for instance.

Yeah.  That FDR couldn't get wafted around free of the inferno and collapsing building.  It could not have gotten separated from the plane as easily, considering that it was bolted into the tail, rather than riding loose in the cockpit when the airplane -- but not its occupants -- came to a sudden stop. I'm told that they sometimes use explosions to blow up buildings (I think even you accept that) -- so I imagine that an explosion could take something both light and possessed of a decent amount of surface area (like a passport) and, you know, push it away from the explosion, preventing its immediate burning.  

The poor FDR was stuck with the plane, stuck in the building, and stuck in a fire that lasted days. And it shows that your claim that these are indestructible is yet another of your claims to go up in smoke.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 07, 2014, 12:23:43 AM
Quote from: "Shol'va"Okay. I hear you. So what are you doing about it all?
Shol'va, your post deserves a proper reply which I do not have time for at the moment.  Will get back to you soon here in this thread ASAP.

Thump, I am not ignoring you, I just don't have time to reply just now.

All others, I will reply to serious posts as soon as I can, but pedantic ravings of mutant teenage ninja hooligans will be ignored.


later 'gators
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 07, 2014, 01:18:51 AM
So you replied to say that you don't have time to reply? Neat.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 07, 2014, 04:56:55 AM
So what can we all agree on here? WTC1/2/3 went down, pentagon got hit, thousands died. I believe it is safe to say that everyone agrees on that.

Firstly, the overall bigger picture here that truthers try to present is that a secret society exist. 9/11, Sandy hook, Boston bombing, banking system, all stems out from this SS. Its important that you firstly have to accept the idea that there exists a SS in your government. Without this simple acceptance, it will be hard for you to accept the theory's presented to you.  Ive seen this many times with Theist folks and God. The theist must first accept the idea that there might not be a god FIRST before all logical and reasonable explanations presented by an atheist start to make sense. If you cannot get through that layer nothing you say will work.

You must also have to ask yourself as why the idea of a SS isnt realistic for you. My Gov would neeeever lie to me. They would neeeeever kill their own people for their own personal gains. Its a scary thought yes. Imagine the thought of no God for a Theist. Its also scary for them. So again if you cant penetrate the first layer, nothing will make sense.

Here's what I believe happen on 9/11:
1. A problem is created.___Planes crash_______________
2. Control the perception.______People believe Terrorist did it___________
3. Offer solution.______Invade_____________

 Its a classic technique. Can you guys apply that to sandy hook? Ill help you. 1. Fake a mass shooting. 2. 17y/o gunman is presented as the killer. 3. Take away your guns and rights.

You have to decide for yourself for when the coincidences stop.

Nobody knows what this SS society is up to next but something will come. Its a forecast that something major will happen in the future using the technique above. This time the solution will have to do with chipping people. This is all you need to take from this thread. One you start seeing the pattern, everything will start to make sense. Nobody wants to say I told you so to something like this.

Look at your life right now. We work and work. Most of us will be paying off debt until we die. We pay for our basic needs of survival. Did you know the basic needs are all free? Food can be grown in our backyards, electricity can come from the sun, electric can power our cars. WEED! Weed can be grown in our backyard for free son! But no, we pay good money for something that should be free! How dumb are we? All efforts of supporting these free basic needs have been suppressed. Its an effort to keep you working. To keep you paying debt. To keep you busy and not be able to think and be independent. That is all I have to say. The biggest impact I can have on you is to change myself and then people will start to follow. The SS will only have power as long as you cooperate.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 07, 2014, 06:14:55 AM
Everything bad that has ever happened is literally caused by a nefarious secret society.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 07, 2014, 07:31:08 AM
As long as you dont care, they dont care.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 07, 2014, 09:20:29 AM
You're free to try and build all these electronic devices you have in your home in your spare time if you like, but for most people it's a given that work generates more resources than growing your own food. I don't know about you, but my standard of living is a lot higher if I go to my dayjob then when I try to grow my own crops and get my hands on those "free" resources (which would be a fulltime job most likely)

If the above is not true for you, you're an idiot for having a job and you should be growing your own food for sure.


Also if you have no idea what the SS' goals are, then there is no way to reliably test if they exist. Same argument applies to god; you can attribute stuff to it but until you can learn of how it works you cannot claim it's actually there. Once you start coming up with goals for your SS you can start looking for proof that they're real. Until then, you're just making more connections and assigning motivations that might not be there.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 07, 2014, 10:58:46 AM
Okay, I feel as though I have to adress this: if the U.S government was willing to cause extreme damage to itself and risk becoming a worldwide pariah, it would need a very good reason. An excuse for invading Iraq is not a good reason. If the U.S was willing to do such an inane and insane ation such as staging the 9/11 attacks, there is absolutely  no reason why we wouldn't have just invaded Iraq during the First Gulf War. All that was holding us back was the coalitions refusal to help. If we needed to, we could have gone it alone.
What I'm saying is, this whole thing, if it was a government conspiracy, seems to be taking a huge and pointless risk.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 07, 2014, 02:51:05 PM
Quote from: "theory816"As long as you dont care, they dont care.
Who the hell are "they"? You can't just throw out some nefarious "they" and expect us to go "yeah that checks out!". You claim that 9/11, Sandy Hook, and the Boston Bombing were all carried out by this evil group that makes COBRA look downright realistic.

The burden is on you to prove that all of these were the carried out by some nefarious secret society. The burden is also on you to prove that they were carried out by the same secret society.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 07, 2014, 03:04:20 PM
Hey, just keep repeating the same dumb shit and it becomes true eventually,  right?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 07, 2014, 05:05:37 PM
Quote from: "theory816"So what can we all agree on here? WTC1/2/3 went down, pentagon got hit, thousands died. I believe it is safe to say that everyone agrees on that.

Firstly, the overall bigger picture here that truthers try to present is that a secret society exist. 9/11, Sandy hook, Boston bombing, banking system, all stems out from this SS. Its important that you firstly have to accept the idea that there exists a SS in your government. Without this simple acceptance, it will be hard for you to accept the theory's presented to you.  Ive seen this many times with Theist folks and God. The theist must first accept the idea that there might not be a god FIRST before all logical and reasonable explanations presented by an atheist start to make sense. If you cannot get through that layer nothing you say will work.

You must also have to ask yourself as why the idea of a SS isnt realistic for you. My Gov would neeeever lie to me. They would neeeeever kill their own people for their own personal gains. Its a scary thought yes. Imagine the thought of no God for a Theist. Its also scary for them. So again if you cant penetrate the first layer, nothing will make sense.

Here's what I believe happen on 9/11:
1. A problem is created.___Planes crash_______________
2. Control the perception.______People believe Terrorist did it___________
3. Offer solution.______Invade_____________

 Its a classic technique. Can you guys apply that to sandy hook? Ill help you. 1. Fake a mass shooting. 2. 17y/o gunman is presented as the killer. 3. Take away your guns and rights.

You have to decide for yourself for when the coincidences stop.

Nobody knows what this SS society is up to next but something will come. Its a forecast that something major will happen in the future using the technique above. This time the solution will have to do with chipping people. This is all you need to take from this thread. One you start seeing the pattern, everything will start to make sense. Nobody wants to say I told you so to something like this.

Look at your life right now. We work and work. Most of us will be paying off debt until we die. We pay for our basic needs of survival. Did you know the basic needs are all free? Food can be grown in our backyards, electricity can come from the sun, electric can power our cars. WEED! Weed can be grown in our backyard for free son! But no, we pay good money for something that should be free! How dumb are we? All efforts of supporting these free basic needs have been suppressed. Its an effort to keep you working. To keep you paying debt. To keep you busy and not be able to think and be independent. That is all I have to say. The biggest impact I can have on you is to change myself and then people will start to follow. The SS will only have power as long as you cooperate.

This post has been reported.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 07, 2014, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: "Shol'va"Okay. I hear you. So what are you doing about it all? And do you believe 9/11 is that necessary to illustrate that point, much as it is hotly debated against, as you see here? As an observer I can't help but see better, more immediately observable and testable examples of government corruption or shit for brains elected officials. Yes, I agree, the TSA is security theater.
9/11 inside job. Which authority? Which party? It's all water under the bridge now. How do we apply that moving forward? I have a hard time thinking anyone out there genuinely has no concerns about government
Nobody has all the answers, neither you neither me, so I just follow the course that would appear to be most effective in my opinion.  You are quite correct that there is no shortage of instances showing what lowlife scumbags some politicians can be.  But in my opinion, yes, it does seem to me that exposing 9/11 for the false flag operation that it really was is the best way to get the message across.  But if someone has a better plan, I would be glad to adopt that.

My thinking is, if we don't do something, the situation will just keep on getting worse.  The true culprit(s) who pulled off 9/11 was not "the government" per se, nor the democrats, nor the republicans.  I belive there must have been a number of people who plotted the 9/11 massacre who were holding the right positions in government, military, and in the civilian sector.  Without a thorough investigation, however, there is no way to name names.  We can speculate, but that is all it would be.

History repeats itself, like a pendulum, it swings back and forth between despotism and egalitarianism.  Right now we are fast moving forward in the direction of despotic tyranny.  What surprises me is that so many atheists are so brainwashed and closed minded when it comes to 9/11, and indeed, anything to do with politics/government.  Blindly swallowing everything the government and the media feed them with no consideration of logic and not even interested in learning the facts.  Religion does not make people stupid.  People are stupid, so they invent religion.  The Church of 9/11 and the 72 Virgins is no different.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 07, 2014, 07:23:07 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Hey, just keep repeating the same dumb shit and it becomes true eventually,  right?
Just keep repeating the same dumb shit and it becomes true eventually, right?

I'll keep repeating this till it becomes true.   :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on February 07, 2014, 08:59:30 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"My thinking is, if we don't do something, the situation will just keep on getting worse.
Before I continue, I should say, for what it's worth, that I have lived through the revolution that overthrew the communist regime of Ceausescu in Romania. My life was put in danger several times over the course of a few never-ending days, so I have first hand experience of what it means for a populace to take it to the ultimate solution and "do something".

So, what do you suggest we do now as citizens of the USA?
Because if you want to talk about sleazeballs in government and doing something about it, you don't have to convince me 9/11 was an inside job.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 07, 2014, 09:22:32 PM
Here's a shocker, every government on earth has sleezy people in the shadows. We have courts and elections that supposedly corrects the problem.  Sadly it's not a perfect system, but it does work.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on February 07, 2014, 09:47:10 PM
It's obvious that the point of contention is over the said magnitude of said sleaziness.
Personally I simply cannot picture myself going to bed comfortably at night, being fully convinced 9/11 was my government's doing.
This isn't to say I am announcing a willful ignorance or denial in order to cope, rather I am stating my bewilderment at the conspiracy theorists. Where's the pitchforks, people? Why aren't you in the streets?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 01:27:24 AM
They= people with power, elites, people who are looking to control you.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 08, 2014, 01:30:02 AM
Uhmm..we have lives outside of political nonsense. If it's as bad as you say or think we don't have an iron curtain forcing you to remain a prisoner on planet corruption. There's always Russia who I'm sure would welcome you, but of course you'll need to swipe some highly classified government secrets or something.  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 03:36:25 AM
Quote from: "Plu"You're free to try and build all these electronic devices you have in your home in your spare time if you like, but for most people it's a given that work generates more resources than growing your own food. I don't know about you, but my standard of living is a lot higher if I go to my dayjob then when I try to grow my own crops and get my hands on those "free" resources (which would be a fulltime job most likely)

If the above is not true for you, you're an idiot for having a job and you should be growing your own food for sure.


Also if you have no idea what the SS' goals are, then there is no way to reliably test if they exist. Same argument applies to god; you can attribute stuff to it but until you can learn of how it works you cannot claim it's actually there. Once you start coming up with goals for your SS you can start looking for proof that they're real. Until then, you're just making more connections and assigning motivations that might not be there.

This addresses your first paragraph. Im going to go with a "things are ass backwards"  theme so stick with me. There have been very smart people who dedicate the time and effort into making devices that produces efficient energy, granted many of them might not be the holy grail to end all energy wars but the effort was there. And instead of supporting them, many of them are not funded and are suppressed.
Look who is still the top dog of energy today? Its still oil and gas. Oil and gas=$$$$$$$. Have you seen Dubai? They have fkn Bugatti's as police cars for fk sake! Its so sad that its laughable. :rollin:. We need gas in order to get to work, we need work in order to get gas. Its a endless death cycle and if you cant see the irony in that then just stop reading from here on out. Your a smart guy and im sure you see the irony in that, and if you saw the irony isn't the first thing you would think of is to find a alternate energy source? Im assuming yes so don't you think people have put effort into building more efficient means of transportation? If people really think gas is the only means to get around then they are very dumb indeed. So you see, gas and oil is just one category of how the overall collective interest and effort have been focused on. Its ass backwards.

Food. People go to fast food joints and markets to get their food instead of growing it right? But why? Is it because its more convenient? OK, that's understandable as long as its .............wait for it............... CONVENIENT. Continuing with the "ass backwards" theme. Be honest with yourselves. We don't go to fast food and markets because its convenient anymore but as our MAIN way to get our food. We should have all the basic foods in our backyard and home to sufficiently feed us and markets should be the add on, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.  :evil: ITS ASS BACKWARDS PEOPLE! Again its 2000 fkn 14. We have ipods,ipads,iphones,iWHATEVER! but very little effort is invested in helping us grow our own food more efficiently and conveniently. And cant you see how unhealthy we are getting depending on what should be a convenience? Do you think that if you ate the food you grow in your backyard would make you a fatass? Nope. Nobody said that you have to eat the food you grow mainly. You combine it with things from the market. Its a no brainer. Im repeating myself but again, Food from home should be main source and things from supermarket is for convenience and add on but not as main source of food.

Lets get more detailed. Say we did devoted more money,effort,time into developing technology into helping grow our own foods. People would be hella alot healthy. Say we took this technology to Africa. People would starve less and they have a way to provide for themselves. FKN THINK ABOUT WHY THEY ARE STARVING ya dumb fk!. They have to go to a master to get food. That master is not granting them what they wish for. Now imagine a world where there are less people starving, healthy people walking this earth. Isnt that the ideal world you want to live in? And dont fkn say its unrealistic because it isnt. But it does take awareness and a combine effort. But no one cares at the moment. It sux.


Something is happening in the background if things were done CORRECTLY. Have you guys figured it out yet? NO fkn $$$$$$$ Is being generated! LOL. You efficiently generating your own energy, you growing your own food. That shit don't generate no money for our homeboy uncle TOM! Fk uncle Tom that's all I gotta say. So you see, as long as are dependent the more you "they" have power over you. They are your masters and you are at their knees. And as long as you have a master, one day you will ask for one thing, they might not grant it? What are you to do then?

Shit son, these are the basics to life. Lets be seriouso for a moment. What is happening is that we are paying to live on this earth. It shouldn't be that way really.

So, say we have all the basics of life in order. Do we still need to work? HELL YES! Use your Head! Its not hard! You now have the basics taken care of. No longer do you have to work just to live. But thats what people are doing right? RIGHT! Blah!. Anyways, so now you work to get things that you "want" You have more time and money to do what you want. If buying a nice car is what you want to do with your money then go right fkn ahead! Thats your choice. Its your choice to put yourself in debt. Nobody has any say over that.

Anyways, My message in this is to be aware of whats going on. Im thankful that I was shown this be intelligent people or else I would have been blind myself. Be aware of whats going on and put some effort be it little medium or big into making things the way they should be. Nobody is forcing to to live a certain way of life. But your stupid if you dont think certain doors you take in life leads you to certain places. Peace!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 04:13:16 AM
And to address your 2nd paragraph. Im not saying that there for sure exist a SS. But can you honestly say that throughout human history that there has never been a group of people with power who banded together to work against you? Your asking me to place a finger on every single SS and ill be the first to admit that I cant do that. But you have to be understandable as to why I cant do that. I have my reasons to believe that there are people who working to control society. I still have my doubts but there's too many coincidences.  And right here Ive fallen into my own trap. My brother who is a theist, told me that there's too many coincidences that happened to him for god to not exist. I told him that they are just coincidences and that a god does not exist. Hes contributing the coincidences to something higher and that what I am doing with my SS. Im being hypocritical in a way. But God and a SS is two different beast because we are dealing with HUMANS but because people cant point the finger to a actual person, the whole subject in thrown into the back.  Ive decided that the coincidences stop a while back. And you have to also decide for yourself. I know links will usually be overlooked and never clicked but if you have time and nothing to do watch this vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqd ... NA&index=7 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGAaPjqdbgQ&list=FLCwdBzQ6rRIKJ6DQB_ipONA&index=7)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 08, 2014, 04:50:43 AM
QuoteFood. People go to fast food joints and markets to get their food instead of growing it right? But why? Is it because its more convenient? OK, that's understandable as long as its .............wait for it............... CONVENIENT. Continuing with the "ass backwards" theme. Be honest with yourselves. We don't go to fast food and markets because its convenient anymore but as our MAIN way to get our food. We should have all the basic foods in our backyard and home to sufficiently feed us and markets should be the add on, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

There are two problems here.

A) I don't have a backyard because I live in the city.
B) I don't have the time to grow my own food even if I did, because I have more important stuff to do.

It's nice to be self supportive, but one of the prices of being self supportive is that you quickly run out of time to do a lot of stuff that you do have time for if you just buy your food from a market.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 05:57:52 AM
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteFood. People go to fast food joints and markets to get their food instead of growing it right? But why? Is it because its more convenient? OK, that's understandable as long as its .............wait for it............... CONVENIENT. Continuing with the "ass backwards" theme. Be honest with yourselves. We don't go to fast food and markets because its convenient anymore but as our MAIN way to get our food. We should have all the basic foods in our backyard and home to sufficiently feed us and markets should be the add on, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

There are two problems here.

A) I don't have a backyard because I live in the city.
B) I don't have the time to grow my own food even if I did, because I have more important stuff to do.

It's nice to be self supportive, but one of the prices of being self supportive is that you quickly run out of time to do a lot of stuff that you do have time for if you just buy your food from a market.

A.) I dont have the answers but im sure peoples ingenuity will come up with something to address problems like this. I can already come up with a few ideas myself as I type this. I can see a large grow area in a community where you have your own space to grow your food.

B.) You have a choice. Most dont.  And keep in mind why you work. Is it to put food on your table?  

This is false. Being self supportive is not time consuming. With the correct technology everything is easily automated and upkeep is very minimal. The whole point of this is for you to have a choice to be less dependent on others. Theres nothing wrong with buying food from the stores just as long as you have a choice. You can have a master that provides for you but if they master doesnt provide, you need to be able to provide for yourself, that is the point.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 08, 2014, 08:13:20 AM
QuoteA.) I dont have the answers but im sure peoples ingenuity will come up with something to address problems like this. I can already come up with a few ideas myself as I type this. I can see a large grow area in a community where you have your own space to grow your food.

People already do this. It takes up a lot of time, which I don't care to donate to it. I'll just buy my food.

QuoteB.) You have a choice. Most dont. And keep in mind why you work. Is it to put food on your table?

I work to put food on my table, a roof over my head, and then with all the money left over after paying for those, I work to make my life fun. That last part is far more important to me than the first, and no amount of self sufficiency is going to get me enough money to do fun things.

QuoteThis is false. Being self supportive is not time consuming. With the correct technology everything is easily automated and upkeep is very minimal.

But where are you going to get all that technology if you don't have any money? And if you have enough money to buy all that technology, why don't you just use that money to buy food instead of automating your own food production? It'll be a lot cheaper.

QuoteThe whole point of this is for you to have a choice to be less dependent on others. Theres nothing wrong with buying food from the stores just as long as you have a choice. You can have a master that provides for you but if they master doesnt provide, you need to be able to provide for yourself, that is the point.

If you call your boss a master, you're in the wrong kind of business. This whole self sufficiency talk sounds nice, as long as you're living far from society in a place where land is cheap and you don't really care for all the commodities of modern life. It's not going to fly in a city. Are you being self sufficient right now? Or is this just a lot of talk that even you aren't doing yourself?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 08, 2014, 12:41:11 PM
Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteFood. People go to fast food joints and markets to get their food instead of growing it right? But why? Is it because its more convenient? OK, that's understandable as long as its .............wait for it............... CONVENIENT. Continuing with the "ass backwards" theme. Be honest with yourselves. We don't go to fast food and markets because its convenient anymore but as our MAIN way to get our food. We should have all the basic foods in our backyard and home to sufficiently feed us and markets should be the add on, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

There are two problems here.

A) I don't have a backyard because I live in the city.
B) I don't have the time to grow my own food even if I did, because I have more important stuff to do.

It's nice to be self supportive, but one of the prices of being self supportive is that you quickly run out of time to do a lot of stuff that you do have time for if you just buy your food from a market.

If you want to know why it's not a good idea to produce your own food, here's an example.
Suppose you have two countries A and B that can produce different amount of food, say rice and corn.
Country A can produce 1000 units of rice and no corn, or no rice and 100 units of corn.
Country B can also produce 1000 units of rice and no corn, but no rice and 2000 units of corn.

The concept involved here is called opportunity cost (OC). For country A, the OC for rice = 0.1 corn. That is, for every unit of corn it chooses to produce, it must give up 1/10 unit of corn. For country B, the OC for rice is 2 units of corn. Notice that both countries can produce 1000 units of rice, but the comparative advantage shows that for country A, it would only sacrifice 100 units of corn, but for country B, that sacrifice is higher at 2000 units of corn.

Suppose that both countries had initially decided to produce a mix of rice and corn, as the table shows:

(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/OC-1.jpg) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/OC-1.jpg.html)

You can see that 100% specialization produces more rice and corn than in the case of a mix production.

Lesson: it's better economically to concentrate on what you are as a specialist, then spread yourself thinly.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on February 08, 2014, 02:08:19 PM
:popcorn: Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 08, 2014, 02:45:44 PM
I must be missing the big picture here. So..sssomeone, maybe Dr Evil flew planes into the WTC so everyone will be encouraged to grow their own garden?


Yeah, I'll go with that.  =D>  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 08, 2014, 04:10:30 PM
The argument for self-sufficiency is essentially an argument for agrarian society.  Such a society would make government more powerful, not less powerful, because people would be too busy raising their own food to keep tabs on their government.

I don't think it's a coincidence that democracy flowered as a political model only with the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 08, 2014, 04:18:37 PM
So why not go back to the good old days of plague, pestilence and starvation? After all,  it's what the Bible wants us to do, right? I'm not sure that's really the goal,  but it sure doesn't seem to steer anyone away from it.  8-[
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 08, 2014, 04:29:59 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"So why not go back to the good old days of plague, pestilence and starvation? After all,  it's what the Bible wants us to do, right? I'm not sure that's really the goal,  but it sure doesn't seem to steer anyone away from it.  8-[

Hey, if Ted Kazcynski is for it, who am I to argue?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 08:12:40 PM
Again ill be the first to admit if I am wrong or having to much of a unrealistic Utopian picture in my head.  I believe what I read too quick. I have unrealistic expectations. Have ideas that don't pan out.

Looking back now, maybe I was too hitlerish with my approach and I should remember that "anything is a bit of everything". Maybe the idea of someone growing all their food in their backyard is a bit far fetched. Its been done but by very few people and not everyone have the time, energy, knowledge, and devotion into growing mangoes or chickpeas in their backyard.

I guess what you can provide in your backyard is what you can provide. Even if that's just onions. But hey, I guess now you don't have to spend money on onions when you have some right out back! I guess this thread addresses me being a cheapskate more then anything.  :rollin:

Maybe things are the way they are for a reason. Maybe things are the way they are because someone designed it to be that way. Idk, im getting tired of thinking.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 08:29:28 PM
Quote from: "Solitary":popcorn: Solitary

Solitary? Because someone grows their own food, have a better way to produce energy means that they have to seclude themselves from society? Wut? I can see you cooping up in a hole for no good reason lol
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 08, 2014, 08:39:42 PM
Thinking's a drag mmannn... :x  Grow opium, save the whales.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 08:43:20 PM
QuoteYou can see that 100% specialization produces more rice and corn than in the case of a mix production.

Lesson: it's better economically to concentrate on what you are as a specialist, then spread yourself thinly.

Great point. I was thinking about this and you addressed it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 08, 2014, 09:10:34 PM
This is a reply to your (Thump) post from a couple days ago, although the topic being discussed seems to have morphed into something else during that time.  My apology for the delayed reply.  Had things to do.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Yeah. That FDR couldn't get wafted around free of the inferno and collapsing building. It could not have gotten separated from the plane as easily, considering that it was bolted into the tail, rather than riding loose in the cockpit when the airplane -- but not its occupants -- came to a sudden stop. I'm told that they sometimes use explosions to blow up buildings (I think even you accept that) -- so I imagine that an explosion could take something both light and possessed of a decent amount of surface area (like a passport) and, you know, push it away from the explosion, preventing its immediate burning.

The poor FDR was stuck with the plane, stuck in the building, and stuck in a fire that lasted days. And it shows that your claim that these are indestructible is yet another of your claims to go up in smoke.

MOFO REPLIES:

Fires that lasted months actually.  But here is the thing, thump, all of these one-in-a-million occurences -- you just take it in stride as, "well, theoretically it could have happened, and the government says this is what happened, and all the media say this is what happend, so this is definitely what happened!"

OK, so jet fuel ignites.  Not "explode" per se, but rather than argue the point let's just say that it does "explode".  It does not explode with the force of explosives such as dynamite, C4 and the like.  A jet fuel "explosion" spews liquid jet fuel in all directions creating a fireball.  It would not have the impact of C4 or dynamite.  The liquid jet fuel would adhere to the surface of anything it came into contact with, and assuming there is sufficient oxygen, that object would become scortched, and if it is a combustible substance (like paper) it would almost certainly burn up.  There is a one in a million chance that the passport would survive.  A one in a million chance that HH could just by luck hit his target.  And a one in a million chance that WTC 7 could come down at freefall for two and a quarter seconds and come straght down into its own footprint.  Compare that to the false flag theory.  Which one makes more sense from the point of Occam's Razor.

Then you weigh in the circumstantial evidence, i.e., somebody made massive put options on American Airlines and United Airlines in the weeks before 9/11 / Five israelis in New Jersey were seen rejoicing, taking photos of the burning twin towers in the background as thousands of people were dying / The Magic Pixie granted Project for the New American Century (PNAC) their wish for a "catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor" / George Bush was also granted his wish: ("A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it" uttered July 26, 2001).  A plan to invade Afghanistan was sent to George Bush on September 10, 2001.  All circumstantial, and all coincidences.

When taken all in context and added all up, and still insisting that it was muslim jihadists and ONLY muslim jihadists who pulled off 9/11, the crap about devils going around planting dinosaur bones almost starts to sound reasonable.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 08, 2014, 09:13:30 PM
Theory, you might not know it from some of my posts, but there is a great deal of wisdom floating around this site by people I have a great deal of respect for. I'll crack dumb jokes, but I do read most posts.
I'm not great with debates so I keep my debating to a dull roar. Know your limitations and enjoy the ride. There's a lot of knowledge and experience and fun to be had here.
It's good you're willing to admit you're wrong. Learn from these salty old bastards. :-D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 08, 2014, 09:33:47 PM
Quote from: "theory816"So what can we all agree on here? WTC1/2/3 went down, pentagon got hit, thousands died. I believe it is safe to say that everyone agrees on that.
...
Some mighty strong allegations there Theory816!  I will refrain from either agreeing or disagreeing, but will make some comments anyway.

The thing that a lot of people seem to be unable to understand is that "inside job" only means that one or more insiders were involved.  Say a bank gets hit.  Police theorize it was an inside job.  Does that mean every bank official, every bank employee, from president on down to janitor was in on it?  Of course not!

So why is it when we talk about 9/11 being an inside job, all these deBonkers harp on "oh, yeah, the government did it.  Blah blah blah."  Inside job only means that there were a few key persons in high places in on the plot.  Not every single elected and non-elected government official.

Why does there have to be a "secret society"?  False flag attacks have been around since the beginning of time.  It is now open knowledge that Roosevelt intentionally provoked the attack on Pearl Harbor because it was the only way to get the people to rally round the flag.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident is now admitted to b a total fabrication.  The USS Maine is still being debated, but we do know the explosion came from inside the hull, not outside, so it could not have been the Spaniards.

Why is it so difficult for the deBonkers to accept that there are more than one murdering scumbags holding positions of power who benefited greatly from 9/11?  This is not a new phenomenon.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 08, 2014, 09:39:10 PM
So I like how this thread has evolved from paranoid 9/11 conspiracy theories to paranoid ramblings about government secret societies.
I say like because it gives me an excuse to make NWO/Patriots jokes.
As for Mofo, you are simultaneously giving the Jihadists too much and too little credit, somehow. You assume that something like the 9/11 attacks couldn't happen via terrorism, though there are multiple similar cases, and you assume that they did not have the aptitude to do such a thing, when in reality it would not take that much skill to perform the attacks, not to mention that they did mess up the Pentagon attack, and they completely botched the 4th attack.
As for too much credit, you are assuming that the terrorists objective was specifically to destroy the buildings. In reality, all they had to do is hit them. They're terrorists. Their objective is to spread fear and intimidation. A suicide bombing of 4 landmarks and thousands of casualties would do that fairly well, I would say. For evidence, just look at the Pentagon attack. One plane could not hope to destroy such a large building as the Pentagon, but one plane could break the false sense of security that the U.S had. Terrorism is about ideologies and psychology, not military campaigns and political maneuvering.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 08, 2014, 09:43:01 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Okay, I feel as though I have to adress this: if the U.S government was willing to cause extreme damage to itself and risk becoming a worldwide pariah, it would need a very good reason. An excuse for invading Iraq is not a good reason. If the U.S was willing to do such an inane and insane ation such as staging the 9/11 attacks, there is absolutely no reason why we wouldn't have just invaded Iraq during the First Gulf War. All that was holding us back was the coalitions refusal to help. If we needed to, we could have gone it alone.
What I'm saying is, this whole thing, if it was a government conspiracy, seems to be taking a huge and pointless risk.

MOFO REPLIES:

Rocky, not sure who you are aiming your remark at, but mind if I butt in?  Just how and when did the U.S. government cause extreme damage to itself?  I mean, an octopus will eat its own tentacles when it is hungry, but I can't see where the U.S. government has ever done anything that was not for its own gain and/or for the gain of the politicians who run the government.  Please show me what I missed.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 08, 2014, 09:58:36 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Okay, I feel as though I have to adress this: if the U.S government was willing to cause extreme damage to itself and risk becoming a worldwide pariah, it would need a very good reason. An excuse for invading Iraq is not a good reason. If the U.S was willing to do such an inane and insane ation such as staging the 9/11 attacks, there is absolutely no reason why we wouldn't have just invaded Iraq during the First Gulf War. All that was holding us back was the coalitions refusal to help. If we needed to, we could have gone it alone.
What I'm saying is, this whole thing, if it was a government conspiracy, seems to be taking a huge and pointless risk.

MOFO REPLIES:

Rocky, not sure who you are aiming your remark at, but mind if I butt in?  Just how and when did the U.S. government cause extreme damage to itself?  I mean, an octopus will eat its own tentacles when it is hungry, but I can't see where the U.S. government has ever done anything that was not for its own gain and/or for the gain of the politicians who run the government.  Please show me what I missed.
If we assume that 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S government, then we have to assume that said government attacked: an important world economic center in their own nations' largest city, the Pentagon, which is the military center of the U.S and would jeopardize our ability to mount a military response if it was seriously damaged, and an attempted attack on a target in the DC area. That rules out the military, the rich, and the politicians as reasonable conspirators. So, whose left? The FFA?

As for your question, the U.S government has done things altruistically before. Take the oil embargo on Japan that led up to the pacific war. FDR issued an economic embargo on Japan due to it's gastly war with China. This was a move that would not have been popular with 50% of America at the time, and FDR did not have any real personal stake in the conflict. In fact, were it not for that embargo, Japan may not have attacked the U.S, so it actually did real physical harm to us eventually.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on February 08, 2014, 10:17:06 PM
It reminds of all the James Bond movies....you know you have this massive "secret" underground cavern where a billion dollars of missiles and equipment and man power,,,oh "secret" manpower, the "are they paid or not" type of manpower, completely expendable but they care enough to give them hard hats so if the atomic bomb in the missile blows up parts of their brain are still somewhat congealed into the plastic. And these hundreds of men apparently live like slaves and have no mom or dad or wife or sister or brother or children that they worry about what happens due to their actions..

so like the vaccine conspiracy nuts, all these scientists and doctors are apparently weaned from the orphanages at a very young age and mind washed, none of them have family so they all have an evil hatred of life and family and ...and....LOL.....oy vey

so too those who brought this massive disaster to the US...haters all...bred right here in the slums..raised by super secret single ugly fat scientists,, probably eunuchs as well, who hate god, murican and any fucking kind of pie...they trainted these evil rat bastard children.. rasied them in secret cells in Arkansas deep in the woods, and forty years ago,,or fitty whenever  they built the towers, they snuck these devious hellions into the construction crews and they planted bombs in the poured concrete columns or placed them on the steel columns,,, all without anymotherfucker seeing a goddamn thing.. clever little family less, love-less, enuchs and bastard humans.....



makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 10:36:13 PM
We are slowly losing our rights, slowly losing our guns. You can be considered a "terrorist" without trial. Don't you see? That means that they can send a predator drone and bomb the shit out of you for whatever reason and slap the "terrorist" badge on you and get away with it. Please wake up guys!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 08, 2014, 10:43:08 PM
Quote from: "theory816"We are slowly losing our rights, slowly losing our guns. You can be considered a "terrorist" without trial. Don't you see? That means that they can send a predator drone and bomb the shit out of you for whatever reason and slap the "terrorist" badge on you and get away with it. Please wake up guys!
Automatic weapons ban, gun control for convicted felons, minors, and the mentally unstable.

DE GOVENMENT IS TAKIN MY GUNS! NOW HOW AM I GONNA THREATEN DEM SO THEY DONT TAKE AWAY MY GUNS? I NEED MY FULL AUTO M63 FOR MY QUIAL HUNTIN!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 11:09:23 PM
=D> Nice. So when you to the store tomorrow are you going to be afraid of the guy standing next to you in the checkout aisle? I mean he can slit your throat any time he wants to with a zappo knife. No, the fact of the matter is that you can die any second from anything. But you don't give up your freedom because of this. There have been countless arguments like this.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 08, 2014, 11:17:28 PM
***slits throats just because I can. Now you're dead motherfucker and I have your gun. BANG BANG!

Someone call a cop.  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 08, 2014, 11:38:57 PM
Dont forget to run over my dead body with a car. Btw, sorry to OP for veering off topic.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 09, 2014, 05:49:22 AM
Losing access to guns doesn't mean your country is in the shitter. There's a million reasons your country is going down the shitter, though. I'm guessing the worst of which are shitty education, religious brainwashing, nationalist propaganda, and "us vs them" mentality.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 09, 2014, 06:11:39 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Losing access to guns doesn't mean your country is in the shitter. There's a million reasons your country is going down the shitter, though. I'm guessing the worst of which are shitty education, religious brainwashing, nationalist propaganda, and "us vs them" mentality.
But no guns means bad people would exist! :shock:

Actually Plu, your post ought to be read daily by our president, congress and supreme court... out loud on tv in their underwear.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 09, 2014, 12:25:10 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"So I like how this thread has evolved from paranoid 9/11 conspiracy theories to paranoid ramblings about government secret societies.
I say like because it gives me an excuse to make NWO/Patriots jokes.
As for Mofo, you are simultaneously giving the Jihadists too much and too little credit, somehow. You assume that something like the 9/11 attacks couldn't happen via terrorism, though there are multiple similar cases, and you assume that they did not have the aptitude to do such a thing, when in reality it would not take that much skill to perform the attacks, not to mention that they did mess up the Pentagon attack, and they completely botched the 4th attack.
As for too much credit, you are assuming that the terrorists objective was specifically to destroy the buildings. In reality, all they had to do is hit them. They're terrorists. Their objective is to spread fear and intimidation. A suicide bombing of 4 landmarks and thousands of casualties would do that fairly well, I would say. For evidence, just look at the Pentagon attack. One plane could not hope to destroy such a large building as the Pentagon, but one plane could break the false sense of security that the U.S had. Terrorism is about ideologies and psychology, not military campaigns and political maneuvering.
"As for Mofo, you are simultaneously giving the Jihadists too much and too little credit, somehow. You assume that something like the 9/11 attacks couldn't happen via terrorism ..."

Couldn't happen via terrorism? ? ? ? ?  Rocky, just how in the hell do you define terrorism?  What are you assuming that I assume?  I define terrorism as any henious act committed by *any person or group* with the aim to strike terror and fear into the hearts of ordinary peace loving folks.  If you don't call the hijacking of four airplanes, crashing them into buildings, killing thousands of (mostly innocent) people an act of terrorism -- like if that ain't terrorism, then what is?

" ... when in reality it would not take that much skill to perform the attacks..."

First of all, MoFo never said the jihadists had no part in it.  MoFo said that they had help of insiders.  But speaking of insiders, if the attacks would have been so easy for the jihadists, how simple would it be for insiders?  Or simpler yet, jihadists with help from insiders?

"...you are assuming that the terrorists objective was specifically to destroy the buildings. In reality, all they had to do is hit them. They're terrorists. Their objective is to spread fear and intimidation."

Stop assuming what I assume.  MoFo never said/implied the objective was to destroy the buildings.  You made that up.
We seem to agree that the objective of terrorism is to spread fear and intimidation.  Where we do not agree is who had motive, opportunity, and expertise to pull it off, and who DID pull it off.

"Terrorism is about ideologies and psychology, not military campaigns and political maneuvering."

! ! !

Blimey!  At last!  You've finally seen the light!  It is all about ideology, psychology, and stategy.  Congratulations.  Now all you need is to do a little more reasearch on your own instead of swallowing everything the media feeds you, and you too will become enlightened!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on February 09, 2014, 01:09:54 PM
(//http://static3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130501204017/alienfilm/images/e/e8/I_Want_to_Believe.png)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 09, 2014, 09:21:11 PM
So the RAND corporation, in conjunction with the saucer people,
under the supervision of the reverse vampires,
faked these attacks in a fiendish plot to eliminate the meal of dinner!
(//http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u316/marcus_the_dragon_slayer/lookingglass_zps7354faf7.jpg)
we're through the looking glass here people...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 09, 2014, 10:31:15 PM
See, the mere thought of government working against you is too much. Its only when you can peel away the first layer that everything else can be soaked in easily.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 09, 2014, 10:33:39 PM
Quote from: "theory816"See, the mere thought of government working against you is too much. Its only when you can peel away the first layer that everything else can be soaked in easily.
I'm not a US citizen and I'm pretty sure the US government is working against me.
 
But I don't quite understand what you mean here. Are you saying that if I want to accept your conspiracy theory, all I have to do is accept your conspiracy theory?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 09, 2014, 11:35:25 PM
Would you believe?

If you can believe this, a group of arab muslim jihadists drive to Logan Airport in a rented vehicle, on their way to a jihad.  The plan is to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of infidels.  In their haste, they forget their arabic language flight instruction manual, a koran, and a commercial aircraft fuel consumption calculator in the car.  (Similar items were discovered in bags checked in for the hijacked flight, but somehow never made it onto the plane.)  The hijackers simply "forgot" the manuals and fuel calculator and maybe they decided they did not need their koran because they would be collecting their 72 virgins within a couple of hours anyway.

Or, would you belive these items were planted.

HINT: Occam's Razor
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 10, 2014, 12:00:44 AM
You keep on throwing around Occam's razor as if 1: it's always right, and 2: your explanation is the simplest.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 10, 2014, 12:13:09 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Would you believe?

If you can believe this, a group of arab muslim jihadists drive to Logan Airport in a rented vehicle, on their way to a jihad.  The plan is to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of infidels.  In their haste, they forget their arabic language flight instruction manual, a koran, and a commercial aircraft fuel consumption calculator in the car.  (Similar items were discovered in bags checked in for the hijacked flight, but somehow never made it onto the plane.)  The hijackers simply "forgot" the manuals and fuel calculator and maybe they decided they did not need their koran because they would be collecting their 72 virgins within a couple of hours anyway.

Or, would you belive these items were planted.

HINT: Occam's Razor
you realise that these guys leaving stuff behind is the simplest explanation, right? People forget stuff all the time, even important things, especially when they have some huge event coming up in their lives. Also, all this stuff proves...nothing. So what if they did have an arabic flight instruction manual, Koran and "fuel consumption calculator" in their car? People aren't arrested for owning these things. If the thing left behind in their car was a plan labelled "This is how we'll blow up the twin towers using an aircraft we hijack" then maybe you've got something. But a random assortment of things vaguely related to planes (one of which was written in a language only 0.2% of the population understood) left in a car at an airport is hardly going to make anyone realise that these guys were planning on hijacking a plane and crashing into the twin towers. This doesn't really stand up to occam's razor at all.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 10, 2014, 01:34:53 AM
I like how the theorists here are assuming that we never question our government/ couldn't handle it if they lied to us, but you in effect have fallen to our tendency to generalize, and have gone the whole other direction by always assuming the government is doing something wrong. Lots of otherwise intelligent people do it. You cannot simply assume that someone is guilty, you need evidence in order to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That has not happened here.
Oh, and as for the comments about the media? Please shut up. It might seem odd, but the media are, in fact, not controlled by the government, and are in reality controlled by disparate groups with their own agendas, as it always has been. Can they be extraordinarily wrong/ stupid sometimes? Yes. But that does not mean they are wrong all the time, or that they are corrupt, or that they control the government.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 10, 2014, 01:47:39 AM
Mofo, if you're looking for a conspiracy to uncover look no further than the nearest cross on a building outside your door somewhere. They do far more harm than a few airplanes knocking down a few buildings.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 11, 2014, 11:37:55 AM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"If we assume that 9/11 was an inside job by the U.S government,
Rocky, that may be your assumption, and you may not be alone, but it sure as hell is not MoFo's assumption.  Why do you continue to post nonsense criticizing MoFo's position and misrepresenting it at the same time?

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"As for your question, the U.S government has done things altruistically before. Take the oil embargo on Japan that led up to the pacific war. FDR issued an economic embargo on Japan due to it's gastly war with China...
...In fact, were it not for that embargo, Japan may not have attacked the U.S, so it actually did real physical harm to us eventually.
Altruistically?  You really think there was anything altruistic about the oil embargo?  You really think it had anything to do with the situation between Japan and China?  You really were born yesterday?
But you are goddamn right that Japan would not have attacked Pearl Harbor if it had not been for the embargo, and that is exactly why Roosevelt imposed the embargo.  While he was wooing the public with his rhetoric about not sending American boys to fight European battles, with the other side of his mouth he promised Churchill that if he could just hang in there and hold off the Nazis until after the U.S. elections, he would find the pretext for American involvement in the war.  And guess what, it worked exactly according to Roosevelt's plan.

[center:84lj7796]- - - - -[/center:84lj7796]
Quote from: "theory816"Btw, sorry to OP for veering off topic.
No problem.  Majority of deBonkers attacking this thread have their heads screwed on backwards anyway.  They will never admit that a finite amount of kinetic energy can not do two jobs at once.  They are convinced it can both cause free-fall acceleration while simultaneously crushing concrete and twisting steel beams into pretzels at the same time.

Ironically, these same clowns will jeer at theists who dare wander into the atheists' den and point to Occam's Razor and talk about logic and scientific fact with the other side of their mouths.  It is probably just as well that the topic takes a turn.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 11, 2014, 01:15:26 PM
(//http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/672/756/958.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 11, 2014, 01:59:44 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"You cannot simply assume that someone is guilty, you need evidence in order to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That has not happened here.
Well said!  Foot in your mouth again, eh Rocky?  You know, MoFo can't get over how you keep shooting your own theory down, while making irrelevant posts about MoFo's theory.  The Osama bin Ladden and his 19 jihadists theory has never been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, it never went to trial.  (Unless you call "trial by media" a form of trial.)  Why did it never go to trial?  Duh! the 19 jihadist hijackers never went to trial because reportedly they seem to have died while committing their crime, and as for Osama bin Laden, well, he was sentenced to summary execution by the media, and the summary execution was carried out without Osama ever getting his day in court of law.
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"You cannot simply assume that someone is guilty, you need evidence in order to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That has not happened here.
(Just thought I would repeat it so you won't forget what you said.)

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Oh, and as for the comments about the media? Please shut up. It might seem odd, but the media are, in fact, not controlled by the government, and are in reality controlled by disparate groups with their own agendas, as it always has been. Can they be extraordinarily wrong/ stupid sometimes? Yes. But that does not mean they are wrong all the time, or that they are corrupt, or that they control the government.
See what I mean?  There you go again.  Just can't keep that foot out of your mouth, can you Rocky.  Making assumptions that MoFo claimed this, MoFo claimed that.  Surprise, MoFo never claimed the media was controlled by the government because MoFo knows the media is NOT controlled by the government.

The media are owned by corporations, and is controlled by the corporations that own them.
The government is owned by corporations, and is controlled by the corporations that own them.
Go figure.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 11, 2014, 02:37:07 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MOFO REPLIES:

Fires that lasted months actually.  But here is the thing, thump, all of these one-in-a-million occurences -- you just take it in stride as, "well, theoretically it could have happened, and the government says this is what happened, and all the media say this is what happend, so this is definitely what happened!"

OK, so jet fuel ignites.  Not "explode" per se, but rather than argue the point let's just say that it does "explode".  It does not explode with the force of explosives such as dynamite, C4 and the like.  A jet fuel "explosion" spews liquid jet fuel in all directions creating a fireball.  It would not have the impact of C4 or dynamite.  The liquid jet fuel would adhere to the surface of anything it came into contact with, and assuming there is sufficient oxygen, that object would become scortched, and if it is a combustible substance (like paper) it would almost certainly burn up.  There is a one in a million chance that the passport would survive.  A one in a million chance that HH could just by luck hit his target.  And a one in a million chance that WTC 7 could come down at freefall for two and a quarter seconds and come straght down into its own footprint.  Compare that to the false flag theory.  Which one makes more sense from the point of Occam's Razor.

Firstly, you're talking to a former Air Force firefighter, who has seen more jet fuel burn than anyone here except Stromboli, perhaps.  I know how it behaves.  It does sometimes explode with velocities up to 1800 meters per second, which is quite enough to separate a man from his clothes, as anyone who has worked an air crash can attest. I think the chance of the passport surviving is quite a bit better than you do, for reasons already stated.  I base that opinion on my personal experience in working aircraft crashes -- three, to be exact (two fatality, one a class B mishap).

Also, you insist on relying on Occam's Razor at certain points in your argument, while disregarding it in others.  It should be noted that Occam's Razor is only advice; it is not a hard-and-fast rule or physical law.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Then you weigh in the circumstantial evidence, i.e., somebody made massive put options on American Airlines and United Airlines in the weeks before 9/11

That is not evidence.  That is not even circumstantial evidence.  The reason why is because you're assuming your premise is correct in  assessing the probative value of this purchase.

In other words, this is a subtle form of begging the question. (//http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html)

American had digested TWA that same spring, and it seems to me that the put options could well have been insurance against a declining stock price had the absorption of a major competitor gone awry.

Can you demonstrate the motives of the buyers independently of your hypothesis?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Five israelis in New Jersey were seen rejoicing, taking photos of the burning twin towers in the background as thousands of people were dying

Pictures, and original source, please?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"The Magic Pixie granted Project for the New American Century (PNAC) their wish for a "catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbor"

Again, begging the question.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"George Bush was also granted his wish: ("A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it" uttered July 26, 2001).  A plan to invade Afghanistan was sent to George Bush on September 10, 2001.  All circumstantial, and all coincidences.

And all assuming what you wish to prove ... begging the question.  That "evidence" can be interpreted several ways.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"When taken all in context and added all up, and still insisting that it was muslim jihadists and ONLY muslim jihadists who pulled off 9/11, the crap about devils going around planting dinosaur bones almost starts to sound reasonable.

This is certainly overstating your case, as demonstrated above.


Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MOFO REPLIES:

Rocky, not sure who you are aiming your remark at, but mind if I butt in?  Just how and when did the U.S. government cause extreme damage to itself?  I mean, an octopus will eat its own tentacles when it is hungry, but I can't see where the U.S. government has ever done anything that was not for its own gain and/or for the gain of the politicians who run the government.  Please show me what I missed.

Surely you don't consider the Iraq invasion (which was "justified" by mentioning Iraqi "guilt" in 9/11, partially) to have benefited the American government, do you? It radically undermined the trust the American people have in it, it alienated even friendly governments overseas so that our foreign policy initiatives went floundering, it entrenched the government in debt such that it was unable to respond to pressing domestic needs, and it aroused the hatred of radical Muslims even further, guaranteeing future attacks.

Quote from: "theory816"You can be considered a "terrorist" without trial. Don't you see? That means that they can send a predator drone and bomb the shit out of you for whatever reason and slap the "terrorist" badge on you and get away with it. Please wake up guys!

While I'm certainly concerned about the continued erosion of our rights, this line here is complete rot.  Is this a knowing lie, or are you simply ignorant?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 11, 2014, 02:37:47 PM
Also, as an aside, the only people I've ever met in my life who referred to themselves in the third person were invariably pretentious, well, I don't want to say more because it'd be rude.  I hope you're not one of them, but I'll tell you, it sure goes a long ways towards you coming across as a patronizing guy who thinks too highly of himself.  Just an observation; carry on.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 11, 2014, 05:02:45 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"a class B mishap

Is that something that's not as bad as it sounds?   Or is it something so horrific that I don't want to know?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on February 11, 2014, 05:05:57 PM
ah yes,,,,pleasant debate going swimmingly.....carry on then....carry on.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 12, 2014, 04:49:23 AM
Please watch this doc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM)

Its almost 2 hours long but you must watch it first and then come to your own conclusions.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 12, 2014, 12:21:35 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Please watch this doc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM)

Its almost 2 hours long but you must watch it first and then come to your own conclusions.
If this is more crap about "nano-thermite explosives", we've already discredited that suggestion multiple times. The biggest problem I've seen with truther claims is that they believe that as long as they punch holes in the official explanation, that immediately validates their own explanation, and anyone who disagrees or points out flaws is accused of being ignorant, brainwashed, or a government stooge.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 12, 2014, 10:30:00 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"
Quote from: "theory816"Please watch this doc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM)

Its almost 2 hours long but you must watch it first and then come to your own conclusions.
If this is more crap about "nano-thermite explosives", we've already discredited that suggestion multiple times. The biggest problem I've seen with truther claims is that they believe that as long as they punch holes in the official explanation, that immediately validates their own explanation, and anyone who disagrees or points out flaws is accused of being ignorant, brainwashed, or a government stooge.

Well the doc explains a bit of everything. From free fall to nanothermites. Its not about punching holes. Its about seeing holes that are already there.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 12, 2014, 10:35:30 PM
Quote from: "theory816"
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"
Quote from: "theory816"Please watch this doc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM)

Its almost 2 hours long but you must watch it first and then come to your own conclusions.
If this is more crap about "nano-thermite explosives", we've already discredited that suggestion multiple times. The biggest problem I've seen with truther claims is that they believe that as long as they punch holes in the official explanation, that immediately validates their own explanation, and anyone who disagrees or points out flaws is accused of being ignorant, brainwashed, or a government stooge.

Well the doc explains a bit of everything. From free fall to nanothermites. Its not about punching holes. Its about seeing holes that are already there.
You can punch as many holes as you like, but it changes nothing until you have a better explanation: something I've yet to see in the entire damn thread.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 12, 2014, 11:04:55 PM
Golly gee guys.. a 2 hour documentary on how government space aliens flew airplanes into skyscrapers,  but it didn't really hurt them all that much, but little government munchkins snuck in and blew the whole thing up!  :popcorn:  What the hell.. I have nothing better to do than not waste 2 hours.  :-D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 12, 2014, 11:15:07 PM
wow...Ok seriously watch the vid first. If your still unconvinced that's fine and dandy.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 12, 2014, 11:49:07 PM
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engine ... osion2.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion2.htm)

Please to note, Sahib, that a controlled demolition explosion to cause a vertical fall is from the bottom up, not the top down. And I keep repeating to you brain dead conspiracy idiots that it takes literally weeks of work by hundreds of people to rig a building to collapse, involves hundreds of pounds of explosives, miles of wire, mechanical triggers, electrical triggers, cutting of support members by physical means- cutting torches, K-12 saws, etc. Removing of outer walls to reach inner support columns and so on and so on. It would have taken an army of people working over a long period, involve extensive deconstruction and removal of outer walls and concrete and so forth.

And nobody noticed. fuck you people. You are class "A" morons.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Atheon on February 13, 2014, 01:41:40 AM
Please end this stupid thread already. Jesus F. Christ... :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2014, 11:22:30 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Golly gee guys.. a 2 hour documentary on how government space aliens flew airplanes into skyscrapers,  but it didn't really hurt them all that much, but little government munchkins snuck in and blew the whole thing up!  :popcorn:  What the hell.. I have nothing better to do than not waste 2 hours.  :-D

Space Aliens, you say...Here's evidence:

(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/Deathstardidwtc.jpg) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/Deathstardidwtc.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 13, 2014, 12:23:33 PM
That doesn't appear to be an official gubnit space alien.  [-(
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2014, 01:36:59 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"That doesn't appear to be an official gubnit space alien.  [-(

I provided you with evidence, and you still deny... WTF?!??!?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 13, 2014, 01:44:58 PM
Oh, please, this is obviously photoshopped. The Death Star is at the complete wrong angle for that laser to be causing the explosion. This is what really happened:

(//http://relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-wtc-star-wars.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2014, 02:54:22 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Oh, please, this is obviously photoshopped. The Death Star is at the complete wrong angle for that laser to be causing the explosion. This is what really happened:



(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/BinL.png) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/BinL.png.html)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on February 13, 2014, 05:05:04 PM
Have any of you actually watched this video before dismissing it?  The people talking on it are experts in their fields, how many do we have here? :roll:  :popcorn:  Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 13, 2014, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, you're talking to a former Air Force firefighter, who has seen more jet fuel burn than anyone here except Stromboli, perhaps. I know how it behaves. It does sometimes explode with velocities up to 1800 meters per second, which is quite enough to separate a man from his clothes, as anyone who has worked an air crash can attest. I think the chance of the passport surviving is quite a bit better than you do, for reasons already stated. I base that opinion on my personal experience in working aircraft crashes -- three, to be exact (two fatality, one a class B mishap).
Great, then as a former air force firefighter who has seen so much jet fuel burn, perhaps you would care to tell us of a few instances in your firefighting career when you witnessed jet fuel exploding and objects made of materials similar to paper being blown clear of the scene without being scortched?  Because it is quite obvious that you do think the passport had a greater chance of surviving than I do.  And while you claim now that you have already stated those reasons, I must have missed that post, so humor me, point me to your post when you gave those reasons.


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, you insist on relying on Occam's Razor at certain points in your argument, while disregarding it in others. It should be noted that Occam's Razor is only advice; it is not a hard-and-fast rule or physical law.
The reason I have quoted Occam's Razor on numerous occassions is it is a common arguement against theism.  You, being a theist of sorts, are unwelcome to accept it as advice, of course, but I have not claimed it to be a law of physics.  And even when I do quote actual laws of physics, you deny those as well.


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Surely you don't consider the Iraq invasion (which was "justified" by mentioning Iraqi "guilt" in 9/11, partially) to have benefited the American government, do you? It radically undermined the trust the American people have in it, it alienated even friendly governments overseas so that our foreign policy initiatives went floundering, it entrenched the government in debt such that it was unable to respond to pressing domestic needs, and it aroused the hatred of radical Muslims even further, guaranteeing future attacks.
No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government.  What ever gave you that idea?

And now that you have brought it up, the invasion was also extremely detrimental to the American people on the whole.  But if you deny that it benefitted a small number of people, you must have been born yesterday.

Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad.  You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 13, 2014, 05:30:05 PM
(//http://api.ning.com/files/1NqkK4GXeiLLV-YGFRkbAsdCWw-HUso*8mJRKRLlPOBr1Fyzj9TJXiBDS2UTWlsy5tvZHI4-JkQbf0v1X54Tetj83uYICHA9/godzilla2805cn.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 13, 2014, 05:33:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, you're talking to a former Air Force firefighter, who has seen more jet fuel burn than anyone here except Stromboli, perhaps. I know how it behaves. It does sometimes explode with velocities up to 1800 meters per second, which is quite enough to separate a man from his clothes, as anyone who has worked an air crash can attest. I think the chance of the passport surviving is quite a bit better than you do, for reasons already stated. I base that opinion on my personal experience in working aircraft crashes -- three, to be exact (two fatality, one a class B mishap).
Great, then as a former air force firefighter who has seen so much jet fuel burn, perhaps you would care to tell us of a few instances in your firefighting career when you witnessed jet fuel exploding and objects made of materials similar to paper being blown clear of the scene without being scortched?  Because it is quite obvious that you do think the passport had a greater chance of surviving than I do.  And while you claim now that you have already stated those reasons, I must have missed that post, so humor me, point me to your post when you gave those reasons.


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Also, you insist on relying on Occam's Razor at certain points in your argument, while disregarding it in others. It should be noted that Occam's Razor is only advice; it is not a hard-and-fast rule or physical law.
The reason I have quoted Occam's Razor on numerous occassions is it is a common arguement against theism.  You, being a theist of sorts, are unwelcome to accept it as advice, of course, but I have not claimed it to be a law of physics.  And even when I do quote actual laws of physics, you deny those as well.


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Surely you don't consider the Iraq invasion (which was "justified" by mentioning Iraqi "guilt" in 9/11, partially) to have benefited the American government, do you? It radically undermined the trust the American people have in it, it alienated even friendly governments overseas so that our foreign policy initiatives went floundering, it entrenched the government in debt such that it was unable to respond to pressing domestic needs, and it aroused the hatred of radical Muslims even further, guaranteeing future attacks.
No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government.  What ever gave you that idea?

And now that you have brought it up, the invasion was also extremely detrimental to the American people on the whole.  But if you deny that it benefitted a small number of people, you must have been born yesterday.

Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad.  You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.
First,I do not believe in torture, and even if I did, that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Second, believing in the official explanation for 9/11 does in no way dictate that you have any specific political ideologies. Third, sternly object to your calling of thumpalumpacus as a theist. Theism is the belief in a god or gods, which has no relation to this discussion. If you wish to compare us to theists, do in a way that shows the distinction between action typical to theists and what theism actually is.
What I'm saying is, learn to debate, and stop the assumptions.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 13, 2014, 06:01:38 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"If this is more crap about "nano-thermite explosives", we've already discredited that suggestion multiple times.
Rocky, Rocky, Rocky.  What are we going to do with you.  No, Rocky, to blindly express disagreement with the laws of physics is not the same as to discredit an idea.


Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"The biggest problem I've seen with truther claims is that they believe that as long as they punch holes in the official explanation, that immediately validates their own explanation, and anyone who disagrees or points out flaws is accused of being ignorant, brainwashed, or a government stooge.
Someone once said that if you eliminate all the theories that are proven false, what remains must be the truth.  We, the debunkers of the official conspiracy theory (or "troofers" if you prefer) have proven that the official theory violates the laws of physics.  Now you can deny that all you want, but it does not change the facts.

Other than the theory we controlled demolition theorists propose, I have not heard a single credible* alternate theory.  You have one that is consistent with the laws of physics?

*credible: this means the Godzilla theory and Death Star theory are out of the picture.  Sorry Hijiri Byakuren
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 13, 2014, 06:11:39 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"Please to note, Sahib, that a controlled demolition explosion to cause a vertical fall is from the bottom up, not the top down.
First of all, not necessarily always from the bottom up, although that method is by far the most common.  But secondly, and more importantly, have you ever even SEEN the video of WTC 7 coming down?  If you call that from the top down, you should try taking your head out of your ass when you watch.  The view will likely be much clearer.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And I keep repeating to you brain dead conspiracy idiots that it takes literally weeks of work by hundreds of people to rig a building to collapse...  It would have taken an army of people working over a long period, involve extensive deconstruction and removal of outer walls and concrete and so forth.
And we the debunkers of the "official" conspiracy theory keep ignoring you because it has nothing to do with the point.  In fact, I have never heard anyone disagree with that point.  Of course it takes weeks if not months to rig a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition.  And doing it surreptitiously would make it that much more difficult.  So we really need an investigation in order to find out how they did it right under the noses of building security.  Maybe New York state could conduct its own investigation.  They have jurisdiction.  Or New York City, perhaps.  They have jurisdiction also.


Quote from: "stromboli"And nobody noticed. fuck you people. You are class "A" morons.
Oh, that really bolsters your arguement, Stromboli.  You ought to be proud.  Did you come up with that on your own, or did someone help you?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 13, 2014, 06:13:02 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"If this is more crap about "nano-thermite explosives", we've already discredited that suggestion multiple times.
Rocky, Rocky, Rocky.  What are we going to do with you.  No, Rocky, to blindly express disagreement with the laws of physics is not the same as to discredit an idea.


Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"The biggest problem I've seen with truther claims is that they believe that as long as they punch holes in the official explanation, that immediately validates their own explanation, and anyone who disagrees or points out flaws is accused of being ignorant, brainwashed, or a government stooge.
Someone once said that if you eliminate all the theories that are proven false, what remains must be the truth.  We, the debunkers of the official conspiracy theory (or "troofers" if you prefer) have proven that the official theory violates the laws of physics.  Now you can deny that all you want, but it does not change the facts.

Other than the theory we controlled demolition theorists propose, I have not heard a single credible* alternate theory.  You have one that is consistent with the laws of physics?

*credible: this means the Godzilla theory and Death Star theory are out of the picture.  Sorry Hijiri Byakuren
Your theory is not credible, it is not even complete or whole, the official explanation does not violate the laws of physics (though your unwavering conviction to this false belief means that any opposing view I give will not be accepted, regardless of evidence),and lastly, I must repeat that I do not appreciate being condescended to. You may disagree with me, you may think I'm wrong, but that does not justify you talking to me as if I were a toddler. If I have done the same to you at any point in this discussion, than I sincerely apologize, and may I ask that you cease this condescending manner of yours so that we can have at least a civil discussion? (though I would prefer it if the discussion was ended).
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 13, 2014, 06:43:53 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"First,I do not believe in torture, and even if I did, that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion. Second, believing in the official explanation for 9/11 does in no way dictate that you have any specific political ideologies. Third, sternly object to your calling of thumpalumpacus as a theist. Theism is the belief in a god or gods, which has no relation to this discussion. If you wish to compare us to theists, do in a way that shows the distinction between action typical to theists and what theism actually is.
What I'm saying is, learn to debate, and stop the assumptions.
Thank you Rocky.  I knew I could count on foot-in-mouth Rocky to take the bait.

You see, this is what I have been saying over and over and over.  The only way to make you understand (hopefully) is to turn the tables on you and call you out on some point that you never said nor implied.  You and your comrades keep implying that I have accused the U.S. government of the crime when I never said nor implied any such thing.  I think the idea of a senator introducing a bill proposing a false-flag attack on American soil, having it go through committees, vote on the Senate floor, sent to House of Representatives where it undergoes the same process, sending it to the president, who then signs it, that is about as likely as a virgin popping a baby out of her birth canal.

What I have stated all along is that a group of men (and possibly including women) conspired probably together with former CIA stooge bin Laden to pull it off.  Just because some of the criminals must have held government positions that does not mean "the government did it."  Criminals are everywhere.

Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney were all members of PNAC and all put their names to the document PNAC published in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses.  The document clearly outlines how the members of PNAC would be in a very advantageous position if a "catastrophic and catylyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" were to happen.  And I am not saying Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were definitely in on it.  (Oh, forgot to mention Jeb Bush, also a member of PNAC, but not sure if he signed off on the above document or not.)  But the fact is, if some persons who happened to be holding public office at the time WERE involved, the above named members certainly did have motive, means, and opportunity.

PS: it pisses you off when someone erroneously attacks you for something you never said or implied, doesn't it!

PPS: are you part octopus?  I know they like to put their feet in their mouths at times too.

PPPS: "What I'm saying is, learn to debate, and stop the assumptions."
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 13, 2014, 06:54:24 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"*credible: this means the Godzilla theory and Death Star theory are out of the picture.  Sorry Hijiri Byakuren
So you admit that it could have been an Imperial Walker.

(//http://relevantnewsmedia.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-wtc-star-wars.jpg)

Checkmate, Truthers. :)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2014, 07:01:34 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney were all members of PNAC and all put their names to the document PNAC published in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses.  The document clearly outlines how the members of PNAC would be in a very advantageous position if a "catastrophic and catylyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" were to happen.  And I am not saying Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were definitely in on it.  (Oh, forgot to mention Jeb Bush, also a member of PNAC, but not sure if he signed off on the above document or not.)  But the fact is, if some persons who happened to be holding public office at the time WERE involved, the above named members certainly did have motive, means, and opportunity.


Yep, they conspired and were dumb enough to write their conspiracy in a document for the whole world to read...

 :Hangman:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 13, 2014, 07:11:03 PM
Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"Your theory is not credible, it is not even complete or whole, the official explanation does not violate the laws of physics (though your unwavering conviction to this false belief means that any opposing view I give will not be accepted, regardless of evidence)
Try me.  Explain how a finite amount of energy can be used 100% to accelerate a building of hundreds of thousands of tons toward the ground, and still have enough energy remaining to pulverize concrete and twist steel beams as though they were spaghetti.  Even if you say it could be accomplished with as little as 1% due to the structure having been weakened by the fires, that still adds up to 101%.

The chief investigator for NIST himself even stated unequivocally that free-fall would be impossible because we know there was structural support beneath the falling section of the building.  Unfortunately for him, a few days later a video came to light in which free-fall is indisputably proved.  NIST even admits free-fall in the final report.  But they do not explain the contradiction with Dr. Sundar's denial of free-fall.


Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"and lastly, I must repeat that I do not appreciate being condescended to. You may disagree with me, you may think I'm wrong, but that does not justify you talking to me as if I were a toddler. If I have done the same to you at any point in this discussion, than I sincerely apologize
Apology accepted.  If you and your team quit being condescending to us, we will stop being condescending toward you.  In fact, I much rather would have preferred that from the start.  But I was not the first one to use condescending language here.  As a relative newbie around here, judging from all the condescending language aimed at me, it was natural to assume that is the way people on this forum treat people whose ideas they dislike and/or disagree with.


Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"and may I ask that you cease this condescending manner of yours so that we can have at least a civil discussion? (though I would prefer it if the discussion was ended).
I'll give it a go if you guys will.  That was my original intent anyway.  And by the way, if you really would prefer the discussion ended, why do you keep posting?  (Not being condescending, just asking.)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on February 13, 2014, 07:18:33 PM
So let me get this straight. We were able to orchestrate something as monumental as 9/11, but utterly incapable of planting a couple WMDs and everything else it would have taken to prove we were right on each point and reason to invade Iraq, which then led to national embarrassment that in turn eroded the trust in the party, the administration, and the US as a whole.
So whoever is behind 9/11 is at the same time absolutely brilliant and absolutely retarded.
Seems legit.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 13, 2014, 07:18:35 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Explain how a finite amount of energy can be used 100% to accelerate a building of hundreds of thousands of tons toward the ground, and still have enough energy remaining to pulverize concrete and twist steel beams as though they were spaghetti.  



You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-essential-general-relativity.html)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Solitary on February 14, 2014, 10:16:44 AM
This whole topic could open up a debate about how many logic fallacies have been committed.  :roll:  Solitary
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 14, 2014, 10:20:35 AM
QuoteSomeone once said that if you eliminate all the theories that are proven false, what remains must be the truth.

That was probably someone who understood the thing about "but we never have all the theories, so it's generally moot outside theoretical sciences".
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2014, 10:29:53 AM
Quote from: "Solitary"This whole topic could open up a debate about how many logic fallacies have been committed.  :roll:  Solitary

It's not only logical fallacies that have been committed, and as you are hinting, there are quite a number of them, but also that the dude has no understanding of basic physics. Bet anything he will ignore that and continue with his senseless conspiracy theory.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 14, 2014, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney were all members of PNAC and all put their names to the document PNAC published in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses.  The document clearly outlines how the members of PNAC would be in a very advantageous position if a "catastrophic and catylyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" were to happen.  And I am not saying Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were definitely in on it.  (Oh, forgot to mention Jeb Bush, also a member of PNAC, but not sure if he signed off on the above document or not.)  But the fact is, if some persons who happened to be holding public office at the time WERE involved, the above named members certainly did have motive, means, and opportunity.


Yep, they conspired and were dumb enough to write their conspiracy in a document for the whole world to read...

 :Hangman:
Careful there Joseph. You're almost making republicans sound smart there. [-X
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 14, 2014, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Cheney were all members of PNAC and all put their names to the document PNAC published in September 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses.  The document clearly outlines how the members of PNAC would be in a very advantageous position if a "catastrophic and catylyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" were to happen.  And I am not saying Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, and Cheney were definitely in on it.  (Oh, forgot to mention Jeb Bush, also a member of PNAC, but not sure if he signed off on the above document or not.)  But the fact is, if some persons who happened to be holding public office at the time WERE involved, the above named members certainly did have motive, means, and opportunity.


Yep, they conspired and were dumb enough to write their conspiracy in a document for the whole world to read...

 :Hangman:
Careful there Joseph. You're almost making republicans sound smart there. [-X

They had to be smart enough to get to the positions they got in their career, but as to the wisdom of their policies, that is another question.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 14, 2014, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"a class B mishap

Is that something that's not as bad as it sounds?   Or is it something so horrific that I don't want to know?

No, it's an accident that does not involve either a) the total loss of the aircraft, or b) a fatality.

The one I worked was a Saudi prop-driven trainer, two-seater, tricycle landing gear, called an IFE with loss of hydraulic pressure, and the nose gear collapsed upon taking weight in the landing. Sparks and stuff, nothing bad, and the crew was out before we could get foam on the ground.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 14, 2014, 03:13:51 PM
Quote from: "Shol'va"So let me get this straight. We were able to orchestrate something as monumental as 9/11, but utterly incapable of planting a couple WMDs and everything else it would have taken to prove we were right on each point and reason to invade Iraq, which then led to national embarrassment that in turn eroded the trust in the party, the administration, and the US as a whole.
So whoever is behind 9/11 is at the same time absolutely brilliant and absolutely retarded.
Seems legit.
Shol'va, to be fair, those WMD's probably did exist. They were just moved out of Iraq before the invasion. It's still bad intel, but we wern't wrong about their existance. We're currently disposing of a huge stockpile of chemical weapons from Syria, at the governments request, which we believe to be the WMDs that we thought were in Iraq.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 14, 2014, 03:20:07 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Great, then as a former air force firefighter who has seen so much jet fuel burn, perhaps you would care to tell us of a few instances in your firefighting career when you witnessed jet fuel exploding and objects made of materials similar to paper being blown clear of the scene without being scortched?  Because it is quite obvious that you do think the passport had a greater chance of surviving than I do.  And while you claim now that you have already stated those reasons, I must have missed that post, so humor me, point me to your post when you gave those reasons.

Sure.  I worked the crash of an F-16B at Carsell AFB, TX, in 1989, which killed both crew; the jet flew into the ground on a low-level strafing pass at about 450 knots IA, digging a trench about 50' long.  The plane was of course smithereens, and of the crew, the two biggest pieces we found were a foot still in its boot, and three ribs.  

The GIB's wallet was found in a hank of his flightsuit about 200 meters from the site of the crash and explosion.

As for the reasons a passport might actually survive, it's not that hard.  The plane stopped suddenly, but the people, and their personal effects, kept moving, and I don't doubt quickly enough to go through the plane -- in portions, of course. Passport in a pocket that gets torn, pushed by the shockwave into a part of the structure where it might be shielded from heat ... and then when the building collapses, it's got a thousand feet down.  Having a high surface-tomass ratio, it will not free-fall unless trapped ... so it wafts.  Just like all that paper we saw on TV.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"The reason I have quoted Occam's Razor on numerous occassions is it is a common arguement against theism.  You, being a theist of sorts, are unwelcome to accept it as advice, of course, but I have not claimed it to be a law of physics.  And even when I do quote actual laws of physics, you deny those as well.

Firstly, I'm not a theist of any sort, as I reject any and all gods.

Secondly, all advice is rejectable, depending on its utility or lack thereof.

Thirdly, please link to the post wherein I "denied" a physical law you've propounded.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government.  What ever gave you that idea?

The part where you said that no government does things which harms itself.  The logical inference is that given the citation of 9/11 for that war, you consider that war to have benefited the government.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"And now that you have brought it up, the invasion was also extremely detrimental to the American people on the whole.  But if you deny that it benefitted a small number of people, you must have been born yesterday.

The question was, does it benefit the government?.  The answer is a resounding no.  Our prestige and standing in international relations has been gravely harmed, our finances have been gravely distorted,

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad.  You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.

I'm not sure why you think I approve of torture, but I can assure you that this premise of yours is incorrect in my case.  I won't therefore bother rebutting this; it is an ad homeneim attack, and not only unworthy of any reply beyond a casual "fuck off", it is also evidence of how weak your argument is, that you are grasping at such slender reeds as assumptions about my opinions which have absolutely no basis in fact or documentation.

Or -- you can link to any post, anywhere on this or any other forum I've posted in, where I have approved of torture.

Protip: you won't find one, because not only is it inhumane, I find the thought of torture committed in my name, and financed by my tax dollars, to be offensive in the extreme.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 14, 2014, 03:24:54 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"And I keep repeating to you brain dead conspiracy idiots that it takes literally weeks of work by hundreds of people to rig a building to collapse...  It would have taken an army of people working over a long period, involve extensive deconstruction and removal of outer walls and concrete and so forth.
And we the debunkers of the "official" conspiracy theory keep ignoring you because it has nothing to do with the point.  In fact, I have never heard anyone disagree with that point.  Of course it takes weeks if not months to rig a building the size of WTC 7 for demolition.  And doing it surreptitiously would make it that much more difficult.  So we really need an investigation in order to find out how they did it right under the noses of building security.  Maybe New York state could conduct its own investigation.  They have jurisdiction.  Or New York City, perhaps.  They have jurisdiction also.

I did not write this passage which you quoted and replied to.  I don't like using personal attacks in a debate most times, and have striven very hard in this discussion to avoid it -- even though you haven't returned the courtesy.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 14, 2014, 05:28:15 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Yep, they conspired and were dumb enough to write their conspiracy in a document for the whole world to read...
Wouldn't be the first time real life criminals took their cue from a Hollywood movie.

Some number of years ago -- probably in the 1980's give or take -- there was a movie about an author who was also a psychopathic murderer.  She wrote a murder mystery novel describing a murder scene, then later her boyfriend was found murdered exactly as it was described in the book.  The book was her alibi.  "Nobody would be stupid enough to write a book about a murder and then commit murder in exactly that same way."

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity
I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 14, 2014, 05:49:18 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity
I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...
You've been a condescending asshole this entire thread, so drop that fucking line.

If you paid any attention to the forum in general you would know that Joseph knows his shit when it comes to physics.

Check here: viewforum.php?f=81 (http://www.atheistforums.com/viewforum.php?f=81)

See who has stated a large amount of the threads there.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 14, 2014, 06:56:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

I suspect the answer is found in a complete citation of Newton's First Law.  I have emphasized the relevant portion:

QuoteI. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

Gravity is the external force causing stuff to collapse. It kicks in when the structure resisting gravity can no longer do so.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 14, 2014, 07:12:53 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, I'm not a theist of any sort, as I reject any and all gods.
Secondly, all advice is rejectable, depending on its utility or lack thereof.
Thirdly, please link to the post wherein I "denied" a physical law you've propounded.

AtheistMoFo wrote:
No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government. What ever gave you that idea?

The part where you said that no government does things which harms itself. The logical inference is that given the citation of 9/11 for that war, you consider that war to have benefited the government.
...
The question was, does it benefit the government?. The answer is a resounding no. Our prestige and standing in international relations has been gravely harmed, our finances have been gravely distorted,

AtheistMoFo wrote:
Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad. You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.

I'm not sure why you think I approve of torture, but I can assure you that this premise of yours is incorrect in my case. I won't therefore bother rebutting this; it is an ad homeneim attack, and not only unworthy of any reply beyond a casual "fuck off", it is also evidence of how weak your argument is, that you are grasping at such slender reeds as assumptions about my opinions which have absolutely no basis in fact or documentation.
First of all, the last part of what you said.

You probably did not see my post to Josephpalazzo, so I will reiterate.  You (collectively) have misquoted me every step of the way.  Demanding that I furnish proof of the Twin Towers coming down at free-fall even though I never said nor implied it did.  Demanding corrobrating evidence that the plot was carried out by the U.S. government even though I never said nor implied that to be the case.  Demanding proof of the Twin Towers being brought down by nano-thermite, demanding I prove how the Twin Towers were rigged for demolition, etc, although I never made any claims about the Twin Towers at whatsoever.

So if you (collectively) are going to attribute statements to me which I never said, never implied, there is a little tit for tat for you.

Here are my basic claims:
? Free-fall did occur, even though only briefly
? Free-fall means that all of the potential energy available is being converted into kinetic energy
? If 100% of the potential energy is being used for accelerating the building to the ground, from whence the energy to crush concrete and twist steel

Those are my factual scientific claims which are being disputed.

Here are my logical claims:
? Guilt for the the crime of 9/11 has never been established in a court of law, only a kangaroo court conducted by the media
? Crime investigators traditionally begin their investigation by looking at who benefitted from the crime, but it was ignored in this case
? In addition to motive, it is normal to look at who had means and opportunity, but the only suspects ever even considered in this case were members of al qaeda
? Crime scenes are normally sealed off and examined in minute detail, and forensic evedence collected and preserved, but not in this case
? Numerous highly unlikely events are accepted without question as fact, whereas higly likely scenarios are not even considered

Do you, Thumpalumpacus, deny that the members of PNAC on the whole benefitted greatly from the attacks of 9/11?  Or do you believe they suffered as a consequence, just like ordinary Americans?

Does ANYONE reading this deny that the members of PNAC benefitted far more than Afghanistan, al quaeda, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the American people, the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world?  

Tell me, WHO GAINED?  WHO SUFFERED?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 14, 2014, 07:41:56 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, I'm not a theist of any sort, as I reject any and all gods.
Secondly, all advice is rejectable, depending on its utility or lack thereof.
Thirdly, please link to the post wherein I "denied" a physical law you've propounded.

AtheistMoFo wrote:
No, of course I do not consider the invasion of iraq to have benefitted the American government. What ever gave you that idea?

The part where you said that no government does things which harms itself. The logical inference is that given the citation of 9/11 for that war, you consider that war to have benefited the government.
...
The question was, does it benefit the government?. The answer is a resounding no. Our prestige and standing in international relations has been gravely harmed, our finances have been gravely distorted,

AtheistMoFo wrote:
Furthermore, I do definitely believe that you, Rocky, Stromboli, and everyone else who approves of torture are yourselves harming not only the American government, but also the American people and the image of America as a nation abroad. You probably don't realize that in the eyes of civilized people, you torture supporters are as disdained and despised as those who commit torture.

I'm not sure why you think I approve of torture, but I can assure you that this premise of yours is incorrect in my case. I won't therefore bother rebutting this; it is an ad homeneim attack, and not only unworthy of any reply beyond a casual "fuck off", it is also evidence of how weak your argument is, that you are grasping at such slender reeds as assumptions about my opinions which have absolutely no basis in fact or documentation.
First of all, the last part of what you said.

You probably did not see my post to Josephpalazzo, so I will reiterate.  You (collectively) have misquoted me every step of the way.  Demanding that I furnish proof of the Twin Towers coming down at free-fall even though I never said nor implied it did.  Demanding corrobrating evidence that the plot was carried out by the U.S. government even though I never said nor implied that to be the case.  Demanding proof of the Twin Towers being brought down by nano-thermite, demanding I prove how the Twin Towers were rigged for demolition, etc, although I never made any claims about the Twin Towers at whatsoever.

So if you (collectively) are going to attribute statements to me which I never said, never implied, there is a little tit for tat for you.

Here are my basic claims:
? Free-fall did occur, even though only briefly
? Free-fall means that all of the potential energy available is being converted into kinetic energy
? If 100% of the potential energy is being used for accelerating the building to the ground, from whence the energy to crush concrete and twist steel

Those are my factual scientific claims which are being disputed.

Here are my logical claims:
? Guilt for the the crime of 9/11 has never been established in a court of law, only a kangaroo court conducted by the media
? Crime investigators traditionally begin their investigation by looking at who benefitted from the crime, but it was ignored in this case
? In addition to motive, it is normal to look at who had means and opportunity, but the only suspects ever even considered in this case were members of al qaeda
? Crime scenes are normally sealed off and examined in minute detail, and forensic evedence collected and preserved, but not in this case
? Numerous highly unlikely events are accepted without question as fact, whereas higly likely scenarios are not even considered

Do you, Thumpalumpacus, deny that the members of PNAC on the whole benefitted greatly from the attacks of 9/11?  Or do you believe they suffered as a consequence, just like ordinary Americans?

Does ANYONE reading this deny that the members of PNAC benefitted far more than Afghanistan, al quaeda, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the American people, the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world?  

Tell me, WHO GAINED?  WHO SUFFERED?
You do realize that the U.S had had an extremely strained relationship with Iraq since the First Gulf War in 1990, 7 years before PNAC was founded, right? And that the U.S was not the only participants in the fight against Iraq and Afghanistan? Lots of people had grievances with the abysmal and oppressive governments of those two countries. If the conspiracies objective was to garner support for an attack on said countries, they did not have to go to the extent that they supposedly did.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 14, 2014, 07:47:59 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"So if you (collectively) are going to attribute statements to me which I never said, never implied, there is a little tit for tat for you.

How about, you know, treating me like an individual?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"? If 100% of the potential energy is being used for accelerating the building to the ground, from whence the energy to crush concrete and twist steel

"It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end."

In other words, that kinetic energy had to go somewhere when the ground wouldn't permit its continuation.  Part of it went to bending the steel -- kind of like how a car gets bent out of shape when it hits a tree.  I mean, steel is harder than wood, but a tree will fuck your ride up.  Ask me how I know.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Do you, Thumpalumpacus, deny that the members of PNAC on the whole benefitted greatly from the attacks of 9/11?  Or do you believe they suffered as a consequence, just like ordinary Americans?

Define how they benefited, so that I might weigh your question in proper context? Did Dick Cheney make more money as a result? Did John Bolton look like a dickhead for years on national TV?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Does ANYONE reading this deny that the members of PNAC benefitted far more than Afghanistan, al quaeda, Iraq, Osama bin Laden, the American people, the image of the United States of America in the eyes of the world?  

Tell me, WHO GAINED?  WHO SUFFERED?

How does that prove anything? It is at best circumstantial evidence, and that is only in a best-case (from your POV) scenario.  It disregards the idea that businessmen can be, and are famous for being, opportunistic.  Price-gouging is a perfect example of that. Say that a guy owns a productive well  in a land struck by drought.  Once the drought intensifies and cattle start dying, the farmers need to water their herds.  The guy who owns the well jacks up his prices.

Did he cause the drought?  Or did he simply benefit from it?

In a similar fashion, while the neocons may have identified a circumstance that would enable them to act on their vision of foreign policy, that doesn't mean that they brought it about, any more than the well owner stopped the rain.

At its heart, this is an appeal to emotion on your part (ALL CAPS!), and should be disregarded.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 15, 2014, 01:01:51 AM
Forget it, Thump. This fool is either the biggest troll on the forum of a complete idiot.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Manodo on February 15, 2014, 05:13:02 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

If I hold a glass in the air (mv = 0, kinetic energy = 0), and let go, what happens?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 15, 2014, 06:15:03 AM
Quote from: "Manodo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity

I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...

If I hold a glass in the air (mv = 0, kinetic energy = 0), and let go, what happens?
Tiny little illuminati rockets propel it towards the ground. Duh.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 15, 2014, 06:30:07 AM
Never have there been a argument where I hope im grotesquely wrong.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 15, 2014, 06:37:35 AM
Quote from: "theory816"I dont think you guys understand that truthers rather be wrong then right.  :lol:
well, they think they are right. Any evidence against the conspiracy is just evidence of the conspiracy. It's a no-win situation trying to argue with them really. They refuse change their minds, ignoring common sense, basic reasoning and they'll even suspend the laws of physics if you push them hard enough. Can be fun to watch though. :popcorn:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 15, 2014, 09:34:13 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/)
I am trying to refrain from being condescending.  But Josephpalazzo is making it very difficult for me to respond without sounding condescending.  Therefore, would somebody from the OCT team please explain to Josephpalazzo how the Law of Conservation of Energy works?  And Newton's First Law?  You know, the one about a body that is stationary tends to remain stationary..., a body in motion tends to...


If you had taken the trouble to read my blog (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/) you would have realized that it takes a lot more than your high school physics to understand it. That you can't make even that distinction speaks loudly about your credential in regard to physics. Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 15, 2014, 02:03:00 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"Forget it, Thump. This fool is either the biggest troll on the forum of a complete idiot.

I don't doubt that he's trolling. But it's a good workout, y'know?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 15, 2014, 08:48:40 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You've been a condescending asshole this entire thread, so drop that fucking line.
Just trying to fit in with the crowd.

Being relatively new to the forum, and having had terms like tin-foil hat, moron, theist, idiot, fucktard, and asshole thrown at me, naturally I assumed that it was normal around here to be condescending, deprecating and arrogant.

It is my opinion that the most likely scenario is probably what really happened.  And in your (collective) opinion, the least likely scenario is probably what really happened.  You have a right to your own opinion.  You do not have a right to your own facts.  Free-fall of WTC 7 is a fact.  And the way it fell so uniformly, the only way for that to have happened would be for ALL of the 80-some support columns to fail at exactly the same instant.  That is a fact.

Nobody has offered up any explanation of how all of those columns could have failed simultaneously.  Therefore, I offer the most logical explanation.  Anyone who has a better explanation ought to just come out with it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 15, 2014, 08:53:29 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You've been a condescending asshole this entire thread, so drop that fucking line.
Just trying to fit in with the crowd.

Being relatively new to the forum, and having had terms like tin-foil hat, moron, theist, idiot, fucktard, and asshole thrown at me, naturally I assumed that it was normal around here to be condescending, deprecating and arrogant.

It is my opinion that the most likely scenario is probably what really happened.  And in your (collective) opinion, the least likely scenario is probably what really happened.  You have a right to your own opinion.  You do not have a right to your own facts.  Free-fall of WTC 7 is a fact.  And the way it fell so uniformly, the only way for that to have happened would be for ALL of the 80-some support columns to fail at exactly the same instant.  That is a fact.

Nobody has offered up any explanation of how all of those columns could have failed simultaneously.  Therefore, I offer the most logical explanation.  Anyone who has a better explanation ought to just come out with it.
This deconstructs itself so well I hardly have to add anything. :lol:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 15, 2014, 09:54:33 PM
Quote from: "Damarcus"It's a no-win situation trying to argue with them really. They refuse change their minds, ignoring common sense, basic reasoning and they'll even suspend the laws of physics if you push them hard enough. Can be fun to watch though.
Watch it!  That is my line you're reciting!

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"You do realize that the U.S had had an extremely strained relationship with Iraq since the First Gulf War in 1990, 7 years before PNAC was founded, right? And that the U.S was not the only participants in the fight against Iraq and Afghanistan? Lots of people had grievances with the abysmal and oppressive governments of those two countries. If the conspiracies objective was to garner support for an attack on said countries, they did not have to go to the extent that they supposedly did.
If you mean garnering support from allies around the world, of course not.  If you mean garnering domestic support, what else would have garnered support any more effectively?

Let us examine the wording of the PNAC document.  In particular, the reference to Pearl Harbor.  Now we all pretty much agree that Pearl Harbor was not a false flag attack.  The Imperial Japanese Navy did in fact attack Pearl Harbor.  But why did Roosevelt and Stimson provoke the Japanese into attacking?  Because they wanted entry into the war against Germany (not so much Japan) but the American people would not stand for it.  So they needed a catasrophic and catalyzing event to justify a declaration of war.  As Hermann Goering put it so eloquently the day before his scheduled execution in April 1946, "Of course the people don't want war.  But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

He might have said "...in any country, and in any generation," but he didn't.  It is true nonetheless.

And so it was in 2001 when GW Bush had a personal vendetta to settle with Saddam Husein.  Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Donald Rusfeld and other PNAC members saw a golden opportunity to make some big bucks.  The rest is history.

(edited to correct typo (golder > golden) and to add "Meanwhile," (for clarity) in front of Dick Cheny)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 16, 2014, 01:40:35 AM
Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 16, 2014, 02:15:06 AM
Quote from: "theory816"Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?
Links, or it didn't happen. No, you cannot use Infowars, and I won't read it if you try.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 16, 2014, 04:42:15 AM
Quote from: "theory816"Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?
Not in the way you interpret it. (//http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 16, 2014, 06:11:39 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g)

Seriously. You decide when the coincidences stop.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 16, 2014, 07:09:04 AM
QuoteBeing relatively new to the forum, and having had terms like tin-foil hat, moron, theist, idiot, fucktard, and asshole thrown at me, naturally I assumed that it was normal around here to be condescending, deprecating and arrogant.

It usually is  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 16, 2014, 08:42:51 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Nobody has offered up any explanation of how all of those columns could have failed simultaneously.  Therefore, I offer the most logical explanation.  Anyone who has a better explanation ought to just come out with it.

I've shown clearly in my last post to you (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=3569&p=995439#p995439) that you don't understand basic physics. Your persistance with your outrageous claims qualifies you not only as a fucking moron but also as a fucking asshole.

Quote from: "Plu"
QuoteBeing relatively new to the forum, and having had terms like tin-foil hat, moron, theist, idiot, fucktard, and asshole thrown at me, naturally I assumed that it was normal around here to be condescending, deprecating and arrogant.

It usually is  :roll:


In this case, you (@AtheistMoFo) deserve the insults since you have been clearly shown your incompetence, yet you keep ignoring as if nothing. Too bad but as you keep this up, expect the worst coming your way.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 16, 2014, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: "theory816"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g

Seriously. You decide when the coincidences stop.
WTC 7 has already been adequately explained elsewhere in this thread. If that is the crux of your argument, then you have no argument.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 16, 2014, 11:42:37 AM
Quote from: "Manodo"If I hold a glass in the air (mv = 0, kinetic energy = 0), and let go, what happens?
If you hold a glass of water in the air and let go of it, it will fall to the floor/ground at free-fall acceleration.  That's because there is no support underneath it.  But try putting a table under the glass and let go.  What happens then?  It remain where it is, on the table, because the table is the supporting structure holding it up.  However, attach cutter charges to each of the legs of the table, detonate them simultaneously, and then your glass of water falls at free-fall acceleration, because the supporting structure underneath it has been removed.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 16, 2014, 11:46:56 AM
It would have taken literal truck loads of equipment and explosive over a long period of time installed by a large crew of highly trained men. It would also have left literal truckloads of evidence. NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet with one of the best fire investigative teams. To say that a crack fire investigating team would go through the rubble of a disaster that killed 340 of their brothers and then "miss" literal truck loads of evidence is ridiculous. Thumpalumpacus and I are both ex-firefighters and we both think you are full of shit. That is it in a nut shell.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 16, 2014, 12:25:21 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/)
Gravity is the force that provides the energy.  To say that you do not need energy to accelerate tens of thousands of tons of material is false.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If you had taken the trouble to read my blog (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/) you would have realized that it takes a lot more than your high school physics to understand it. That you can't make even that distinction speaks loudly about your credential in regard to physics. Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity.
Your blog rather lengthy and my time is very limited.  What is it exactly that your blog is supposed to prove?  Does it prove there is no need to input energy to cause thousands of tons of concrete and steel to accelerate?  If you can accomplish that feat, your discovery will change the world.  Can you direct me to the related section showing why energy needs not be input to cause something to move/acclerate?


PS: I stand accused of being condescending.  Why is it you are allowed to say things like "Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity" and in a later post, "Your persistance with your outrageous claims qualifies you not only as a fucking moron but also as a fucking asshole." but I am the one accused of being condescending?  I smell a double standard here.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 16, 2014, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?
yes
Quote from: "theory816"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g

Seriously. You decide when the coincidences stop.
To a rational thinker, it is clearly obvious what Silverstein meant by "pull" but these people have very vivid imaginations, and can twist words to mean whatever they want.

Thanks for posting that video, by the way.  I've seen many videos featuring the part where he acually makes his "pull" statement, but I did not know Silverstein had actually contacted the insurance company prior to the demolition asking if controlled demolition would be covered.

(Next thing you know, we can probably expect the OCT'ers to do a bout face and start claiming the controlled demolition was rigged within about six or seven hours!
Hey, why not.  At first they denied free-fall, but then when free-fall  was proved, they pretend it was natural for the building to come down into its own footprint at free-fall acceleration!)

But the real problem here is neither logic nor evidence.  It is psychology.  Think of a married couple who don't get along and bicker constantly.  When the husband (or wife) is accused of some diabolical and heinous crime, the wife (or husband) will defend the mate and deny s/he could be so evil.  That describes these OCT'ers relationship with their government.

Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"WTC 7 has already been adequately explained elsewhere in this thread. If that is the crux of your argument, then you have no argument.
No.  It has been adequately denied.
Not adequately "explained."
There is a difference.

PS exclusively to Hijiri Byakuren: When all else fails, try using this line of reasoning.
Penuins are black and white.
Some old TV shows are black and white.
Therefore, some penguins are old TV shows.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 16, 2014, 02:22:40 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"You don't need to input energy for anything to fall under gravity. Gravity does the work. Secondly, as an object falls under gravity, its gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, meaning it will gain in speed. See diagrams 1a and 1b in The Essential General Relativity (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/)

Gravity is the force that provides the energy.  


Saying, "Gravity does the work" and saying,"Gravity is the force that provides the energy" means exactly the same. This shows that you know some physics but on a very superficial level.  

QuoteTo say that you do not need energy to accelerate tens of thousands of tons of material is false.

You've omitted the very important word, "input". Under free fall, you don't need to input energy, since gravity will do the work.

Again, this shows your superficial knowledge.



Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If you had taken the trouble to read my blog (//http://soi.blogspot.ca/) you would have realized that it takes a lot more than your high school physics to understand it. That you can't make even that distinction speaks loudly about your credential in regard to physics. Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity.

QuoteYour blog rather lengthy and my time is very limited.

Considering the time you've spent on this thread, that has to one of the worse excuse I've ever heard.



QuoteWhat is it exactly that your blog is supposed to prove?  

It proves you're not smart enough to figure out that I have a PhD in physics.


QuoteDoes it prove there is no need to input energy to cause thousands of tons of concrete and steel to accelerate?

Again, which part of "Under free fall, you don't need to input energy, since gravity will do the work" don't you understand?

 



QuotePS: I stand accused of being condescending.  Why is it you are allowed to say things like "Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity" and in a later post, "Your persistance with your outrageous claims qualifies you not only as a fucking moron but also as a fucking asshole." but I am the one accused of being condescending?  I smell a double standard here.

There's no double standard. You pretend that you know physics, when clearly you don't. And when that is clearly pointed out to you, you still continue to act like a fucking moron and a fucking asshole.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Manodo on February 16, 2014, 02:23:46 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If you hold a glass of water in the air and let go of it, it will fall to the floor/ground at free-fall acceleration.  That's because there is no support underneath it.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"To say that you do not need energy to accelerate tens of thousands of tons of material is false.

 =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on February 16, 2014, 02:30:55 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"It would have taken literal truck loads of equipment and explosive over a long period of time installed by a large crew of highly trained men. It would also have left literal truckloads of evidence. NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet with one of the best fire investigative teams. To say that a crack fire investigating team would go through the rubble of a disaster that killed 340 of their brothers and then "miss" literal truck loads of evidence is ridiculous. Thumpalumpacus and I are both ex-firefighters and we both think you are full of shit. That is it in a nut shell.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 16, 2014, 03:01:01 PM
Quote from: "Manodo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If you hold a glass of water in the air and let go of it, it will fall to the floor/ground at free-fall acceleration.  That's because there is no support underneath it.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"To say that you do not need energy to accelerate tens of thousands of tons of material is false.

 =D>

I don't think he will understand that he has blatantly shown that he is clueless as to how to apply the correct equations to that problem.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 16, 2014, 03:53:01 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"In particular, the reference to Pearl Harbor.  Now we all pretty much agree that Pearl Harbor was not a false flag attack.  The Imperial Japanese Navy did in fact attack Pearl Harbor.  But why did Roosevelt and Stimson provoke the Japanese into attacking?  Because they wanted entry into the war against Germany (not so much Japan) but the American people would not stand for it.  So they needed a catasrophic and catalyzing event to justify a declaration of war.  As Hermann Goering put it so eloquently the day before his scheduled execution in April 1946, "Of course the people don't want war.  But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This is not really accurate.  There was no assurance that Hitler would declare war on us simply because we were at war with Japan, and Roosevelt and some of his subordinates, while they did want to fight Germany -- indeed, they saw Germany as a much greater menace --  they knew that there was no way they could shoehorn Germany into a declaration of war without losing a significant proportion of the electorate.  Hitler did the world a favor by declaring war on us.

The reason America put sanctions upon Japan was due largely to a strong religious lobby that was supporting missionary work in China.  The reports received thence, especially after the Rape of Nanking, horrified both the American public and politicians.  You're right that the governmental leadership wanted to enter WWII, but their gaze had always beheld Germany first, especially after Weidermeyer analyzed the propsective enemies and made a strong case that Germany was much more dangerous.

Also, there was a misunderstanding between the Americans and Japanese regarding the American demand for the evacuation  of mainland China, and its timetable; the Japanese thought the Americans wanted an immediate withdrawal, which was obviously impossible, considering that they had 35 divisions and the equivalent of another eighteen in independant brigades.

So while you're right that FDR and his government war wanted deeply to enter WWII, they knew that Pearl Harbor didn't provide them the entry they wanted, which is why FDR didn't ask for a declaration against Germany on 8 Dec.  Whether they "provoked" Japan intentionally is arguable, but I don't think they did so; I think there was a broad misunderstanding of the opponents' psyches on the part of both the Japanese and Americans which resulted in relations worsening to the point of war.

Sorry about the siderail, but I'm a history nut.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 16, 2014, 03:57:24 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"It would have taken literal truck loads of equipment and explosive over a long period of time installed by a large crew of highly trained men. It would also have left literal truckloads of evidence. NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet with one of the best fire investigative teams. To say that a crack fire investigating team would go through the rubble of a disaster that killed 340 of their brothers and then "miss" literal truck loads of evidence is ridiculous. Thumpalumpacus and I are both ex-firefighters and we both think you are full of shit. That is it in a nut shell.

Yes, indeed.  There is no way that a firedog would ever look past evidence of arson or demolition that killed even one of their brothers, much less 340.

I hope you keep repeating this post.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 16, 2014, 08:10:12 PM
So this guy hasn't really managed to give as a coherent "how" these things happened, what about a "why"?

Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings in order to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with the alleged attacks and then to lead america into an economic situation that would cause a global recession a few years later? What possible reason would the government have to execute a convoluted and nonsensical plan like this?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 16, 2014, 08:37:25 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteYour blog rather lengthy and my time is very limited.
Considering the time you've spent on this thread, that has to one of the worse excuse I've ever heard.
Keep in mind that there are people who suggest Godzilla did it, or the DeathStar did it.  Claims have been made that the Nazis won WW2 and that Obama did it.  A claim was made "Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)" even though I posted the links proving free-fall in my OP.  If you think I am going to follow every single link posted here, think again.  Have you followed every link posted?  Have you followed any of my links?  I don't see why I should waste my time looking at your blog without good reason.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteWhat is it exactly that your blog is supposed to prove?  
It proves you're not smart enough to figure out that I have a PhD in physics.
And there we have it.  Your blog has nothing at all to do with answering my assertions.  It is only your vanity showing through so you can show us all how smart you are.  Listen, I've interviewed people who had a PhD that I would not have hired as janitor.  If you are so goddamn smart, how about proving to us how I am wrong and you are right?

Free-fall is a state where an object falls unhindered by any resistance.  If there is resistance, it is not free-fall, and it will not accelerate at the same rate as free-fall.  Prove that to be wrong or shut the fuck up.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuotePS: I stand accused of being condescending.  Why is it you are allowed to say things like "Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity" and in a later post, "Your persistance with your outrageous claims qualifies you not only as a fucking moron but also as a fucking asshole." but I am the one accused of being condescending?  I smell a double standard here.
There's no double standard. You pretend that you know physics, when clearly you don't. And when that is clearly pointed out to you, you still continue to act like a fucking moron and a fucking asshole.
OK, you have done a good job attacking the messenger, now how about tackling the message?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 16, 2014, 09:09:30 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"...Pearl Harbor..."
This is not really accurate.  There was no assurance that Hitler would declare war on us simply because we were at war with Japan, and Roosevelt and some of his subordinates, while they did want to fight Germany -- indeed, they saw Germany as a much greater menace --  they knew that there was no way they could shoehorn Germany into a declaration of war without losing a significant proportion of the electorate.  Hitler did the world a favor by declaring war on us.
Before the Arthur McCollum Memorandum was obtained via FOIA the point might have been debatable.  But in the light of the McCollum memorandum, I don't see how you can argure it any more.  

QuoteIn 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington and the communications routing officer for President Roosevelt, wrote a plan designed to overcome public opposition to entering the war by provoking Japan to strike the United States first. The document was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Robert B. Stinnett, author of "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor".

In this document, McCollum notes that,

    "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado",

followed by 8 suggested courses of action. McCollum explains his proposal in no uncertain terms:

    "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."
[/color]Scanned copies of the original McCollum Memorandum can be found here
//http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_warterrorism03a.htm
or here
//https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html
(The latter provides both the scanned original documents and a retyped text version that is easier on the eyes.  Take your pick.)

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Whether they "provoked" Japan intentionally is arguable, but I don't think they did so; I think there was a broad misunderstanding of the opponents' psyches on the part of both the Japanese and Americans which resulted in relations worsening to the point of war.

Sorry about the siderail, but I'm a history nut.
As a history buff, the above URLs should interest you.  It demonstrates not only did FDR and his cronies deliberately provoke the attack, but also that the true reason was for backdoor entry into the war in Europe.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 16, 2014, 09:32:16 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"In this document, McCollum notes that,

    "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado",

followed by 8 suggested courses of action. McCollum explains his proposal in no uncertain terms:

    "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of warI, so much the better."
I've read the McCollum Memo and you are quote mining the shit out it.

It was written a year before the pearl harbour attacks and while it's 8 point proposal is indeed set up to incite Japan into declaring war on the US, there is one detail you forgot to mention: Roosevelt (the president at the time) had no contact with McCollum and was determined to avoid war with Japan (at least at that point in time)

McCollum's plan does make sense, and would've probably provoked an attack, but the US never actually went through with it, which sort of makes the whole point moot.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 17, 2014, 12:05:30 AM
Quote from: "Damarcus"So this guy hasn't really managed to give as a coherent "how" these things happened, what about a "why"?

Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings in order to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with the alleged attacks and then to lead america into an economic situation that would cause a global recession a few years later? What possible reason would the government have to execute a convoluted and nonsensical plan like this?
Damarcus, how many fucking times have I repeated in this thread that I do not subscribe to the theory that the U.S. government attacked itself?

Look, here is a hypothetical situation.

As sales of GM cars plummet, one of the GM executuves goes to a bar one evening and starts pissing and moaning about imports.  A few GM employees who happen to be at the same bar agree.  After a few more beers, the group go out on the street and start smashing every import they see.  The police arrest them, and the next day's headlines read: "GM conspires to destroy imported cars."

Do you see the fallacy?  By the same token, the U.S. government never conspired to execute 9/11.  (IMHO)  Certainly I do believe some members of the U.S. government took part in the conspiracy, just like the GM analogy above.  But the U.S. government is no more responsible than GM.

Now back to the nitty gritty.  Although I am not the owner of this forum, nor even this thread, I ask you to have a little respect.  Either you read what I fucking write, or you stop asking ridiculous questions misrepresenting my opinions.  If you can not do either of those, please fuck off.

Thank you in advance for fucking off.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 17, 2014, 12:10:40 AM
Quote from: "stromboli"It would have taken literal truck loads of equipment and explosive over a long period of time installed by a large crew of highly trained men. It would also have left literal truckloads of evidence. NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet with one of the best fire investigative teams. To say that a crack fire investigating team would go through the rubble of a disaster that killed 340 of their brothers and then "miss" literal truck loads of evidence is ridiculous. Thumpalumpacus and I are both ex-firefighters and we both think you are full of shit. That is it in a nut shell.
I am not an expert on that particular facet of the crime, but there are many theories.  Many of them as stupid as the "Obama did it" theory, others more plausible.  Do a bit of googling, and if that particular aspect of the crime is what interests you most, you will no doubt arrive at the answer.  Do not expect me to do your fucking homework for you.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on February 17, 2014, 12:35:45 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "stromboli"It would have taken literal truck loads of equipment and explosive over a long period of time installed by a large crew of highly trained men. It would also have left literal truckloads of evidence. NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet with one of the best fire investigative teams. To say that a crack fire investigating team would go through the rubble of a disaster that killed 340 of their brothers and then "miss" literal truck loads of evidence is ridiculous. Thumpalumpacus and I are both ex-firefighters and we both think you are full of shit. That is it in a nut shell.
I am not an expert on that particular facet of the crime, but there are many theories.  Many of them as stupid as the "Obama did it" theory, others more plausible.  Do a bit of googling, and if that particular aspect of the crime is what interests you most, you will no doubt arrive at the answer.  Do not expect me to do your fucking homework for you.

There are also theories online that lizard men run the world government or that there is a mind-eye that allows us to see into the afterlife if we tune it to a certain crystal. Doesn't mean I am going to bother and find them and rebut them because ultimately they are absolutely ridiculous. The same goes for how the gear to bring down the world trade centres was set up, executed and then left no evidence... it is a ridiculous proposition.

Without answering this question, your entire premise is subject to be disregarded. If the act of setting up demolitions is rationally impossible,  much less without any credible evidence of explosives having been set, then you cannot just "skip" that step and pretend that your position is rational.

Without being able to explain the how, the why is irrelevant. If something is borderline impossible, lacks any concrete evidence of it happening and has been refuted several times, it is being extremely intellectually dishonest to just say... "Well... I'm not an expert on it, so I am just going to believe it's true!".

You are just doing the same shit that global warming deniers and fundamentalist Christians do... "I KNOW that what I believe is right (the world is not getting warmer/the bible is literal/bombs were set up), even though there is no evidence that I am correct and I have been refuted multiple times (the world IS getting warmer/the earth is older than 6000 years old/there is no evidence of any explosives being used)".

It's kinda pathetic to watch.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 17, 2014, 02:36:55 AM
A truckload of evidence is not a fucking theory, you dumb shit.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 17, 2014, 03:13:49 AM
This thread is hilarious :P
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Damarcus on February 17, 2014, 03:56:40 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Damarcus, how many fucking times have I repeated in this thread that I do not subscribe to the theory that the U.S. government attacked itself?

Look, here is a hypothetical situation.

As sales of GM cars plummet, one of the GM executuves goes to a bar one evening and starts pissing and moaning about imports.  A few GM employees who happen to be at the same bar agree.  After a few more beers, the group go out on the street and start smashing every import they see.  The police arrest them, and the next day's headlines read: "GM conspires to destroy imported cars."

Do you see the fallacy?  By the same token, the U.S. government never conspired to execute 9/11.  (IMHO)  Certainly I do believe some members of the U.S. government took part in the conspiracy, just like the GM analogy above.  But the U.S. government is no more responsible than GM.

Now back to the nitty gritty.  Although I am not the owner of this forum, nor even this thread, I ask you to have a little respect.  Either you read what I fucking write, or you stop asking ridiculous questions misrepresenting my opinions.  If you can not do either of those, please fuck off.

Thank you in advance for fucking off.
Whoah, that...isn't what I asked at all. I asked why someone would do this. You haven't given me an answer and instead just insulted me. I have read what you have written and haven't found an answer to that question. It's great that you've got this big conspiracy, but you haven't told us who's responsible. Even if your response is just "I don't know" that's better than getting defensive and then insulting me due to a perceived attack on your beliefs. If you want to insult me, that's fine, almost all my of my posts were just ridiculing you, but at least insult me for something I actually did.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 17, 2014, 08:50:28 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteYour blog rather lengthy and my time is very limited.
Considering the time you've spent on this thread, that has to one of the worse excuse I've ever heard.

Keep in mind that there are people who suggest Godzilla did it, or the DeathStar did it.  Claims have been made that the Nazis won WW2 and that Obama did it.  A claim was made "Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)" even though I posted the links proving free-fall in my OP.  If you think I am going to follow every single link posted here, think again.  Have you followed every link posted?  Have you followed any of my links?  I don't see why I should waste my time looking at your blog without good reason.

Why bring in more fantastic claims, which has nothing to do with my posts so far to you? What I'm challenging you is your understanding of physics, and so far, you have failed miserably. If you don't know who I am, you can check my blog. You can also check the physics&cosmology (//http://atheistforums.com/viewforum.php?f=81)  segment of this forum to see that are dozens of threads initiated by me on physics. Here's a sample of those.

The Essential General Relativity (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=3597)

EPR REVISITED (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=2797)

Another first for Einstein: Quantum chaos (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=2901)

Quantum corrections to Newton's law of gravity (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=3051)

The Unruh Effect (//http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=81&t=1560)




Quote
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteWhat is it exactly that your blog is supposed to prove?  
It proves you're not smart enough to figure out that I have a PhD in physics.
And there we have it.  Your blog has nothing at all to do with answering my assertions.  It is only your vanity showing through so you can show us all how smart you are.  

You've omitted that I also pointed out to you to look up diagram 1a and 1b on that blog, which is totally relevant to this discussion. So my guess is that you went to my blog and was totally lost, which proves my point that you are an INCOMPETENT in matters of physics. Otherwise you have given me a decent answer to those diagrams by now.



QuoteListen, I've interviewed people who had a PhD that I would not have hired as janitor.  

Coming from an incompetent like you doesn't surprise me you would make such a cheap shot.


QuoteIf you are so goddamn smart, how about proving to us how I am wrong and you are right?

I've proved you're a fucking moron when it comes to physics. Stromboli proved how stupid you are in thinking that firefighters would neglect to look over crucial evidence.

QuoteFree-fall is a state where an object falls unhindered by any resistance.  If there is resistance, it is not free-fall, and it will not accelerate at the same rate as free-fall.

Quoting from a textbook won't make you any smart, just a plagiarist.

Quote
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuotePS: I stand accused of being condescending.  Why is it you are allowed to say things like "Not only are you so ignorant, it is only surpassed by your stupidity" and in a later post, "Your persistance with your outrageous claims qualifies you not only as a fucking moron but also as a fucking asshole." but I am the one accused of being condescending?  I smell a double standard here.
There's no double standard. You pretend that you know physics, when clearly you don't. And when that is clearly pointed out to you, you still continue to act like a fucking moron and a fucking asshole.

OK, you have done a good job attacking the messenger, now how about tackling the message?
The message is clear: AtheistMoFo has a superficial understanding of physics. He can quote from a textbook, but his understanding of the subject is full of confusion. He doesn't understand a simple diagram, which I have pointed to him in my blog, which deals with an object falling under free fall, and how the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. He doesn't understand that under free fall, there is no need to input energy as gravity will do the work.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 17, 2014, 10:25:26 AM
I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 17, 2014, 10:27:42 AM
Quote from: "stromboli"I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.
Never discount genuine stupidity.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 17, 2014, 10:29:00 AM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "stromboli"I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.
Never discount genuine stupidity.

You are correct.  :-D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 17, 2014, 11:33:03 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Damarcus"It's a no-win situation trying to argue with them really. They refuse change their minds, ignoring common sense, basic reasoning and they'll even suspend the laws of physics if you push them hard enough. Can be fun to watch though.
Watch it!  That is my line you're reciting!

Quote from: "Insult to Rocks"You do realize that the U.S had had an extremely strained relationship with Iraq since the First Gulf War in 1990, 7 years before PNAC was founded, right? And that the U.S was not the only participants in the fight against Iraq and Afghanistan? Lots of people had grievances with the abysmal and oppressive governments of those two countries. If the conspiracies objective was to garner support for an attack on said countries, they did not have to go to the extent that they supposedly did.
If you mean garnering support from allies around the world, of course not.  If you mean garnering domestic support, what else would have garnered support any more effectively?

Let us examine the wording of the PNAC document.  In particular, the reference to Pearl Harbor.  Now we all pretty much agree that Pearl Harbor was not a false flag attack.  The Imperial Japanese Navy did in fact attack Pearl Harbor. But why did Roosevelt and Stimson provoke the Japanese into attacking?  Because they wanted entry into the war against Germany (not so much Japan) but the American people would not stand for it.  So they needed a catasrophic and catalyzing event to justify a declaration of war.  As Hermann Goering put it so eloquently the day before his scheduled execution in April 1946, "Of course the people don't want war.  But the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That is easy.  All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

He might have said "...in any country, and in any generation," but he didn't.  It is true nonetheless.

And so it was in 2001 when GW Bush had a personal vendetta to settle with Saddam Husein.  Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Donald Rusfeld and other PNAC members saw a golden opportunity to make some big bucks.  The rest is history.

(edited to correct typo (golder > golden) and to add "Meanwhile," (for clarity) in front of Dick Cheny)
Oh fuck you! Thats it, I'm done. When people start acusing FDR of "provoking" the Jappanese into attacking Pearl, there is no arguing with them. No one, ABSOLUTLY NO ONE, would ever risk the nations entire naval force in a theatre of war so as to start a war with another counrty in a different theatre. If our carrier fleet was at Pearl, there would have been a very real possibility of the U.S losing the war. Which could have lead to the Allies losing the war. FDR was far far FAR too intelligent to ever be a subscriber to this maddeningly stupid plan you suggest.
And as for having a vendetta against Saddam, I believe if anyone had a vendetta, it was the thousands of people whom he opressed and killed in Iraq. You don't really need much more of a reason to attack someone when they've murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people.  So if you want to continue treating the war as some rich mans crusade to earn money, go ahead. I no longer have the time nor the patience to deal with this crockery. But here's a final thing: Do you know how resource intensive the U.S's strategy in Iraq was? Extremely. Schwarzkopf used a blitzkrieg style strategy in Iraq, which literally required miles of supplies and fuel. If the war in Iraq was about money, they sure didn't seem to care about it at the time.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 17, 2014, 03:17:58 PM
What I mean, this guy is just pulling our chain.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 17, 2014, 08:21:55 PM
Quote from: "Damarcus"Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings...
Quote from: "Damarcus"Whoah, that...isn't what I asked at all. I asked why someone would do this. You haven't given me an answer and instead just insulted me.
So, you ask me "Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings" and this is not an accusation that I implied the US government attacked itself?  Sure as hell sounds like it to me.  And so I insulted you.  You want a towel to cry into?  Yes I insulted you, because you have done nothing but insult me from your very first post in this thread.  You never read a word I write, or if you do, you don't understand a thing I say, and then you shoot your mouth off (figuratively) implying I said this or that.

If you wanted to know why someone would do something like 9/11, why didn't you just fucking ask.  There are many reasons for why people commit crimes.  Since I am not one of the criminals who committed the crimes I can only speculate.  But my first guess would be[center:37eeh7v1]MONEY![/center:37eeh7v1]It is probably the most common motive for committing crimes there is.  We know that many corporations profit handsomely from wars.  Their shareholders and executives make hige profits.  Of course, as someone pointed out earlier, business persons are opportunistic individuals, and when some occurrence presents an opportunity, they take it, and it does not necessarily mean they caused that occurrence.  I agree with that, but just because they might be innocent, isn't it just flat out stupid to ignore the possibility that maybe they did?

Especially when we know that PNAC published a document one year before 9/11 describing how a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" would be extremely advantageous to their plans.  One year later, a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor does happen, and just as they predicted, the Pentagon's budget shot up from 400 billion a year to roughly 800 billion at present.  But of course, that might have been just a case of opportunistic businessmen taking advantage of an opportunity.

Other possible motives?  Well, GW Bush had a personal vendetta to settle with Saddam Husein.  But my own opinion, although Bush is nefarious enough to do such a thing, he is far to stupid to come up with something like this on his own.  Still, Sherlock Holmes would not have excluded the possibility.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 18, 2014, 12:43:10 AM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteListen, I've interviewed people who had a PhD that I would not have hired as janitor.
Coming from an incompetent like you doesn't surprise me you would make such a cheap shot.
You don't have to believe it.  The point is, having a doctorate does not automatically entitle you to claim you know everything.  (If a PhD were some sort of guarantee that its holder could never be wrong, explain "PhD in Theology"?)

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The message is clear: AtheistMoFo has a superficial understanding of physics. He can quote from a textbook, but his understanding of the subject is full of confusion. He doesn't understand a simple diagram, which I have pointed to him in my blog, which deals with an object falling under free fall, and how the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. He doesn't understand that under free fall, there is no need to input energy as gravity will do the work.
You keep harping on there is no need to input energy because gravity will do the work.  And I have never denied that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.  But what has it got to do with refuting my point?  When you publish your peer reviewed paper on how concrete and steel can accelerate at the rate of free-fall through the path of greatest resistance, I will have to rethink my theories.  Meanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 18, 2014, 01:05:00 AM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "stromboli"I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.
Never discount genuine stupidity.
Willfully and ignorantly with genuine stupidity yanking our collective chains gets my vote.  :-$
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 18, 2014, 03:36:50 AM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "stromboli"I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.
Never discount genuine stupidity.
Willfully and ignorantly with genuine stupidity yanking our collective chains gets my vote.  :-$

Yep. And he's winning, too.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 18, 2014, 06:12:04 AM
Is this thread still going?


There's plenty of footage of buildings collapsing on youtube.   There's also plenty of videos of buildings being demolished.

After watching a few hours of that, it's pretty simple to see which category WTC 7 falls into.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Manodo on February 18, 2014, 07:05:25 AM
I really wish a terrorist would declare Jihad on this thread and blow it to smithereens.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on February 18, 2014, 07:07:56 AM
Quote from: "Manodo"I really wish a terrorist would declare Jihad on this thread and blow it to smithereens.

AAAAAAAAAAAAND here comes the NSA :P. Better look out AtheistMoFo, they might realize you are onto them and shut ya down :|.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 18, 2014, 08:35:08 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The message is clear: AtheistMoFo has a superficial understanding of physics. He can quote from a textbook, but his understanding of the subject is full of confusion. He doesn't understand a simple diagram, which I have pointed to him in my blog, which deals with an object falling under free fall, and how the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. He doesn't understand that under free fall, there is no need to input energy as gravity will do the work.

You keep harping on there is no need to input energy because gravity will do the work.  

This is what you wrote in a previous post:

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Explain how a finite amount of energy can be used 100% to accelerate a building of hundreds of thousands of tons toward the ground, and still have enough energy remaining to pulverize concrete and twist steel beams as though they were spaghetti.  

This shows how confused you are about physics. (1) You don't need to input energy to accelerate a free falling body. (2) As the body falls, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. When it will hit the ground, or anything on its way, it will do that with a much greater force than when it started to fall. So yes, it can "pulverize concrete and twist steel beams as though they were spaghetti."

 
QuoteWhen you publish your peer reviewed paper on how concrete and steel can accelerate at the rate of free-fall through the path of greatest resistance, I will have to rethink my theories.

Only a fucking moron like you would propose such an idiotic idea.

QuoteMeanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know

Indeed, be true to your nature of an idiot.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 18, 2014, 09:43:41 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Yep. And he's winning, too.
Pretty sure josephpalazzo already won the thread.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 18, 2014, 09:45:25 AM
Nope. MoFo is winning. You're all still here, you're still giving him attention, and more and more of you are getting frustrated while he keeps ramming his dick on the keyboard and jizzing all over the monitor from excitement  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Johan on February 18, 2014, 10:00:28 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Nope. MoFo is winning. You're all still here, you're still giving him attention, and more and more of you are getting frustrated while he keeps ramming his dick on the keyboard and jizzing all over the monitor from excitement  :roll:
This. I bailed halfway through the first post of the thread. There is simply no upside to ever engaging anyone who delusional enough to believe this crap so I bailed. But its a month later and the thread title keeps showing up when I look at new posts. Why do so many of you continue to engage a paranoid idiot?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 18, 2014, 10:01:38 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Nope. MoFo is winning. You're all still here, you're still giving him attention, and more and more of you are getting frustrated while he keeps ramming his dick on the keyboard and jizzing all over the monitor from excitement  :roll:
What you call a troll, I call a chew toy. Gotta practice sometime. :lol:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 18, 2014, 11:39:51 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Nope. MoFo is winning. You're all still here, you're still giving him attention, and more and more of you are getting frustrated while he keeps ramming his dick on the keyboard and jizzing all over the monitor from excitement  :roll:


The jokes on him.  I came ages ago.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 18, 2014, 01:39:01 PM
Quote from: "Johan"
Quote from: "Plu"Nope. MoFo is winning. You're all still here, you're still giving him attention, and more and more of you are getting frustrated while he keeps ramming his dick on the keyboard and jizzing all over the monitor from excitement  :roll:
This. I bailed halfway through the first post of the thread. There is simply no upside to ever engaging anyone who delusional enough to believe this crap so I bailed. But its a month later and the thread title keeps showing up when I look at new posts. Why do so many of you continue to engage a paranoid idiot?


"I sharpened my wits on a dead man's skull ... "

Seriously, though, at my age, keeping the mind spry is a useful thing.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 19, 2014, 12:20:27 AM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Only a fucking moron like you would propose such an idiotic idea.
QuoteMeanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know
Indeed, be true to your nature of an idiot.
Well, Joe, flaunting your PhD has certainly convinced a lot of people around here that a physicist can never be wrong.  But did you know, there are plenty of physicists who say the Official Conspiracy Theory is bunk?  Probably not too many who will admit it publicly, because it could and probably would cost them their job (not to mention any future job possibilities).  So this presents us with something of a paradox.

And not only are there plenty of physicists, there are also thousands of architects, engineers, scientists in many fields, pilots, psychologists, lawyers, medical professionals, and various scholars and even U.S. military officers and political leaders who are of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job.  True, the number is small in relation to the overall population, but the number is growing.  The smokescreen is beginning to clear.

I must admit that it surprised me to see so many atheists whom one would expect to be skeptical of mainstream thinking falling hook, line and sinker for the "jihadists did it" theory.  And for atheists to even believe the theory that concrete and steel can fall through 8 stories of the path of greatest resistance, accelerating at the rate of gravity as it goes, just because a PhD tells them it is what happened.  Plus, of course, the MSM repeating the lie over and over for years.  But there are plenty of other eduated scholars who disagree with you and agree with me.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.ae911truth.org/

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
//http://911scholars.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
//http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
//http://mp911truth.org/

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
//http://pl911truth.com/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
//http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.mo911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
//http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Journalists for 9/11 Truth
//http://mediafor911truth.org/

But to you, maybe we are all fucking morons and idiots.  And since there are a large number of members of the above groups who also have their PhD, that would go to prove there is no shortage of fucking moron idiots who have a PhD.  But nobody needed to prove that to me, I knew it already.  What I did not know was that even a PhD can resort to childish name calling when pressed to answer a question that he cannot answer.  I would have thought you would have a little more class than that.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 19, 2014, 12:25:36 AM
Quote from: "Manodo"I really wish a terrorist would declare Jihad on this thread and blow it to smithereens.
Excuse me for asking, but are you a sock puppet?  I mean, you joined this forum after this thread started, as of this writing you have made 12 posts, one quarter of which have been to this particular thread, basically saying that this thread should end.  You are not required to post in, or even pay any attention to this thread if you are not interested.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Manodo on February 19, 2014, 01:57:17 AM
I am treating this as a joke thread because that's exactly what it has become. Your arguments about how freefall works are constantly changing because you formed an opinion before understanding how the physical principles actually operate, and are having to correct yourself along the way as people call you out on your BS.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 19, 2014, 01:59:57 AM
Quote from: "Manodo"I am treating this as a joke thread because that's exactly what it has become. Your arguments about how freefall works are constantly changing because you formed an opinion before understanding how the physical principles actually operate, and are having to correct yourself along the way as people call you out on your BS.
Good night Joe.  Pleasant dreams.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: MrsSassyPants on February 19, 2014, 08:35:38 AM
Even the title of the thread is stupid.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 19, 2014, 10:04:59 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Only a fucking moron like you would propose such an idiotic idea.
QuoteMeanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know
Indeed, be true to your nature of an idiot.

Well, Joe, flaunting your PhD

Sorry to disappoint you, but I have rarely flaunted my degree on this forum. The members of AF were smart enough to recognize my expertise without me doing the flaunting. However in your case I had to, since you're not smart enough to have figured it out all by yourself.


Quotehas certainly convinced a lot of people around here that a physicist can never be wrong.

Again, you're way off the mark. I've never said anywhere that physicists are never wrong. So stop putting words in my mouth I've never said, that only makes you a condescending asshole.  


QuoteBut did you know, there are plenty of physicists who say the Official Conspiracy Theory is bunk?

I would be more interested in their arguments than you just making a blatant assertion with no evidence.


QuoteProbably not too many who will admit it publicly, because it could and probably would cost them their job (not to mention any future job possibilities).  So this presents us with something of a paradox.

Wild speculation on your part, which seems to be a disease in your case.

QuoteAnd not only are there plenty of physicists, there are also thousands of architects, engineers, scientists in many fields, pilots, psychologists, lawyers, medical professionals, and various scholars and even U.S. military officers and political leaders who are of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job.  True, the number is small in relation to the overall population, but the number is growing.  The smokescreen is beginning to clear.

and what are the hard evidence of these supposed experts?

QuoteI must admit that it surprised me to see so many atheists whom one would expect to be skeptical of mainstream thinking falling hook, line and sinker for the "jihadists did it" theory.

But you seem to miscalculate that atheists are also going to be very sceptical of theories that are based on wild speculation.


QuoteAnd for atheists to even believe the theory that concrete and steel can fall through 8 stories of the path of greatest resistance, accelerating at the rate of gravity as it goes, just because a PhD tells them it is what happened.

See this is where your credibility falls off completely as I have already explained the physics behind that, and you still don't get it.  


QuotePlus, of course, the MSM repeating the lie over and over for years.  But there are plenty of other eduated scholars who disagree with you and agree with me.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.ae911truth.org/

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
//http://911scholars.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
//http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
//http://mp911truth.org/

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
//http://pl911truth.com/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
//http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.mo911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
//http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Journalists for 9/11 Truth
//http://mediafor911truth.org/

I wish you were more sceptical in regard to these people. LOL.


QuoteWhat I did not know was that even a PhD can resort to childish name calling when pressed to answer a question that he cannot answer.  I would have thought you would have a little more class than that.


In your case, the name calling is quite deserving as the physics were explained many times, yet you haven't made a single ounce of effort to understand it and correct the error in your thinking.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 19, 2014, 10:42:53 AM
I see that Mr. Mofo has mastered the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Unfortunately for him, we actually know how to argue properly. :lol:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 19, 2014, 12:21:46 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"I see that Mr. Mofo has mastered the Appeal to Authority fallacy. Unfortunately for him, we actually know how to argue properly. :lol:

I would also be wary of those websites as many are selling stuff, like t-shirts, posters, DVD's. There's a whole cottage industry in those 9/11 CT's.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 19, 2014, 02:27:48 PM
Ah yes, the land of Conspiracy theory- where unconfirmed opinions and "sightings" carry more weight than science and evidence.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Icarus on February 19, 2014, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Only a fucking moron like you would propose such an idiotic idea.
QuoteMeanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know
Indeed, be true to your nature of an idiot.
Well, Joe, flaunting your PhD has certainly convinced a lot of people around here that a physicist can never be wrong.  But did you know, there are plenty of physicists who say the Official Conspiracy Theory is bunk?  Probably not too many who will admit it publicly, because it could and probably would cost them their job (not to mention any future job possibilities).  So this presents us with something of a paradox.

And not only are there plenty of physicists, there are also thousands of architects, engineers, scientists in many fields, pilots, psychologists, lawyers, medical professionals, and various scholars and even U.S. military officers and political leaders who are of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job.  True, the number is small in relation to the overall population, but the number is growing.  The smokescreen is beginning to clear.

I must admit that it surprised me to see so many atheists whom one would expect to be skeptical of mainstream thinking falling hook, line and sinker for the "jihadists did it" theory.  And for atheists to even believe the theory that concrete and steel can fall through 8 stories of the path of greatest resistance, accelerating at the rate of gravity as it goes, just because a PhD tells them it is what happened.  Plus, of course, the MSM repeating the lie over and over for years.  But there are plenty of other eduated scholars who disagree with you and agree with me.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.ae911truth.org/

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
//http://911scholars.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
//http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
//http://mp911truth.org/

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
//http://pl911truth.com/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
//http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.mo911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
//http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Journalists for 9/11 Truth
//http://mediafor911truth.org/

But to you, maybe we are all fucking morons and idiots.  And since there are a large number of members of the above groups who also have their PhD, that would go to prove there is no shortage of fucking moron idiots who have a PhD.  But nobody needed to prove that to me, I knew it already.  What I did not know was that even a PhD can resort to childish name calling when pressed to answer a question that he cannot answer.  I would have thought you would have a little more class than that.

I took a look at the scientists for 911 truth, just to check out which scientists they were quoting. Looking through some of the people they quoted and looking them up I noticed a trend. The trend was that none of them were scientists. I have discovered another conspiracy: Why would people set up a website called "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" and quote only non-scientists? Clearly someone very high up wants us to believe that the 9/11 conspiracy is true.  :wink:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 19, 2014, 09:53:56 PM
Quote from: "Icarus"I took a look at the scientists for 911 truth, just to check out which scientists they were quoting. Looking through some of the people they quoted and looking them up I noticed a trend. The trend was that none of them were scientists. I have discovered another conspiracy: Why would people set up a website called "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" and quote only non-scientists? Clearly someone very high up wants us to believe that the 9/11 conspiracy is true.  :wink:
Reminds me of that guy "PilatesQuestion" last year who did the same thing. He said that "modern scholars" agree that the Bible is basically true; but when asked who they were, he provided a list of four people who weren't scholars at all.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shol'va on February 19, 2014, 09:59:50 PM
There's a name for that kind of stuff (//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word) and there should really be no excuse for any college educated individual use it in ignorance.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on February 19, 2014, 10:06:01 PM
33 pages....oy
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 19, 2014, 10:20:02 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteBut did you know, there are plenty of physicists who say the Official Conspiracy Theory is bunk?

I would be more interested in their arguments than you just making a blatant assertion with no evidence.
If you really were interested, you would have made use of the links I provided.  You are NOT interested in their arguments.  You are afraid it would burst your little shell that shields you from the truth of the real world.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteProbably not too many who will admit it publicly, because it could and probably would cost them their job (not to mention any future job possibilities).  So this presents us with something of a paradox.

Wild speculation on your part, which seems to be a disease in your case.
Ask Steven Jones, former professor at Brigham Young University if it is wild speculation on anybody's part.  And Kevin Ryan, former Lab Director at Underwriters Laboratories Inc., just to name two.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteAnd not only are there plenty of physicists, there are also thousands of architects, engineers, scientists in many fields, pilots, psychologists, lawyers, medical professionals, and various scholars and even U.S. military officers and political leaders who are of the opinion that 9/11 was an inside job.  True, the number is small in relation to the overall population, but the number is growing.  The smokescreen is beginning to clear.

and what are the hard evidence of these supposed experts?
I've provided you with the links.  Is it a rule around here that when a PhD provides links, everyone is required to follow them up, but when a non-PhD holder provides links, the PhD is exempt from reading?

I've tried to not be condescending, but when it is a one-way street, fuck it.  At least I have never called anyone a fucking moron.  But I'm beginning to wonder if that is the only way to be taken seriously around here?
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteI must admit that it surprised me to see so many atheists whom one would expect to be skeptical of mainstream thinking falling hook, line and sinker for the "jihadists did it" theory.

But you seem to miscalculate that atheists are also going to be very sceptical of theories that are based on wild speculation.
What you call wild speculation is a theory based on motive, expertise, and opportunity.  Your theory, the OCT, has it that a bunch of jihadists killed themselves in pursuit of 72 virgins and had their families and home countries bombed back into the stoneage as the consequence.  Some fucking motive.  Expertise?  Hani Hanjour, who could not safely fly a single prop Cessna trained several hours in a flight simulator and pulled off a maneuverer that expert pilots have described as extremely difficult.  And your theory does not even address the "opportunity" part of it.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteAnd for atheists to even believe the theory that concrete and steel can fall through 8 stories of the path of greatest resistance, accelerating at the rate of gravity as it goes, just because a PhD tells them it is what happened.

See this is where your credibility falls off completely as I have already explained the physics behind that, and you still don't get it.
Flaunting your PhD again.  You have NOT explained how your theory trumps Issac Newton's theory.  Until you do, I'm sticking with Newton.   I may not have a PhD, but I do know the scientific community has not rejected Newton's theory in favor of yours.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuotePlus, of course, the MSM repeating the lie over and over for years.  But there are plenty of other eduated scholars who disagree with you and agree with me.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.ae911truth.org/

Scientists for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

Scholars for 9/11 Truth
//http://911scholars.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth
//http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
//http://mp911truth.org/

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
//http://pl911truth.com/

Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
//http://lawyersfor911truth.blogspot.com/

Military Officers for 9/11 Truth
//http://www.mo911truth.org/

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
//http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Journalists for 9/11 Truth
//http://mediafor911truth.org/

I wish you were more sceptical in regard to these people. LOL.
Why should I?  They are right, you are wrong.  Simple as that.


Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
QuoteWhat I did not know was that even a PhD can resort to childish name calling when pressed to answer a question that he cannot answer.  I would have thought you would have a little more class than that.


In your case, the name calling is quite deserving as the physics were explained many times, yet you haven't made a single ounce of effort to understand it and correct the error in your thinking.
You mean the error in YOUR thinking.  But I have tried to correct your error.  Unfortunately, when a person or even large group of people are in denial, facts alone will not set them straight.  You need to admit to yourself that evil people do exist in this world, and because holding positions of power bestows them with great opportunity to do evil, they are attracted to those positions.  The only safeguard against evil is for the people to be always vigilant.

When the people let their guard down, whether it is because they are concerned about losing their job or they just enjoy living in thier own little dream world, the result is tyranny.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship." -- Hermann Goering, April 1946
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 19, 2014, 10:31:47 PM
Quote from: "aitm"33 pages....oy
Have we reached Old Seer levels yet?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 20, 2014, 06:34:11 AM
Last post!

I win.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 20, 2014, 08:20:38 AM
QuoteAsk Steven Jones, former professor at Brigham Young University if it is wild speculation on anybody's part.

Right. Certification by a Mormon professor, which is about as nutbag as they come. The same people who think Native Americans came from Israel and represent one of the largest blocks of homophobes on the planet.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 20, 2014, 10:12:05 AM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-tr ... ows,35319/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-vows-not-to-rest-until-everyone-knows,35319/)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 20, 2014, 11:49:55 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"You have NOT explained how your theory trumps Issac Newton's theory.  Until you do, I'm sticking with Newton.   I may not have a PhD, but I do know the scientific community has not rejected Newton's theory in favor of yours.

My theory doesn't trump Newton's theory, fucking moron. It is Newtonian theory.

You're so confused that you don't realize that what you have been saying about the physics part goes against Newtonian physics.

You are hopeless.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 20, 2014, 01:57:40 PM
We used to refer to this as beating a dead horse. This sucker is down to hide and bone soup.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 20, 2014, 03:47:58 PM
If it weren't so pathetic, it could run as a good joke. But we're passed that. We're in the twilight zone... cue in music.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 20, 2014, 04:30:27 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Your theory, the OCT, has it that a bunch of jihadists killed themselves in pursuit of 72 virgins and had their families and home countries bombed back into the stoneage as the consequence.  Some fucking motive.  


You're right.  Religion has never motivated people to do stupid shit.

Oh, wait.

Quote from: "stromboli"We used to refer to this as beating a dead horse. This sucker is down to hide and bone soup.

As sticky as this thread seems to be, I'm sure there's some glue in here somewhere.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 20, 2014, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Your theory, the OCT, has it that a bunch of jihadists killed themselves in pursuit of 72 virgins and had their families and home countries bombed back into the stoneage as the consequence.  Some fucking motive.  


You're right.  Religion has never motivated people to do stupid shit.

Oh, wait.
I take back what I said, earlier: You are winning the thread. :rollin:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 20, 2014, 08:13:04 PM
Before responding to any anything response-worthy anyone may have posted since my most recent visit here, I am going to pose a question and make a suggestion.  Will respond later.  (Apologies in advance to those who have short attention spans incapable of comprehending more than 100 words at a time.  You are excused from reading this post.)

THE QUESTION:
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, WTC 7 fell down due to "normal office fires" (NIST's explanation is a major plank in the OCT).  So here is a riddle open to any of you OCT'ers to answer.  Larry Silverstein, owner (leaseholder) of the World Trade Center, has sued the airlines, the insurance companies, Boeing, and the Port Authority of Massachusetts.  But Silverstein has NOT sued the designers of WTC 7.  So if normal office fires could cause a 47 story skyscraper to come crashing to the ground, why didn't Silverstein sue the the architects who designed the unsafe building?  Think about it.

THE SUGGESTION:

And here is a suggestion for Josephpalazzo.

On August 26, 2008, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST team investigating the collapse of WTC 7, said at a NIST Technical Briefing that free-fall would have been impossible.  Groping for words and a bit tongue-tied, he says,
 "First of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure -- applies to every body... all bodies on this particular planet, not just in ground zero.  The analysis shows there is a difference in time between free-fall time --  a free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it, and if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17... the roofline of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video (below which you can't see anything in the video) -- is about 3.9 seconds.  What the analysis shows, the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time it took for the structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds.  It's about 1.5 seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free-fall to happen, and that is not unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.  And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, everything was not instantaneous."  (emphasis added)

SYNOPSIS OF THE ABOVE:
1. Free-fall would take 3.9 seconds
2. However, their computer model simulating collapse predicted 5.4 seconds
3. The slower time is to be expected since
 - a. there was structural support slowing the building as it fell
 - b. there was a progression of failures that had to take place
 - c. they were not instantaneous

All this would make perfect sense if the building fell due to structural failure and it actually did take 5.4 seconds.  The problem is, in order to time the collapse at 5.4 seconds, they had to start the clock when the parapet began to fall, 1.5 seconds before the roofline actually started to fall.

If you've watched the video, and I assume you have not, you would see that Dr. Sunder had considerable difficulty to weasel-word his way out of the situation.  But if NIST were to abandon traditional physics (Newtonian Physics) and adopt the Josephpalazzian Theory, it would be so much easier to weasel-word out of anything.  So, Joe, why not apply to NIST for a grant, if you have not already.  They should be willing to throw unlimited dollars at your theory to have it accepted.  Newton's antiquated laws will be relegated to the pages of history.  And we can finally close the book on WTC 7 free-fall.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on February 20, 2014, 08:32:26 PM
http://www.theonion.com/articles/truthe ... 911,33421/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/truther-jihadist-wishes-alqaeda-had-committed-911,33421/)

"I wish we had destroyed those two buildings in the name of Allah, instead of the controlled demolitions at the base of the World Trade Center that actually caused both towers to collapse. But the whole thing was an inside job by the U.S. government and then covered up by the mainstream American media. Unfortunately."

http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-tr ... -11,29520/ (http://www.theonion.com/articles/911-truther-convinced-government-destroyed-past-11,29520/)

"The official story is all too familiar," said Shaw, a self-identified 9/11 Truther who hands out pamphlets at Kennedy Plaza from 2 to 6 p.m. every day. "On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists crashed three planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Then, over the ensuing months and years, my obsession with the truth behind those events supposedly led to the gradual collapse of my personal and professional life. But this convenient little narrative requires us to believe a series of highly improbable coincidences."
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 20, 2014, 09:16:40 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Before responding to any anything response-worthy anyone may have posted since my most recent visit here, I am going to pose a question and make a suggestion.  Will respond later.  (Apologies in advance to those who have short attention spans incapable of comprehending more than 100 words at a time.  You are excused from reading this post.)

THE QUESTION:
According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, WTC 7 fell down due to "normal office fires" (NIST's explanation is a major plank in the OCT).  So here is a riddle open to any of you OCT'ers to answer.  Larry Silverstein, owner (leaseholder) of the World Trade Center, has sued the airlines, the insurance companies, Boeing, and the Port Authority of Massachusetts.  But Silverstein has NOT sued the designers of WTC 7.  So if normal office fires could cause a 47 story skyscraper to come crashing to the ground, why didn't Silverstein sue the the architects who designed the unsafe building?  Think about it.
What's there to think about? WTC 7 was designed according to code, and you can't sue architects for poor design if they design the building according to code, but fell due to extraordinary circumstances no one bothered to consider because they were, at the time, literally unthinkable. And before you say anything different, it is absolutely incredible that a skyscraper design could even be approved if it didn't pass the fire safety code review. No suit would stand even an initial review.

As to why the building fell due to normal office fires, under normal circumstances, the internal sprinkler system would have slowed the fire for long enough for the firefighters to get in with some serious hosing. But the water system was compromised because of the fall of WTC 1&2, disrupting both the internal sprinklers and the FD's attempts to control the fire after arriving, and NYCFD doesn't have much in the way of tanker trucks like rural areas do.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"THE SUGGESTION:

And here is a suggestion for Josephpalazzo.

On August 26, 2008, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for the NIST team investigating the collapse of WTC 7, said at a NIST Technical Briefing that free-fall would have been impossible.  Groping for words and a bit tongue-tied, he says,
 "First of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure -- applies to every body... all bodies on this particular planet, not just in ground zero.  The analysis shows there is a difference in time between free-fall time --  a free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it, and if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the 17... the roofline of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video (below which you can't see anything in the video) -- is about 3.9 seconds.  What the analysis shows, the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time it took for the structural model to come down from the roofline all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds.  It's about 1.5 seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free-fall to happen, and that is not unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.  And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place, everything was not instantaneous."  (emphasis added)

SYNOPSIS OF THE ABOVE:
1. Free-fall would take 3.9 seconds
2. However, their computer model simulating collapse predicted 5.4 seconds
3. The slower time is to be expected since
 - a. there was structural support slowing the building as it fell
 - b. there was a progression of failures that had to take place
 - c. they were not instantaneous

All this would make perfect sense if the building fell due to structural failure and it actually did take 5.4 seconds.  The problem is, in order to time the collapse at 5.4 seconds, they had to start the clock when the parapet began to fall, 1.5 seconds before the roofline actually started to fall.
Uh, they started the clock from the time the parapet began to fall because that's when they started the computer analysis of the fall. Actually, computer simulations I've seen of the WTC 7 collapse start five to ten seconds before that, because there was a lot happening beneath the facade of the building prior to the penthouse starting to collapse, the first visual sign that there was somehting happening.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If you've watched the video, and I assume you have not, you would see that Dr. Sunder had considerable difficulty to weasel-word his way out of the situation.
Stumbling over your words is hardly "weasel-wording your way out." The NIST hardcopy report would be the real article, where the bones would be fleshed out and all the i's dotted and t's crossed. That report says that the building fell due to office fires. You cannot use stumbling over words in a technical breifing as proof that there's something wrong with the full-fleshed report.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"But if NIST were to abandon traditional physics (Newtonian Physics)
What, the same NIST that says that WTC 7 fell due to office fires?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"and adopt the Josephpalazzian Theory, it would be so much easier to weasel-word out of anything.  So, Joe, why not apply to NIST for a grant, if you have not already.  They should be willing to throw unlimited dollars at your theory to have it accepted.  Newton's antiquated laws will be relegated to the pages of history.  And we can finally close the book on WTC 7 free-fall.
You know, it's easy to simply shout "IT'S IMPOSSIBURU 'CUZ FIZZIKS!" It's quite another to get down to the nitty gritty and show why a certain theory of events violates physics. So, please present your proof, complete with analysis of known physics and measurements, why you think office fires could not have collapsed WTC 7.

*crickets*
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 20, 2014, 10:25:48 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"[snip]
Dressing up the same bullshit with a new suit and tie does not change the fact that it is still the same bullshit and not a rebuttal.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 20, 2014, 10:50:22 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"The intellectual equivalent of a potato...a rotten potato.
Once again the reason the clock started when the penthouse began to fall is that the penthouse falling is an indication that there is something very fucking wrong with the internal structure of the building.

Perhaps I can explain it in terms you'll understand: FIRE BAD! FIRE HURT BUILDING! FIRE WEAKEN STEEL! OOOGA BOOOGA!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 21, 2014, 12:15:39 AM
Seriously? I can't believe this bullshit is still attempting to be passed off as truth.

For those unaware, I was a Navy EOD assigned to the UN protection detail working hand in hand with the Secret Service and the governments of several UN member nations to ensure the safety of the UN General Assembly meetings(the largest occurs in Sept every year). Our office? WTC building 7, where I(and 7 more EOD's) was at on September 11. What you in essence are insinuating is that not only did NOBODY on the team(a combined 100+ years of EOD experience) knew what a building being rigged for demo looked like, nor did the portable bomb detection(sniffers) detect the presence of explosives, NOR did any of the other countries EOD presence(remember the General Assembly meeting) nor their equipment pick up the presence of explosives. OR you are insinuating that we(the only EOD's with access to the building) rigged the building to blow ourselves.



TLDR for you?

In short Go Fuck Yourself Retard.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 21, 2014, 12:30:33 AM
=D>  Thank you Moral, and good to see you.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 21, 2014, 12:42:07 AM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Awesome McCoolguy stuff.

Obviously to him you're either part of the conspiracy or wholly incompetent.

Or maybe your credentials don't match up to the brilliant Steven Jones. The same Steven Jones who despite not being an expert in explosives, architecture, chemistry, or any such thing is still considered a credible source by the bonobos. The same Steven Jones who published a paper on Jesus being present in prehistoric America.  The same Steven Jones whose bullshit paper on "nano thermite" caused another scientist to resign from the journal that published it...he is a better source than you apparently.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 21, 2014, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Awesome McCoolguy stuff.

Obviously to him you're either part of the conspiracy or wholly incompetent.

Or maybe your credentials don't match up to the brilliant Steven Jones. The same Steven Jones who despite not being an expert in explosives, architecture, chemistry, or any such thing is still considered a credible source by the bonobos. The same Steven Jones who published a paper on Jesus being present in prehistoric America.  The same Steven Jones whose bullshit paper on "nano thermite" caused another scientist to resign from the journal that published it...he is a better source than you apparently.

You forgot that I was there that day(and the weeks prior to it) and he was in a much better position of sitting on his ass in his moms basement cranking it to gay midget necrobeastiality porn.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 21, 2014, 12:55:06 AM
A la Steven Jones

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/6451 ... tml?pg=all (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/645199800/BYU-places-911-truth-professor-on-paid-leave.html?pg=all)

QuotePROVO — Brigham Young University placed physics professor Steven Jones on paid leave Thursday while it reviews his involvement in the so-called "9/11 truth movement" that accuses unnamed government agencies of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center.

BYU will conduct an official review of Jones' actions before determining a course of action, university spokeswoman Carri Jenkins said. Such a review is rare for a professor with "continuing status" at BYU, where Jones has taught since 1985.

Jones was teaching two classes this semester, which began Tuesday. Other professors will cover those classes, and Jones will be allowed to continue to do research in his area of academic study, Jenkins said.

Jones became a celebrity among 9/11 conspiracy-theory groups after he wrote a paper titled "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Collapse?" The paper was published two weeks ago in the book "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out" and lays out Jones' hypothesis that the three towers fell because of pre-positioned demolition charges — not because of the planes that hit two of the towers.

When Jones began to share his demolition theory publicly last fall, he politely declined to speculate about who set the charges other than to say terrorist groups couldn't have been the source.

Then, later, he started to speak publicly about research conducted at BYU on materials from ground zero. He said he found evidence of thermite — a compound used in military detonations — in the materials.

In recent weeks, after becoming the co-chairman of the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jones seemed willing to go further, implicating unnamed government groups but not President Bush.

The Deseret Morning News requested a statement from the university Wednesday afternoon for a story it was preparing on Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement. University officials informed Jones of the decision to place him on leave Thursday afternoon and released a statement to the newspaper Thursday night.

"BYU has repeatedly said that it does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty," the statement said. "We are, however, concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones."

Last fall, BYU faculty posted statements on the university Web site that questioned whether Jones subjected the paper to rigorous academic peer review before he posted it at physics.byu.edu. Jones removed the paper from BYU's Web site Thursday at the university's request.

Mormons.  :-D  :axe
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 21, 2014, 01:26:13 AM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Seriously? I can't believe this bullshit is still attempting to be passed off as truth.

For those unaware, I was a Navy EOD assigned to the UN protection detail working hand in hand with the Secret Service and the governments of several UN member nations to ensure the safety of the UN General Assembly meetings(the largest occurs in Sept every year). Our office? WTC building 7, where I(and 7 more EOD's) was at on September 11. What you in essence are insinuating is that not only did NOBODY on the team(a combined 100+ years of EOD experience) knew what a building being rigged for demo looked like, nor did the portable bomb detection(sniffers) detect the presence of explosives, NOR did any of the other countries EOD presence(remember the General Assembly meeting) nor their equipment pick up the presence of explosives. OR you are insinuating that we(the only EOD's with access to the building) rigged the building to blow ourselves.



TLDR for you?

In short Go Fuck Yourself Retard.
Well obviously, you're just part of the big cover-up. Especially since you're ignoring CNN's famous photo of the real culprit:

[spoil:3bibx4l2](//http://api.ning.com/files/1NqkK4GXeiLLV-YGFRkbAsdCWw-HUso*8mJRKRLlPOBr1Fyzj9TJXiBDS2UTWlsy5tvZHI4-JkQbf0v1X54Tetj83uYICHA9/godzilla2805cn.jpg)[/spoil:3bibx4l2]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 21, 2014, 01:43:08 AM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Seriously? I can't believe this bullshit is still attempting to be passed off as truth.

For those unaware, I was a Navy EOD assigned to the UN protection detail working hand in hand with the Secret Service and the governments of several UN member nations to ensure the safety of the UN General Assembly meetings(the largest occurs in Sept every year). Our office? WTC building 7, where I(and 7 more EOD's) was at on September 11. What you in essence are insinuating is that not only did NOBODY on the team(a combined 100+ years of EOD experience) knew what a building being rigged for demo looked like, nor did the portable bomb detection(sniffers) detect the presence of explosives, NOR did any of the other countries EOD presence(remember the General Assembly meeting) nor their equipment pick up the presence of explosives. OR you are insinuating that we(the only EOD's with access to the building) rigged the building to blow ourselves.



TLDR for you?

In short Go Fuck Yourself Retard.
Well obviously, you're just part of the big cover-up. Especially since you're ignoring CNN's famous photo of the real culprit:

[spoil:3l3vwwss][ Image (//http://api.ning.com/files/1NqkK4GXeiLLV-YGFRkbAsdCWw-HUso*8mJRKRLlPOBr1Fyzj9TJXiBDS2UTWlsy5tvZHI4-JkQbf0v1X54Tetj83uYICHA9/godzilla2805cn.jpg) ][/spoil:3l3vwwss]

That actually made me spit beer....

 =D> Bravo Sir
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 21, 2014, 08:33:44 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"So, Joe, why not apply to NIST for a grant, if you have not already.  They should be willing to throw unlimited dollars at your theory to have it accepted.  Newton's antiquated laws will be relegated to the pages of history.  And we can finally close the book on WTC 7 free-fall.


Hey fucking moron, which part of "My theory doesn't trump Newton's theory.It is Newtonian theory " don't you understand?

Oh wait, you don't understand anything, you are one mass of confusion. But keep on digging for the lol.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Mister Agenda on February 21, 2014, 09:46:55 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Ask Steven Jones, former professor at Brigham Young University if it is wild speculation on anybody's part.  And Kevin Ryan, former Lab Director at Underwriters Laboratories Inc., just to name two.

That you're resorting to Ken Ham tactics (there are scientists who believe in Creationism!) should tell you something.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Insult to Rocks on February 21, 2014, 12:24:33 PM
Since Pearl Harbor keeps getting mentioned:
(//http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd287/wannadrink3/kanye-west-vma-meme-pics/kanye-west-9-11.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 21, 2014, 01:22:54 PM
Quote from: "Mister Agenda"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Ask Steven Jones, former professor at Brigham Young University if it is wild speculation on anybody's part.  And Kevin Ryan, former Lab Director at Underwriters Laboratories Inc., just to name two.

That you're resorting to Ken Ham tactics (there are scientists who believe in Creationism!) should tell you something.

Resorting?   I thought that's where he started...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 21, 2014, 06:47:09 PM
I like it how AMF uses his "Which is more believable" ploy, and acts shocked —shocked, I say— and appalled when people answer, yes, the official story is more believable than his grand conspiracy tangle. I also like it how AMF likes to think that the AQ hijackers never saw a plane before and thinks that they work through black magic with his "cave dweller" rhetoric, when in fact every one of the hijackers and Osama Bin Laden himself all came from Saudi Arabia, which is by any technological standard a fully modern country.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 21, 2014, 08:40:58 PM
FWIW, I believe this is the longest thread we've had on here that wasn't specifically about religion.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Johan on February 21, 2014, 11:35:13 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Larry Silverstein, owner (leaseholder) of the World Trade Center, has sued the airlines, the insurance companies, Boeing, and the Port Authority of Massachusetts.  But Silverstein has NOT sued the designers of WTC 7.  So if normal office fires could cause a 47 story skyscraper to come crashing to the ground, why didn't Silverstein sue the the architects who designed the unsafe building?  Think about it.

I don't have to think about it. This is because anyone with at least half a brain knows that the primary factors which determine who gets sued after something happens are not who was responsible for the thing that happened, but rather who among those involved or associated in any way with the thing that happened have the most money and/or are most likely to viewed as culpable by a jury.

This is why flight instructors don't get sued, but Cessna does after some jackass kills himself by making stupid choices in an airplane. The flight instructor is the one who is supposed to teach the student not to make stupid choices which might get you killed, while Cessna has absolutely nothing to do with that. But Cessna has money and the flight instructor typically doesn't have two dimes to rub together. So Cessna is the one that typically gets sued, not the flight instructor.

Now obviously the designer of the World Trade Center most likely has a couple of dimes to rub together. But they probably don't have Boeing level money. And they likely don't have the level of public (and therefore jury) hatred that a corporate entity like Boeing would. So who is the smart lawyer going to sue? The smart lawyer is going to sue the one with the deepest pockets that the jury is most likely to hate. The designers of the building don't fit that description. In a word, DUH!

So as I've said above, anyone with at least half a brain understands this basic concept. Which begs the question, do you have at least half a brain son? Well do ya?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 22, 2014, 01:17:38 AM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I like it how AMF uses his "Which is more believable" ploy, and acts shocked —shocked, I say— and appalled when people answer, yes, the official story is more believable than his grand conspiracy tangle. I also like it how AMF likes to think that the AQ hijackers never saw a plane before and thinks that they work through black magic with his "cave dweller" rhetoric, when in fact every one of the hijackers and Osama Bin Laden himself all came from Saudi Arabia, which is by any technological standard a fully modern country.

What truly amazes me is the fact that AMF and other 9/11 "truthers" seem to think that it would be easier to believe that there is some vast governmental conspiracy or some secret plot by foreign governments to sneak in high grade explosives into a BUSY office building in one of the busiest cities in the world(remember folks New York is the city that never sleeps) not only did they manage to sneak in the explosives into the office building(also a tourist destination), but they ALSO managed to rig this building for demolition(a process that takes weeks if not months to do and takes MILES of det cord) without ONE person going "what the fuck is this shit?" or taking one picture of the work going on. Not only did all of this "supposedly" happen but THEN they managed to light off a controlled demolition with the entire world watching and managed to hide ALL of the det cord flashes AND brought the building down flat(something that controlled demolition does not do because physics). NOT ONLY was all this done but not ONE person, document, or computer file has survived to prove ANY of this to be remotely possible. ALL of this was supposedly done right in the same building that the USSS(Secret Service) and 10+ EOD's had an office that was occupied 24/7...

OR...

Is it more believable that 19(or whatever) asshats flew planes into the building and the resulting explosion and fire caused enough damage to cause the building to fail?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 22, 2014, 11:12:38 AM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"I like it how AMF uses his "Which is more believable" ploy, and acts shocked —shocked, I say— and appalled when people answer, yes, the official story is more believable than his grand conspiracy tangle. I also like it how AMF likes to think that the AQ hijackers never saw a plane before and thinks that they work through black magic with his "cave dweller" rhetoric, when in fact every one of the hijackers and Osama Bin Laden himself all came from Saudi Arabia, which is by any technological standard a fully modern country.

What truly amazes me is the fact that AMF and other 9/11 "truthers" seem to think that it would be easier to believe that there is some vast governmental conspiracy or some secret plot by foreign governments to sneak in high grade explosives into a BUSY office building in one of the busiest cities in the world(remember folks New York is the city that never sleeps) not only did they manage to sneak in the explosives into the office building(also a tourist destination), but they ALSO managed to rig this building for demolition(a process that takes weeks if not months to do and takes MILES of det cord) without ONE person going "what the fuck is this shit?" or taking one picture of the work going on. Not only did all of this "supposedly" happen but THEN they managed to light off a controlled demolition with the entire world watching and managed to hide ALL of the det cord flashes AND brought the building down flat(something that controlled demolition does not do because physics). NOT ONLY was all this done but not ONE person, document, or computer file has survived to prove ANY of this to be remotely possible. ALL of this was supposedly done right in the same building that the USSS(Secret Service) and 10+ EOD's had an office that was occupied 24/7...

OR...

Is it more believable that 19(or whatever) asshats flew planes into the building and the resulting explosion and fire caused enough damage to cause the building to fail?

Right, which is basically what I said here several times. Dude seriously doesn't get it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 22, 2014, 11:15:09 AM
This conspiracy is old so it's my sworn duty to introduce you to a new and improved conspiracy (actually it's not new, but could be here) so without further fanfare from the Rachel Maddow show.. ABIOTIC OIL! //http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/22/1279295/-This-week-in-science-Planet-of-Ignorance
So here's what happened,  the NAZIS discovered that petroleum isn't really made from decayed plants and animals,  but is made deep within the earth in UNLIMITED supplies! F..ff...fff...fffffuck! Gasoline should be a penny a gallon IF THAT!

You can thank me for the astonishing revelation later.  :-$
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 22, 2014, 11:17:41 AM
Yeah, I saw this on Maddow. This guy is a corker. Scares me he has a following.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: the_antithesis on February 22, 2014, 11:51:46 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Think about it.

Why should I?

You obviously didn't.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 22, 2014, 11:54:26 AM
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Think about it.

Why should I?

You obviously didn't.
Pssssst.. mofo.. Two words: abiotic oil.  :-$
It's pretty clear by now the benevolent guys at the WTC were about to tell the truth about abiotic oil and the government had to silence them.  :shock:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 22, 2014, 12:15:46 PM
"Resistance to information that substantially challenges our worldview, we find, is the rule rather than the exception." -- Earl Staelin, J.D.

(Here comes another long post -- all you mutant teenage ninja hooligans with short attention spans may be excused.)

Despite the shock and awe of September 11, 2001, as the days and weeks and months went by, indications that it was a false flag operation became clearer and clearer.  First it was all of those little clues.  Like the passport falling to the ground, which I admit is a possibility as Thump pointed out, but still a long shot in any case.  

And the Arabic language flight instruction manuals, Korans, and fuel calculators carelessly left behind in a parked car.  Not totally unthinkable, but highly unlikely in any case.

Hani Hanjour, first time in the pilot seat of a real multi-jet (any jet) passenger liner executing an expert maneuver.  (Once more it is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.)  Government agents confiscate all private surveillance videos of the plane approaching and hitting the Pentagon, which are never to be seen again.  

Five frames of a Pentagon video released to the public, the rest never to be seen by the general public, despite FOIA.

Three out of four flight data recorders and three out of four cockpit voice recorders vaporized, and data from the surviving recorders mostly classified as secret.

Neither the president or the national security advisor could anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons and flying them into buildings, except that the NORAD just happed to be conducting drills on that exact day at that exact time based on that exact scenario.

NORAD either stands down, or the $400,000,000,000 spent annually on defence turned out to be a gigantic waste of money.

The mastermind and all of the hijackers positively identified in less than 48 hours despite the intelligence community never saw it coming until it happened.

Wars waged exactly as described in the PNAC wish-list document.

The march toward Fascism in the United States picks it's up pace exponentially as Constitutional provisions are violated one after another.

Destruction of evidence and the biggest coverup the world has ever known.  Most people do not even know about 7 WTC, even though 19 out of 20 architects and engineers who do know and have examined the evidence believe it was controlled demolition.

The man convicted in the media of masterminding the most heinous crime of the millennium is never indicted for his crime because the FBI did not have enough evidence to seek an indictment.  Then he is executed (mob style) nonetheless, even while Afghani teenage goat herder boys are held in U.S. torture facilities for a decade so that any information in their heads can be extracted through torture techniques.

... AND THE SMOKING GUN, instead of being in the form of a mushroom cloud, it comes in the form of free-fall of 7 WTC proved beyond a reasonable doubt (except to a few proponents of the Josephpalazzian Theory).

Despite all this, for many people, it is more reasonable to believe the above impossibility and all the improbabilities rather than the much simpler explanation that greedy nefarious (wo)men in high ranking positions of industry, government, and military in New York, DC, and Langley nudged the conspiracy along.

Why do people believe this O.C.T. crap?  Well, to the christians and jews and catholics in the United States, it is because the muslims are such evil villainous scumbags.  And to many of the atheists who haunt this forum, it is because ALL theists are evil villainous scumbags.  MoFo agree that many (not all) theists really are evil villainous scumbags.  But there are also evil villainous scumbags atheists, too.  Religion is no more than a pawn in this particular chess game.  Or maybe a little more than a pawn, maybe like a knight or a bishop perhaps.  (Yes, a bishop, indeed.  No pun intended.)

The answer lies in the opening line of this post.

To put it all into perspective, here is psychologist Frances Shure:
"...fear is the emotion that underlies most of the negative reactions toward 9/11 skeptics' information: fear of receiving information that will turn our world upside down, fear of being overwhelmed by our own emotions, fear of psychological deterioration, fear our life will have to change, fear we'll discover that the world is not a safe place, fear that our reputation will be tarnished or that we'll lose our jobs, fear of being shunned or banished by friends and family, and fear of looking like a fool because we bought the official account so thoroughly."

Thank you Frances.
Ramen.

Good night, Mrs. Calabash, wherever you are.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 22, 2014, 12:24:10 PM
I see someone has quite the unshakable fantasy complex. Now if we've all had our fill of fun with this guy:

(//http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m150/FormicHiveQueen/ronald-reagan-berlinwall.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 22, 2014, 12:26:09 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"Right, which is basically what I said here several times. Dude seriously doesn't get it.

The dude in question has a hard time to deal with a body falling under gravity will pick up kinetic energy and can really break stuff along the way. Even a 5 year old can understand that. Worse, according to that dude, I've just invented a new theory. Go figure.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 22, 2014, 12:33:37 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "stromboli"Right, which is basically what I said here several times. Dude seriously doesn't get it.

The dude in question has a hard time to deal with a body falling under gravity will pick up kinetic energy and can really break stuff along the way. Even a 5 year old can understand that. Worse, according to that dude, I've just invented a new theory. Go figure.

Even worse, this guy is posting this level of delusional bullshit on a forum with an explosives expert WHO WAS STATIONED THERE, who has disproven his bullshit theory
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 22, 2014, 01:06:54 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "stromboli"Right, which is basically what I said here several times. Dude seriously doesn't get it.

The dude in question has a hard time to deal with a body falling under gravity will pick up kinetic energy and can really break stuff along the way. Even a 5 year old can understand that. Worse, according to that dude, I've just invented a new theory. Go figure.

Even worse, this guy is posting this level of delusional bullshit on a forum with an explosives expert WHO WAS STATIONED THERE, who has disproven his bullshit theory


I guess we all have our favorite horror story with this dude.  :wink:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 22, 2014, 05:57:56 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"What truly amazes me is the fact that AMF and other 9/11 "truthers" seem to think that it would be easier to believe that there is some vast governmental conspiracy or some secret plot by foreign governments to sneak in high grade explosives into a BUSY office building in one of the busiest cities in the world(remember folks New York is the city that never sleeps) not only did they manage to sneak in the explosives into the office building(also a tourist destination)...

Round and round we go.  Another "government conspiracy" denier crashes the party.

Although government conspiracy could be considered a related topic, it is not really the point here.  The central issue is whether or not 7 WTC came down due to controlled demolition (my hypothesis and minority opinion) or whether it came down due to normal office fires (NIST's hypothesis, majority opinion), or if there was some other reason (several alternative theories have been mentioned).  So the big question is whether or not freefall is possible when there is structural material posing resistance.  My contention is that any falling object will fall more slowly than the rate of gravity when there is structural material offering resistance.  Pysicist Josephpalazzo PhD. and many others here insist that a falling object can accelerate at the rate of gravity even when it is falling through the path of greatest resistance.  And further, that is exactly what happened on September 11, 2001.

As a subset of the above argument, we are also discussing (I use the term "discuss" quite loosely) whether or not only muslim terrorists could have been so egregious as to kill thousands of people or whether jew, christian, other theist and (possibly) atheist terrorists might have also been among the scoundrels who caused the carnage.  The majority opinion seems to be that although jews, christians, and other theists sometimes do batshit crazy stuff, and jews especailly have a track record of doing batshit crazy stuff, only batshit crazy muslims are capable of anything of this magnitude.  The minority opinion is that you do not necessarily have to be muslim to be so barbarous.

If you want to debate whether or not there was a government conspiracy, why not take your discussion elsewhere?  All it really does is obscure the central issue.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 22, 2014, 06:01:51 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"What truly amazes me is the fact that AMF and other 9/11 "truthers" seem to think that it would be easier to believe that there is some vast governmental conspiracy or some secret plot by foreign governments to sneak in high grade explosives into a BUSY office building in one of the busiest cities in the world(remember folks New York is the city that never sleeps) not only did they manage to sneak in the explosives into the office building(also a tourist destination), but they ALSO managed to rig this building for demolition(a process that takes weeks if not months to do and takes MILES of det cord) without ONE person going "what the fuck is this shit?" or taking one picture of the work going on.
Or catch a glimpse of one of the charges saying "DANGER! EXPLOSIVE" and the worker didn't immediately go

(//http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/nope_spider.gif)

Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Not only did all of this "supposedly" happen but THEN they managed to light off a controlled demolition with the entire world watching and managed to hide ALL of the det cord flashes AND brought the building down flat(something that controlled demolition does not do because physics).
Or that any of that elaborate setup survived the fire and physical insult of a super-skyscraper raining debris right next to it. You'd think that whoever set that up was facepalming and groaning as they realized that their preparations would be essentially be set right back to square one.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 22, 2014, 06:06:27 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"What truly amazes me is the fact that AMF and other 9/11 "truthers" seem to think that it would be easier to believe that there is some vast governmental conspiracy or some secret plot by foreign governments to sneak in high grade explosives into a BUSY office building in one of the busiest cities in the world(remember folks New York is the city that never sleeps) not only did they manage to sneak in the explosives into the office building(also a tourist destination)...

Round and round we go.  Another "government conspiracy" denier crashes the party.

Although government conspiracy could be considered a related topic, it is not really the point here.  The central issue is whether or not 7 WTC came down due to controlled demolition (my hypothesis and minority opinion) or whether it came down due to normal office fires (NIST's hypothesis, majority opinion), or if there was some other reason (several alternative theories have been mentioned).  So the big question is whether or not freefall is possible when there is structural material posing resistance.  My contention is that any falling object will fall more slowly than the rate of gravity when there is structural material offering resistance.  Pysicist Josephpalazzo PhD. and many others here insist that a falling object can accelerate at the rate of gravity even when it is falling through the path of greatest resistance.  And further, that is exactly what happened on September 11, 2001.

As a subset of the above argument, we are also discussing (I use the term "discuss" quite loosely) whether or not only muslim terrorists could have been so egregious as to kill thousands of people or whether jew, christian, other theist and (possibly) atheist terrorists might have also been among the scoundrels who caused the carnage.  The majority opinion seems to be that although jews, christians, and other theists sometimes do batshit crazy stuff, and jews especailly have a track record of doing batshit crazy stuff, only batshit crazy muslims are capable of anything of this magnitude.  The minority opinion is that you do not necessarily have to be muslim to be so barbarous.

If you want to debate whether or not there was a government conspiracy, why not take your discussion elsewhere?  All it really does is obscure the central issue.
You're so cute, you missed the part where he mentioned that he was an EOD who was there the day that it happened. I think it's time you go back to counting your fingers and toes.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 22, 2014, 06:50:58 PM
I think what AMF is afraid of. He's afraid that the US really is broken in a fundamental way.

To him, his conspiracy theory is actually comforting, because he thinks that if the right people were in charge, everything would come up roses again. Fortress USA would be impregnable, with liberty and justice for all.

He can't face the fact that we have become a nation of craven cowards who responded to the terrorism of 9/11 by curtailing our own liberties. After all, if we are so hot on personal freedom, how come we didn't pack the streets of Washington DC with calls to never pass the PATRIOT act? Or to repeal it? No, no!  [-X  It had to be a despicable government-sponsored conspiracy formulated by some bad people to sap our liberties — people that the US electorate elected to office.

He can't face the fact that US airport security had been full of holes for decades prior to 9/11, manned by overworked, underappreciated slobs rubberstamping everything that didn't look like a bomb. No, no!  [-X  They had to have been singled out and let aboard by competent personnel.

He can't face the fact that a 747 is capable of some rather extreme maneuvers, especially if you don't expect to be landing it intact. No, no!  [-X  Those kind of maneuvers are IMPOSSIBURU for someone unable to land! (And who didn't expect to.)

He can't face the fact that what hit the pentagon was a 747, given the fact that they found the parts of that exact plane that was missing at the crash site. No, no!  [-X  It had to be a cruise missile.

He can't face the fact that the CIA and the FBI were engaged in jurisdictional turf-wars that prevented them from talking to each other, and didn't know to talk to each other until after the fact, whereupon they quickly figured out who did it. No, no!  [-X  They can communicate perfectly! They just chose not to act or do anything until afterward!

He can't face the fact that he is completely unable to articulate how free fall times are indicative of controlled demolition, and cannot explain how the NIST and others, using only Newtonian mechanics, were able to simulate the collapse of WTC 7 as an uncontrolled collapse and matched all the observed data. No, no!  [-X  ONLY a controlled collapse can fall in free fall time because.... FIZZIKS! IT'S TRUE 'CUZ I SAY SO!

He can't face the fact that we are all swept along for the ride by the force of history, the fact that our institutions have interactions and behavior that renders them almost as tempermental beasts in their own right, and that homeland security was all but nonexistent before and a bad joke even now. No, no!  [-X  Fortress 'Murica is impregnable if it really wants to be!

No, Emperor AthistMoFo has no clothes here. Your fear that America was put together in a slipshod fashion with naught but short-term and short-sighted goals governing its assembly is quite palpable. Go slink away back under your bed and have a good cry.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 22, 2014, 06:57:04 PM
I stand corrected once again: My fellow Touhoufag has won the thread. =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 22, 2014, 07:57:39 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"What truly amazes me is the fact that AMF and other 9/11 "truthers" seem to think that it would be easier to believe that there is some vast governmental conspiracy or some secret plot by foreign governments to sneak in high grade explosives into a BUSY office building in one of the busiest cities in the world(remember folks New York is the city that never sleeps) not only did they manage to sneak in the explosives into the office building(also a tourist destination)...

Round and round we go.  Another "government conspiracy" denier crashes the party.

Although government conspiracy could be considered a related topic, it is not really the point here.  The central issue is whether or not 7 WTC came down due to controlled demolition (my hypothesis and minority opinion) or whether it came down due to normal office fires (NIST's hypothesis, majority opinion), or if there was some other reason (several alternative theories have been mentioned).  So the big question is whether or not freefall is possible when there is structural material posing resistance.  My contention is that any falling object will fall more slowly than the rate of gravity when there is structural material offering resistance.  Pysicist Josephpalazzo PhD. and many others here insist that a falling object can accelerate at the rate of gravity even when it is falling through the path of greatest resistance.  And further, that is exactly what happened on September 11, 2001.

As a subset of the above argument, we are also discussing (I use the term "discuss" quite loosely) whether or not only muslim terrorists could have been so egregious as to kill thousands of people or whether jew, christian, other theist and (possibly) atheist terrorists might have also been among the scoundrels who caused the carnage.  The majority opinion seems to be that although jews, christians, and other theists sometimes do batshit crazy stuff, and jews especailly have a track record of doing batshit crazy stuff, only batshit crazy muslims are capable of anything of this magnitude.  The minority opinion is that you do not necessarily have to be muslim to be so barbarous.

If you want to debate whether or not there was a government conspiracy, why not take your discussion elsewhere?  All it really does is obscure the central issue.

And the thing that you seem to overlook is I WAS AN EOD THERE FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT DAY AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL ASSHAT your bullshit physicist was not there nor was he in any position to do anything but yank his fucking crank and watch the video and make an educated guess on what happened, and I got bad news for you junior. He is far from being right about a controlled demolition.
 A controlled demolition pulls a building at an angle not flat because the physical demands of a controlled demolition makes it a guarantee that pulling one corner out of the building WILL cause the entire building to collapse, trying to pull a building flat (as wtc building 7 fell) is virtually impossible to guarantee a successful pull because the buildings support structure MAY catch the building and prevent it from falling.
 Your PhD that you keep trotting out is fucking wrong, he is a physicist not an EOD, he has not the slightest clue on how to bring a building down, he does not know the first thing about explosive detonations(aside from the math I assume).

If you can answer me this retard:
How does one rig up a building for a controlled demolition without 27 fully trained and highly qualified demolitions experts in the same building noticing ANYTHING? Your professor can't answer that because it FUCKING CANT BE NONE. It was our job to locate explosives, we were trained to detect explosives, we had the latest and greatest of explosive detecting devices, we were there 24/7, there is no way in fucking hell that someone rigged a building to collapse without one of us noticing. YOUR "THEORY" FAILS RIGHT THERE MORON. Get over it you are wrong because the facts say you are fucking wrong.

All the mental masturbation in the world does not change the fact that there was 27 of the best EOD's in the world in that building, and any one of them would have noticed that building being rigged for demolition. A retardedly drunk EOD could look and see a building being rigged for demolition, an EOD student could look and see a building rigged for demolition, YOUR RETARDED ASS COULD HAVE SEEN THE BUILDING RIGGED FOR DEMOLITION WITH ALL THE FUCKING EQUIPMENT THAT WAS IN THAT OFFICE.


Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 22, 2014, 09:42:17 PM
Once again AtheistMoFo: was he incompetent at his job or was he part of the conspiracy? Or are you going to suggest that there is a type of explosive that expert EODs can't you detect?

The ball is in your court, please don't try to eat it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Johan on February 22, 2014, 09:48:36 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And the thing that you seem to overlook is I WAS AN EOD THERE FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT DAY AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL ASSHAT your bullshit physicist was not there nor was he in any position to do anything but yank his fucking crank and watch the video and make an educated guess on what happened, and I got bad news for you junior. He is far from being right about a controlled demolition.
 A controlled demolition pulls a building at an angle not flat because the physical demands of a controlled demolition makes it a guarantee that pulling one corner out of the building WILL cause the entire building to collapse, trying to pull a building flat (as wtc building 7 fell) is virtually impossible to guarantee a successful pull because the buildings support structure MAY catch the building and prevent it from falling.
 Your PhD that you keep trotting out is fucking wrong, he is a physicist not an EOD, he has not the slightest clue on how to bring a building down, he does not know the first thing about explosive detonations(aside from the math I assume).

If you can answer me this retard:
How does one rig up a building for a controlled demolition without 27 fully trained and highly qualified demolitions experts in the same building noticing ANYTHING? Your professor can't answer that because it FUCKING CANT BE NONE. It was our job to locate explosives, we were trained to detect explosives, we had the latest and greatest of explosive detecting devices, we were there 24/7, there is no way in fucking hell that someone rigged a building to collapse without one of us noticing. YOUR "THEORY" FAILS RIGHT THERE MORON. Get over it you are wrong because the facts say you are fucking wrong.

All the mental masturbation in the world does not change the fact that there was 27 of the best EOD's in the world in that building, and any one of them would have noticed that building being rigged for demolition. A retardedly drunk EOD could look and see a building being rigged for demolition, an EOD student could look and see a building rigged for demolition, YOUR RETARDED ASS COULD HAVE SEEN THE BUILDING RIGGED FOR DEMOLITION WITH ALL THE FUCKING EQUIPMENT THAT WAS IN THAT OFFICE.


Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?

(//http://resource.mmgn.com/files/Xbox/full_of_win.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 22, 2014, 09:54:33 PM
:popcorn:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 22, 2014, 10:31:32 PM
@The Skeletal Atheist
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Once again the reason the clock started when the penthouse began to fall is that the penthouse falling is an indication that there is something very fucking wrong with the internal structure of the building.
Why not start the clock when the first piece of debris hit the building?  That's when something very fucking wrong with the internal structure of the building all started, right?  Or why not start the clock when flames started shooting out of the windows, isn't that an indication that something very fucking wrong is going on inside?

We are talking about the roof of the building coming down at free fall.  Obviously, any normal person would start the clock when the roof begins to move downward.  Not when internal damage begins, otherwise you would have to start the clock when the first debris hit the building.  Or at least when flames came shooting out the windows.

You do not start the clock on an Olypic swimmer when s/he takes his/her position on the starting line, you start the clock when "go" cue is sounded and the swimmer begins to move.  Common sense.


            [center:2lk62amr]= = = = =[/center:2lk62amr]

@Hakurei Reimu
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"He can't face the fact that what hit the pentagon was a 747, given the fact that they found the parts of that exact plane that was missing at the crash site. No, no! [-X It had to be a cruise missile.
Show me where I said anything about a cruise missile.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"He can't face the fact that we have become a nation of craven cowards who responded to the terrorism of 9/11 by curtailing our own liberties. After all, if we are so hot on personal freedom, how come we didn't pack the streets of Washington DC with calls to never pass the PATRIOT act? Or to repeal it? No, no! [-X It had to be a despicable government-sponsored conspiracy formulated by some bad people to sap our liberties — people that the US electorate elected to office.
Show me where I said it was a government-sponsored conspiracy.  If you had read anything I wrote you would know that I have said many times I do not believe there was a government conspiracy.  And tell me why you are so proud of being a craven coward?  Are you suggesting a change to the lyrics from "land of the free and home of the brave" to something more like "land of the enslaved and home of the cowards"?  You can propose it, and we shall see how many followers you have.


Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"He can't face the fact that he is completely unable to articulate how free fall times are indicative of controlled demolition...
Because for a building to free fall straight down as 7 WTC is seen to have done, the only known way for that to happen would be for ALL 83 of the columns to fail at exactly the same moment in time.  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why are you so afraid of considering the possibility that maybe IT IS A FUCKING DUCK!  And the only known way for 83 columns to fail simultaneously is controlled demolition.  The NIST model shows a sequential collapse.  The NIST lead investigator states in no uncertain terms that it WAS a sequential collapse.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"...and cannot explain how the NIST and others, using only Newtonian mechanics, were able to simulate the collapse of WTC 7 as an uncontrolled collapse and matched all the observed data. No, no! [-X ONLY a controlled collapse can fall in free fall time because.... FIZZIKS! IT'S TRUE 'CUZ I SAY SO!
The NIST model stops at the point where the collapse begins.  It never gets to the freefall part.  Not to mention, the computer generated animation looks nothing at all like the observed collapse.  Furthermore, NIST has never released the data they used to create the model so it can not be verified.

The excuse is that if terrorists got hold of their data, they (terrorists) would be able to use it to bring down more buildings.  Obviously, if architects had access to the data they would be able to close the security hole and design safer buildings, but that's beside the point.  You can believe NIST if you want to, but it reeks of bullshit in my opinion.

It seems you are trying to transpose all of your own beliefs and hangups onto me.  Speak for your fucking self.


            [center:2lk62amr]= = = = =[/center:2lk62amr]

@josephpalazzo
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The dude in question has a hard time to deal with a body falling under gravity will pick up kinetic energy and can really break stuff along the way. Even a 5 year old can understand that. Worse, according to that dude, I've just invented a new theory. Go figure.
No, no, no.  "The dude" does believe a body falling under gravity can pick up kinetic energy as it falls and really break stuff along the way, that is true.  But a body can not pick up kinetic energy falling at the rate of gravity and still be able to really break stuff along the way.  It can not do both.  You can not have your cake and eat it too.  You can either accelerate at the rate of gravity OR you can break stuff along the way, not both.  I'm surprised you have difficulty comprehending this simple concept, especially considering your educational background.  Easy to see how this concept may be too difficult for some of these other clowns, but you ought to know better.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on February 22, 2014, 10:41:26 PM
QuoteIMPOSSIBURU


 :rollin:

okay okay I'm a racist but goddamn I laughed...
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 22, 2014, 11:08:43 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And the thing that you seem to overlook is I WAS AN EOD THERE FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT DAY AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL ASSHAT ... It was our job to locate explosives, we were trained to detect explosives, we had the latest and greatest of explosive detecting devices, we were there 24/7
Cool.  That explains your motive for promoting the OCT.





Quote from: "Moralnihilist"there is no way in fucking hell that someone rigged a building to collapse without one of us noticing. YOUR "THEORY" FAILS RIGHT THERE MORON. Get over it you are wrong because the facts say you are fucking wrong.
Great!  Another new theory.  I love new theories!  Tell us, in YOUR theory, how did 83 columns fail simultaneously across 8 stories?  I've offered my theory, now let's hear yours.





Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?
Did I just hear you say MoFo is wrong because the facts say I am wrong?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are full of shit.  TWO planes hit TWO buildings in Manhattan.  There was no third plane hitting ANY building ANYWHERE in New York.  Furthermore, the upper third of the building did NOT collapse onto the rest of the building.  All you have to do is watch the fucking video I linked to in my OP and you will see it coming straight down as though a giant sinkhole opened beneath it.

If you can't even get your fucking facts straight, why should anyone believe you would have noticed terrorists planting explosives?  Sorry dude.  Your theory is as full of shit as the Godzilla theory.  Now get your facts straight, or kindly fuck off.  Thank you in advance for fucking off.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 22, 2014, 11:12:50 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"@The Skeletal Atheist
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Once again the reason the clock started when the penthouse began to fall is that the penthouse falling is an indication that there is something very fucking wrong with the internal structure of the building.
Why not start the clock when the first piece of debris hit the building?  That's when something very fucking wrong with the internal structure of the building all started, right?  Or why not start the clock when flames started shooting out of the windows, isn't that an indication that something very fucking wrong is going on inside?

We are talking about the roof of the building coming down at free fall.  Obviously, any normal person would start the clock when the roof begins to move downward.  Not when internal damage begins, otherwise you would have to start the clock when the first debris hit the building.  Or at least when flames came shooting out the windows.


You do not start the clock on an Olypic swimmer when s/he takes his/her position on the starting line, you start the clock when "go" cue is sounded and the swimmer begins to move. Common sense.
You're a fucking retard.

Is it really that difficult for you to understand that the penthouse falling is a sign that the internal structure of the building is essentially gone? You know, the same internal structure that was holding the penthouse up? That went, then the exterior facade went, but that's apparently too goddamn hard for you to understand.

Get back to fingerpainting you fucking tard. Or better yet, follow these instructions:

(//http://howtotiestuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/tie-noose.jpg)

And fill in the blanks.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on February 22, 2014, 11:33:16 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You're a fucking retard.

bad date?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 22, 2014, 11:40:03 PM
All of your theories provide no evidence. All of them are not anything more than conspiracy opinions, and science, people experienced in building destruction and combustion, and a fucking highly qualified eyewitness do not make a difference?

Like I said in my very first post, look at videos of how buildings are brought down. They require major preparation. A huge amount of deconstructing, cutting into pillars, stringing literal miles of control wires, connectors, primacord and everything else. It would require TRUCKLOADS OF EQUIPMENT AND DOZENS OF MEN. You would have to remove a huge amount of fascia and outer construction to even reach the support pillars and it would require a very specific knowledge of the building and of demolition to achieve what you claim. This would have taken months and it would have required LITERAL TRUCKLOADS OF EQUIPMENT AND CREWS OF MEN TO ACCOMPLISH. AND NOBODY NOTICED?  

You are officially a fucking idiot.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 22, 2014, 11:42:20 PM
Quote from: "aitm"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You're a fucking retard.

bad date?
Haha, nah. Popping in from time to time to check on the general insanity here.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 22, 2014, 11:44:42 PM
QuoteHaha, nah. Popping in from time to time to check on the general insanity here.

Yeah, we are on a roll with this one.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 23, 2014, 12:37:32 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And the thing that you seem to overlook is I WAS AN EOD THERE FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT DAY AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL ASSHAT ... It was our job to locate explosives, we were trained to detect explosives, we had the latest and greatest of explosive detecting devices, we were there 24/7
Cool.  That explains your motive for promoting the OCT.

Really... You want to go there? To this I simply say go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.





Quote from: "moronicconspiracyretard"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"there is no way in fucking hell that someone rigged a building to collapse without one of us noticing. YOUR "THEORY" FAILS RIGHT THERE MORON. Get over it you are wrong because the facts say you are fucking wrong.
Great!  Another new theory.  I love new theories!  Tell us, in YOUR theory, how did 83 columns fail simultaneously across 8 stories?  I've offered my theory, now let's hear yours.

I have several times asshat learn to fucking read dipshit.



Quote from: "retardwhostilveswithhismommy"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?
Did I just hear you say MoFo is wrong because the facts say I am wrong?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are full of shit.  TWO planes hit TWO buildings in Manhattan.  There was no third plane hitting ANY building ANYWHERE in New York.  Furthermore, the upper third of the building did NOT collapse onto the rest of the building.  All you have to do is watch the fucking video I linked to in my OP and you will see it coming straight down as though a giant sinkhole opened beneath it.

If you can't even get your fucking facts straight, why should anyone believe you would have noticed terrorists planting explosives?  Sorry dude.  Your theory is as full of shit as the Godzilla theory.  Now get your facts straight, or kindly fuck off.  Thank you in advance for fucking off.

Ive watched every fucking video, I WAS THERE FOR FUCK SAKES! And when you learn to read maybe you could fucking tell me where I said that there were 3 fucking planes? And in terms to getting my facts straight, listen here junior I KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY I WAS FUCKING THERE!!! You weren't you were sitting off somewhere else scratching your ass. I lost plenty of friends and fucking family that day and for a shithead like you to blatantly accuse me of being in cahoots with your bullshit "theory", be glad I don't know where you live or believe me I would beat the stupid out of you fuckstain. Now then why don't you join your mother and take a long fuck off the end of my dick.


PS:
GO FUCK YOURSELF


Oh and by the way since your whole "theory" relies on there being a controlled demolition of the building, then ANSWER MY FUCKING QUESTION.
Quote from: "me"How does one rig up a building for a controlled demolition without 27 fully trained and highly qualified demolitions experts in the same building noticing ANYTHING?

Until you can answer this one simple question your "theory" falls flat on its fucking face. That is a fact that destroys your "theory". Until you can deal with the FACT that that building was full 24/7 with some of the best EOD's and all the latest and greatest explosive detecting equipment in the world you have no leg to stand on. No physicist, no architect, no amount of mental masturbation can overcome the simple fact that to rig a building for demolition undetected while said building is full of EOD's and their equipment is fucking impossible. There is the fact that lays your bullshit "theory" to rest.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 23, 2014, 01:14:06 AM
I'm pretty sure we've passed the Old Seer threshold now. If we can keep this going for another week, AMF is going to surpass Eve in the troll department.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 23, 2014, 09:35:28 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"But a body can not pick up kinetic energy falling at the rate of gravity and still be able to really break stuff along the way.  It can not do both.  You can not have your cake and eat it too.  You can either accelerate at the rate of gravity OR you can break stuff along the way, not both.

Just imagine you walking on a fragile pane of glass. A rock is thrown, and the glass breaks - you, the rock and all the pieces of glass will now fall freely under gravity.


Once the floor brook up at the WTC, all the pieces that once made up the wall, the floor, the furniture, and every knick knacks that were present on that floor fell under free fall. All of those thousands of loose pieces are coming down, picking up kinetic energy (KE = 1/2mv[sup:245urd3q]2[/sup:245urd3q]) as the velocity v is increasing every nanoseconds. Notice it's velocity squared, that means as  the velocity doubles, the KE quadruples.  Also, the KE is proportional to the mass m. All of that concrete weighed thousands of tons. So do the calculation. Once that hits the ground, it has so much energy, it can pulverize just about anything. So how did that come about? Once the steel beams were melt by the high temperature, then the floor had to collapse, and what you get is everything is under free fall.

That they were explosives placed prior to the attack is just bogus, as that kind of action would require extensive planning, involving hundreds of people who, for the rest of their entire lives, would have to keep quiet about it, never revealing anything to their loved ones, spouses, family, friends. Just think about it, your wild theory is just not believable.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 23, 2014, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"@Hakurei Reimu
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"He can't face the fact that what hit the pentagon was a 747, given the fact that they found the parts of that exact plane that was missing at the crash site. No, no! [-X It had to be a cruise missile.
Show me where I said anything about a cruise missile.
You insinuated it with your rhetoric that only about five frames of the 747 hitting the Pentagon, implying that they had been doctored with. They're security tapes, not TV broadcast quality production tapes.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"He can't face the fact that we have become a nation of craven cowards who responded to the terrorism of 9/11 by curtailing our own liberties. After all, if we are so hot on personal freedom, how come we didn't pack the streets of Washington DC with calls to never pass the PATRIOT act? Or to repeal it? No, no! [-X It had to be a despicable government-sponsored conspiracy formulated by some bad people to sap our liberties — people that the US electorate elected to office.
Show me where I said it was a government-sponsored conspiracy.
You insinuated it. Who else could have rigged WTC 7 with explosives and not raise any official alarms but the US government? Who else could have delayed the official identification of the attackers until 48 hours after the fact but the US government? Who else could have held back NORAD from shooting down the planes but the US government?

You've raised all of these points before, you lying fuck, and while you never mentioned the government in all of that, the subtext was as clear as if you written it out explicitly. Don't you dare start backpedaling now.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"He can't face the fact that he is completely unable to articulate how free fall times are indicative of controlled demolition...
Because for a building to free fall straight down as 7 WTC is seen to have done, the only known way for that to happen would be for ALL 83 of the columns to fail at exactly the same moment in time.
Which isn't what happened. The penthouse fell a good seven seconds before the north face was seen to fall. The building collapsed from the core out.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, why are you so afraid of considering the possibility that maybe IT IS A FUCKING DUCK!  And the only known way for 83 columns to fail simultaneously is controlled demolition.
Which it didn't do. Calling a dog a duck does not make it a duck, no matter how feverently you insist that it is.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"The NIST model shows a sequential collapse.  The NIST lead investigator states in no uncertain terms that it WAS a sequential collapse.
Which doesn't imply that it was a controlled collapse, you dumb fuck. Nothing about the term "sequential collapse" implies that the collapse was controlled in any way, and also if all 83 columns were taken out at "exactly the same moment in time" as you claim, it wouldn't be called a "sequential collapse," but rather a "simultaneous collapse." You keep trying to make the connection, but it simply isn't happening.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"...and cannot explain how the NIST and others, using only Newtonian mechanics, were able to simulate the collapse of WTC 7 as an uncontrolled collapse and matched all the observed data. No, no! [-X ONLY a controlled collapse can fall in free fall time because.... FIZZIKS! IT'S TRUE 'CUZ I SAY SO!
The NIST model stops at the point where the collapse begins.  It never gets to the freefall part.
Once the bottom buckled, clearly visible in the simulation, all significant support from the bottom was lost, explaining neatly why there was any period of freefall.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Not to mention, the computer generated animation looks nothing at all like the observed collapse.
It replicates the major features of collapse initiation, like the fact that the penthouse collapsed well before the rest of the outside. It's also sequential collapse, where the region of collapse rips through the building core in a progressive wave before the facade collapses, just as the NIST claimed. This is pretty much as close as you'll ever get in an sort of disaster simulation given the fact that it was put together after the fact as any other accident. Were it not for the fact that it was connected to 9/11, those discrepancies would not have even raised a comment.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Furthermore, NIST has never released the data they used to create the model so it can not be verified.

The excuse is that if terrorists got hold of their data, they (terrorists) would be able to use it to bring down more buildings.
Wow. The NIST keeps secrets for the most bullshit reasons? Horrors.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Obviously, if architects had access to the data they would be able to close the security hole and design safer buildings, but that's beside the point.
What "security hole"? That an even taller building fell on top of it, which broke the water mains and set it on fire that couldn't be controlled for several hours because of said lack of water? I would think that ANY civilian building would be fucked in that situation. The fact that it held up for hours instead of collapsing within minutes speaks to how good WTC 7's structure was. It stayed up for long enough for almost everyone to make it out.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"You can believe NIST if you want to, but it reeks of bullshit in my opinion.
I don't think that bullshit smell is coming from the place you think it's coming from, boyo.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"It seems you are trying to transpose all of your own beliefs and hangups onto me.  Speak for your fucking self.
Go back under your bed to cry some more.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 23, 2014, 04:39:31 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?
Did I just hear you say MoFo is wrong because the facts say I am wrong?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are full of shit.  TWO planes hit TWO buildings in Manhattan.  There was no third plane hitting ANY building ANYWHERE in New York.  Furthermore, the upper third of the building did NOT collapse onto the rest of the building.  All you have to do is watch the fucking video I linked to in my OP and you will see it coming straight down as though a giant sinkhole opened beneath it.
Want some more straw for your strawman, Farmer AMF? No one here has ever claimed that a plane hit WTC 7. The falling debris from WTC 1 & 2 are what knocked out WTC 7.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 23, 2014, 04:46:50 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?
Did I just hear you say MoFo is wrong because the facts say I am wrong?  Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are full of shit.  TWO planes hit TWO buildings in Manhattan.  There was no third plane hitting ANY building ANYWHERE in New York.  Furthermore, the upper third of the building did NOT collapse onto the rest of the building.  All you have to do is watch the fucking video I linked to in my OP and you will see it coming straight down as though a giant sinkhole opened beneath it.
Want some more straw for your strawman, Farmer AMF? No one here has ever claimed that a plane hit WTC 7. The falling debris from WTC 1 & 2 are what knocked out WTC 7.
It's no use, Reimu, I covered this all the way back on page 2, and he took it to mean I believed Godzilla was responsible for the attack.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: the_antithesis on February 23, 2014, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"All it really does is obscure the central issue.

And the central issue is that you're a twat.

Piss off, chubby.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 23, 2014, 07:54:33 PM
@The Skeletal Atheist
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"You're a fucking retard.

Is it really that difficult for you to understand that the penthouse falling is a sign that the internal structure of the building is essentially gone? You know, the same internal structure that was holding the penthouse up? That went, then the exterior facade went, but that's apparently too goddamn hard for you to understand.

Calling someone a retard does not make that person's theory wrong and your own theory right, but if you think it helps your case, go right ahead.

Fact 1: flames coming out of windows is a sign of something really really wrong going on inside.  So if we are measuring the time from when signs appear that serious shit started happening inside the building, we must start the clock when we see the first flames and smoke.  But the building is not falling yet, only manifesting signs that something fucked up is happening.

Fact 2: from the start of the penthouse falling until it goes out of sight, 5.4 seconds, or 40% slower than free fall.  I have never argued to the contrary.  Why can't you understand I agree on that point.  But the penthouse is not the main structure of the building itself.

Fact 3: the roof itself and all visible external structure other than the penthouse disappears in 3.9 seconds -- id est, FREE-FUCKING-FALL.

So if you are measuring the time from when signs of damage appear until the building goes out of sight, you have to start the clock several hours earlier.

If you start the clock when the penthouse collapses until it goes out of sight, it is 5.4 seconds, which is slower than freefall.

If you start the clock when the roof and main structure of the building begins to fall, it disappears in 3.9 seconds.  Freefall.  That is the only claim I have ever made.  I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that.



            [center:jsmxtdmk]= = = = =[/center:jsmxtdmk]

@Moralnihilist
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quotehow did 83 columns fail simultaneously across 8 stories? I've offered my theory, now let's hear yours.
I have several times asshat learn to fucking read dipshit.
Must have missed that post due to all the background noise.  What page is it on?  I don't remember you posting anything about how the columns failed simultaneously.


Quote from: "Moralnihilist"I lost plenty of friends and fucking family that day
In which case there is every reason for wanting to know who ALL of the criminals are, not just the dead ones.  Why don't you care?



Quote from: "Moralnihilist"How does one rig up a building for a controlled demolition without 27 fully trained and highly qualified demolitions experts in the same building noticing ANYTHING?
Pretty much the same way Arab passengers board four airplanes with boxcutters in their possession without highly qualified security experts noticing anything, but on a larger scale.



Quote from: "Moralnihilist"to rig a building for demolition undetected while said building is full of EOD's and their equipment is fucking impossible
And if you ask airport security officers, they will tell you it impossible to board a plane carrying weapons.  Do you believe them?


            [center:jsmxtdmk]= = = = =[/center:jsmxtdmk]

@josephpalazzo
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Just imagine you walking on a fragile pane of glass. A rock is thrown, and the glass breaks - you, the rock and all the pieces of glass will now fall freely under gravity.
Poor analogy.  Structural steel and concrete are somewhat more robust than a fragile pane of glass.

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"All of that concrete weighed thousands of tons. So do the calculation. Once that hits the ground, it has so much energy, it can pulverize just about anything. So how did that come about? Once the steel beams were melt by the high temperature, then the floor had to collapse, and what you get is everything is under free fall.
But how does all the debris get to the gound where it can pulverize just about anything without destroying all the underlying support beams and concrete in the process?  And how did the steel beams melt?  Especially, as the fires were mainly on the east side of the building, how did the steel beams on the west side melt simultaneously?  How did the fires get so hot as to melt steel in the first place?  Other anti-truthers taking part in this thread have insisted there was no molten steel.  Care to take it up with them?

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"That they were explosives placed prior to the attack is just bogus, as that kind of action would require extensive planning, involving hundreds of people who, for the rest of their entire lives, would have to keep quiet about it, never revealing anything to their loved ones, spouses, family, friends. Just think about it, your wild theory is just not believable.
Bogus because you don't want to believe it?  Or bogus because it is beyond the capabilities of Saudi Arabian jihadists?

The stealth fighter was flying for at least 20 years before its existence became known to the public.  And even then, it only became known because the military decided it was time to show off to the public.  Manhattan Project was carried out in complete secrecy and only became known after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The attack on the USS Liberty by the israeli military was kept under wraps for 30 years.  Why is it not believable that secrets could be kept in this case?  Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people.  I have no idea how many people were involved in the stealth fighter project, nor do I know how many sailors were aboard the Liberty when it was attacked, but the WTC 7 demolition team would come nowhere near employing the number of people in any of those.  What makes it so unbelievable?


            [center:jsmxtdmk]= = = = =[/center:jsmxtdmk]

@Hakurei Reimu
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
QuoteShow me where I said anything about a cruise missile.
You insinuated it with your rhetoric that only about five frames of the 747 hitting the Pentagon, implying that they had been doctored with. They're security tapes, not TV broadcast quality production tapes.
Pointing out that there was collusion to hide evidence is hardly insinuating anything about a cruise missile nor is it an accusation of anyone tampering with evidence.  You've been watching too many cartoons.



Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You insinuated it. Who else could have rigged WTC 7 with explosives and not raise any official alarms but the US government?
Wow.  You've really got to take a vacation from your cartoon world.  As for your "Who else?" question, that is exactly what we (truthers) want to know.  What surprises us is that there are so many people who would rather not know.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Who else could have delayed the official identification of the attackers until 48 hours after the fact but the US government? Who else could have held back NORAD from shooting down the planes but the US government?
Who else?  Who else?  Tell you what.  How about we call for an INVESTIGATION and find out who else.


Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You've raised all of these points before, you lying fuck, and while you never mentioned the government in all of that, the subtext was as clear as if you written it out explicitly. Don't you dare start backpedaling now.
Who is backpedaling?  I have consistently said that a number of people holding high positions in finance/industry, government, and military must have been a part of the conspiracy.  How the fuck do you construe that as the same thing as government-sponsored conspiracy any more than one two Olympic athletes taking steroids is an Olympic drug cartel conspiracy.  If you can't understand that, you'd better go back to watching cartoons and leave all the serious talk to the adults.

Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
On second thought, don't bother trying to understand.  Just go back to your cartoons.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 23, 2014, 09:27:03 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Im a drooling retard who lacks the ability to think clearly. Also I enjoy jerking off in my mothers panties. Quite often while she watches and tells me what a good boy I am. Even though my entire bullshit story has been disproven with one simple question, I'll just go ahead and compare an overrated rent-a-cop to highly trained, combat tested, military grade explosive experts. When it comes to the level of ease it would be to sneak over 900lbs of high grade explosive, several miles of primer cord, hundreds of explosive links into a building where those badasses work, it surely must be the same level of difficulty(according to my small brain, which resides in my astonishingly small penis) as sneaking a box cutter onto a plane. But seeing as how nobody believes that only I and several other looser retards believe this bullshit I will just go ahead and take the christard approach and just repeat my bullshit over and over again until I eventually get my ass banned for being to stupid to live, maybe then my mommy will finally let me actually get what is in her panties.

FIFY

jerkoff
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 23, 2014, 10:47:03 PM
@Hakurei Reimu
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Want some more straw for your strawman, Farmer AMF? No one here has ever claimed that a plane hit WTC 7. The falling debris from WTC 1 & 2 are what knocked out WTC 7.
Check out page 36:
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Or did 19 asshats fly a fucking plane into the building and did the resulting fire cause the upper third of the building to collapse onto the rest of the building thereby causing the rest of the structural supports of the building to fall?
So no one here has ever claimed that a third plane hit WTC 7?  I will let you and Moralnihilist sort this out between yourselves, with or without gloves.  Not only does he claim a plane hit 7 WTC, he also claims the upper third of the building fell onto the rest of the building.

PS: Moralnihilist was there on that day, and is one very angry dude.  So watch your ass.  You have been warned.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 23, 2014, 10:56:51 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"I am one very fucking clever forger.  I forged MoFo's signature on a post saying
Quote from: "Mofo"Im a drooling retard who lacks the ability to think clearly. Also I enjoy jerking off in my mothers panties. Quite often while she watches and tells me what a good boy I am. Even though my entire bullshit story has been disproven with one simple question, I'll just go ahead and compare an overrated rent-a-cop to highly trained, combat tested, military grade explosive experts. When it comes to the level of ease it would be to sneak over 900lbs of high grade explosive, several miles of primer cord, hundreds of explosive links into a building where those badasses work, it surely must be the same level of difficulty(according to my small brain, which resides in my astonishingly small penis) as sneaking a box cutter onto a plane. But seeing as how nobody believes that only I and several other looser retards believe this bullshit I will just go ahead and take the christard approach and just repeat my bullshit over and over again until I eventually get my ass banned for being to stupid to live, maybe then my mommy will finally let me actually get what is in her panties.
but all along it was ME, Moralnihilist, who wrote that crap in MoFo's name.  Heh, heh, heh.  How fucking clever am I!  Heh, heh, heh.  And by now, everyone believes MoFo wrote that bullshit.  Heh, heh, heh.

How fucking old are you, Moralnihilist?  I don't mean your chronological age, but your intellectual age.



                     8-[
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 23, 2014, 11:06:54 PM
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"All it really does is obscure the central issue.

And the central issue is that you're a twat.

Piss off, chubby.
Actually, I read the forum rules before I signed up.  I did not see any rule about chubby twats being ineligible to join.  And if you have a problem with chubby twats, that is your personal problem.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the controlled demolition of 7 WTC on September 11, 2001.  

Fucking grow up.  Debate the issue.  Prove me wrong if you can.  So far, many have CLAIMED to prove me wrong with a lot of childish rhetoric.  But in the end, it is only childish rhetoric.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 23, 2014, 11:31:16 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"All it really does is obscure the central issue.

And the central issue is that you're a twat.

Piss off, chubby.
Actually, I read the forum rules before I signed up.  I did not see any rule about chubby twats being ineligible to join.  And if you have a problem with chubby twats, that is your personal problem.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the controlled demolition of 7 WTC on September 11, 2001.  

Fucking grow up.  Debate the issue.  Prove me wrong if you can.  So far, many have CLAIMED to prove me wrong with a lot of childish rhetoric.  But in the end, it is only childish rhetoric.
:rollin: So you admit you're a chubby twat.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Icarus on February 23, 2014, 11:32:55 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"All it really does is obscure the central issue.

And the central issue is that you're a twat.

Piss off, chubby.
Actually, I read the forum rules before I signed up.  I did not see any rule about chubby twats being ineligible to join.  And if you have a problem with chubby twats, that is your personal problem.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the controlled demolition of 7 WTC on September 11, 2001.  

Fucking grow up.  Debate the issue.  Prove me wrong if you can.  So far, many have CLAIMED to prove me wrong with a lot of childish rhetoric.  But in the end, it is only childish rhetoric.

You can respond to this if you want, posted it a while back. Lies and deception don't make you right  :wink:

"I took a look at the scientists for 911 truth, just to check out which scientists they were quoting. Looking through some of the people they quoted and looking them up I noticed a trend. The trend was that none of them were scientists. I have discovered another conspiracy: Why would people set up a website called "Scientists for 9/11 Truth" and quote only non-scientists? Clearly someone very high up wants us to believe that the 9/11 conspiracy is true.  :wink:"
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 24, 2014, 12:57:12 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"I am one very badass dude with a HUGE penis
Quote from: "Mofo"Im a drooling retard who lacks the ability to think clearly. Also I enjoy jerking off in my mothers panties. Quite often while she watches and tells me what a good boy I am. Even though my entire bullshit story has been disproven with one simple question, I'll just go ahead and compare an overrated rent-a-cop to highly trained, combat tested, military grade explosive experts. When it comes to the level of ease it would be to sneak over 900lbs of high grade explosive, several miles of primer cord, hundreds of explosive links into a building where those badasses work, it surely must be the same level of difficulty(according to my small brain, which resides in my astonishingly small penis) as sneaking a box cutter onto a plane. But seeing as how nobody believes that only I and several other looser retards believe this bullshit I will just go ahead and take the christard approach and just repeat my bullshit over and over again until I eventually get my ass banned for being to stupid to live, maybe then my mommy will finally let me actually get what is in her panties.
but all along it was ME, Moralnihilist, who was getting in this whiny little bitches mothers ass. Thats right I fucked this dudes mom right in her ass.

Moralnihilist, why can't my penis be big like yours?  I didn't mean to look whilst you were pounding my mom in her ass that I so wish I could get in, but she keeps telling me that my dick is so abysmally small that it won't reach past her butt cheeks.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 24, 2014, 01:18:33 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"PS: Moralnihilist was there on that day, and is one very angry dude.  So watch your ass.  You have been warned.
Yeah, he saw Godzilla and the Death Star tag-teaming the place. I have pictures to prove it. :)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 24, 2014, 09:12:51 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"@josephpalazzo
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Just imagine you walking on a fragile pane of glass. A rock is thrown, and the glass breaks - you, the rock and all the pieces of glass will now fall freely under gravity.
Poor analogy.  Structural steel and concrete are somewhat more robust than a fragile pane of glass.

If the support beams had not been damaged, you would be right, but they were. Considering that the firefighters couldn't get there ( plane hit around the 70's floors, and elevators were shut down), the fire which burnt nearly an hour did enough damage to the support beams. Once those are comprised, you get the floors collapsing and free fall would follow.

Quote
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"All of that concrete weighed thousands of tons. So do the calculation. Once that hits the ground, it has so much energy, it can pulverize just about anything. So how did that come about? Once the steel beams were melt by the high temperature, then the floor had to collapse, and what you get is everything is under free fall.
But how does all the debris get to the gound where it can pulverize just about anything without destroying all the underlying support beams and concrete in the process?  And how did the steel beams melt?  Especially, as the fires were mainly on the east side of the building, how did the steel beams on the west side melt simultaneously?

It didn't happen simultaneously. The floors on the east side that had been directly hit by the plane collapsed at 9:37 am, while the total collapse of the WTC occurred at 9:59 am. Check your facts. Between those two critical times, the fire was spreading out, and so it was more like a dominoe effect, until the total collapse occurred.

QuoteHow did the fires get so hot as to melt steel in the first place?  Other anti-truthers taking part in this thread have insisted there was no molten steel.

The beams were 60 ft long, the reason being they wanted each floor to be as much as possible free of columns. The only internal support beams were in the center of the floor where the elevators were. Think, 60 ft is very, very long, and once a beam is compromised, it can snap like a toothpick.  

Quote
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"That they were explosives placed prior to the attack is just bogus, as that kind of action would require extensive planning, involving hundreds of people who, for the rest of their entire lives, would have to keep quiet about it, never revealing anything to their loved ones, spouses, family, friends. Just think about it, your wild theory is just not believable.
Bogus because you don't want to believe it?  Or bogus because it is beyond the capabilities of Saudi Arabian jihadists?

The stealth fighter was flying for at least 20 years before its existence became known to the public.  And even then, it only became known because the military decided it was time to show off to the public.  Manhattan Project was carried out in complete secrecy and only became known after the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The attack on the USS Liberty by the israeli military was kept under wraps for 30 years.  Why is it not believable that secrets could be kept in this case?  Manhattan Project employed over 130,000 people.  I have no idea how many people were involved in the stealth fighter project, nor do I know how many sailors were aboard the Liberty when it was attacked, but the WTC 7 demolition team would come nowhere near employing the number of people in any of those.  What makes it so unbelievable?

The USS Liberty incident was known from way back, but little media attention was given. The Manhattan project was heavily secured while it was taking place for obvious reasons, but people in high places knew about it. Besides there were British and Canadians working there. And none of these incidents have anything to do with a conspiracy and have no bearing on 9/11. Stick to the subject.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on February 24, 2014, 12:51:29 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"And none of these incidents have anything to do with a conspiracy and have no bearing on 9/11. Stick to the subject.


They do if one wants to convince themselves that a tyrannical government creates coverups rather than national security. Haha.

You know because during WWII the government was suppose to tell the world they were developing a nuclear weapon. That would have had no effect whatsoever. Right.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 24, 2014, 01:20:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"My contention is that any falling object will fall more slowly than the rate of gravity when there is structural material offering resistance.  

What seems to be giving you headaches is the inability to see that the building is falling precisely because the structural members supporting it have failed -- i.e., they are not resisting gravity.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 24, 2014, 01:26:57 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And the thing that you seem to overlook is I WAS AN EOD THERE FOR 3 MONTHS PRIOR TO THAT DAY AND I WAS THERE THAT DAY AS WELL ASSHAT ... It was our job to locate explosives, we were trained to detect explosives, we had the latest and greatest of explosive detecting devices, we were there 24/7
Cool.  That explains your motive for promoting the OCT.

A theory or hypothesis that is non-falsifiable is useless.

There's a dragon in my garage.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 24, 2014, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"@Hakurei Reimu
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
QuoteShow me where I said anything about a cruise missile.
You insinuated it with your rhetoric that only about five frames of the 747 hitting the Pentagon, implying that they had been doctored with. They're security tapes, not TV broadcast quality production tapes.
Pointing out that there was collusion to hide evidence is hardly insinuating anything about a cruise missile nor is it an accusation of anyone tampering with evidence.  You've been watching too many cartoons.
You have no proof for this "collusion to hide evidence" in this case. What we see is probably all that is available.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You insinuated it. Who else could have rigged WTC 7 with explosives and not raise any official alarms but the US government?
Wow.  You've really got to take a vacation from your cartoon world.  As for your "Who else?" question, that is exactly what we (truthers) want to know.  What surprises us is that there are so many people who would rather not know.
Your JAQing off is not impressive. The questions the "truthers" (and you) ask are loaded to the core. It is evident, on mere casual examination, that there is no way that a controlled demolition of WTC 7 could have occured. At all. The reason why no one can come up with any convincing evidence for the rigging of WTC 7 is because it didn't happen, not because there's been any conspiracy to cover it up. Because if it were rigged that way, it would have turned WTC 7 into a construction site, because that's what a rigging for a controlled demolition does to a building.

One of the things cartoons taught me is that construction sites are dangerous and you should stay out of them. If such a thing happened to building 7, then a lot of the workers who watched cartoons would know this too, and start asking questions why their place of work had become a construction site. Since you never watched cartoons, I suppose you don't know that so your disbelief makes a lot of sense now.  :roll:

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Who else could have delayed the official identification of the attackers until 48 hours after the fact but the US government? Who else could have held back NORAD from shooting down the planes but the US government?
Who else?  Who else?  Tell you what.  How about we call for an INVESTIGATION and find out who else.
Do you really believe that a foreign power can tell NORAD and the USAF what to do?

As to why the USAF held back, as I understand it, no one had successfully used a commercial airliner as a missile as happened on 9/11. In the entire history of airline hijackings, I count only two attempts prior to 9/11, neither of which resulting in any casualties at all. As such, the usual policy was negotiations with the hijackers. And if a simulation involving commercial airliners being used as missiles was taking place at the time as you claim, that would only complicate matters, for three reasons:


There's also the fact that, even if the USAF had planes in the air with the hijacked planes in their sights, they would still be reluctant to fire were there any chance the civilians could be rescued. The first indication that there would be no survivors was when the north tower was hit, and by then it was too late to do anything about it.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"You've raised all of these points before, you lying fuck, and while you never mentioned the government in all of that, the subtext was as clear as if you written it out explicitly. Don't you dare start backpedaling now.
Who is backpedaling?  I have consistently said that a number of people holding high positions in finance/industry, government, and military must have been a part of the conspiracy.
No, that's what YOU must assume to make your insinuations make any sense, and as such, make your questions worthy of any answer at all.

There is a difference between the well-defined conspiracy that we think actually took place (that is, 19 religiously indoctrinated terrorists hijacking 4 commercial planes and flying them into buildings, plus the collateral damage thereof), and the burgeoning grand conspiracy that you insinuate must have happened. This grand conspiracy you're hinting at involves so many people —not only in the upper eschelons of government but right down to grunts and civilians— that it is completely incredible that they all kept silent not only in the run-up, but also after the fact, with all of those weeping family members plastered over the news, the home movies of the collapsing towers, the deaths of our soldiers overseas, and the bankrupting of our government... and no one had a crisis of conscience and admits their part of the conspiracy, blowing the whole thing wide open. You'll notice that not one "truther" admits to be part of the conspiracy they rant about.

It sounds exactly like an evil overlord commanding his cadre of faceless, will-less minions across the land, spreading death and destruction for teh evuls. And that does come straight out of the cartoons.  8-)

Addendum:

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"So no one here has ever claimed that a third plane hit WTC 7?  I will let you and Moralnihilist sort this out between yourselves, with or without gloves.  Not only does he claim a plane hit 7 WTC, he also claims the upper third of the building fell onto the rest of the building.

PS: Moralnihilist was there on that day, and is one very angry dude.  So watch your ass.  You have been warned.
And being such an angry dude, he could easily mistype, couldn't he?

And he didn't yell at me for putting words in his mouth, y'know being so hot to defend himself from defamation and all.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on February 24, 2014, 09:11:28 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qegPkqs6rFw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qegPkqs6rFw)

The last 30 seconds are so key to this thread.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 25, 2014, 03:02:15 AM
*ahem*

"Is freefall proof of controlled demolition?"

No, it is not.

OP is a fag.

When it's time to party we will party hard.

/thread
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on February 25, 2014, 03:11:46 AM
I'm sticking with WTC sat atop the worlds biggest reserve of abiotic oil..still does, but big bad gubnit's cover'n it up.  :-$  :-#  :D/
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 25, 2014, 01:57:27 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The penthouse fell a good seven seconds before the north face was seen to fall. The building collapsed from the core out.
So now you are saying the total collapse time from the fall of the penthouse until 7 WTC disappears below the visible level is 12.4 seconds?  Or 10.9 seconds? Which?  And tell us again why it even matters?  We truthers only assert that the roof of the building, and the visible part of the building itself fell at freefall.  The collapse of the penthouse is not the start of the building itself collapsing.  The penthouse could have fallen a good 30 seconds before the building fell, but that would not prove anything.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 25, 2014, 01:58:06 PM
(WARNING: contains more than 100 words.  Mutant teenage ninja hooligans are hereby excused from reading this post.)

When I started this thread, I was under the mistaken impression that most OCT supporters never took the time to learn the facts.  A great many people in the United States and to some extent in other countries as well don't even know about the destruction of 7 WTC.  All they know is the Twin Towers, because the media has been reinforcing the concept for over 12 years while never mentioning 7 WTC.  And even the OCT supporters who do know of 7 WTC, my assumption was that they must be unaware of the fact that it fell for over two seconds at the rate of gravity.

So by clarifying those two points, my naive belief was that the implications would easily be understood by all but the simplest of lamebrains.  Yet here we are a month later and 37 pages down the road, and still there are many who still support the OCT.  Several of the participants in this thread are in fact simple lamebrains, so there is no hope for them, but others have either a normal IQ or a relatively high IQ.  So, why?

This baffled me, that people of normal and higher intelligence could still support the OCT.  This called for analysis of the problem from a different angle.

What I found is that the human psyche, similar to a network server coming under DDoS attack, can become so overloaded that it just shuts down.  Unlike computers, our brains have a natural defense mechanism to prevent shutting down like a server under DDoS attack.  This response mechanism is called denial.  It does not imply anything negative about the person suffering from denial, it is simply the brain's way of putting one matter aside and simply moving on rather than shutting down.

Unfortunately I have no training in psychology, thus have nothing to offer as a solution.  But I do believe those of you still in denial will eventually have to face up to the causes of your denial to regain a balanced state of mind.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 25, 2014, 02:13:04 PM
(//http://i43.servimg.com/u/f43/17/13/06/17/13257311.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 25, 2014, 02:58:31 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"This baffled me, that people of normal and higher intelligence could still support the OCT.  .

It baffles me that I completely debunked your last post to me, and you completely ignored it. Oh wait, I'm not baffled at all. It's to be expected from someone who invested some much time and energy and can't face the facts.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 25, 2014, 03:02:17 PM
Why haven't the mods banned this troll yet? It's pretty clear at this point that he's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I mean it. On my forums, he'd have been gone at page 5. Maximum. Do your damn jobs.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on February 25, 2014, 03:04:18 PM
Don't worry guys, some unqualified guy I have never met is more qualified to tell me what happened than qualified people I have never met + common sense!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Mister Agenda on February 25, 2014, 03:08:06 PM
Back in 81 I was working at the NSA for a year on Russian Air Defense regarding Afghanistan. Basically I took what Russian radar stations were telling each other about where their planes were and used that to track their aircraft. This was during the Soviet invasion, so it was pretty boring: troop transport flies in through the air corridor, troop transport flies out through the air corridor.

So, compared to that, a Soviet simulation was entertainment. Basically the radar stations start tracking imaginary jets, kind of like Norad tracking Santa Clause. Superficially it looks real. One day, I saw tracking of a jet that was at a very high altitude and going very fast. I assumed they were simulating an SR-71 flyover, because a real Blackbird would fly significantly higher and faster than what the Soviets were reporting, but nothing else I knew of could perform at even that reduced level. There were also a couple of earmarks consistent with it being a simulation. And it WAS a simulation, but of one of their own recon aircraft, I thought a Tsybin R-020, although not only would that have been pretty old, intelligence said that although several had been built in the sixties, they had never actually put one in the air. But the nice thing about simulations is that you don't have to use real planes. So the simulated response fighters were chasing a simulated Tsybin acting like a Blackbird.

Then things got confusing as a second Tsybin showed up. Some of the simulated fighters broke off to chase this one, but it was going nearly Mach 3. Then the first Tsybin starts chasing the second one, but can't close the distance. So I've got dots and lines all over my map and it was about an hour before I was able to piece together what actually happened: A real Blackbird had flown over Afghanistan and the Soviet radar stations thought it was part of the simulation...that is, the stations that picked it up and reported it were assumed by the other stations to be reporting a new twist in the scenario, so they altered their scenario accordingly. The only real plane was the SR-71. Mystery solved!

But, the Army sergeant I reported to could not believe that. He was convinced that the Soviets had put a new Tsybin or similar vehicle into production, and that although the fighters were simulated, the Tsybin was real, and that the SR-71 had been sent to get a look at it. He had the same information I did, and thought I was naive and incurious for not seeing how obvious it was. When we checked on the SR-71, we were told it was a scheduled flyover that didn't find anything unusual. That just made the sergeant more certain that the Soviets had a new plane that could do Mach 2.5 and was maybe capable of delivering a bomb (maybe nuclear) like the old Tsybin RSR that preceeded the R-020. It was his bugaboo for the rest of the time I was there until he was reassigned. Super-fast Russian bombers never materialized. After he left, I saw two more similar simulations, minus the Blackbird.

But that doesn't mean he was wrong. We both had the same evidence and reached different conclusions. I had lots of previous experience with Russians running Air Defense simulations when I was stationed at Misawa NAB, and based my conclusions largely on that. The sergeant had the feeling that there had to be more to it, because it was so unusual, and it was, for Afghanistan, just not for Eastern Russia. Not being able to accept that there isn't more to something is what drives conspiracy theorism.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 25, 2014, 03:08:46 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Why haven't the mods banned this troll yet? It's pretty clear at this point that he's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I mean it. On my forums, he'd have been gone at page 5. Maximum. Do your damn jobs.

I'll gladly ban him once you people stop engaging with him. It gives the idea that you aren't tired of him if you keep up the responses.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 25, 2014, 03:53:32 PM
Quote from: "Plu"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Why haven't the mods banned this troll yet? It's pretty clear at this point that he's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I mean it. On my forums, he'd have been gone at page 5. Maximum. Do your damn jobs.

I'll gladly ban him once you people stop engaging with him. It gives the idea that you aren't tired of him if you keep up the responses.
That didn't seem to bother y'all when Old Seer and Eve got banned. :-|
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on February 25, 2014, 08:44:55 PM
prettty good arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 25, 2014, 10:57:35 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If the support beams had not been damaged, you would be right, but they were. Considering that the firefighters couldn't get there ( plane hit around the 70's floors, and elevators were shut down), the fire which burnt nearly an hour did enough damage to the support beams. Once those are comprised, you get the floors collapsing and free fall would follow.
...
It didn't happen simultaneously. The floors on the east side that had been directly hit by the plane collapsed at 9:37 am, while the total collapse of the WTC occurred at 9:59 am. Check your facts. Between those two critical times, the fire was spreading out, and so it was more like a dominoe effect, until the total collapse occurred.
If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  Two of the four hijacked planes attacked buildings in New York, 1 WTC and 2 WTC.  Another plane attacked the Pentagon.  The fourth crashed (or was shot down) in Pennsylvania.  No plane ever crashed into WTC 7.  In the 12 years and five months since 9/11 the only claims I have ever heard about a plane crashing into 7 WTC are the claims I have heard here in this thread.  Show me a link, any link outside this forum alleging a plane crashed into 7 WTC.

Furthermore, 7 WTC collapsed at 5:20 p.m. not 9:59 a.m.  (Roughly 20 minutes after BBC reported its demise.)  
I have checked the facts.  Now it is your turn.  

WTC 1 collapse: 10:28 a.m.
WTC 2 collapse: 9:59 a.m.
WTC 7 collapse: 5:20 (exact time, 5:20:52 to be precise)

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"The USS Liberty incident was known from way back, but little media attention was given. The Manhattan project was heavily secured while it was taking place for obvious reasons, but people in high places knew about it. Besides there were British and Canadians working there. And none of these incidents have anything to do with a conspiracy and have no bearing on 9/11. Stick to the subject.
Don't your own words "little media attention was given" basically also apply to WTC 7?  It was reported, in fact, the collapse was even reported before it happened.  But like the Liberty, it was briefly mentioned and then buried under so much rubble hardly anyone remembered it.  And don't forget, YOU are the one who made the assertion about people being quiet the rest of their lives, not me.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 26, 2014, 01:49:24 AM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"This baffled me, that people of normal and higher intelligence could still support the OCT. .
It baffles me that I completely debunked your last post to me, and you completely ignored it. Oh wait, I'm not baffled at all. It's to be expected from someone who invested some much time and energy and can't face the facts.
Is it vanity that makes you think I was referring to you, josephpalazzo?  You debunked some claims that have something to do with an airplane crashing into No. 7 WTC.

I have no knowledge of any airplane crashing into No. 7 WTC.  
I have consistently asserted from the onset that there is no documented evidence of any plane ever crashing into WTC 7.  
So tell us again what it is you debunked?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 26, 2014, 05:09:36 AM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Plu"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Why haven't the mods banned this troll yet? It's pretty clear at this point that he's just trying to get a rise out of us.

I mean it. On my forums, he'd have been gone at page 5. Maximum. Do your damn jobs.

I'll gladly ban him once you people stop engaging with him. It gives the idea that you aren't tired of him if you keep up the responses.
That didn't seem to bother y'all when Old Seer and Eve got banned. :-|

That wasn't me banning them :P This is just my personal reason for not banning him yet.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 26, 2014, 06:44:54 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.
He's not talking about WTC 7, numbnuts.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Johan on February 26, 2014, 07:16:59 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If the support beams had not been damaged, you would be right, but they were. Considering that the firefighters couldn't get there ( plane hit around the 70's floors, and elevators were shut down), the fire which burnt nearly an hour did enough damage to the support beams. Once those are comprised, you get the floors collapsing and free fall would follow.
...
It didn't happen simultaneously. The floors on the east side that had been directly hit by the plane collapsed at 9:37 am, while the total collapse of the WTC occurred at 9:59 am. Check your facts. Between those two critical times, the fire was spreading out, and so it was more like a dominoe effect, until the total collapse occurred.
If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  
Moron. Did WTC 7 have 70 floors? No? Pretty hard for him to be talking about a plane hitting the building around the 70th floor when WTC 7 didn't have 70 floors isn't it? Which would lead anyone who isn't a complete moron to assume he was was talking about the planes that hit WTC 1 and 2 thus causing them to collapse in an uncontrolled manner which then heavily damaged WTC 7. In a word, duh. What would lead you to make such an assumption?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"I have no knowledge
Looks like we have an answer.  :roll:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 26, 2014, 08:05:09 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"If the support beams had not been damaged, you would be right, but they were. Considering that the firefighters couldn't get there ( plane hit around the 70's floors, and elevators were shut down), the fire which burnt nearly an hour did enough damage to the support beams. Once those are comprised, you get the floors collapsing and free fall would follow.
...
It didn't happen simultaneously. The floors on the east side that had been directly hit by the plane collapsed at 9:37 am, while the total collapse of the WTC occurred at 9:59 am. Check your facts. Between those two critical times, the fire was spreading out, and so it was more like a dominoe effect, until the total collapse occurred.
If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  


Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.

In regard to WTC-7, it was pointed out to you on many occasions by different members of this forum that it was heavily damaged indirectly -- no one is talking about a plane crashing into WTC-7, so quit that stupid line --and the firefighters who went into that building could not extinguish the fire on account that the city water pipes had been heavily compromised by the collapse of the two towers. Now try to extinguish such a humongus fire with no water?!? But the physics behind the collapse of WTC-7 is no different than the physics behind the collapse of the other two towers. - and that you have failed to understand even after many explanations given to you so that you could correct the error in your thinking.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 26, 2014, 12:21:30 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  
Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.
No, I'm not complaining about anything, you may call me whatever you wish.

But when this whole thread is about No. 7 WTC and I give proof that the collapse of 7 WTC was due to controlled demolition, then you "debunk" my claims about WTC 7 by talking about the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC?  Who is the fool?

You are like the dude crawling around underneath the street light looking for his keys, and when someone asks if he is sure he lost them around here, he replies, "No, I lost them over there among the trees, but it is too dark over there so I am looking here.

Wasn't it you, josephpalazzo, who only a couple of posts ago were bitching about staying on topic?

Where did you get your Ph.D?  WalMart?

 [-X
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 26, 2014, 01:00:46 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  
Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.
No, I'm not complaining about anything, you may call me whatever you wish.

But when this whole thread is about No. 7 WTC and I give proof that the collapse of 7 WTC was due to controlled demolition, then you "debunk" my claims about WTC 7 by talking about the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC?  Who is the fool?

[-X

My debate with you started with your misunderstanding of the physics of a collapsing building, which wtc-1 and 2 are also part of that discussion. If I wasn't precise on which building I was using to make you understand the physics, I apologize. But if you know your facts, which you pretend to have, then it should have been clear to you with the times I gave out,  9:37 am and 9:59 am, I was referring to the South tower, and therefore your rant was a waste of time, and also indicative of your state of mind which is not conducive to any reasonable discussion. Regardless of this mistep on my part, the fact is that you still don't understand the physics, and unless you can show demonstrative signs that you can learn, any further discussion will be a waste of time.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 26, 2014, 01:44:16 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.  
Then you complain when people are calling you an idiot. If I gave you the times 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I'm obviously not talking about WTC-7. Yet, you go on a rant as if I did. The rest of your post will be ignored as you are deliberately obfuscating the discussion about the behavior of a free falling building that has collapsed.
No, I'm not complaining about anything, you may call me whatever you wish.

But when this whole thread is about No. 7 WTC and I give proof that the collapse of 7 WTC was due to controlled demolition, then you "debunk" my claims about WTC 7 by talking about the collapse of 1 WTC and 2 WTC?  Who is the fool?

You are like the dude crawling around underneath the street light looking for his keys, and when someone asks if he is sure he lost them around here, he replies, "No, I lost them over there among the trees, but it is too dark over there so I am looking here.

Wasn't it you, josephpalazzo, who only a couple of posts ago were bitching about staying on topic?

Where did you get your Ph.D?  WalMart?

 [-X
The collapse of Building 7 was caused by the collapse of 1 and 2, you fucking idiot.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 26, 2014, 02:11:18 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"The penthouse fell a good seven seconds before the north face was seen to fall. The building collapsed from the core out.
So now you are saying the total collapse time from the fall of the penthouse until 7 WTC disappears below the visible level is 12.4 seconds?  Or 10.9 seconds? Which?
I made no comment at all about how many seconds the total time that part of the collapse took. I was pointing out that the penthouse collapsed seven seconds before what we see as the building facade fell.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"And tell us again why it even matters?  We truthers only assert that the roof of the building, and the visible part of the building itself fell at freefall.  The collapse of the penthouse is not the start of the building itself collapsing.  The penthouse could have fallen a good 30 seconds before the building fell, but that would not prove anything.
Is not the penthouse supported by the building's structure? What do you think supported it? Fairy dust? If the penthouse falls, then there is something seriously wrong with the rest of the structure. As such, saying that any part of the collapse was at strictly freefall is deceptive, and you have retreated from your former claim. An uncontrolled collapse is a chaotic affair. As such, it's not surprising that a portion of the collapse was at freefall as it was preceeded by a lot of other structure falling seconds prior.

The videos of the WTC 7 collapse you usually see is the north face (the east penthouse that collapsed first is on the left side). The part you see is the last part to fall — that is, everything else had already fallen and offering no support for the facade. The north face is also opposite to the ConEd substation that the building was built over and around, as such the south side was the structurally weakest part of WTC 7, and as such it is absolutely no wonder why you see the north face collapse last and the fastest, as there would be no more longitudinal strength holding the support pillars true.

A steel-framed structure depends on its vertical support members remaining nearly true in order to hold itself up. If the vertical supports buckle, then the entire structure collapses quickly. That's why there is significant cross framing to lend longitudinal rigidity, for without them the vertical columns would quickly bend like noodles. It keeps the vertical supports vertical and at their strongest.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 26, 2014, 02:42:59 PM
Quote from: "Plu"That wasn't me banning them :P This is just my personal reason for not banning him yet.

I'd go ahead an ban him plu he seems to think it will make his mommy more likely to get into her panties:

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"...until I eventually get my ass banned for being to stupid to live, maybe then my mommy will finally let me actually get what is in her panties.

And lets be honest this guy is simply too stupid to understand that in order for all this bullshit to be true somebody would have had to somehow rig a building for demolition without 27 EOD's or any of the equipment noticing. Something that he has yet to put forth a shred of evidence showing that it is even a possibility of happening. That or he is insinuating that I and the other EOD's in the building were responsible for taking part in one of the worst terrorist attacks in US history. Something that even I hope that is minuscule brain is not even considering, because that would indeed be one of the stupidest things to have ever been uttered on this forum, which would indeed mark him as too stupid to live.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 26, 2014, 03:04:44 PM
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html (http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html)

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists:

Quote1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 26, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.

(//http://i.imgur.com/ohMo3Jd.gif)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 26, 2014, 04:56:30 PM
MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

Sound familiar?

QuoteMore than ten years after the event, there remains a sizeable albeit dwindling band who, for various reasons, continue to defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory of "nineteen Arabs with box cutters". When their beliefs are challenged, some respond with an amusing stream of ad hominems, such as "you are some [sic] just some yokel who has clearly never left his village and is the British equivalent of a hill billy [sic]", "you sound like a [sic] inbred half wit", "tea leaf brain", "come out from under your tin foil hat", "your [sic] a f***ing retard", and "one day I will kill you".

When directed to various information sources that refute the government account of 9/11, the reality deniers will often not even bother to look at the information. According to psychologists, it is because such people are fearful of information that challenges their world-view, which was largely formed by the culture in which they grew up. The new information would conflict with their faulty beliefs and lead to cognitive dissonance, resulting in a fear of being ostracised, of being alienated, of being shunned, of their lives being inconvenienced, of having to change their lives, of being confused, of psychological deterioration, and of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Thus, in order to 'protect' people from fear and anxiety, psychological defenses kick in such as denial and anger. Denial prevents people from even looking at the evidence, and anger induces them to attack the messenger.
(the above from http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/p ... -speak-out (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/poseidon/why-people-reject-911-truth-psychologists-speak-out) )

How about this?

QuoteAs I thought about all of these responses, I realized that what is common to every one of them is the emotion of fear. People are afraid of being ostracized; they're afraid of being alienated; they're afraid of being shunned; they're afraid of their lives being inconvenienced; they'd have to change their lives; they're afraid of being confused; they're afraid of psychological deterioration; they're afraid of feeling helpless and vulnerable; and they're afraid that they won't be able to handle the feelings that are coming up. None of us want to feel helpless and vulnerable, so we want to defend ourselves. And the way we often do that is with anger. So then we become angry. And when we become angry, then we become indignant; we become offended; we want to ridicule the messenger; we want to pathologize the messenger; and we want to censor the messenger.
(quoting Frances Shure, M.A., Licensed Professional Counselor)

It is sad to think that in this day and age, so long after the holy inquisitions, free speech should still be seen as such a threat to one's world-view that there are still mobs lurking and ready to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with official dogma.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Shiranu on February 26, 2014, 05:05:57 PM
>mfw you mistake "afraid" for "Wow, this guy is a fucking moron who ignores anything anyone says"
>mfw people even remotely try and refute you and not just go full lawlz like some other posters have
>mfw I have no face
>mfw I touch myself at night

(//http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Jizz_d69866_1075877.jpg)

#yolo #swag #420 #weedfordays

Protip: Googling "jizz face" brings up alot of pictures you aren't particularly looking for at the moment. Just thought you should know.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 26, 2014, 05:29:51 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

*snip*

It is sad to think that in this day and age, so long after the holy inquisitions, free speech should still be seen as such a threat to one's world-view that there are still mobs lurking and ready to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with official dogma.

You're barking at the wrong tree. As I told you in another post, many atheists left their religion because they eventually realized there were no evidence supporting the beliefs they were fed by their parents/ministers/teachers. Here you come on this forum with no evidence supporting your conspiracy theory. So don't be surprised that you won't convince the sceptics unless you have supporting evidence. And if you keep that up with post after post, not bringing anything that remotely makes sense in terms of supporting your theory, then it will be just a matter of time before you are banned. It's not censorship, as you were allowed to post here. But enough is enough. Either accept the fact that you have zilch as far as evidence is concerned and move on, or else it will be banhammer time for you.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 26, 2014, 06:51:16 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!
(//http://i.imgur.com/ohMo3Jd.gif)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 26, 2014, 07:01:53 PM
READ IT DUMBASS-THIS IS YOU

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists:

QuoteQuote:
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 26, 2014, 09:35:55 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

Sound familiar?
Yes. Yes, it does. It sounds like this guy:

(//http://atheistforums.com/download/file.php?avatar=25029_1389310491.jpeg)

We let you continue your bullshit for better than a month, and your disbelief of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" has barely touched us because the way you present it makes it sound stupid. Granted, your disbelief is actually stupid, as is the grand conspiracy that you are implying through your questions. So many people are implicated in it that it collapses under its own ponderous weight — not one of the people involved thought to put a stop to this madness, and every one of them allowed the madness to continue, and yet they are so stupid as to let "obvious smoking gun evidences" —like your freefall malarky— past them when they would be so very easy to cover up (like dithering the detonations' timing so that the building didn't fall at freefall), and publishing serious secret plans for world domination (PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses document) publically.

The emperor has no clothes, and unlike the story no one here is afraid to say it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on February 27, 2014, 12:34:37 AM
***No original argument below, please no need to reminded of it.***

I think it's hilarious that after Snowden, Wiki-Leaks, Gitmo, etc....that one could honestly believe that a conspiracy theory to the extent of 9/11 truthers is even possible.

Humans LOVE to talk.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 27, 2014, 11:36:14 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"More bullshit that has nothing to do with the fact that argument has been destroyed.

Look your ENTIRE theory hinges on controlled demolition of Tower 7, that has been disproven time and time again by not only myself but others. To bring down a busy office building by controlled demolition WITHOUT one of the office workers noticing is quite difficult, if those workers happen to be USSS and EOD's the likelihood of being able to bring rig that building for demolition is ZERO. Your entire theory falls flat on its face right there, and you have not one ounce of evidence to suggest otherwise. UNTIL you can find ONE DEMOLITIONS EXPERT that can show that they can rig a building for demolition without 27 EOD's and a building full of USSS people noticing, your theory doesn't work.


Until ONE truther can show evidence of any of their wackadoo claims they are just that. Wackadoo
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Bibliofagus on February 27, 2014, 01:31:31 PM
Quote from: "Moriarty"***No original argument below, please no need to reminded of it.***

I think it's hilarious that after Snowden, Wiki-Leaks, Gitmo, etc....that one could honestly believe that a conspiracy theory to the extent of 9/11 truthers is even possible.

Humans LOVE to talk.

Lol. Never thought of that. You are absolutely correct.
The thing that makes me laugh most is that the conspiracy-people apparently had arranged for 4 airplanes to fly into buildings, and after that they thought...

Conspiracy-dude 1: Oh FUCK! 4 airplanes to hit the 4 most major landmarks in the US is not enough. We need to make a statement! We need MORE!
Conspiracy-dude 2: You are completely right. Let's rig a building nobody ever even heard let alone care about! Setting up controlled demolition on a multistory building can be done very stealthily. No chance this endeavor would ever stand a chance to endanger our other plans.
Conspiracy-dude 1: YES! You sir are brilliant.

Instead of just getting another airplane.

Yeah right.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 27, 2014, 03:47:52 PM
lol, never go Full AMF.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Icarus on February 27, 2014, 04:01:16 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"lol, never go Full AMF.

 :rollin:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on February 27, 2014, 05:19:16 PM
Can't we move on to Benghazi yet? Just as ridiculous but I have more interest in laughing at the one.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 27, 2014, 09:41:52 PM
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"My debate with you started with your misunderstanding of the physics of a collapsing building, which wtc-1 and 2 are also part of that discussion. If I wasn't precise on which building I was using to make you understand the physics, I apologize. But if you know your facts, which you pretend to have, then it should have been clear to you with the times I gave out, 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I was referring to the South tower, and therefore your rant was a waste of time, and also indicative of your state of mind which is not conducive to any reasonable discussion. Regardless of this mistep on my part, the fact is that you still don't understand the physics, and unless you can show demonstrative signs that you can learn, any further discussion will be a waste of time.

Alright.  We got off on the wrong foot.  As a newbie here, I saw a post about israelis/jews and their track record of false-flag operations, and jumped straight into the debate without testing the water.  When my position was attacked from 360 degrees, I started a new thread "Is Free-Fall Proof of Controlled Demolition," thinking that in the face of irrefutable evidence of freefall, it would put the question to rest.  WRONG.

Responses came at me from every angle.  Mostly they point blank rejected my arguments without even reading what I wrote.  Stupid moron, idiot, asshole/asshat, and various expletives, with essentially nothing to say.  So for the most part, I just ignored the teenage mutant ninja hoodlums and only responded to serious posts.  But the overwhelming majority of posts were the mere tauntings of teenage mutant ninja hooligans which I pretty much ignored.  (Though I do admit to taunting a few of them back!)

Buried in this barrage of insanity, I misread your post about "the input of energy being unnecessary because gravity does the work."  My (mis)interpretation was that you asserted "*NO* ENGERGY was necessary" because gravity does the work.  My bad, in the currnet vernacular.  Not knowing your background, and in the midst of the constant barrage of "tinfoil hat share prices on the upswing," "Godzilla does New York" and other nonsense posts by teenage mutant ninja hoodlums, I did not take your posts seriously.

After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.  Although I have never made any claims regarding WTC 1 or 2, all of my assertions of the facts regarding WTC 7 have been misattributed to WTC 1 and 2.  Outside of gravity, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have little in common with WTC 7.  Though I have expressed my skepticism about many of the things that happened on that day, the only thing I have ever asserted as absolute fact is that 7 WTC fell for over two seconds at the rate of gravity.  PNAC objectives, NORAD failures, yatta yatta are all offered as corroborating evidence that the evil is not strictly limited to only muslim jihadists, which you can take with a grain of salt or not.

If you want to have a serious debate about the collapse of WTV 7, please say so.  Otherwise, just reply to this post with remarks befitting of a kindergartener and I will know to disregard all your future posts.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on February 27, 2014, 09:55:41 PM
[youtube:37mq30ux]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=49EoV50oba0[/youtube:37mq30ux]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 27, 2014, 11:25:41 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"[bullshit]
I started off seriously debating your points. You're the one who deemed me to be an idiot, and I've been poking fun at you ever since. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you are in no way interested in having a conversation about your theories (idiotic though they are). You're just here to proselytize.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on February 27, 2014, 11:39:19 PM
Quote7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

41 pages. Count em' Maybe if I beat your head with this enough times it'll sink in.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 28, 2014, 12:13:07 AM
It surprises me that anyone can think, in a chaotic event like an uncontrolled collapse, that it is impossible that portions of the building may fall at free-fall speeds. Even if the north facade fell at free-fall, it would still take 5.9 seconds for it to fall to ground level (173.736 meters) — not 3.5 s or 2 s whatever the hell you think it is. But the penthouse was seen to collapse 7 seconds earlier before the roof even began to fall, which means that the building was already collapsing as a unit when the north facade started to fall, and it took at least 12.9 seconds to do, more than twice as long as a free-fall event. It can be easily be the case that the north facade fell at free-fall speeds, as most of the support for the building had already failed at that point after being weakened by fire, complete with stray multiton fragments of metal and concrete being thrown about. Even if we buy that the north facade spent 3.5 s in free fall, that only accounts for 16 of the 47 stories of the building.

This reduces the claim from the incredible-sounding "WTC 7 fell at free fall speeds to the ground" to the much more plausible sounding "the northern facade of WTC 7 fell for 16 stories at free-fall," and as such it is not 'irrefutable evidence of freefall', or of controlled demolition. Given the utter practical impossibility of hiding the necessary prep-work for such a controlled demolition in the weeks prior to 9/11, and the practical impossibility of such preparations surviving the debris fall and resulting fire for a good seven hours prior to the fall of the building, renders the hypothesis of a controlled collapse of WTC 7 completely dead on arrival.

Let's also not forget that the most respected publications on engineering (NIST & Popular Mechanics in particular), despite conspiracy theorists claim to the contrary, do not claim that free fall is either indicative of controlled demolition nor present in the WTC 7 collapse — such claims only appear in publications dedicated to exposing a conspiracy. If free-fall is so irrefutable and so indicative of controlled demolition, how can it be ignored so easily... unless —just like so-called 'irrefutable proofs' of intelligent design— that such claims are actually false.

I find it far more likely that a bunch of fools are so wrapped up in their conspiracy theory that they take as true many, many false "facts," than all but a small fraction of structural engineers are hiding the "truth" that is trumpetted by a small but vocal minority.

Anyway, I think this discussion has run its course. Unless you are willing to produce a series of articles from peer review literature that give your "WTC 7 was demoed deliberately" some actual academic weight, then there is nothing more to be gained, because I'm tired of explaining why I think your bullshit is bullshit over and over again.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Johan on February 28, 2014, 06:49:18 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Responses came at me from every angle.  Mostly they point blank rejected my arguments without even reading what I wrote.  
Do not assume that Just because we don't feel the need to acknowledge or address every idiotic point you've tried to pontificate on, that means we haven't read them. We have.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 28, 2014, 10:07:46 AM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/ohMo3Jd.gif) ]


I beat you to it :D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Brian37 on February 28, 2014, 10:35:27 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"I am starting this new topic as a fork from the discussion of Israel and its  history of false flag attacks.  In that discussion, I stated that World Trade Center Building No. 7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.  Obviously, controlled demolition shoots holes in the official conspiracy theory that "al qaeda dunnit (with no insider help)" and raises the question of who on the inside helped Osama bin Laden and his merry band of 19 jihadists.  Please keep in mind that I don't know who brought WTC 7 down.  I am not flat out accusing the israel and/or the jews, (I only say they had the motive, the technical expertise, and a long history of covert false flag attacks).  But one thing I do know for a fact: "normal office fires" could not have possibly brought WTC 7 down at freefall acceleration.

THE SMOKING GUN


Anyone who has studied high school physics would know that the definition of freefall is an object being pulled to the ground by gravity with nothing to resist its fall.  CORRECTION: Anyone who has learned high school physics (big difference between studied and learned).  So if there was structural resistance at 5:20:00 PM but at 5:20:01 PM there was zero resistance, how is that possible?  Other than controlled demolition, it isn't.

As further proof of this, I offer that at a technical briefing on August 26, 2008, NIST director Dr. S. Shyam Sunder even said so.  (At the time of the briefing, NIST's official position was that freefall did not occur.)  However, even NIST subsequently had to admit freefall when it stared them in the face, and they admit it in their final report.  Note that the report did not even attempt to explain this discrepancy with the laws of nature because they knew full well that controlled demolition is in fact the only plausible explanation.

Anyone have any theories about how the laws of physics were suspended for a few seconds on September 11, 2001?  (If your theory is that Allah did it, first you will have to prove Allah exists!  chuckle #-o  chuckle #-o )


LINKS:
Technical briefing where Dr. Sunder denies possibility of freefall
//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXZnvn7O2NY&feature=related
(00:02:40)

NIST Final Report, confirming that freefall did occur
//http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610
(see Page 44, Section 3.6 TIMING OF COLLAPSE INITIATION AND PROGRESSION)

We have a hard enough time dealing with morons claiming invisible sky parents. THERE WAS NO INSIDE HELP! If you buy into that crap, pick a church and suck a god's dick. I don't give one shit if you claim to be an atheist, 9/11 was NOT an inside job. The moon landing was not faked, Oswald acted alone. There are no little green men. Bigfoot is not real. Vampires are not real.

Please take your conspiracy crap and peddle it elsewhere.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 28, 2014, 10:37:39 AM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Look your ENTIRE theory hinges on controlled demolition of Tower 7, which I have denied many times.  I was there at the WTC along with 26 other EOD's while terrorists were rigging WTC 7 for demolition right under our very noses.  But MoFo doesn't know how they did it -- couldn't possibly know because not even we know, and we are experts.  Therefore, I will just claim that since MoFo can't give proof showing how they did it, it never happened.  Of course neither can I prove how the troofers planted all that thermitic residue in all of the dust samples, but that's beside the point.  As long as my colleagues and I have deniability, nobody can blame us for professional negligence resulting in 3000 deaths and destruction of billions of dollars worth of buildings.

Until ONE truther can show evidence of any of their wackadoo claims they are just that. Wackadoo
Nobody can show/prove how the Egyptian pyramids were built, either, so are you going to deny they exist?  Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time explosive materials were brought into WTC.  Remember 1993?  Best way to find out how they smuggled thermite into WTC 7 and attached it to the support beams without you noticing would be to demand a REAL investigation, no?  I've heard several theories on how it was done, but until there is a full investigation, it is only speculation.  Still, the theory that sounds most plausible (in my opinion) is that they used basically the same technique as the 19 guys who smuggled boxcutters past the security screeners at the airports.  Just that the boxcutter smugglers used a scaled down version of the technique, but the same basic principle.

By the way, don't blame yourself and team mates entirely for the disaster.  If the airport security guards had not failed in their duty as well, the two planes would not have crashed into the twin towers.  Without the diversion caused by the twin towers disaster, it would not have been possible to bring down WTC 7 and get away with it.

Now that we are on the matter of airport screening, I have not heard any airport security guards deny the fact that terrorists smuggled boxcutters through security.  Have you?  Maybe it never happened either!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 28, 2014, 10:42:30 AM
I wonder how much thermite you'd need to bring down a building.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 28, 2014, 10:45:27 AM
Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/ohMo3Jd.gif) ]


I beat you to it :D
Doesn't matter, had happy Asian face. :-D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on February 28, 2014, 10:49:11 AM
Quote from: "Brian37"We have a hard enough time dealing with morons claiming invisible sky parents. THERE WAS NO INSIDE HELP! If you buy into that crap, pick a church and suck a god's dick. I don't give one shit if you claim to be an atheist, 9/11 was NOT an inside job. The moon landing was not faked, Oswald acted alone. There are no little green men. Bigfoot is not real. Vampires are not real.

Please take your conspiracy crap and peddle it elsewhere.
Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  Dream on, dude.  All the evil ones are muslims.  No evil has ever been plotted on American soil.  Amarika!  Fuck yeah!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 28, 2014, 10:55:00 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  Dream on, dude.  All the evil ones are muslims.  No evil has ever been plotted on American soil.  Amarika!  Fuck yeah!
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that you're also a Pearl Harbor Truther. Are you also a Titanic Truther, by any chance?

[youtube:11g06lta]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI[/youtube:11g06lta]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Brian37 on February 28, 2014, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Brian37"We have a hard enough time dealing with morons claiming invisible sky parents. THERE WAS NO INSIDE HELP! If you buy into that crap, pick a church and suck a god's dick. I don't give one shit if you claim to be an atheist, 9/11 was NOT an inside job. The moon landing was not faked, Oswald acted alone. There are no little green men. Bigfoot is not real. Vampires are not real.

Please take your conspiracy crap and peddle it elsewhere.
Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  Dream on, dude.  All the evil ones are muslims.  No evil has ever been plotted on American soil.  Amarika!  Fuck yeah!

Um considering there is no party test or religious test to hold any public office, including Secret Service, FBI, ATF, Military or otherwise and considering the 10,s of thousands of investigators of diverse politics involved with the investigation after the fact, only someone BAT FUCKING SHIT INSANE would claim everyone is in on a cover up.

Once again, take your conspiracy bullshit and shove it up your ass. Otherwise you might as well claim Obama was responsible for sinking the Titanic.

Your tin foil logic does not impress me.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 28, 2014, 11:20:42 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Look your ENTIRE theory hinges on controlled demolition of Tower 7, which has been disproven beyond a shadow of doubt except for several retards who refuse to believe otherwise. MoFo doesn't know how they did it -- couldn't possibly know because he has no fucking brain. He also, according to his mommy, has a minuscule penis. She told me this whilst I was plowing her in the ass. Yea she just can't get enough of my cock. Its rather sad really that neither him nor his father(a used turkey baster from what she claimed) can get her off like I can. She really likes it when I pound her in the ass and then as she is orgasming to punch her in the back of the head as hard as I can, weird bitch.

Until ONE truther can show evidence of any of their wackadoo claims they are just that. Wackadoo
Nobody can show/prove how the Egyptian pyramids were built, either, so are you going to deny they exist?  Anyway, it wouldn't be the first time explosive materials were brought into WTC.  Remember 1993?  Best way to find out how they smuggled thermite into WTC 7 and attached it to the support beams without you noticing would be to demand a REAL investigation, no?  I've heard several theories on how it was done, but until there is a full investigation, it is only speculation.  Still, the theory that sounds most plausible (in my opinion) is that they used basically the same technique as the 19 guys who smuggled boxcutters past the security screeners at the airports.  Just that the boxcutter smugglers used a scaled down version of the technique, but the same basic principle.

By the way, don't blame yourself and team mates entirely for the disaster.  If the airport security guards had not failed in their duty as well, the two planes would not have crashed into the twin towers.  Without the diversion caused by the twin towers disaster, it would not have been possible to bring down WTC 7 and get away with it.

Now that we are on the matter of airport screening, I have not heard any airport security guards deny the fact that terrorists smuggled boxcutters through security.  Have you?  Maybe it never happened either!

You do realize that the stationing of EOD's in that building was in direct relation to the 1993 bombing don't you. You also realize that in order for the "thermite theory" you have just unloaded(a theory that has been discounted for this very reason btw) would requite TONS of thermite, something on the order of 5-10 TONS of thermite. An amount that big being mixed would leave records, an amount that big would have lit that building up like a christmas tree, an amount that big could have been seen by Ray fucking Charles. You do realize, THAT YOU HAVE YET AGIAN COMPARED ONE OF THE MOST HIGHLY TRAINED GROUP OF EOD'S ON THE ENTIRE PLANET TO A GROUP OF OVERPAID RENT-A-COPS. A simpler analogy for you to understand would be like you trying to compare your understanding of quantum theoretical physics to that of Stephen Hawking.

Do you not understand the difference between several ounces of aluminum vs several TONS of thermite(something that, by the way, the bomb detection equipment would have picked up in an instant). Do you also not get the point that even IF someone managed to get the required amount of thermite into a building FULL of USSS(secret service) and EOD's they would STILL have to rig the building for demolition WITHOUT 27 people(that get paid to know what it looks like) OR their equipment noticing. A building that was manned 24/7 by those people.

As to not blaming myself for ALL of the tragedy that happened that day, GO FUCK YOURSELF DIPSHIT! I had fuck all to do with it aside from this being there that day.

And by the way moron, since you have NO fucking evidence what so ever of this bullshit you claim, it can be disregarded with the same level of proof.

As to the pyramids, I can see those, Ive been there. They are quite amazing. The difference between those is that we admit that we don't know the entire story on how they were made. You claim this grand conspiracy and automatically jump to a conclusion that has been discounted because its impossible. Do I know why the building fell the way it did? Nope. But I can firmly and without a doubt in my mind say that it wasn't explosives that brought it down. Do you know why the building fell the way it did? Again no. And until you have an ounce of proof, you are spewing nothing but bullshit.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Brian37 on February 28, 2014, 11:57:59 AM
This idiot might as well be claiming God did it,
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 28, 2014, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.

Hey, nothing like broad-brushing folks who have been decent to you throughout.  Thanks for nuthin'.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on February 28, 2014, 12:41:02 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  

This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.

Are you ignoring every single thing that might show you to be wrong? That's no way to run a discussion.  Communication is a two-way street.  Pretending something hasn't been rebutted when it has in fact been rebutted is extremely poor form.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on February 28, 2014, 01:01:45 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  

This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.

Are you ignoring every single thing that might show you to be wrong? That's no way to run a discussion.  Communication is a two-way street.  Pretending something hasn't been rebutted when it has in fact been rebutted is extremely poor form.

Everyone knows it was the Germans that bombed Pearl Harbor...Belushi said so!

[youtube:2a71d9o6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI[/youtube:2a71d9o6]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on February 28, 2014, 01:11:39 PM
Quote from: "Plu"I wonder how much thermite you'd need to bring down a building.

Quite a lot I'd imagine.   Unless the building itself was made of thermite, or made with cold-riveted beams with cores of pure selenium.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 28, 2014, 01:24:51 PM
Quote from: "Jason78"
Quote from: "Plu"I wonder how much thermite you'd need to bring down a building.

Quite a lot I'd imagine.   Unless the building itself was made of thermite, or made with cold-riveted beams with cores of pure selenium.

Estimates range from 5-10 tons of thermite to hold a burn long enough to cut through enough of the structural steel for the building to fail on its own.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Plu on February 28, 2014, 02:14:51 PM
Yeah I figured it was somewhere in that area. That's literally about a truckload.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 28, 2014, 02:20:17 PM
Ive seen estimates as high as 60+ tons, but the average seems to between 5-10 tons
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on February 28, 2014, 06:21:39 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Ive seen estimates as high as 60+ tons, but the average seems to between 5-10 tons
Is that altogether, or per member cut?

I like it how AMF screams for a "REAL investigation" when a real investigation would begin by throwing away obvious nonsense. The controlled demolition theory is obvious nonsense, because there is a distinct lack of means (absence of the required explosives) and opportunity (no time to set up the explosives, and really no way to hide it once set).

Also, isn't thermite highly flammable? Wasn't there a RAGING FIRE in WTC 7 for hours prior to the building collapse, and as such would set off a bunch of those charges prematurely and out of sequence? And since thermite melts through heat transfer (rather than mechanical shockwaves as ordinary demolition explosives), wouldn't the heating effect of the fire confound the failure times of those members, undercutting any kind of free-fall controlled collapse theory?

Yeah, obvious bullshit. This forum supplies the only "REAL investigation" required of that theory.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: josephpalazzo on February 28, 2014, 06:44:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"My debate with you started with your misunderstanding of the physics of a collapsing building, which wtc-1 and 2 are also part of that discussion. If I wasn't precise on which building I was using to make you understand the physics, I apologize. But if you know your facts, which you pretend to have, then it should have been clear to you with the times I gave out, 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I was referring to the South tower, and therefore your rant was a waste of time, and also indicative of your state of mind which is not conducive to any reasonable discussion. Regardless of this mistep on my part, the fact is that you still don't understand the physics, and unless you can show demonstrative signs that you can learn, any further discussion will be a waste of time.

Alright.  We got off on the wrong foot.  As a newbie here, I saw a post about israelis/jews and their track record of false-flag operations, and jumped straight into the debate without testing the water.  When my position was attacked from 360 degrees, I started a new thread "Is Free-Fall Proof of Controlled Demolition," thinking that in the face of irrefutable evidence of freefall, it would put the question to rest.  WRONG.

Responses came at me from every angle.  Mostly they point blank rejected my arguments without even reading what I wrote.  Stupid moron, idiot, asshole/asshat, and various expletives, with essentially nothing to say.  So for the most part, I just ignored the teenage mutant ninja hoodlums and only responded to serious posts.  But the overwhelming majority of posts were the mere tauntings of teenage mutant ninja hooligans which I pretty much ignored.  (Though I do admit to taunting a few of them back!)

Buried in this barrage of insanity, I misread your post about "the input of energy being unnecessary because gravity does the work."  My (mis)interpretation was that you asserted "*NO* ENGERGY was necessary" because gravity does the work.  My bad, in the currnet vernacular.  Not knowing your background, and in the midst of the constant barrage of "tinfoil hat share prices on the upswing," "Godzilla does New York" and other nonsense posts by teenage mutant ninja hoodlums, I did not take your posts seriously.

After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.  Although I have never made any claims regarding WTC 1 or 2, all of my assertions of the facts regarding WTC 7 have been misattributed to WTC 1 and 2.  Outside of gravity, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have little in common with WTC 7.  Though I have expressed my skepticism about many of the things that happened on that day, the only thing I have ever asserted as absolute fact is that 7 WTC fell for over two seconds at the rate of gravity.  PNAC objectives, NORAD failures, yatta yatta are all offered as corroborating evidence that the evil is not strictly limited to only muslim jihadists, which you can take with a grain of salt or not.

If you want to have a serious debate about the collapse of WTV 7, please say so.  Otherwise, just reply to this post with remarks befitting of a kindergartener and I will know to disregard all your future posts.

Thank you.
Fine. Right now I'm away from home, and answering from my  phone. If you don't mind, reiterate all your arguments point by point, including whatever supporting evidence you ha've.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on February 28, 2014, 07:06:51 PM
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Ive seen estimates as high as 60+ tons, but the average seems to between 5-10 tons
Is that altogether, or per member cut?

I like it how AMF screams for a "REAL investigation" when a real investigation would begin by throwing away obvious nonsense. The controlled demolition theory is obvious nonsense, because there is a distinct lack of means (absence of the required explosives) and opportunity (no time to set up the explosives, and really no way to hide it once set).

Also, isn't thermite highly flammable? Wasn't there a RAGING FIRE in WTC 7 for hours prior to the building collapse, and as such would set off a bunch of those charges prematurely and out of sequence? And since thermite melts through heat transfer (rather than mechanical shockwaves as ordinary demolition explosives), wouldn't the heating effect of the fire confound the failure times of those members, undercutting any kind of free-fall controlled collapse theory?

Yeah, obvious bullshit. This forum supplies the only "REAL investigation" required of that theory.

That would be all together to bring a building such as WTC 7 down. The reason for the varying difference is dependent on the amount of damage from the falling debris from the towers. One if the major issues with thermite is that it isn't a controllable burn it burns HOT and FAST. Another is that the support structures would have to be wide open(something that anyone would notice) and in order for them to burn through enough supports would take several days(or weeks depending on how many you wanted to cut). And the FINAL nail in the thermite coffin is: you have to know what support structures were taken out by falling debris from the other tower.

Meaning that in order for this entire bullshit to be true they would have had to rig a building while the world press was rolling live in record time while not being seen.

There is a reason explosives and not thermite are used for building demo, explosives are easy to predict and control, thermite is not.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 01, 2014, 11:54:16 AM
@Moralnihilist
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And by the way moron, since you have NO fucking evidence what so ever of this bullshit you claim, it can be disregarded with the same level of proof.

As to the pyramids, I can see those, Ive been there. They are quite amazing. The difference between those is that we admit that we don't know the entire story on how they were made. You claim this grand conspiracy and automatically jump to a conclusion that has been discounted because its impossible. Do we know why the building fell the way it did? Nope. But I can firmly and without a doubt in my mind say that it wasn't explosives that brought it down. Do you know why the building fell the way it did? Again no. And until you have an ounce of proof, you are spewing nothing but bullshit.
Tell us your theory on how the "troofers" managed to plant thermitic residue in all the dust samples?  And how they managed to plant molten iron in the debris?

Your argument is based solely on the fact that controlled demolition is evidence that you failed your job and you are unwilling to take that blame.  You say I have no evidence, and when I present evidence you discount it not because it is impossible, but for the simple reason that it does not fit into your preferred scenario.  Do I know why the building fell the way it did?  Yes, it was planned controlled demoition.  And I have given the evidence but you refuse to accept it because you are in denial.

[center:1oz1o9gy]= = = = =[/center:1oz1o9gy]

@Thumpalumpacus
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.
Hey, nothing like broad-brushing folks who have been decent to you throughout.  Thanks for nuthin'.
Sorry Thump, I should have said "...the intelligence level of the group as a whole with the exception of Thumpalumpacus."
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: the_antithesis on March 01, 2014, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"* bullshit snipped *

You still here?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 01, 2014, 12:09:38 PM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  
This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.
No, not really.  Being denied is not the same thing as being shown to be false.  And while I do not want to get off topic, I feel compelled to offer this one piece of proof.  Robert Stinnett was a navy photographer during WW2 and was awarded 10 battle stars and a Presidential Unit Citation.  Are you calling him a tinfoil hat looney?

Stinnett is also the author of _Day of Deceit_.  He dug very deep into the archives making FOIA request after FOIA request as research for his book, and he has seen the documentation.  Buy his book.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408 (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on March 01, 2014, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Buy his book.

I don't support lunatics or their beliefs, it would be like buying a bible. Lending credence to insane ideas.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 01, 2014, 12:34:09 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"@Moralnihilist
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And by the way moron, since you have NO fucking evidence what so ever of this bullshit you claim, it can be disregarded with the same level of proof.

As to the pyramids, I can see those, Ive been there. They are quite amazing. The difference between those is that we admit that we don't know the entire story on how they were made. You claim this grand conspiracy and automatically jump to a conclusion that has been discounted because its impossible. Do we know why the building fell the way it did? Nope. But I can firmly and without a doubt in my mind say that it wasn't explosives that brought it down. Do you know why the building fell the way it did? Again no. And until you have an ounce of proof, you are spewing nothing but bullshit.
Tell us your theory on how the "troofers" managed to plant thermitic residue in all the dust samples?  And how they managed to plant molten iron in the debris?

Your argument is based solely on the fact that controlled demolition is evidence that you failed your job and you are unwilling to take that blame.  You say I have no evidence, and when I present evidence you discount it not because it is impossible, but for the simple reason that it does not fit into your preferred scenario.  Do I know why the building fell the way it did?  Yes, it was planned controlled demoition.  And I have given the evidence but you refuse to accept it because you are in denial.


No my argument is based on the following facts:
1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

2. The "molten iron" you refer too would have had to have been over 2000 degrees, and NONE was found to be in its molten state.
 
3. Every argument that you have presented has been disproven by simple math. Thermite would have required at minimum 5 TONS. An astounding amount of material to get into a building without ANYONE noticing. Something that your "evidence" has yet to show to be possible.

4. The fact that tower 7 had several of its structural support beams damaged by falling debris from tower 1. In order to properly rig the building for demo using a cutting method, you would have to know in advance of what support structures would be damaged and or destroyed by the falling debris.

OR

5.You would have to rig a building(while it is on fire and all over the news) without being seen in record time.

OR

6. Lets say for argument sake that they had pre rigged the building for demolition. The damage from the falling debris to the building would have cut or damaged the rigging of the explosives, meaning that you would have to rewire the explosive chain, under the same set of circumstances.


If you are going to claim that I somehow "failed my job". Then I, and I assume others, want to see your proof. And asshole it had better be something good if you are going to insinuate that I, a native New Yorker and damn good EOD, was part of one of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history. Your "theory" has been debunked time and time again because of simple physics and logistical impossibilities.


Remember there is a reason explosives and not thermite are used for building demo, its because thermite isn't effective as a building demo tool.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 01, 2014, 04:06:40 PM
I noted this early on in the thread, and others may have as well. If so, my apologies. I didn't quote from it originally.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature)

Quote1EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC BUILDINGS. You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the buildings, damaging the structures and setting off raging fires and igniting more than 40,000 square feet of office space per floor in a matter of seconds, igniting furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You cannot control the area around such a raging fire to start a demolition.1

Quote3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the "almost" modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you'd say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ? (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: "To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns." But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.


Quote5WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS MELTED BY THERMITE? Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered everywhere. Concrete has fly ash in it, and I have a photo of iron-rich spheres in Tolk fly ash in my YouTube video response. Even if the microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study said, "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC ... Iron-rich spheres ... would be expected to be present in the Dust."6

Quote10WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE? Many firefighters reported seeing structural deformations of Building 7 hours before its collapse, including the top FDNY fire Chief Daniel Nigro, who stated, "I feared a collapse of Building 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of 7. Building 7 was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after ... WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit."
In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler said: "So we left 7 World Trade Center... and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: "We saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani's chief lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7 and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5–10 seconds prior to the collapse of either tower. But in 2007, he too changed his story, claiming in a BBC interview that he got his timing wrong and that the 10-second-long earthquake sound was most likely caused by tower debris hitting the building later in the morning. "There were no explosions. That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half of our building." He compared what he heard to a loud rumbling earthquake, not the staccato blasts of explosions.

This has all been refuted numerous times.

I repeat- NYFD is one of the finest fire departments on the planet. They have one of the best fire investigative teams in existence. If you think they are going to find and then cover up evidence of the death of 340 of their brothers, trust me, you do not understand firefighters.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on March 01, 2014, 05:06:01 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Sorry Thump, I should have said "...the intelligence level of the group as a whole with the exception of Thumpalumpacus."

Your exception is far too narrow. Retreating into ad homeneim, especially against an entire group, is usually a pretty good sign of a failed argument. You've reiterated points which have already been disposed as if they haven't been rebutted, dismissed the experience of someone who was actually there based on what is obviously a flawed understanding of the behavior of steel under heat, and waved away other points that don't comport with your view without even rebutting them in detail. To then continue on to insult the intelligence of a group because your argument doesn't carry the day is silly.

You clearly have not, and will not, consider another option here, namely, that you are wrong. More's the pity.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on March 01, 2014, 05:12:00 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Next you'll be telling us that Pearl Harbor was an UNprovoked SUPRISE attack, even though documents released under FOIA prove without a doubt Roosevelt provoked it, and even knew the exact day and hour it would come.  
This has already been shown to be false earlier in this thread.
No, not really.  Being denied is not the same thing as being shown to be false.  And while I do not want to get off topic, I feel compelled to offer this one piece of proof.  Robert Stinnett was a navy photographer during WW2 and was awarded 10 battle stars and a Presidential Unit Citation.  Are you calling him a tinfoil hat looney?

I'm unsure how being a combat photographer qualifies him to expound upon diplomatic history, but out of respect for his service, I'll simply say that I think he's wrong ... I much prefer agreeable disagreement, myself.

Insofar as your point, it was positively disposed of when the evidence you presented "supporting" FDR's foreknowledge was shown to have been unknown to FDR.  Additionally, the diplomatic reasoning I used is pretty good circumstantial evidence that even if FDR had known in advance (a point you've not proven), he and his Administration understood that a Japanese attack would not have justified a war against Germany, which is what they really wanted.

Sorry, but you'll need to start another thread if you want to "show" that you've proven your point.

Also, do me a favor and rather than expect me to spend money here, simply  explain your reasoning and present your evidence.  I can link to books and tell you to go shopping all day long, but that isn't an argument.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 01, 2014, 05:13:35 PM
Thumpalumpacus wrote:
QuoteYour exception is far too narrow. Retreating into ad homeneim, especially against an entire group, is usually a pretty good sign of a failed argument. You've reiterated points which have already been disposed as if they haven't been rebutted, dismissed the experience of someone who was actually there based on what is obviously a flawed understanding of the behavior of steel under heat, and waved away other points that don't comport with your view without even rebutting them in detail. To then continue on to insult the intelligence of a group because your argument doesn't carry the day is silly.

You clearly have not, and will not, consider another option here, namely, that you are wrong. More's the pity.

^this. If you can continue arguing for this long against a huge pile of contrary evidence, the statements of professionals, the statement of a highly qualified eyewitness.- wow. You are either the conspiracy theorist from hell or the king of all trolls.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 01, 2014, 11:24:16 PM
@Moralnihilist
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"No my argument is based on the following facts:
1. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

2. The "molten iron" you refer too would have had to have been over 2000 degrees, and NONE was found to be in its molten state.
 
3. Every argument that you have presented has been disproven by simple math. Thermite would have required at minimum 5 TONS. An astounding amount of material to get into a building without ANYONE noticing. Something that your "evidence" has yet to show to be possible.

4. The fact that tower 7 had several of its structural support beams damaged by falling debris from tower 1. In order to properly rig the building for demo using a cutting method, you would have to know in advance of what support structures would be damaged and or destroyed by the falling debris.

OR

5.You would have to rig a building(while it is on fire and all over the news) without being seen in record time.

OR

6. Lets say for argument sake that they had pre rigged the building for demolition. The damage from the falling debris to the building would have cut or damaged the rigging of the explosives, meaning that you would have to rewire the explosive chain, under the same set of circumstances.


If you are going to claim that I somehow "failed my job". Then I, and I assume others, want to see your proof. And asshole it had better be something good if you are going to insinuate that I, a native New Yorker and damn good EOD, was part of one of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history. Your "theory" has been debunked time and time again because of simple physics and logistical impossibilities.


Remember there is a reason explosives and not thermite are used for building demo, its because thermite isn't effective as a building demo tool.
1. If the model you refer to is the NIST model, what kind of "specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" accept a model they have never seen?  NIST never revealed the data necessary to either verify or disprove their model.
http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf (http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf)

2. A number of firefighters on the scene reported seeing molten steel "like you were in a foundry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY)
and even Guliani mentioned underground fires 2000 degrees or more that raged for hundreds of days.  New York firefighters AND Giuliani -- tinfoil hat unofficial conspiracy theorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U)
http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/ (http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/)

3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.

4. & 6. That would depend on which floors the charges were placed and we do not know that information.  For the sake of argument, let's say all the interior columns vanished, with only the outer columns remaining intact for a short while.
(//http://more911.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/wtc-7-typical-floor-plan1.jpg)
Why would all the outer columns buckle inward and none buckle outward?  What else other than controlled demolition would make them all buckle simultaneously?  If you can not explain how the columns all failed simultaneously, how else do you explain the building coming straight down symetrically?

5. Gimme a break.  You know as well as I do nobody has even suggested that.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 01, 2014, 11:31:00 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"I noted this early on in the thread, and others may have as well. If so, my apologies. I didn't quote from it originally.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/#feature)

Quote1EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC BUILDINGS. You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the buildings, damaging the structures and setting off raging fires and igniting more than 40,000 square feet of office space per floor in a matter of seconds, igniting furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You cannot control the area around such a raging fire to start a demolition.1

Quote3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the "almost" modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you'd say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ? (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: "To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns." But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.
Oop!  Wrong thread.  This is the thread about WTC 7, not the Twin Towers.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 12:54:56 AM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"2. A number of firefighters on the scene reported seeing molten steel "like you were in a foundry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY)
and even Guliani mentioned underground fires 2000 degrees or more that raged for hundreds of days.  New York firefighters AND Giuliani -- tinfoil hat unofficial conspiracy theorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U)
http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/ (http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUX ... dded#at=31 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUXoRgs&feature=player_embedded#at=31)
Now tell me again where is this supposed 2000 degree molten steel?

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.
And Ive debunked this time and time again. Again where is the evidence that 5 TONS(minimum) of thermite was smuggled into a building that was manned 24/7 by USSS and EOD's? And again you fail to see the stupidity in comparing an over paid rent-a-cop to 27 of the best EOD's in the world. Not to mention that the building being reduced to a construction zone in order for the structural supports to accessed would be painfully obvious to anyone.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"4. & 6. That would depend on which floors the charges were placed and we do not know that information.  For the sake of argument, let's say all the interior columns vanished, with only the outer columns remaining intact for a short while.
[ Image (//http://more911.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/wtc-7-typical-floor-plan1.jpg) ]
Why would all the outer columns buckle inward and none buckle outward?  What else other than controlled demolition would make them all buckle simultaneously?  If you can not explain how the columns all failed simultaneously, how else do you explain the building coming straight down symmetrically?
And you have no explanation that has ANY supporting evidence either. So..... Yea.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"5. Gimme a break.  You know as well as I do nobody has even suggested that.
Really? Damn I love catching liars in a lie.
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"Your argument is based solely on the fact that controlled demolition is evidence that you failed your job and you are unwilling to take that blame.
Care to try that bullshit again asshole?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 02:26:48 AM
Part and parcel. The whole event or bldg. 7, same cause. You still cannot give any answer to the large questions of how a team of specialists managed to insert tons of explosives and truckloads of control devices in any of the buildings in the presence of advanced security, thousands of people and do so over a long period of time, and not be seen; and then leave virtually zero evidence afterward.

Quote10WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE? Many firefighters reported seeing structural deformations of Building 7 hours before its collapse, including the top FDNY fire Chief Daniel Nigro, who stated, "I feared a collapse of Building 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of 7. Building 7 was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after ... WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit."
In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler said: "So we left 7 World Trade Center... and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."
And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: "We saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse."
Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani's chief lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7 and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5–10 seconds prior to the collapse of either tower. But in 2007, he too changed his story, claiming in a BBC interview that he got his timing wrong and that the 10-second-long earthquake sound was most likely caused by tower debris hitting the building later in the morning. "There were no explosions. That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half of our building." He compared what he heard to a loud rumbling earthquake, not the staccato blasts of explosions.

Same link, dumbass. you didn't read it.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 02, 2014, 11:53:37 AM
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm unsure how being a combat photographer qualifies him to expound upon diplomatic history, but out of respect for his service, I'll simply say that I think he's wrong ... I much prefer agreeable disagreement, myself.
Combat photographer during World War 2, when he was a young man, who later became a distinguished journalist.  The book was written more than five decades after the war ended.  While he was serving in the military during the war, he believed the official line about the unprovoked sneak attack.  Then more than 50 years of research later, his opinion had changed.

One ironic thing about Stinnett is that although he exposes Roosevelt's lie, Stinnett himself agrees with Roosevelt's strategy.  He feels that Roosevelt had no other choice.  Go figure.  But you have already made up your mind on the issue, so it would be pointless for me to try to persuade you.


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"FDR ... and his Administration understood that a Japanese attack would not have justified a war against Germany, which is what they really wanted.
Funny, because war against Germany is exactly what happened, isn't it.  As a history buff, surely you know that Germany had a three-way pact with Italy and Japan, that if one of the three were attacked, the other two would would come to the defense?  Or maybe that is also just a part of the conspiracy theory?


Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Sorry, but you'll need to start another thread if you want to "show" that you've proven your point.
From what I have seen of the open mindedness of most members of this forum, I think not.  Let's just leave it as another point we disagree on.

But do tell us this.  As a history buff, (if you are still a history buff), what is your take on the Reichstag fire in 1933 and Goering's "proof" it was the evil doings of the commies?  Have you ever heard of the Lavon Affair?  What about the Manchurian Incident?  Are these nothing but false flag conspiracy theories and the ravings of lunatics?  Or maybe these never happened?  What say you, Mr. History Buff?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 02, 2014, 12:42:10 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"2. A number of firefighters on the scene reported seeing molten steel "like you were in a foundry"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQyIN6OTMyY)
and even Guliani mentioned underground fires 2000 degrees or more that raged for hundreds of days.  New York firefighters AND Giuliani -- tinfoil hat unofficial conspiracy theorists?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgYf6gK-N1U)
http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/ (http://nymag.com/news/features/28517/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW1jsUXoRgs&feature=player_embedded#at=31
Now tell me again where is this supposed 2000 degree molten steel?
Wow, how clever.  You post a video showing no molten steel and claim that as proof there was no molten steel.  You may as well have posted a video of Donald Duck.  That would be as much proof of anything as the video you posted.  The links I posted show firefighters saying they saw molten steel.  Mayor Giuliani talking about fires of 2000 degrees or more.  And how about this one, the History Channel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ogrupgt4mI)

Firefighters, Mayor Giuliani, the History Channel, all liars?

Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.
And Ive debunked this time and time again. Again where is the evidence that 5 TONS(minimum) of thermite was smuggled into a building that was manned 24/7 by USSS and EOD's? And again you fail to see the stupidity in comparing an over paid rent-a-cop to 27 of the best EOD's in the world. Not to mention that the building being reduced to a construction zone in order for the structural supports to accessed would be painfully obvious to anyone.
You have DENIED it, not debunked it.  You have not shown how the method of smuggling thermite past security is any different than smuggling boxcutters through security.


Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"5. Gimme a break.  You know as well as I do nobody has even suggested that.
Really? Damn I love catching liars in a lie.
Show me any truth seeker posting in this forum suggested that WTC was rigged for demolition after the planes hit the towers.  And by truth seeker, that means Godzilla thoeorists, laser weapons from outer space theorists, death star theorists, mini-nuke theorists and the like are automatically disqualified.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 01:15:32 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"3. I've already said at least twice that the technique used to smuggle thermite into WTC 7 is theorized to be the same trick they used to smuggle boxcutters past airport security.  Why is that so difficult for you to understand.
And Ive debunked this time and time again. Again where is the evidence that 5 TONS(minimum) of thermite was smuggled into a building that was manned 24/7 by USSS and EOD's? And again you fail to see the stupidity in comparing an over paid rent-a-cop to 27 of the best EOD's in the world. Not to mention that the building being reduced to a construction zone in order for the structural supports to accessed would be painfully obvious to anyone.
You have DENIED it, not debunked it.  You have not shown how the method of smuggling thermite past security is any different than smuggling boxcutters through security.

Let me use smaller words of you since you don't understand the difference between 5 tons vs several ounces. Nor do you seem to understand how pathetically trained airport security is compared to U.S. military EOD's. Nor do you understand the why trying to rig a building for demolition under the noses of people who's job it is to know what that looks like, WITHOUT those same people noticing.

No demolitions expert would be able to pull it off. Plain and simple its not fucking possible. Your "theory" does not have a leg to stand on. The other issues that this "theory" of yours has are the following:

1. As stated previously 5 tons(thats 10,000 pounds) of thermite would leave MORE than particles behind.
2. Anybody with eyes could see the buildings support structures being exposed for demolition, yet NOBODY has come forward saying anything close to that.
3. There was NO explosive residue, nor was there ANY primacord casings found(remember primacord is an explosive)
4. And here is the killer for this whole "theory", without one shred of scientifically acceptable proof to back your story, all you are left with is the building fell funny you don't know why so it MUST be explosives. All of this despite all of the contradictory evidence from people much smarter than you or I and their scientifically verifiable and repeatable testing.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 03:05:28 PM
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engine ... osion1.htm (http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion1.htm)

QuoteDetonators and Dynamite
In the last section, we saw how blasters plan out a building implosion. Once they have a clear idea of how the structure should fall, it's time to prepare the building. The first step in preparation, which often begins before the blasters have actually surveyed the site, is to clear any debris out of the building. Next, construction crews, or, more accurately, destruction crews, begin taking out non-load-bearing walls within the building. This makes for a cleaner break at each floor: If these walls were left intact, they would stiffen the building, hindering its collapse. Destruction crews may also weaken the supporting columns with sledge hammers or steel-cutters, so that they give way more easily.
Next, blasters can start loading the columns with explosives. Blasters use different explosives for different materials, and determine the amount of explosives needed based on the thickness of the material. For concrete columns, blasters use traditional dynamite or a similar explosive material. Dynamite is just absorbent stuffing soaked in a highly combustible chemical or mixture of chemicals. When the chemical is ignited, it burns quickly, producing a large volume of hot gas in a short amount of time. This gas expands rapidly, applying immense outward pressure (up to 600 tons per square inch) on whatever is around it. Blasters cram this explosive material into narrow bore holes drilled in the concrete columns. When the explosives are ignited, the sudden outward pressure sends a powerful shock wave busting through the column at supersonic speed, shattering the concrete into tiny chunks.
Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

READ THE ARTICLE. Look at the picture that shows how the explosives are rigged. It takes miles of wire, connectors, fuses, demolition igniters and so on. You have to bore holes in concrete, remove fascia and any other impeding material. And a considerable amount of deconstruction prior to the implementation of the drtonation.

It takes a large crew of people, truckloads of material and explosives, and many days of preparation. Oh and by the way, you won't see Thermite mentioned anywhere. It is not used in building demolition and as far as I know hasn't been for some time.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moriarty on March 02, 2014, 03:07:07 PM
Tacking inc~
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: the_antithesis on March 02, 2014, 04:36:19 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"No, not really.  Being denied is not the same thing as being shown to be false.

Nor is it the same as being shown to be true.

It is the same as being worthless, however.

Why are you so worthless?

Did your mommy not love you enough?

Did your daddy love you too much?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 07:26:13 PM
This is a vid explaining how the buildings could have possibly been rigged for those who are interested. I didn't watch it all as I already believe its to be a inside job. For most, the question is if it was rigged is wrong, it should be how it was rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 07:31:08 PM
Quote from: "theory816"This is a vid explaining how the buildings could have possibly been rigged for those who are interested. I didn't watch it all as I already believe its to be a inside job. For most, the question is if it was rigged is wrong, it should be how it was rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M)

An INSIDE JOB??? Really dipshit? You are going to tell me, an EOD present in the very building not to mention A NATIVE NEW YORKER, that I had something to do with this? You must without a doubt the stupidest motherfucker on the face of this fucking planet.

=edit=
do the world a favor and put a gun in your mouth and eat a fucking bullet.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 07:46:57 PM
Take a chill pill ass clown. No need to attack others for their post.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 07:55:12 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Take a chill pill ass clown. No need to attack others for their post.

Go fuck yourself you paranoid fucktard. 9/11 was an inside job, and being one of 27 EOD's in the area with access to the building in question makes me according to your bullshit claims(with 0 fucking evidence by the fucking way moron) a prime fucking suspect according to your brainless accusation. Next time before you open your cockholster you might want to make fucking sure that there isn't anyone who knows infinitely more than you could ever fucking comprehend about the subject in the middle of the fucking conversation.


Again:
Do the world a favor put a gun in your mouth and eat a fucking bullet dipshit.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 08:12:32 PM
Lol you dont have access to anything but the janitors room now stfu and get off my nutz. Anyways here is a video of fail demolition videos. Notice how even tho the core is taken out the buildings top still stays intact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM) skip to 1:40
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 08:17:39 PM
Every explosive detonation leaves a trace. the bigger the detonation, the bigger the trace. further, any container that held explosives would have had to at some point been noticed, because fire and explosives experts know to look for containers. It is impossible to obliterate the container to the point where some evidence won't be found. There would have been a very substantial trace of explosive residue from the amount of explosive used, and also there would have been more than one type of explosive; RDX to sheer the beams, dynamite, primacord and so on.

RDX is also highly toxic. Any residue left would definitely be noticed.

You would still require a lot of people with both training in explosives and knowledge of the building, still have to take a long time to carry it out- and regardless of what your video states, there would have to be some form of deconstruction to put the charges where they needed to be. Concrete has to be drilled and core charges installed to dismember it.

Concrete is reinforced with steel. If you do not separate the steel from the concrete, it will not fracture as you want it to. In a controlled demolition, the concrete pillars are holed out and the rebar cut to weaken it. That requires a very big, noisy gas driven saw and/or cutting torches. You explain to me how they sneaked in a bunch of cutting torches and K-12 saws, I might be a believer.

You don't just walk into the infrastructure of a building. Steel beams, concrete and so forth are buried behind supporting walls and fascia ALL MADE OF DIFFERENT  MATERIALS THAT WILL REACT DIFFERENTLY WHEN SUBJECT TO AN EXPLOSION. If you blow up a building without accounting for every type of structural material, it not come down as you expect. That is why they have to remove the fascia and inner walls to facilitate demolition.  

I don't care what theories you put on here, you still don't have anything more than theories. There is enough evidence, not theories, that support the story of how the towers et al came down.

Oh,and if you want my "expertise", my Army son is an expert in EOD. He doesn't believe in the conspiracy theories either.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 08:19:52 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Lol how bout you get off my nutz. Anyways here is a video of fail demolition videos. Notice how even tho the core is taken out the buildings top still stays intact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM) skip to 1:40

Lol how bout you offer some actual fucking evidence for your bullshit claims, or apologize for insinuating that I or any of my fellow EOD's had anything to do with 9/11.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 08:22:03 PM
(//https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1RLKJIi13Y2ZivqRZkMfXETcH1z6s8D16LiINb4yBi3HiJc9tAw)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 08:29:10 PM
Uhh how about you and your butt buddies EODs get off deez nutz. Evidence? Look at the how the fucking building came down dumb fk. Buildings of that size does not come down that easily.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Uhh how about you and your butt buddies EODs get off deez nutz. Evidence? Look at the how the fucking building came down dumb fk. Buildings of that size does not come down that easily.
(//https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1RLKJIi13Y2ZivqRZkMfXETcH1z6s8D16LiINb4yBi3HiJc9tAw)

Didn't think I'd have to use this twice in such a short time.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 08:33:33 PM
QuoteLol you dont have access to anything but the janitors room now stfu and get off my nutz. Anyways here is a video of fail demolition videos. Notice how even tho the core is taken out the buildings top still stays intact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM) skip to 1:40

Lol watch your own video. You might notice the demolitions start at the bottom and not the top. The charges are rigged to go off sequentially from bottom to the top. The reason for the failure is the break in the sequence. You are basically claiming that a highly organized gang of conspirators managed to blow up a building in reverse order and in basically perfect sequence without stringing miles of control wires to sequential detonators? Wow, good job.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 08:36:12 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Uhh how about you and your butt buddies EODs get off deez nutz. Evidence? Look at the how the fucking building came down dumb fk. Buildings of that size does not come down that easily.

Oh look at the world thats the evidence for god....


Thats the bullshit "evidence" you have? Wow Gee I guess I was wrong all along, I mean a know nothing pissant who received no fucking training in the art of demolition said it has to be demolition and he has a youtube video! That has to count for waaaaaay more than my 5 years of training and experience with demolitions, my being there for several months prior to and the day of and the other 27 other EOD's with a combined 100+ years experience. I mean he has a YOUTUBE video. How can I compete with that level of "proof".

And by the way, you hungry yet? Because I sure would bet that a bullet would fill your empty headed ass up.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 08:39:54 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"
QuoteLol you dont have access to anything but the janitors room now stfu and get off my nutz. Anyways here is a video of fail demolition videos. Notice how even tho the core is taken out the buildings top still stays intact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsKxVTf4YYM) skip to 1:40

Lol watch your own video. You might notice the demolitions start at the bottom and not the top. The charges are rigged to go off sequentially from bottom to the top. The reason for the failure is the break in the sequence. You are basically claiming that a highly organized gang of conspirators managed to blow up a building in reverse order and in basically perfect sequence without stringing miles of control wires to sequential detonators? Wow, good job.

Yes the demolition in that vids starts from the bottom, but when the top part comes down it doesnt pancake into itself and it was more than 2/3 of the weight of the building.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2014, 08:41:39 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Uhh how about you and your butt buddies EODs get off deez nutz. Evidence? Look at the how the fucking building came down dumb fk. Buildings of that size does not come down that easily.
It was clearly Godzilla. How can you ignore such obvious evidence?

(//http://api.ning.com/files/1NqkK4GXeiLLV-YGFRkbAsdCWw-HUso*8mJRKRLlPOBr1Fyzj9TJXiBDS2UTWlsy5tvZHI4-JkQbf0v1X54Tetj83uYICHA9/godzilla2805cn.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 08:43:35 PM
QuoteYes the demolition in that vids starts from the bottom, but when the top part comes down it doesnt pancake into itself and it was more than 2/3 of the weight of the building.

Thank you. You just disproved your own theory.  =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 08:48:24 PM
sweet, I just disproved myself
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 08:58:25 PM
Quote from: "Fucktard McBallsack"Yes the demolition in that vids starts from the bottom, but when the top part comes down it doesnt pancake into itself and it was more than 2/3 of the weight of the building.

(//http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt91/BHughes4/open/laugh.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 08:58:48 PM
and heres to all you sheeple who cant see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o) this speech was givin on Sept 11 1991 :rollin:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 09:08:00 PM
(//https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/2151202560/h525B2CD7/)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2014, 09:10:58 PM
Quote from: "theory816"and heres to all you sheeple who cant see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o) this speech was givin on Sept 11 1991 :rollin:
The only "sheeple" here are the idiots who buy into this shit.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 09:14:23 PM
Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2014, 09:16:37 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]
(//http://i.imgur.com/FBEZNqA.png)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 09:21:17 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]
You just proved that you're a massive dumbass or a troll. I don't even need to post a meme for this one, you're just a fucking retard.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 09:24:03 PM
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]
You just proved that you're a massive dumbass or a troll. I don't even need to post a meme for this one, you're just a fucking retard.

Go through my post history and see if im a troll you numbnutt. Now fk off
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 09:25:54 PM
Quote from: "theory816"and heres to all you sheeple who cant see it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byxeOG_pZ1o) this speech was givin on Sept 11 1991 :rollin:

Oh gosh guys what are we to do he has Youtube videos, and they lend no credence to his "argument". Guys I think we have to admit that this braindead retard has us dead to rights, what with this onslaught of youtube videos our pathetic scientific testing, expert eye witnesses, and intimate knowledge of demolitions surely doesn't hold a candle to youtube.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 09:27:24 PM
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]

Oh noes guys now he is showing us origami with money AND youtube? Man we are so screwed by this retards attempt at evidence.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 09:27:57 PM
Quote from: "theory816"
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]
You just proved that you're a massive dumbass or a troll. I don't even need to post a meme for this one, you're just a fucking retard.

Go through my post history and see if im a troll you numbnutt. Now fk off
Ok so you're a massive fucking retard. Thanks for clearing that up.

Also it's spelled "fuck". I know it must be fun to use naughty words for the first time, but at least spell them right.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2014, 09:28:47 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]

Oh noes guys now he is showing us origami with money AND youtube? Man we are so screwed by this retards attempt at evidence.
I think he's trying to say that the World Trade Center collapse is on the money.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: theory816 on March 02, 2014, 09:34:12 PM
oh yea? fuck you. like that right? sweet.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: "theory816"oh yea? fuck you. like that right? sweet.
Yep, you spelled it right.

Unfortunately I must decline your offer of coitus as I don't stick my dick in crazy.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2014, 09:43:10 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]

Oh noes guys now he is showing us origami with money AND youtube? Man we are so screwed by this retards attempt at evidence.
I think he's trying to say that the World Trade Center collapse is on the money.
I see Mr. Theory has thanked me for this post, but I should point out that I was mocking the concept. It requires either drastic oversight or cognitive dissonance to believe that the same government capable of covering up the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center would feel the need to design, in advance, a pattern on its currency for no other purpose than to say "neener neener."
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 09:44:06 PM
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"
Quote from: "theory816"Oh sheeples gonna sheep. BAAAAA BAAAAAA :rollin:  [ Image (//http://rancidnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/9-11-money.jpg) ]

Oh noes guys now he is showing us origami with money AND youtube? Man we are so screwed by this retards attempt at evidence.
I think he's trying to say that the World Trade Center collapse is on the money.

I know, I was simply mocking what passes for evidence to this drooling window licker.

Anyone else missing the attempt at being semi intelligent "arguments" posed by AMF? At least he attempts to put SOME thought into his arguments.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 09:56:16 PM
Oh noes guys now he is showing us origami with money AND youtube? Man we are so screwed by this retards attempt at evidence.[/quote]
I think he's trying to say that the World Trade Center collapse is on the money.[/quote]

I know, I was simply mocking what passes for evidence to this drooling window licker.

Anyone else missing the attempt at being semi intelligent "arguments" posed by AMF? At least he attempts to put SOME thought into his arguments.[/quote]

you're being too kind, moral.  [-X
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 02, 2014, 10:04:43 PM
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"...Nor do you seem to understand how pathetically trained airport security is compared to U.S. military EOD's. Nor do you understand the why trying to rig a building for demolition under the noses of people who's job it is to know what that looks like, WITHOUT those same people noticing.

No demolitions expert would be able to pull it off. Plain and simple its not fucking possible. Your "theory" does not have a leg to stand on. The other issues that this "theory" of yours has are the following:
Danny Jowenko is the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands.  He was shown a video of the collapse of WTC 7 without his knowing what it was and asked to comment.  (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.)  After viewing the video, Jowenko said: "They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . .  This is controlled demolition."  When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."
   Your ace team of 27 experts guarding seven buildings 24/7 -- so that means how many of your experts at 7 WTC at any given time of any day?  Guarding how many possible entrances?
   You have repeatedly denied that the required volume of thermite could have been brought into the building and strategically placed, citing your own infallibility as proof, thought it is precisely your overconfidence that makes you so vulnerable.  The city of Troy was impregnable until the Greeks figured out how to get in.  Encryption FIPS 140-2 Level 2 was considered impossible to break, until someone circumvented it.  The Titanic was unsinkable, until it sank.  All you have done is belittle airport security agents while touting your own horn.
   And you have still not shown us how the truthers planted the thermitic residue in the dust samples.  If you can't show us how it was done, you have to explain some other mechanism by which the residue got into the dust.  Otherwise, the residue is valid evidence that thermite could have been what brought 7 WTC down.
   You have shown us a video with no molten steel and claimed this as proof that there was none whereas I have shown videos of firefighters who say they saw it, Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking about fires of 2000 degrees or more, and interviews with responders shown on the History Channel, yet you still deny molten iron/steel.  This refusal to believe anything that challenges your world view is known as denial.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 02, 2014, 10:11:37 PM
Quote from: "theory816"This is a vid explaining how the buildings could have possibly been rigged for those who are interested. I didn't watch it all as I already believe its to be a inside job. For most, the question is if it was rigged is wrong, it should be how it was rigged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3EQV223Y-M)
It appears to be hopeless, T816.  These guys are in such a state of denial they would insist they were never born if it challenged their world view.  Especially the dude who worked there as a rent-a-cop, EOD, whatever he calls himself.  He seems to feel we are blaming him for the failure rather than to look at it objectively, pick up the pieces and move on.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 02, 2014, 10:14:14 PM
Ahem: thermite residue = elemental iron and aluminum oxide. Aluminum plane + steel (carbon + iron) structure building = iron and aluminum. It's not hard to see how this would be present when an aluminum plane slams into a steel structure.

Yes yes, I know you're talking about building 7, but a plane slamming into a building (or anything for that matter) would produce a lot of particulate matter spread out over a large area. I addressed this point much earlier in this sprawling thread, so it's appropriate that I bring it up again.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on March 02, 2014, 10:53:35 PM
Does anyone still have a pic of a dead horse being beaten?  please post it for me to steal so I can use it on this thread.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 02, 2014, 10:54:16 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"...Nor do you seem to understand how pathetically trained airport security is compared to U.S. military EOD's. Nor do you understand the why trying to rig a building for demolition under the noses of people who's job it is to know what that looks like, WITHOUT those same people noticing.

No demolitions expert would be able to pull it off. Plain and simple its not fucking possible. Your "theory" does not have a leg to stand on. The other issues that this "theory" of yours has are the following:
Danny Jowenko is the owner of a controlled demolition company in the Netherlands.  He was shown a video of the collapse of WTC 7 without his knowing what it was and asked to comment.  (Jowenko had been unaware that a third building had collapsed on 9/11.)  After viewing the video, Jowenko said: "They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . .  This is controlled demolition."  When asked if he was certain, he replied: "Absolutely, it's been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this."
   Your ace team of 27 experts guarding seven buildings 24/7 -- so that means how many of your experts at 7 WTC at any given time of any day?  Guarding how many possible entrances?
   You have repeatedly denied that the required volume of thermite could have been brought into the building and strategically placed, citing your own infallibility as proof, thought it is precisely your overconfidence that makes you so vulnerable.  The city of Troy was impregnable until the Greeks figured out how to get in.  Encryption FIPS 140-2 Level 2 was considered impossible to break, until someone circumvented it.  The Titanic was unsinkable, until it sank.  All you have done is belittle airport security agents while touting your own horn.
   And you have still not shown us how the truthers planted the thermitic residue in the dust samples.  If you can't show us how it was done, you have to explain some other mechanism by which the residue got into the dust.  Otherwise, the residue is valid evidence that thermite could have been what brought 7 WTC down.
   You have shown us a video with no molten steel and claimed this as proof that there was none whereas I have shown videos of firefighters who say they saw it, Mayor Rudy Giuliani speaking about fires of 2000 degrees or more, and interviews with responders shown on the History Channel, yet you still deny molten iron/steel.  This refusal to believe anything that challenges your world view is known as denial.

The funny thing about EOD offices is that there is the latest and greatest of bomb detection equipment, thermite(your explosive of choice) was one of the many things that is picked up by said equipment its success rate is 99.999%. But lets say that somehow this particular thermite was part of the .0001% miss rate of the equipment. Again you still have to take into account that the building would still have to be rigged for demo. A process that involves removal of interior walls, wiring, and the exposing the structural support members to be demoed to bring the building down. This level of building destruction would have been noticed by any of the hundreds of office workers and security guards in the building.

Now once you get the structural supports exposed NOW you have to set the charges and run the lines for the demo. The lines are primacord an explosive. Then there are the blasting caps, also an explosive. Those chemical makeups are detected 100% by the EOD equipment. But, again, for the sake of argument lets say that somehow the equipment misses something it never misses. Or better yet lets say that they are using some sort of "super secret" unknown detonation cord and blasting cap that the equipment isn't set to detect. Now then you would have all this cabling connecting from one structural support to another. Something that even you would have to admit would draw some sort of attention from somebody. Again remember that NOBODY that worked in that office saw ANYTHING remotely close to this.

Now, again for the sake of argument, lets say that you get lucky and NONE of this is detected by anybody or any of the equipment. Now then you have to contend with the damage to the building from falling debris from tower 1. This damaged the lower 1/3 to 2/3(depending on the report) of the building. This would have damaged the chain and would have to be fixed on the fly, something that is quite difficult to do in controlled situations and virtually impossible to do in a chaotic environment like that building was. All of this while there were people being evacuated from the building, firefighters, and police swarming to assist the injured, and NONE of this rigging being noticed.

Now do you see why this theory of yours has been discounted? The series of events that would be required for this to be a true scenario are astounding. This is what disproves your theory. This isn't one thing that is unlikely, this is a series of next to impossible actions that would have had to taken place for this to occur.

Notice this entire dispute so far I have taken the EOD factor out of the equation. The EOD factor simply adds another layer of difficulty to the equation. And makes it even less likely to have occurred.

Also the EOD(and good job on getting a good one by the way, I actually hadn't heard that one before. But he is a damn good EOD), said only that the building looked like it was brought down by explosives, Not that the series of events that I have just described(your own admission stated that he was unaware of the third building falling on 9/11) were even remotely possible, nor did he claim to be able to complete the demo rigging under the noses of EOD's.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 02, 2014, 11:00:21 PM
(//http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/4741968/beating-a-dead-horse-o.gif)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 02, 2014, 11:09:55 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"4. & 6. That would depend on which floors the charges were placed and we do not know that information.  For the sake of argument, let's say all the interior columns vanished, with only the outer columns remaining intact for a short while.
[]
Why would all the outer columns buckle inward and none buckle outward?  What else other than controlled demolition would make them all buckle simultaneously?  If you can not explain how the columns all failed simultaneously, how else do you explain the building coming straight down symetrically?
First off, the interior columns didn't vanish. They may have broken, but they're still there, their weight unchanged, but now needing support themselves instead of doing the supporting, pulling on those cross beams you see with the weight they formerly supported. Hence, the outer columns get pulled inward, in the direction of that weight.

Secondly, you say they all buckled simultaneously? How "simultaneous" is that, because that statement is based on the fact that the roof appeared to fall as one unit from a quarter mile away. That can mean that individual members could have failed such that they got no further than a half foot before its neighbors did, which case the difference in failure times can be as much as a tenth of a second, which is certainly sufficient time for the stress from those broken members to be transferred to their neighbors and cause them to fall.

Now how did the building get in such a state where one breakage would mean that failure would rip through the building? Remember that fire cooking all that structure? Well before the final collapse, the building would settle as the members slowly weakened from the fire and the weight shifted around to stronger members from the weaker ones (the ones doing more buckling), so at the end of seven hours, an already compromised building would have all of its weight transferred away from members that could no longer support it onto a relatively few members that are still able to bear the weight of the building. Thus, the entire building was on the brink of failure, and it took only a little push to cause a catastrophic unzipping of the entire thing. And remember that eyewitnesses in the building saw that walls were bulging, indicating that the members inside were buckling already.

So, in a real way, the actual collapse of the building took hours, not seconds; it just had a rather dramatic final phase.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 02, 2014, 11:29:58 PM
You keep citing the opinions of "experts" including known conspiracy theorists to protest your case, and keep ignoring the obvious arguments. I don't care how many experts view videos and cite opinions, you have completely overlooked what the people who made the determination of what brought the buildings down concluded.

The fact is that a building brought down by detonation leaves a huge amount of evidence of that demolition. Explosive residue, obvious marking of blast sites, necessary deconstruction, point of explosive detonation, tearaway or shearing of both concrete and steel members and so on and so on. That evidence was nonexistent when the NYFD and other explosive experts examined the wreckage.

Well, that is it for me. I'm not wasting any more time on this drivel.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 03, 2014, 01:10:20 AM
@everyone

This post is not addressed to any OCT'er in particular.  Just a general observation that ought to be considered.

Former Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta testifies to 9/11 Commission:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBwW5Lo_CD0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBwW5Lo_CD0)

The plane is 50 miles out
...30 miles out
...10 miles out, then the young man comes in and asks, "Do the orders still stand?"  Cheney replies in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ALL ASK:
1.) What were those orders?
2.) Why were the ordinary workers in the Pentagon not warned about the hijacked aircraft coming at them 50 miles out, 30 miles out and 10 miles out so they could have taken cover?  And those who died not have died?


But the above is probably off topic, because this thread is about 7 WTC, so please disregard it.  My bad.   :roll:

Getting back to 7 WTC...
even BEFORE either of the TwinTowers collapsed, there were massive explosion(s) in WTC 7.  Since the building had not been hit by either any aircraft nor any debris from the falling towers, what caused the explosion(s)?

 :-k
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 03, 2014, 01:27:21 AM
https://www.google.com/search?q=explosi ... 3&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=explosion+in+bldg+7+prior+to+attack&rlz=1C1GGGE_enUS415US450&oq=explosion+in+bldg+7+prior+to+attack&aqs=chrome..69i57.22055j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trad ... y_theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2014, 08:44:20 AM
QuoteThe structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.[2][77][page needed]
The American Society of Civil Engineers Structural Engineering Institute issued a statement calling for further discussion of NIST's recommendations,[78] and Britain's Institution of Structural Engineers published a statement in May 2002 welcoming the FEMA report, noting that the report expressed similar views to those held by its group of professionals.[79]
Following the publication of Jones' paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"[6] Brigham Young University responded to Jones' "increasingly speculative and accusatory" statements by placing him on paid leave, and thereby stripping him of two classes, in September 2006, pending a review of his statements and research. Six weeks later, Jones retired from the university.[21] The structural engineering faculty at the university issued a statement which said that they "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones".[3][22] On September 22, 2005, Jones gave a seminar on his hypotheses to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at BYU. According to Jones, all but one of his colleagues agreed after the seminar that an investigation was in order and the lone dissenter came to agreement with Jones' suggestions the next day.[22]
Northwestern University Professor of Civil Engineering Zden?k Bažant, who was the first to offer a published peer-reviewed theory of the collapses, wrote "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception.[80] Bažant and Verdure trace such "strange ideas" to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. One of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives". Indeed, Bažant and Verdure have proposed examining data from controlled demolitions in order to better model the progressive collapse of the towers, suggesting that progressive collapse and controlled demolition are not two separate modes of failure (as the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory assumes).[2]
Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also dismissed the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory.[3] Eagar remarked, "These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."[81]
Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings,[6][7][8][12] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[82] states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[83] Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers. Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.[84]
Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort.[85] The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors.[6] Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers[6][86] without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing.[1][50][85][86][87][88] Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"[89]
World Trade Center developer Larry Silverstein said, "Hopefully this thorough report puts to rest the various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which dishonor the men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day." Upon presentation of the NIST's detailed report on the failure of Bldg. 7, Richard Gage, leader of the group Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth said, "How much longer do we have to endure the coverup of how Building 7 was destroyed?" in which Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, the lead NIST investigator said he could not explain why the skepticism would not die. "I am really not a psychologist," he said. "Our job was to come up with the best science."[36] James Quintiere, professor of fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland, who does not believe explosives brought down the towers, questioned how the agency came to its conclusions, remarking, "They don't have the expertise on explosives," though he adds that NIST wasted time employing outside experts to consider it.[90]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 03, 2014, 11:47:37 AM
Thanks for posting that. I've got better things to do than playing derp tag with the tinfoil hat crowd.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 03, 2014, 12:08:31 PM
QuoteThey determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion.
Sounds familiar.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 03, 2014, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"The plane is 50 miles out
...30 miles out
...10 miles out, then the young man comes in and asks, "Do the orders still stand?"  Cheney replies in the affirmative.

QUESTIONS WE SHOULD ALL ASK:
1.) What were those orders?
If you watched the first part of the tape, you would know that it was to shoot commercial planes down.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"2.) Why were the ordinary workers in the Pentagon not warned about the hijacked aircraft coming at them 50 miles out, 30 miles out and 10 miles out so they could have taken cover?  And those who died not have died?
I have no idea, but you cannot conclude from that that there was any ill intent directed towards those workers. However, a plausible timeline is summarily described as, "We got the Air Force protecting us in the Pentagon... what do you mean they're not scrambled yet?"

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"even BEFORE either of the TwinTowers collapsed, there were massive explosion(s) in WTC 7.  Since the building had not been hit by either any aircraft nor any debris from the falling towers, what caused the explosion(s)?

 :-k
First, find evidence that proves (a) that these explosions existed, and (b) that these explosions came from WTC 7 and not some other source. Because we don't have to explain irrelevant and/or nonexistant data.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on March 03, 2014, 02:55:18 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm unsure how being a combat photographer qualifies him to expound upon diplomatic history, but out of respect for his service, I'll simply say that I think he's wrong ... I much prefer agreeable disagreement, myself.
Combat photographer during World War 2, when he was a young man, who later became a distinguished journalist.  The book was written more than five decades after the war ended.  While he was serving in the military during the war, he believed the official line about the unprovoked sneak attack.  Then more than 50 years of research later, his opinion had changed.

That still doesn't render him qualified as an authority on the topic. How varied was his research? How original was it? How much has been verified? How many interviews has he conducted, and with whom? What peer-reviewed articles has he published? Those are the things that make a person an authority; those, or perhaps personal experience in the event under discussion -- but even the latter is only a very limited sort of authority.
 

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"FDR ... and his Administration understood that a Japanese attack would not have justified a war against Germany, which is what they really wanted.

Funny, because war against Germany is exactly what happened, isn't it.  As a history buff, surely you know that Germany had a three-way pact with Italy and Japan, that if one of the three were attacked, the other two would would come to the defense?  Or maybe that is also just a part of the conspiracy theory?

You're wrong.  While they did have a Tripartite pact, it didn't require them all to go to war unconditionally, as you yourself noted (see emphasis above).  It required them to go to war if one of them was attacked by "another, unnamed" country.  Indeed, the Japanese specifically cited this clause when they remained neutral versus Russia after Operation Barbarossa; their line of reasoning was that Germany had not been attacked.  This example happened only six months prior to Pearl Harbor. FDR and others had no reason to believe that Germany would not treat Japan exactly the same, i,e. maintain neutrality.  The fact that Hitler declared war on the US on 11 Dec was a windfall for those who wanted war with Germany.  

This answer of yours belies a shallow understanding of the treaty at hand. Japan wasn't attacked; Germany had no obligation to throw into the effort.  Both Shirer and Toland go into depth as to why Hitler made such a mystifyingly stupid decision when he wasn't obligated to do so.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Sorry, but you'll need to start another thread if you want to "show" that you've proven your point.
From what I have seen of the open mindedness of most members of this forum, I think not.  Let's just leave it as another point we disagree on.

But do tell us this.  As a history buff, (if you are still a history buff), what is your take on the Reichstag fire in 1933 and Goering's "proof" it was the evil doings of the commies?  Have you ever heard of the Lavon Affair?  What about the Manchurian Incident?  Are these nothing but false flag conspiracy theories and the ravings of lunatics?  Or maybe these never happened?  What say you, Mr. History Buff?[/quote]

What those have to do with this topic doesn't strike me as terribly relevant, but I'll humor you and answer, if you promise to quit throwing up dust trying to obscure the conversation. The Reichstag fire was likely the result of a NaZi conspiracy to inculpate Jews as a group and fan the hatred against them; it wasn't the "commies", I don't think. The Lavon Affair doesn't seem very connected to Pearl Harbor.  Could you explain the relevance?  Are you arguing that the Jews blew up the Arizona and then pinned it on the Japanese? (See, cheap sarcasm is no answer, now is it?)

If by "the Manchurian Incident" you mean the Japanese bombing the Marco Polo Bridge in order to provide themselves a pretext to install the pupet government of Manchukuo, yes, I'm aware of it.

If the point of these questions is to convince me that false-flag attacks occur, then don't waste your time any further; I know for a fact that they do. If the point of these questions is that Pearl Harbor was a flase-flag attack, I think you're probably a little beyond the bounds of reality, even moreso than this WTC silliness. If your point is that 9/11 was a flase-flag attack, then you need to provide evidence.  Your  inability to do so even after forty-plus pages bodes ill for your wish to convince others.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 03, 2014, 03:01:09 PM
This is the Popular Mechanics report on debunking the conspiracy theorists posted on here previously;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278927 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278927)

This is the National Institute Standards and Technology's report on the WTC building collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... eports.cfm (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm)

This is the NIST's report on the Bldg. 7 collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... s_wtc7.cfm (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm)

Now, understand this: regardless of whatever conspiracy theories you can cook up, THIS IS THE FINAL AND ACCEPTED WORD OF WHAT HAPPENED. GOT THAT? It does not matter what you piss out or conjure up, this is it.
So will you kindly

SHUT THE FUCK UP?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 03, 2014, 03:04:18 PM
This needs a tick tock the game is locked, no one else can play.  If they do we'll take their shoe and beat them till they're black and blue.  =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on March 03, 2014, 03:08:26 PM
Well as long as this thread is continuing to spiral downhill, I'll just leave this here:

[youtube:2p71m3bd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AYujWCCHRk[/youtube:2p71m3bd]
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Brian37 on March 04, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"This is the Popular Mechanics report on debunking the conspiracy theorists posted on here previously;
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... re/4278927 (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278927)

This is the National Institute Standards and Technology's report on the WTC building collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... eports.cfm (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm)

This is the NIST's report on the Bldg. 7 collapse
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/ ... s_wtc7.cfm (http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm)

Now, understand this: regardless of whatever conspiracy theories you can cook up, THIS IS THE FINAL AND ACCEPTED WORD OF WHAT HAPPENED. GOT THAT? It does not matter what you piss out or conjure up, this is it.
So will you kindly

SHUT THE FUCK UP?

Obama is responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. Get a fucking clue! :Hangman:
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Jason78 on March 04, 2014, 03:29:36 PM
Obama keeps hiding my keys too
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Brian37 on March 04, 2014, 03:33:12 PM
Quote from: "Jason78"Obama keeps hiding my keys too

Black people do that you know.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 04, 2014, 03:44:54 PM
Obama made me run out of cigarettes earlier.  He came by and said, Gimme a square!
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: The Skeletal Atheist on March 04, 2014, 03:54:44 PM
I was walking down the street one day and Obama came right up and kicked me in the nuts. As he ran away laughing he said  "nobody will ever believe you!".

Another time I was at the bar just drinking my beer and guess who sat right beside me: Barack fucking Obama. He grabbed my beer and poured it onto my pants. Then he learned in and whispered to me "nobody will ever believe you!".

To think, I voted for the guy.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Brian37 on March 04, 2014, 03:58:52 PM
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Obama made me run out of cigarettes earlier.  He came by and said, Gimme a square!

Never fuck with anyone's smokes! It is actually worse to have them and nothing to light them with.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Thumpalumpacus on March 04, 2014, 09:09:11 PM
So long as he wasn't the asshole who canceled Seinfeld, I'm cool with Obama.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AtheistMoFo on March 04, 2014, 09:24:03 PM
@stromboli:
Quote from: "stromboli"Lol watch your own video. You might notice the demolitions start at the bottom and not the top. The charges are rigged to go off sequentially from bottom to the top. The reason for the failure is the break in the sequence. You are basically claiming that a highly organized gang of conspirators managed to blow up a building in reverse order and in basically perfect sequence without stringing miles of control wires to sequential detonators? Wow, good job.
To repeat what I have already said but none of you OCT'ers seem to understand, controlled demolition starts from the bottom more often than not, but there is nothing unusual about starting from the top or even from the middle.  The "miles of wires" claim will be addressed later in this post, if you care to remain in the loop.

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]


@Moralnihilist:
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Thats the bullshit "evidence" you have? Wow Gee I guess I was wrong all along, I mean a know nothing pissant who received no fucking training in the art of demolition said it has to be demolition and he has a youtube video! That has to count for waaaaaay more than my 5 years of training and experience with demolitions, my being there for several months prior to and the day of and the other 27 other EOD's with a combined 100+ years experience. I mean he has a YOUTUBE video. How can I compete with that level of "proof".
Danny Jowenko owned a demolition company.  He said it was controlled demolition.  (As mentioned earlier.)  Unfortunately he died in a car crash a few years ago.

Quote from: "Moralnihilist"And by the way, you hungry yet? Because I sure would bet that a bullet would fill your empty headed ass up.
You wouldn't happen to have been in Netherlands around the time Jowenko died, would you?  You know, in most forums they ban people for making death threats.  But you seem to be safe here.  From what I have gathered, the only grounds for being bannished from this forum is to express a dissenting opinion.  But we shall see.

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@The Skeletal Atheist:
Quote from: "The Skeletal Atheist"Ahem: thermite residue = elemental iron and aluminum oxide. Aluminum plane + steel (carbon + iron) structure building = iron and aluminum. It's not hard to see how this would be present when an aluminum plane slams into a steel structure.

Yes yes, I know you're talking about building 7, but a plane slamming into a building (or anything for that matter) would produce a lot of particulate matter spread out over a large area. I addressed this point much earlier in this sprawling thread, so it's appropriate that I bring it up again.
Aluminium planes smashing into the towers, yes that would be admissible evidence.  But you would have to show that aluminium airplane bodies could produce the same residue as that of thermite.  

BTW, in cases of arson that involves criminal activity, testing for the presence of explosives including thermite is a REQUIREMENT, not a suggestion, and yet no such tests were performed.  Does that not strike you as odd?

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@Moralnihilist:
Quote from: "Moralnihilist"The funny thing about EOD offices is that there is the latest and greatest of bomb detection equipment, thermite(your explosive of choice) was one of the many things that is picked up by said equipment its success rate is 99.999%...
Those chemical makeups are detected 100% by the EOD equipment...
Right.  And the Walls of Troy were 100% effective, too, until they were penetrated.  Ditto for the FIPS 140-2 Level 2 security I mentioned earlier.  And a 99.999% success rate sort of depends on being tested, does it not?  At the WTC disaster, show me the results of the tests.

We know U.S. weapons technology is always years (or decades) ahead of information that is made public.  We have known for years satellites have the capability of reading vehicle number plates. But it had been kept secret for years until we knew.  By now, satellites probably have the ability to pick up on the difference between a natural blonde and a bleached blonde for all we know, and it won't be revealed to the public until many years down the road.  Just because something is 99.999%, or even what you refer to as 100% failsafe (and I use the term "failsafe" with a bit of irony), it is your arrogance in believing your defences are impregnable that make them so vulnerable.

Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Now, again for the sake of argument, lets say that you get lucky and NONE of this is detected by anybody or any of the equipment. Now then you have to contend with the damage to the building from falling debris from tower 1. This damaged the lower 1/3 to 2/3(depending on the report) of the building. This would have damaged the chain and would have to be fixed on the fly, something that is quite difficult to do in controlled situations and virtually impossible to do in a chaotic environment like that building was. All of this while there were people being evacuated from the building, firefighters, and police swarming to assist the injured, and NONE of this rigging being noticed.
See my comment above about 100% failsafe, and think BlueTooth.  We the Joe Public type consumers can purchase various BlueTooth devices for pocket money.  What do the U.S. weapons makers have up their sleeve that won't be revealed to Joe Public for another decade or two?  You really do not need miles and miles of cables.  And reprogramming the timing sequence?  Have you ever heard of a device known as "the computer"?  A computer can do a lot more than just download porn and upload ad hominem attacks you know.  Or didn't you?

Quote from: "Moralnihilist"Notice this entire dispute so far I have taken the EOD factor out of the equation. The EOD factor simply adds another layer of difficulty to the equation. And makes it even less likely to have occurred.
Good job.  And note that I am refraining from any accusation of dereliction of duty on your part in this post.  Hey, shit happens, right?  And people who are not high enough up on the food chain get fed through the meat grinder and turned into scapegoats.  Fact of life.  Deal with it.  There is technology in existencey you have never heard of, regardless your security clearance level.
(My guess is that there might even be technology that Obama does not have security level to know.  But that is only conjecture on my part, so don't even bother ask for proof because it is only conjecture.)

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@Hakurei Reimu:
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Secondly, you say they all buckled simultaneously? How "simultaneous" is that, because that statement is based on the fact that the roof appeared to fall as one unit from a quarter mile away. That can mean that individual members could have failed such that they got no further than a half foot before its neighbors did, which case the difference in failure times can be as much as a tenth of a second, which is certainly sufficient time for the stress from those broken members to be transferred to their neighbors and cause them to fall.
Your theory, and I stress the word "theory", relies on the assumption that the entire WTC 7 building was engulfed in fire similar to
(//http://www.hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/img/windsor-building-fire_20050212.jpg)
the Windsor Building for instance, for the entire 7 hours.  It was not.  (By the way, the Windsor fire raged for 18 hours but the Windsor Bldg did not collapse, not that it is proof of anything, just incidental.)

So tell us again how many and which floors had uncontrollable fires raging?  Photos would be a great help, by the way...

By "simultaneous" I mean close enough in time for the building to fall straight down at freefall acceleration.  How many times do I fucking have to say it.  And by the way, next time you get confused, just take another look at the title of this thread.  And thank you in advance for posting some photos/videos taken close up at less than quarter mile away showing that individual members did fail at different times, if you think it would prove anything significant.  But if you are going to make the claim, back it up.  Otherwise it is bullshit, or so I have been told.

            [center:vnt3bc68]= = = = =[/center:vnt3bc68]

@stromboli:
Quote from: "stromboli"You keep citing the opinions of "experts" including known conspiracy theorists to protest your case, and keep ignoring the obvious arguments. I don't care how many experts view videos and cite opinions, you have completely overlooked what the people who made the determination of what brought the buildings down concluded.
(Not sure whom your comments are addressed to, but I will jump in anyway):
Ah, yes, commrade Stromboli.  And you keep citing the opinions of "people who made the determination" and ignoring the obvious arguments.  So what is you point?  (if you have one)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Johan on March 04, 2014, 09:42:16 PM
The stupid is strong in this one.

(//http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8bXy6A8CdUc/UG5MaQp7U1I/AAAAAAAAAqA/haYkbEnGYyk/s1600/beating_a_dead_horse_by_potatoehuman-d3fead4.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 04, 2014, 10:10:22 PM
The new official last person to acknowledge mofo wins thread.  =D>
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 04, 2014, 10:17:41 PM
And like I said, all of your theories and observations do not change the fact that the official explanation by the NIST disproves your shit, regardless of what your claims are. Game, set, match, pinhead.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on March 04, 2014, 10:25:44 PM
There has been discussion of this thread. It has been determined that it appears to be a harmless exercise in he-said/she-said and many otherwise intelligent people are determined to argue incessantly over things that some will never agree to. You go bro! Props to AtheistMoFo for dragging so many along. Peace out.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 04, 2014, 10:29:25 PM
QuoteThere has been discussion of this thread. It has been determined that it appears to be a harmless exercise in he-said/she-said and many otherwise intelligent people are determined to argue incessantly over things that some will never agree to. You go bro! Props to AtheistMoFo for dragging so many along. Peace out.

So what you are saying is that it took you 48 pages to basically come to a non-conclusion? I love when you put your foot down.  :-D
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: aitm on March 04, 2014, 10:36:35 PM
Quote from: "stromboli"
QuoteThere has been discussion of this thread. It has been determined that it appears to be a harmless exercise in he-said/she-said and many otherwise intelligent people are determined to argue incessantly over things that some will never agree to. You go bro! Props to AtheistMoFo for dragging so many along. Peace out.

So what you are saying is that it took you 48 pages to basically come to a non-conclusion? I love when you put your foot down.  :-D

I am not going to be so arrogant to state that I have only posted twice in this 48 page cluster fuck, (hopefully no one really cares enough to check it out) but I have to say this: There is nothing inherently wrong with this thread, noting of course that I have only posted twice and such have only read about seven posts......I also think arguing with retards is rather pointless.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: stromboli on March 04, 2014, 10:41:48 PM
QuoteI am not going to be so arrogant to state that I have only posted twice in this 48 page cluster fuck, (hopefully no one really cares enough to check it out) but I have to say this: There is nothing inherently wrong with this thread, noting of course that I have only posted twice and such have only read about seven posts......I also think arguing with retards is rather pointless.

And I'm sad to say that I can't argue with that.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Moralnihilist on March 04, 2014, 10:48:06 PM
Quote from: "aitm"I also think arguing with retards is rather pointless.

As do I, After taking the time to explain the series of next to impossible things that would need to take place for AMF's "theory" to actually be true and to have him yet again not understand the simple fact that it is impossible for what he claims to be true.

To AMF:
You have worn me down I no longer have the energy to try to make you understand that your bullshit is just bullshit.
I ADMIT IT I BLEW UP WTC BUILDING 7. Whatever the fuck your pathetic little mind wants to believe, I no longer give a shit. Your simply incapable of understanding that you are wrong, that you have no evidence, that your theory is simply impossible, that the series of events for your "theory" to even be remotely close to true did not happen.

I tried at the end to use simple reason when I realized that you actually believed the crap that you spewed and weren't just another troll. And your response was to spew the same bullshit again and again. Im simply not interested in arguing with someone with the same mentality of the average theist on this forum anymore. So believe whatever you want, I no longer give a rats ass.
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 04, 2014, 11:43:22 PM
With those kinds of attitudes you guys will never win the last person to acknowledge mofo wins thread.  [-X
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: PopeyesPappy on March 04, 2014, 11:52:11 PM
Acknowledges who?
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 05, 2014, 12:01:36 AM
Nobody really.. It's just a lame play on words about the thread quasi merged with the last person to post here thread.

ok, it sounded funny in my head anyway.  :-k
Title: Re: Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?
Post by: Hakurei Reimu on March 05, 2014, 05:27:42 PM
Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Secondly, you say they all buckled simultaneously? How "simultaneous" is that, because that statement is based on the fact that the roof appeared to fall as one unit from a quarter mile away. That can mean that individual members could have failed such that they got no further than a half foot before its neighbors did, which case the difference in failure times can be as much as a tenth of a second, which is certainly sufficient time for the stress from those broken members to be transferred to their neighbors and cause them to fall.
Your theory, and I stress the word "theory", relies on the assumption that the entire WTC 7 building was engulfed in fire similar to
[ Image (//http://www.hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/img/windsor-building-fire_20050212.jpg) ]
the Windsor Building for instance, for the entire 7 hours.  It was not.  (By the way, the Windsor fire raged for 18 hours but the Windsor Bldg did not collapse, not that it is proof of anything, just incidental.)

So tell us again how many and which floors had uncontrollable fires raging?  Photos would be a great help, by the way...
How many years of experience in the dynamics of building fires do you have again? Oh, that's right — none. Windsor building was steel-reinforced concrete, not a steel-frame building as WTC 7 was. For Windsor building, the steel reinforcements were quite well protected by the concrete they were embedded in. It's a very good fireproofing material. On the other hand, the fire retardant for WTC 7 was rated only for two hours. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Quote from: "AtheistMoFo"By "simultaneous" I mean close enough in time for the building to fall straight down at freefall acceleration.  How many times do I fucking have to say it.
You don't have it. You do not have the freefall time that is in excess of the amount expected in a chaotic process such as an uncontrolled collapse. You have not even proved that the WTC 7 building fell straight down as you claim. You have not even proved that the failure of columns along the facad