Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

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.

[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

[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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

SA, please use your new found powers to get mofo to knock it off.  =D>

[TheLittlestLepton]

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.

[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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm not a scientist so my level of needing 100% proof is uhmm..minimal.

[Plu]

Scenario 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.

[AtheistMoFo]

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?

There 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?

[Plu]

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?

It would be impossible to rig the building for demolition even with inside help.

[Shol'va]

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

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"

[Insult to Rocks]

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.

[Shol'va]

AtheistMoFo, how do you sleep at night, knowing 911 was an inside job?

[MrsSassyPants]

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 :'(

[Shol'va]

It's a mind game
http://www.thenew-renaissanceman.com/mind-games-2.html