Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[josephpalazzo]

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.

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:



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.

[Solitary]

Solitary

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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:

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[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-[

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

[theory816]

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.

[theory816]

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

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Thinking's a drag mmannn... :x  Grow opium, save the whales.  

[theory816]

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.

Great point. I was thinking about this and you addressed it.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

[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.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.