Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

You keep on throwing around Occam's razor as if 1: it's always right, and 2: your explanation is the simplest.

[Damarcus]

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.

[Insult to Rocks]

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[AtheistMoFo]

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?

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]

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.

[Jason78]

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

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.)

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[Jason78]

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?

[aitm]

ah yes,,,,pleasant debate going swimmingly.....carry on then....carry on.

[theory816]

Please watch this doc. 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.

[Insult to Rocks]

Please watch this doc. 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.

[theory816]

Please watch this doc. 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.

[Sargon The Grape]

Please watch this doc. 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.