Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[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.

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).

[AtheistMoFo]

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."

[Sargon The Grape]

*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.



Checkmate, Truthers. :)

[josephpalazzo]

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:

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

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.

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.)

[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.

[josephpalazzo]

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

[Solitary]

This whole topic could open up a debate about how many logic fallacies have been committed.  :roll:  Solitary

[Plu]

Someone 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".

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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

[josephpalazzo]

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.

[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.

[Insult to Rocks]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.