Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Sargon The Grape]

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.

[AtheistMoFo]

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!

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)

[theory816]

Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?

[Sargon The Grape]

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.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?

Not in the way you interpret it.

[theory816]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OE3Adu4l0g

Seriously. You decide when the coincidences stop.

[Plu]

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 usually is  :roll:

[josephpalazzo]

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 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.

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 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.

[Sargon The Grape]

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.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

[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.

[AtheistMoFo]

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

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.

If you had taken the trouble to read my blog 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.

[AtheistMoFo]

Didnt the owner of wtc7 admit to having the building "pulled"?

yes

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.

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.

[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

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.  

To 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.

If you had taken the trouble to read my blog 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.

Considering the time you've spent on this thread, that has to one of the worse excuse I've ever heard.

What 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.

Does 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?

 

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.

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.

[Manodo]

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.

To say that you do not need energy to accelerate tens of thousands of tons of material is false.

 =D>