Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Shiranu]

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.

[josephpalazzo]

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>

I don't think he will understand that he has blatantly shown that he is clueless as to how to apply the correct equations to that problem.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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."

This is not really accurate.  There was no assurance that Hitler would declare war on us simply because we were at war with Japan, and Roosevelt and some of his subordinates, while they did want to fight Germany -- indeed, they saw Germany as a much greater menace --  they knew that there was no way they could shoehorn Germany into a declaration of war without losing a significant proportion of the electorate.  Hitler did the world a favor by declaring war on us.

The reason America put sanctions upon Japan was due largely to a strong religious lobby that was supporting missionary work in China.  The reports received thence, especially after the Rape of Nanking, horrified both the American public and politicians.  You're right that the governmental leadership wanted to enter WWII, but their gaze had always beheld Germany first, especially after Weidermeyer analyzed the propsective enemies and made a strong case that Germany was much more dangerous.

Also, there was a misunderstanding between the Americans and Japanese regarding the American demand for the evacuation  of mainland China, and its timetable; the Japanese thought the Americans wanted an immediate withdrawal, which was obviously impossible, considering that they had 35 divisions and the equivalent of another eighteen in independant brigades.

So while you're right that FDR and his government war wanted deeply to enter WWII, they knew that Pearl Harbor didn't provide them the entry they wanted, which is why FDR didn't ask for a declaration against Germany on 8 Dec.  Whether they "provoked" Japan intentionally is arguable, but I don't think they did so; I think there was a broad misunderstanding of the opponents' psyches on the part of both the Japanese and Americans which resulted in relations worsening to the point of war.

Sorry about the siderail, but I'm a history nut.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Yes, indeed.  There is no way that a firedog would ever look past evidence of arson or demolition that killed even one of their brothers, much less 340.

I hope you keep repeating this post.

[Damarcus]

So this guy hasn't really managed to give as a coherent "how" these things happened, what about a "why"?

Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings in order to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with the alleged attacks and then to lead america into an economic situation that would cause a global recession a few years later? What possible reason would the government have to execute a convoluted and nonsensical plan like this?

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

Keep in mind that there are people who suggest Godzilla did it, or the DeathStar did it.  Claims have been made that the Nazis won WW2 and that Obama did it.  A claim was made "Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)" even though I posted the links proving free-fall in my OP.  If you think I am going to follow every single link posted here, think again.  Have you followed every link posted?  Have you followed any of my links?  I don't see why I should waste my time looking at your blog without good reason.

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.

And there we have it.  Your blog has nothing at all to do with answering my assertions.  It is only your vanity showing through so you can show us all how smart you are.  Listen, I've interviewed people who had a PhD that I would not have hired as janitor.  If you are so goddamn smart, how about proving to us how I am wrong and you are right?

Free-fall is a state where an object falls unhindered by any resistance.  If there is resistance, it is not free-fall, and it will not accelerate at the same rate as free-fall.  Prove that to be wrong or shut the fuck up.

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.

OK, you have done a good job attacking the messenger, now how about tackling the message?

[AtheistMoFo]

...Pearl Harbor..."

This is not really accurate.  There was no assurance that Hitler would declare war on us simply because we were at war with Japan, and Roosevelt and some of his subordinates, while they did want to fight Germany -- indeed, they saw Germany as a much greater menace --  they knew that there was no way they could shoehorn Germany into a declaration of war without losing a significant proportion of the electorate.  Hitler did the world a favor by declaring war on us.

Before the Arthur McCollum Memorandum was obtained via FOIA the point might have been debatable.  But in the light of the McCollum memorandum, I don't see how you can argure it any more.  

In 1940, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, a U.S. Naval officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence in Washington and the communications routing officer for President Roosevelt, wrote a plan designed to overcome public opposition to entering the war by provoking Japan to strike the United States first. The document was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Robert B. Stinnett, author of "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor".

In this document, McCollum notes that,

    "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado",

followed by 8 suggested courses of action. McCollum explains his proposal in no uncertain terms:

    "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better."

[/color]Scanned copies of the original McCollum Memorandum can be found here
//http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_warterrorism03a.htm
or here
//https://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/McCollum/index.html
(The latter provides both the scanned original documents and a retyped text version that is easier on the eyes.  Take your pick.)

Whether they "provoked" Japan intentionally is arguable, but I don't think they did so; I think there was a broad misunderstanding of the opponents' psyches on the part of both the Japanese and Americans which resulted in relations worsening to the point of war.

Sorry about the siderail, but I'm a history nut.

As a history buff, the above URLs should interest you.  It demonstrates not only did FDR and his cronies deliberately provoke the attack, but also that the true reason was for backdoor entry into the war in Europe.

[Damarcus]

In this document, McCollum notes that,

    "It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion the United States government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado",

followed by 8 suggested courses of action. McCollum explains his proposal in no uncertain terms:

    "If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of warI, so much the better."

I've read the McCollum Memo and you are quote mining the shit out it.

It was written a year before the pearl harbour attacks and while it's 8 point proposal is indeed set up to incite Japan into declaring war on the US, there is one detail you forgot to mention: Roosevelt (the president at the time) had no contact with McCollum and was determined to avoid war with Japan (at least at that point in time)

McCollum's plan does make sense, and would've probably provoked an attack, but the US never actually went through with it, which sort of makes the whole point moot.

[AtheistMoFo]

So this guy hasn't really managed to give as a coherent "how" these things happened, what about a "why"?

Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings in order to declare war on a country that had nothing to do with the alleged attacks and then to lead america into an economic situation that would cause a global recession a few years later? What possible reason would the government have to execute a convoluted and nonsensical plan like this?

Damarcus, how many fucking times have I repeated in this thread that I do not subscribe to the theory that the U.S. government attacked itself?

Look, here is a hypothetical situation.

As sales of GM cars plummet, one of the GM executuves goes to a bar one evening and starts pissing and moaning about imports.  A few GM employees who happen to be at the same bar agree.  After a few more beers, the group go out on the street and start smashing every import they see.  The police arrest them, and the next day's headlines read: "GM conspires to destroy imported cars."

Do you see the fallacy?  By the same token, the U.S. government never conspired to execute 9/11.  (IMHO)  Certainly I do believe some members of the U.S. government took part in the conspiracy, just like the GM analogy above.  But the U.S. government is no more responsible than GM.

Now back to the nitty gritty.  Although I am not the owner of this forum, nor even this thread, I ask you to have a little respect.  Either you read what I fucking write, or you stop asking ridiculous questions misrepresenting my opinions.  If you can not do either of those, please fuck off.

Thank you in advance for fucking off.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

I am not an expert on that particular facet of the crime, but there are many theories.  Many of them as stupid as the "Obama did it" theory, others more plausible.  Do a bit of googling, and if that particular aspect of the crime is what interests you most, you will no doubt arrive at the answer.  Do not expect me to do your fucking homework for you.

[Shiranu]

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.

I am not an expert on that particular facet of the crime, but there are many theories.  Many of them as stupid as the "Obama did it" theory, others more plausible.  Do a bit of googling, and if that particular aspect of the crime is what interests you most, you will no doubt arrive at the answer.  Do not expect me to do your fucking homework for you.

There are also theories online that lizard men run the world government or that there is a mind-eye that allows us to see into the afterlife if we tune it to a certain crystal. Doesn't mean I am going to bother and find them and rebut them because ultimately they are absolutely ridiculous. The same goes for how the gear to bring down the world trade centres was set up, executed and then left no evidence... it is a ridiculous proposition.

Without answering this question, your entire premise is subject to be disregarded. If the act of setting up demolitions is rationally impossible,  much less without any credible evidence of explosives having been set, then you cannot just "skip" that step and pretend that your position is rational.

Without being able to explain the how, the why is irrelevant. If something is borderline impossible, lacks any concrete evidence of it happening and has been refuted several times, it is being extremely intellectually dishonest to just say... "Well... I'm not an expert on it, so I am just going to believe it's true!".

You are just doing the same shit that global warming deniers and fundamentalist Christians do... "I KNOW that what I believe is right (the world is not getting warmer/the bible is literal/bombs were set up), even though there is no evidence that I am correct and I have been refuted multiple times (the world IS getting warmer/the earth is older than 6000 years old/there is no evidence of any explosives being used)".

It's kinda pathetic to watch.

[stromboli]

A truckload of evidence is not a fucking theory, you dumb shit.

[Plu]

This thread is hilarious :P

[Damarcus]

Damarcus, how many fucking times have I repeated in this thread that I do not subscribe to the theory that the U.S. government attacked itself?

Look, here is a hypothetical situation.

As sales of GM cars plummet, one of the GM executuves goes to a bar one evening and starts pissing and moaning about imports.  A few GM employees who happen to be at the same bar agree.  After a few more beers, the group go out on the street and start smashing every import they see.  The police arrest them, and the next day's headlines read: "GM conspires to destroy imported cars."

Do you see the fallacy?  By the same token, the U.S. government never conspired to execute 9/11.  (IMHO)  Certainly I do believe some members of the U.S. government took part in the conspiracy, just like the GM analogy above.  But the U.S. government is no more responsible than GM.

Now back to the nitty gritty.  Although I am not the owner of this forum, nor even this thread, I ask you to have a little respect.  Either you read what I fucking write, or you stop asking ridiculous questions misrepresenting my opinions.  If you can not do either of those, please fuck off.

Thank you in advance for fucking off.

Whoah, that...isn't what I asked at all. I asked why someone would do this. You haven't given me an answer and instead just insulted me. I have read what you have written and haven't found an answer to that question. It's great that you've got this big conspiracy, but you haven't told us who's responsible. Even if your response is just "I don't know" that's better than getting defensive and then insulting me due to a perceived attack on your beliefs. If you want to insult me, that's fine, almost all my of my posts were just ridiculing you, but at least insult me for something I actually did.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

Keep in mind that there are people who suggest Godzilla did it, or the DeathStar did it.  Claims have been made that the Nazis won WW2 and that Obama did it.  A claim was made "Also, care to provide some math proving that Building 7 was in freefall? (I happen to know that freefall would have been quite a lot faster.)" even though I posted the links proving free-fall in my OP.  If you think I am going to follow every single link posted here, think again.  Have you followed every link posted?  Have you followed any of my links?  I don't see why I should waste my time looking at your blog without good reason.

Why bring in more fantastic claims, which has nothing to do with my posts so far to you? What I'm challenging you is your understanding of physics, and so far, you have failed miserably. If you don't know who I am, you can check my blog. You can also check the physics&cosmology  segment of this forum to see that are dozens of threads initiated by me on physics. Here's a sample of those.

The Essential General Relativity

EPR REVISITED

Another first for Einstein: Quantum chaos

Quantum corrections to Newton's law of gravity

The Unruh Effect

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.

And there we have it.  Your blog has nothing at all to do with answering my assertions.  It is only your vanity showing through so you can show us all how smart you are.  

You've omitted that I also pointed out to you to look up diagram 1a and 1b on that blog, which is totally relevant to this discussion. So my guess is that you went to my blog and was totally lost, which proves my point that you are an INCOMPETENT in matters of physics. Otherwise you have given me a decent answer to those diagrams by now.

Listen, I've interviewed people who had a PhD that I would not have hired as janitor.  

Coming from an incompetent like you doesn't surprise me you would make such a cheap shot.

If you are so goddamn smart, how about proving to us how I am wrong and you are right?

I've proved you're a fucking moron when it comes to physics. Stromboli proved how stupid you are in thinking that firefighters would neglect to look over crucial evidence.

Free-fall is a state where an object falls unhindered by any resistance.  If there is resistance, it is not free-fall, and it will not accelerate at the same rate as free-fall.

Quoting from a textbook won't make you any smart, just a plagiarist.

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.

OK, you have done a good job attacking the messenger, now how about tackling the message?

The message is clear: AtheistMoFo has a superficial understanding of physics. He can quote from a textbook, but his understanding of the subject is full of confusion. He doesn't understand a simple diagram, which I have pointed to him in my blog, which deals with an object falling under free fall, and how the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. He doesn't understand that under free fall, there is no need to input energy as gravity will do the work.