Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[stromboli]

I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.

[Sargon The Grape]

I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.

Never discount genuine stupidity.

[stromboli]

I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.

Never discount genuine stupidity.

You are correct.  :-D

[Insult to Rocks]

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)

Oh fuck you! Thats it, I'm done. When people start acusing FDR of "provoking" the Jappanese into attacking Pearl, there is no arguing with them. No one, ABSOLUTLY NO ONE, would ever risk the nations entire naval force in a theatre of war so as to start a war with another counrty in a different theatre. If our carrier fleet was at Pearl, there would have been a very real possibility of the U.S losing the war. Which could have lead to the Allies losing the war. FDR was far far FAR too intelligent to ever be a subscriber to this maddeningly stupid plan you suggest.
And as for having a vendetta against Saddam, I believe if anyone had a vendetta, it was the thousands of people whom he opressed and killed in Iraq. You don't really need much more of a reason to attack someone when they've murdered hundreds of thousands of their own people.  So if you want to continue treating the war as some rich mans crusade to earn money, go ahead. I no longer have the time nor the patience to deal with this crockery. But here's a final thing: Do you know how resource intensive the U.S's strategy in Iraq was? Extremely. Schwarzkopf used a blitzkrieg style strategy in Iraq, which literally required miles of supplies and fuel. If the war in Iraq was about money, they sure didn't seem to care about it at the time.

[stromboli]

What I mean, this guy is just pulling our chain.

[AtheistMoFo]

Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings...

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.

So, you ask me "Why did the US government destroy it's own buildings" and this is not an accusation that I implied the US government attacked itself?  Sure as hell sounds like it to me.  And so I insulted you.  You want a towel to cry into?  Yes I insulted you, because you have done nothing but insult me from your very first post in this thread.  You never read a word I write, or if you do, you don't understand a thing I say, and then you shoot your mouth off (figuratively) implying I said this or that.

If you wanted to know why someone would do something like 9/11, why didn't you just fucking ask.  There are many reasons for why people commit crimes.  Since I am not one of the criminals who committed the crimes I can only speculate.  But my first guess would be[center:37eeh7v1]MONEY![/center:37eeh7v1]It is probably the most common motive for committing crimes there is.  We know that many corporations profit handsomely from wars.  Their shareholders and executives make hige profits.  Of course, as someone pointed out earlier, business persons are opportunistic individuals, and when some occurrence presents an opportunity, they take it, and it does not necessarily mean they caused that occurrence.  I agree with that, but just because they might be innocent, isn't it just flat out stupid to ignore the possibility that maybe they did?

Especially when we know that PNAC published a document one year before 9/11 describing how a "catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor" would be extremely advantageous to their plans.  One year later, a catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor does happen, and just as they predicted, the Pentagon's budget shot up from 400 billion a year to roughly 800 billion at present.  But of course, that might have been just a case of opportunistic businessmen taking advantage of an opportunity.

Other possible motives?  Well, GW Bush had a personal vendetta to settle with Saddam Husein.  But my own opinion, although Bush is nefarious enough to do such a thing, he is far to stupid to come up with something like this on his own.  Still, Sherlock Holmes would not have excluded the possibility.

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

You don't have to believe it.  The point is, having a doctorate does not automatically entitle you to claim you know everything.  (If a PhD were some sort of guarantee that its holder could never be wrong, explain "PhD in Theology"?)

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.

You keep harping on there is no need to input energy because gravity will do the work.  And I have never denied that potential energy is converted to kinetic energy.  But what has it got to do with refuting my point?  When you publish your peer reviewed paper on how concrete and steel can accelerate at the rate of free-fall through the path of greatest resistance, I will have to rethink my theories.  Meanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.

Never discount genuine stupidity.

Willfully and ignorantly with genuine stupidity yanking our collective chains gets my vote.  :-$

[Plu]

I'm convinced he is just yanking our collective chains. Either that or willfully ignorant.

Never discount genuine stupidity.

Willfully and ignorantly with genuine stupidity yanking our collective chains gets my vote.  :-$

Yep. And he's winning, too.

[Jason78]

Is this thread still going?


There's plenty of footage of buildings collapsing on youtube.   There's also plenty of videos of buildings being demolished.

After watching a few hours of that, it's pretty simple to see which category WTC 7 falls into.

[Manodo]

I really wish a terrorist would declare Jihad on this thread and blow it to smithereens.

[Shiranu]

I really wish a terrorist would declare Jihad on this thread and blow it to smithereens.

AAAAAAAAAAAAND here comes the NSA :P. Better look out AtheistMoFo, they might realize you are onto them and shut ya down :|.

[josephpalazzo]

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.

You keep harping on there is no need to input energy because gravity will do the work.  

This is what you wrote in a previous post:

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.  

This shows how confused you are about physics. (1) You don't need to input energy to accelerate a free falling body. (2) As the body falls, its potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. When it will hit the ground, or anything on its way, it will do that with a much greater force than when it started to fall. So yes, it can "pulverize concrete and twist steel beams as though they were spaghetti."

 

When you publish your peer reviewed paper on how concrete and steel can accelerate at the rate of free-fall through the path of greatest resistance, I will have to rethink my theories.

Only a fucking moron like you would propose such an idiotic idea.

Meanwhile, diagram or no diagram, I will stick to what I know

Indeed, be true to your nature of an idiot.

[Sargon The Grape]

Yep. And he's winning, too.

Pretty sure josephpalazzo already won the thread.

[Plu]

Nope. MoFo is winning. You're all still here, you're still giving him attention, and more and more of you are getting frustrated while he keeps ramming his dick on the keyboard and jizzing all over the monitor from excitement  :roll: