Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Jason78]

If I have said this once I have said this a hundred times, SHOW ME the fucking EVIDENCE OF A PLANE FLYING INTO No. 7 WTC.

[AtheistMoFo]

MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

Sound familiar?

More than ten years after the event, there remains a sizeable albeit dwindling band who, for various reasons, continue to defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory of "nineteen Arabs with box cutters". When their beliefs are challenged, some respond with an amusing stream of ad hominems, such as "you are some [sic] just some yokel who has clearly never left his village and is the British equivalent of a hill billy [sic]", "you sound like a [sic] inbred half wit", "tea leaf brain", "come out from under your tin foil hat", "your [sic] a f***ing retard", and "one day I will kill you".

When directed to various information sources that refute the government account of 9/11, the reality deniers will often not even bother to look at the information. According to psychologists, it is because such people are fearful of information that challenges their world-view, which was largely formed by the culture in which they grew up. The new information would conflict with their faulty beliefs and lead to cognitive dissonance, resulting in a fear of being ostracised, of being alienated, of being shunned, of their lives being inconvenienced, of having to change their lives, of being confused, of psychological deterioration, and of feeling helpless and vulnerable. Thus, in order to 'protect' people from fear and anxiety, psychological defenses kick in such as denial and anger. Denial prevents people from even looking at the evidence, and anger induces them to attack the messenger.

(the above from http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/p ... -speak-out )

How about this?

As I thought about all of these responses, I realized that what is common to every one of them is the emotion of fear. People are afraid of being ostracized; they're afraid of being alienated; they're afraid of being shunned; they're afraid of their lives being inconvenienced; they'd have to change their lives; they're afraid of being confused; they're afraid of psychological deterioration; they're afraid of feeling helpless and vulnerable; and they're afraid that they won't be able to handle the feelings that are coming up. None of us want to feel helpless and vulnerable, so we want to defend ourselves. And the way we often do that is with anger. So then we become angry. And when we become angry, then we become indignant; we become offended; we want to ridicule the messenger; we want to pathologize the messenger; and we want to censor the messenger.

(quoting Frances Shure, M.A., Licensed Professional Counselor)

It is sad to think that in this day and age, so long after the holy inquisitions, free speech should still be seen as such a threat to one's world-view that there are still mobs lurking and ready to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with official dogma.

[Shiranu]

>mfw you mistake "afraid" for "Wow, this guy is a fucking moron who ignores anything anyone says"
>mfw people even remotely try and refute you and not just go full lawlz like some other posters have
>mfw I have no face
>mfw I touch myself at night



#yolo #swag #420 #weedfordays

Protip: Googling "jizz face" brings up alot of pictures you aren't particularly looking for at the moment. Just thought you should know.

[josephpalazzo]

MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

*snip*

It is sad to think that in this day and age, so long after the holy inquisitions, free speech should still be seen as such a threat to one's world-view that there are still mobs lurking and ready to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with official dogma.

You're barking at the wrong tree. As I told you in another post, many atheists left their religion because they eventually realized there were no evidence supporting the beliefs they were fed by their parents/ministers/teachers. Here you come on this forum with no evidence supporting your conspiracy theory. So don't be surprised that you won't convince the sceptics unless you have supporting evidence. And if you keep that up with post after post, not bringing anything that remotely makes sense in terms of supporting your theory, then it will be just a matter of time before you are banned. It's not censorship, as you were allowed to post here. But enough is enough. Either accept the fact that you have zilch as far as evidence is concerned and move on, or else it will be banhammer time for you.

[Sargon The Grape]

MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

[stromboli]

READ IT DUMBASS-THIS IS YOU

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists:

Quote:
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

[Hakurei Reimu]

MoFo is a Heretic!  A Blasphemer!  Quick!  Bann him at the stake, before his disbelief in the Official Conspiracy Theory spreads!

Sound familiar?

Yes. Yes, it does. It sounds like this guy:



We let you continue your bullshit for better than a month, and your disbelief of the "Official Conspiracy Theory" has barely touched us because the way you present it makes it sound stupid. Granted, your disbelief is actually stupid, as is the grand conspiracy that you are implying through your questions. So many people are implicated in it that it collapses under its own ponderous weight — not one of the people involved thought to put a stop to this madness, and every one of them allowed the madness to continue, and yet they are so stupid as to let "obvious smoking gun evidences" —like your freefall malarky— past them when they would be so very easy to cover up (like dithering the detonations' timing so that the building didn't fall at freefall), and publishing serious secret plans for world domination (PNAC Rebuilding America's Defenses document) publically.

The emperor has no clothes, and unlike the story no one here is afraid to say it.

[Moriarty]

***No original argument below, please no need to reminded of it.***

I think it's hilarious that after Snowden, Wiki-Leaks, Gitmo, etc....that one could honestly believe that a conspiracy theory to the extent of 9/11 truthers is even possible.

Humans LOVE to talk.

[Moralnihilist]

More bullshit that has nothing to do with the fact that argument has been destroyed.

Look your ENTIRE theory hinges on controlled demolition of Tower 7, that has been disproven time and time again by not only myself but others. To bring down a busy office building by controlled demolition WITHOUT one of the office workers noticing is quite difficult, if those workers happen to be USSS and EOD's the likelihood of being able to bring rig that building for demolition is ZERO. Your entire theory falls flat on its face right there, and you have not one ounce of evidence to suggest otherwise. UNTIL you can find ONE DEMOLITIONS EXPERT that can show that they can rig a building for demolition without 27 EOD's and a building full of USSS people noticing, your theory doesn't work.


Until ONE truther can show evidence of any of their wackadoo claims they are just that. Wackadoo

[Bibliofagus]

***No original argument below, please no need to reminded of it.***

I think it's hilarious that after Snowden, Wiki-Leaks, Gitmo, etc....that one could honestly believe that a conspiracy theory to the extent of 9/11 truthers is even possible.

Humans LOVE to talk.

Lol. Never thought of that. You are absolutely correct.
The thing that makes me laugh most is that the conspiracy-people apparently had arranged for 4 airplanes to fly into buildings, and after that they thought...

Conspiracy-dude 1: Oh FUCK! 4 airplanes to hit the 4 most major landmarks in the US is not enough. We need to make a statement! We need MORE!
Conspiracy-dude 2: You are completely right. Let's rig a building nobody ever even heard let alone care about! Setting up controlled demolition on a multistory building can be done very stealthily. No chance this endeavor would ever stand a chance to endanger our other plans.
Conspiracy-dude 1: YES! You sir are brilliant.

Instead of just getting another airplane.

Yeah right.

[Thumpalumpacus]

lol, never go Full AMF.

[Icarus]

lol, never go Full AMF.

 :rollin:

[Moriarty]

Can't we move on to Benghazi yet? Just as ridiculous but I have more interest in laughing at the one.

[AtheistMoFo]

My debate with you started with your misunderstanding of the physics of a collapsing building, which wtc-1 and 2 are also part of that discussion. If I wasn't precise on which building I was using to make you understand the physics, I apologize. But if you know your facts, which you pretend to have, then it should have been clear to you with the times I gave out, 9:37 am and 9:59 am, I was referring to the South tower, and therefore your rant was a waste of time, and also indicative of your state of mind which is not conducive to any reasonable discussion. Regardless of this mistep on my part, the fact is that you still don't understand the physics, and unless you can show demonstrative signs that you can learn, any further discussion will be a waste of time.

Alright.  We got off on the wrong foot.  As a newbie here, I saw a post about israelis/jews and their track record of false-flag operations, and jumped straight into the debate without testing the water.  When my position was attacked from 360 degrees, I started a new thread "Is Free-Fall Proof of Controlled Demolition," thinking that in the face of irrefutable evidence of freefall, it would put the question to rest.  WRONG.

Responses came at me from every angle.  Mostly they point blank rejected my arguments without even reading what I wrote.  Stupid moron, idiot, asshole/asshat, and various expletives, with essentially nothing to say.  So for the most part, I just ignored the teenage mutant ninja hoodlums and only responded to serious posts.  But the overwhelming majority of posts were the mere tauntings of teenage mutant ninja hooligans which I pretty much ignored.  (Though I do admit to taunting a few of them back!)

Buried in this barrage of insanity, I misread your post about "the input of energy being unnecessary because gravity does the work."  My (mis)interpretation was that you asserted "*NO* ENGERGY was necessary" because gravity does the work.  My bad, in the currnet vernacular.  Not knowing your background, and in the midst of the constant barrage of "tinfoil hat share prices on the upswing," "Godzilla does New York" and other nonsense posts by teenage mutant ninja hoodlums, I did not take your posts seriously.

After the endless barrage of posts saying little more than moron, fucktard, Godzilla, idiot, Death Star, tinfoil, mamma's panties, I started having doubts about the intelligence level of the group as I was addressing as a whole.  Although I have never made any claims regarding WTC 1 or 2, all of my assertions of the facts regarding WTC 7 have been misattributed to WTC 1 and 2.  Outside of gravity, the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 have little in common with WTC 7.  Though I have expressed my skepticism about many of the things that happened on that day, the only thing I have ever asserted as absolute fact is that 7 WTC fell for over two seconds at the rate of gravity.  PNAC objectives, NORAD failures, yatta yatta are all offered as corroborating evidence that the evil is not strictly limited to only muslim jihadists, which you can take with a grain of salt or not.

If you want to have a serious debate about the collapse of WTV 7, please say so.  Otherwise, just reply to this post with remarks befitting of a kindergartener and I will know to disregard all your future posts.

Thank you.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

[youtube:37mq30ux]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=49EoV50oba0[/youtube:37mq30ux]