Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[aitm]

There has been discussion of this thread. It has been determined that it appears to be a harmless exercise in he-said/she-said and many otherwise intelligent people are determined to argue incessantly over things that some will never agree to. You go bro! Props to AtheistMoFo for dragging so many along. Peace out.

[stromboli]

There has been discussion of this thread. It has been determined that it appears to be a harmless exercise in he-said/she-said and many otherwise intelligent people are determined to argue incessantly over things that some will never agree to. You go bro! Props to AtheistMoFo for dragging so many along. Peace out.

So what you are saying is that it took you 48 pages to basically come to a non-conclusion? I love when you put your foot down.  :-D

[aitm]

There has been discussion of this thread. It has been determined that it appears to be a harmless exercise in he-said/she-said and many otherwise intelligent people are determined to argue incessantly over things that some will never agree to. You go bro! Props to AtheistMoFo for dragging so many along. Peace out.

So what you are saying is that it took you 48 pages to basically come to a non-conclusion? I love when you put your foot down.  :-D

I am not going to be so arrogant to state that I have only posted twice in this 48 page cluster fuck, (hopefully no one really cares enough to check it out) but I have to say this: There is nothing inherently wrong with this thread, noting of course that I have only posted twice and such have only read about seven posts......I also think arguing with retards is rather pointless.

[stromboli]

I am not going to be so arrogant to state that I have only posted twice in this 48 page cluster fuck, (hopefully no one really cares enough to check it out) but I have to say this: There is nothing inherently wrong with this thread, noting of course that I have only posted twice and such have only read about seven posts......I also think arguing with retards is rather pointless.

And I'm sad to say that I can't argue with that.

[Moralnihilist]

I also think arguing with retards is rather pointless.

As do I, After taking the time to explain the series of next to impossible things that would need to take place for AMF's "theory" to actually be true and to have him yet again not understand the simple fact that it is impossible for what he claims to be true.

To AMF:
You have worn me down I no longer have the energy to try to make you understand that your bullshit is just bullshit.
I ADMIT IT I BLEW UP WTC BUILDING 7. Whatever the fuck your pathetic little mind wants to believe, I no longer give a shit. Your simply incapable of understanding that you are wrong, that you have no evidence, that your theory is simply impossible, that the series of events for your "theory" to even be remotely close to true did not happen.

I tried at the end to use simple reason when I realized that you actually believed the crap that you spewed and weren't just another troll. And your response was to spew the same bullshit again and again. Im simply not interested in arguing with someone with the same mentality of the average theist on this forum anymore. So believe whatever you want, I no longer give a rats ass.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

With those kinds of attitudes you guys will never win the last person to acknowledge mofo wins thread.  [-X

[PopeyesPappy]

Acknowledges who?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Nobody really.. It's just a lame play on words about the thread quasi merged with the last person to post here thread.

ok, it sounded funny in my head anyway.  :-k

[Hakurei Reimu]

Secondly, you say they all buckled simultaneously? How "simultaneous" is that, because that statement is based on the fact that the roof appeared to fall as one unit from a quarter mile away. That can mean that individual members could have failed such that they got no further than a half foot before its neighbors did, which case the difference in failure times can be as much as a tenth of a second, which is certainly sufficient time for the stress from those broken members to be transferred to their neighbors and cause them to fall.

Your theory, and I stress the word "theory", relies on the assumption that the entire WTC 7 building was engulfed in fire similar to
[ Image ]
the Windsor Building for instance, for the entire 7 hours.  It was not.  (By the way, the Windsor fire raged for 18 hours but the Windsor Bldg did not collapse, not that it is proof of anything, just incidental.)

So tell us again how many and which floors had uncontrollable fires raging?  Photos would be a great help, by the way...

How many years of experience in the dynamics of building fires do you have again? Oh, that's right — none. Windsor building was steel-reinforced concrete, not a steel-frame building as WTC 7 was. For Windsor building, the steel reinforcements were quite well protected by the concrete they were embedded in. It's a very good fireproofing material. On the other hand, the fire retardant for WTC 7 was rated only for two hours. You are comparing apples to oranges.

By "simultaneous" I mean close enough in time for the building to fall straight down at freefall acceleration.  How many times do I fucking have to say it.

You don't have it. You do not have the freefall time that is in excess of the amount expected in a chaotic process such as an uncontrolled collapse. You have not even proved that the WTC 7 building fell straight down as you claim. You have not even proved that the failure of columns along the facade of the building (the only collapse that was externally visible) was the result of any sort of purposeful demolition, as opposed to being a cluster of supports that happened to fall at nearly the same time.

Get it? I was sarcastically alluding to the fact that your "simultaneous collapse" is not established to anyone's satisfaction but your own, and as such you don't get to use it as proof of anything else down the line.

And by the way, next time you get confused, just take another look at the title of this thread.  And thank you in advance for posting some photos/videos taken close up at less than quarter mile away showing that individual members did fail at different times, if you think it would prove anything significant.  But if you are going to make the claim, back it up.  Otherwise it is bullshit, or so I have been told.

That's not how this works. YOU are the one with the burden of proof that the collapse of WTC 7 differs from the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis being that the building fell due to fire and not due to controlled demolition as was the NIST report. I asked you for scholarly, peer-reviewed articles for your case pages ago, but so far, nuthin'. Because you don't have any to offer.

If you want me to have the greatest doubt to whether WTC 7 really fell due to fire, then the winning move would be to shut up now, because every time you have posted you further convince me of the complete ridiculousness of the theory that WTC 7 fell due to any sort of controlled demolition. You're treading upon fields with which I have enough familiarity to say that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and the more you focus my mind on the matter, the more flaws I find with your version of events, and the more justification for me to think you are just another royal smart person/looney. Some of the arguments I presented here I came up with myself, in this very thread, and I've used nowhere else and had seen nowhere beforehand — like the fact that debris and fire from WTC 1 would mess up any prep-work for the WTC 7 demolition... points you never answered because they mess up the carefully rehearsed script you've practiced, like never addressing why that prep work would not be messed up by the falling debris and give you that freefall that you so desperately want there to be. You sound like someone who has been trained to stay on point, stay on point, because you are not equipped to answer any real questions.

And with this, I killfile you. Have a nice time in the delusionary pit you like wallowing in.

[theory816]

omfg these sheeples really cant see it can they. Those FUCKING buildings do not collapse like that from fires and a plane crashing into them. As for the wtc1/2 nobody in their right fucking minds builds a building where the top is excessively heavier then the bottom. Even if the top collapse from explosive and fire, 1. It would either tip the fuck over. 2. It would collapse onto itself without taking out the bottom. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD. Its that fucking simple.

[AtheistMoFo]

@Hakurei Reimu

First, find evidence that proves (a) that these explosions existed, and (b) that these explosions came from WTC 7 and not some other source. Because we don't have to explain irrelevant and/or nonexistant data.

Here is one for a start.
http://www.911truth.org/article_for_pri ... 8031403456
But his claim is not peer reviewed, and even if it were, last time I presented peer reviewed evidence, it was rejected by the OCT'ers on account it is quite simple to fake a peer review if one has the time, money and inclination to do so.  And you OCT'ers seem to think we truthers have all the time and money needed, and much to gain from pursuing the matter, whereas the industrialists, bankers, and government and military bigwigs have neither the time, nor the money nor anything to gain from false flag ops.

            [center:j3qxtlpc]= = = = =[/center:j3qxtlpc]

@Thumpalumpacus

If the point of these questions is to convince me that false-flag attacks occur, then don't waste your time any further; I know for a fact that they do. If the point of these questions is that Pearl Harbor was a flase-flag attack, I think you're probably a little beyond the bounds of reality, even moreso than this WTC silliness. If your point is that 9/11 was a flase-flag attack, then you need to provide evidence. Your inability to do so even after forty-plus pages bodes ill for your wish to convince others.

OFF TOPIC DISCLAIMER
(This post specifically addresses points raised by Thump.
It is not directly related to the demolition of WTC 7, but is indirectly related.)

What do the Reichstag fire, Lavon Affair, and Manchurian Incident all have in common?  Well first of all, almost everyone will agree that all of them were  false-flag operations.  The second thing they all have in common is that these three false flag ops were not committed by Americans.  Tell me, Thump.  Can you point to even ONE false flag operation committed by Americans?  Probably not.  On the other hand, false flag ops by the Nazi Krauts?  Yeah, sure, they were a bunch of nefarious pricks.  And the yellow monkey Japs?  Definitely sneaky enough to pull off something like that.  And the israelis?  Well, after all, they are israelis, the underdogs who have been persecuted throughout the ages so we gotta cut them some slack, but yes.

But YOUR psyche has been programmed to categorically reject any suggestion that any American holding a powerful position in industry, finance, government, or military could do stoop to such savagery.  Despite the United States having the highest per capita incarceration rate in the world, American criminals are not diabolically evil.  Drug compananies never fake clinical tests when it would result in mass deaths and mass profits.

If I only had a dollar for every German who back in 1933 denied the obvious.  And another dollar for every jew who denied the Lavon Affair false flag ops, and one more dollar for every Japanese who denied when their guys sabotaged the Mukden railway tracks.  Percentage-wise, what was the ratio of the German population who believed the Reichstag fire to be the evil deed of the Communists, mutatis mutandis?  My guess would be roughly the same as the ratio of present day Americans who believe 9/11 was the evil deed of muslim jihadists.

To a person in denial, almost nothing will ever make him wake up and smell the coffee.  Take a look at a theist for instance.  Having been spoonfed myths about talking snakes and invisible flying friends from early childhood, he grows up believing these myths.  They are reinforced every Sunday morning, and depending on where he lives, reinforced throughout the day seven days a week.  If the intelligent portion of his mind begins to have doubts -- "what if dinosaurs really did exist?" uncertainty sets in and he dare not mention his disbelief knowing he will be ostracized by family, friends, co-workers and neighbors.  So more often than not, he forces himself to believe something that is impossible.  Don't ask, don't tell.

Thump, you are a (present or former) military man, as are several others taking part in this thread.  You spent X years doing what you believed to be in the interest of your fellow Americans.  For you to open you eyes now and realize as Smedley Butler did that War Is a Racket, it would blow your world apart.  So you take the easy way out, deny that you were a a high class muscle-man for Big Business.

Sorry for the off-topic post, but until you can wake up and admit that Americans (and jews) can be just as evil as the evilist of Nazis, Japs, and Commies who ever walked this earth, you will not listen to a word I say.

As proof that you have not heard a word I wrote, close your eyes for a moment and ask yourself "what did MoFo just say?" and if all you can think of is "more conspiracy bullshit from MoFo," you really have not listened to a word I wrote.

Remember.  
It CAN[blink:j3qxtlpc]'T[/blink:j3qxtlpc]
 happen here!


            [center:j3qxtlpc]= = = = =[/center:j3qxtlpc]

[Jason78]

[stromboli]

The NIST report is the final and accepted word on the matter, period.
Since you don't get it, I'll repost This.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

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.

CONGRATULATIONS! YOU HIT ON ALL 10! You are a bona fide, died in the wool nut case. Now please get therapy.

[Moriarty]

He brought a friend, lol.

[Sargon The Grape]

omfg these sheeples really cant see it can they. Those FUCKING buildings do not collapse like that from fires and a plane crashing into them.

The laws of physics disagree with you. Guess you can add Isaac Newton to the list of conspirators.