Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[Moralnihilist]

He brought a friend, lol.

A friend or a sock puppet?

[stromboli]

He has friends?

[Hijiri Byakuren]

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.

It's so beautiful how you can describe yourself with zero self-awareness.

[stromboli]

Seriously. this dude is textbook. The list I provided originally came from Scientific American. He hits on every element.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 a former Air Force firefighter, I can say categorically that you are wrong. Capitalization and cursing doesn't make your point any stringer ... but it does make you look about 14 years old.

 

As for the wtc1/2 nobody in their right fucking minds builds a building where the top is excessively heavier then the bottom.

I hate to break the news to you, Einstein, but in any sklyscraper, the top 80 floors weigh more than the bottom twenty.

In other words, you're wrong again.

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.

No, gravity works straight up and down, Newton.

And in case you didn't notice, it did collapse upon itself, and it didn't take out the bottom:

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10 ... rm1936.jpg

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD. Its that fucking simple.

You didn't even know that you were right, in the previous quote.

You have no business lecturing, much less yelling in all-caps, for anyone to get anything through their heads ... until you prove you have something in your own.

Remember what Mark Twain said: "It's better to remain silent, and let others think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

[Thumpalumpacus]

@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.

On this point you are wrong.  I know for a fact that we have conducted exactly such operations. This assumption you're making about me is more than a little paternalistic and condescending, and not borne out by any post I've made.

The next time you want to know what I think, do me the courtesy of asking me, instead of telling me.

Now, back to my question: are you alleging that Pearl Harbor was a false flag attack?

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.

You don't know shit about me, kid.  I marched in the autumn of 2002 against the war in Iraq ... nine years after my enlistment was up. Suggesting that I'm the same person I was at 36 as I was at 27 just shows exactly how little you know about me, or my journeys both physical and mental.  

Now hush with your stupid assumptions and give me some goddamned evidence. Not circumstantial coincidences, but hard evidence.

What's that?  YOu don't have any?

Big surprise.

Evidence.

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.

Do you think I don't know about COINTELPRO? Or the Japanese internment camps?  Or the German internment camps of 1918? Or the atomic bombs?

No, you're turning to an ad homeneim attack on me because you have no evidence, and wish to conceal that fact.  AH arguments are the surest sign of a vapid argument.

I will ask you once more: where is your evidence?

Remember.  
It CAN[blink:3btfqg1c]'T[/blink:3btfqg1c]
 happen here!

No shit, Sherlock.  You need to find the bridge between "can" and "did", though.

You also need to shitcan for once and for all the rude condescension and unwarranted, uncharitable assumptions about your interlocutors.  If you aren't going to do so, then you are going to lose one more audience member, because I won't be talked down to, and I won't be slurred by character attacks.  

I haven't done either to you, and I fucking expect the same courtesy in return.

[Jason78]

[Hakurei Reimu]

omfg these sheeples really cant see it can they.

Nobody uses the "sheeple" term but conspiracy nutters.

1. It would either tip the fuck over.

You watch too many Hollywood movies of buildings collapsing instead of understanding the mechanics of building collapse. Small movie models don't have the same dynamics as full-sized buildings. Buildings are actually a lot more floppy than people give them credit for.

2. It would collapse onto itself without taking out the bottom.

A skyscraper can't collapse onto itself without taking out the bottom. There's just too much gravitational energy in the system. I once calculated the gravitational energy of the twin towers collapsing, and came up with a figure equaling the entire bomb loadout of 22 B-29 bombers. There's no way the bottom won't be reduced to a fine powder with plenty of damage all around, not with that kind of energy flying about.

GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD. Its that fucking simple.

Yes, it is that simple: tall skyscrapers don't behave like small movie models.

PS, I love the foe feature!

[Johan]

He brought a friend, lol.

Right. Friend. Right.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

[theory816]

First off people resorted to name calling first which is why im resorted to the name calling. But some of you guys are having a more civilized convo now. Please keep it that way. And F Mark Twain. People can say what they want regardless if you think they are dumb or not. Its why this thread was made. So people can present viewpoints as to why they believe what they do. Granted some of them might be good enough for you but without presenting them you wouldn't know what people are thinking. Einstein also once said roulette cannot be beaten. I wonder how many of you think roullete cant be beaten?

[AtheistMoFo]

To AMF:
...
I ADMIT IT I BLEW UP WTC BUILDING 7.

Careful what you say, dude.  Ya' know I just might be the only one who doesn't believe you.  Most of these dudes believe Osama bin Laden's "confession video" was sufficient to convict him in a kangaroo court and sentence him to summary execution despite not a thread of corroborating evidence.  So your "confession post" might be enough for them to convict you as well.  But maybe they will cut you some slack for not being a muslim, who knows.


            [center:1sgh7025]= = = = =[/center:1sgh7025]

And with this, I killfile you.

Boo-hoo-hoo-hoo.  :(   Sob, sob.
("Sob" means I'm crying, not calling you a son of a bitch.  But you can interpret it that way if you like, I won't try to stop you.)

[AtheistMoFo]

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.

No, they can't see it because they WON'T see it.  There is a very good article on denial written by psychologist Frances T. Shure and the title is Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—about 9/11?  

Google it.  I think you will find it enlightening.

"If what you are saying is true, I don't want to know!" exclaimed a young male visitor at our 9/11 Truth booth at the Denver People's Fair. He was referring to the evidence of controlled demolition of the three World Trade Center (WTC) skyscrapers on September 11, 2001.
"Why?" I asked.
"Because if what you are saying is true, I would become very negative. Psychologically, I would go downhill."  
With gratitude, I responded "Thank you!"  
Surprised, he asked, "Why are you thanking me?"
"Because it's rare to hear such raw truth. Thank you for being so honest."

Ms. Shure also cautions us, "Before continuing, I would like to clarify that people who continue to resist the evidence that indicates 9/11 was a false flag operation are no more mentally healthy or unhealthy than those of us who question the official account. Both groups consist of folks who span the mental health spectrum."  

But she probably bases her statement on a larger audience than we have in this thread.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

First off people resorted to name calling first which is why im resorted to the name calling. But some of you guys are having a more civilized convo now. Please keep it that way. And F Mark Twain. People can say what they want regardless if you think they are dumb or not. Its why this thread was made. So people can present viewpoints as to why they believe what they do. Granted some of them might be good enough for you but without presenting them you wouldn't know what people are thinking. Einstein also once said roulette cannot be beaten. I wonder how many of you think roullete cant be beaten?

[stromboli]

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes


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.

You keep coming on here with the same shit that is beyond disproven and pointless. If you can't admit that you are wrong, at least realize that no one buys your bullshit, and therefore your postings are a complete waste of time.