Is Freefall Proof of Controlled Demolition?

[AtheistMoFo]

@Thumpalumpacus

(in your reply to T816, you said:)
Capitalization and cursing doesn't make your point any stringer ... but it does make you look about 14 years old.

That would still make T816 look at least 3 years older than the Teenage Mutant Ninja Hooligans heckling this thread, would it not?

(in your reply to T816, you said:)
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.

Not sure what you are driving at by defing the "top" as the upper 80 stories and "bottom" as the lower 20, and I will let T816 clarify the exact meaning of his statement, but I seriously doubt he intended to compare the weight of the top 80 stories to the bottom 20.

(in your reply to T816, you said:)
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.

Perhaps you would not mind giving a few pointers in etiquette to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Hooligans in the crowd?  You certainly have no hesitation pointing out netiquette violations made by T816 and myself.

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."

Please tell that to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Hooligans.  They seem to be oblivious.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

Hey, fuck off.  I didn't call you any names, and I get "sheeple" for not agreeing with you.

So yeah, blow me.  I'm tired of the personal attacks and will not be civil to any cunt being shitty to me?  Don't like it?  Tough shit.  Maybe next time you'll remember your fucking manners. Self-righteous prick.

That would still make T816 look at least 3 years older than the Teenage Mutant Ninja Hooligans heckling this thread, would it not?

(in your reply to T816, you said:)
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.

Not sure what you are driving at by defing the "top" as the upper 80 stories and "bottom" as the lower 20, and I will let T816 clarify the exact meaning of his statement, but I seriously doubt he intended to compare the weight of the top 80 stories to the bottom 20.

No, he said that the top of a building doesn't weigh more than the bottom, but he gave no definition of terms; he simply acted as if his bald claims bereft of support (:)) deserved scrutiny.  So I gave it to him

(in your reply to T816, you said:)
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.

Perhaps you would not mind giving a few pointers in etiquette to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Hooligans in the crowd?  You certainly have no hesitation pointing out netiquette violations made by T816 and myself.

Probably because you two are insulting me, while they aren't.  Perhaps if you thought a little bit about it you'd see the point?

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."

Please tell that to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Hooligans.  They seem to be oblivious.

Dear me, both of you are crying, "But Daddy, they do it too!"

Quite frankly, I think your snide condescesion, evident from very early in the thread, established a tone that earned you the gibes thrown your way ... so if you're looking for sympathy, you'll find it in the dictionary; it's between shit and syphillis.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

**Notes the vast conspiracy here to attemp to make mofo think he may be blowing smoke up everyone's ass.  [-X

[Jason78]

Are we all in on it?  



How far up does this thing go?

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The NSA is in on it too. :-$

[AtheistMoFo]

@Thumpalumpacus

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?

When you say, "...that we have conducted exactly such [false flag] operations..." may I assme "we" refers to yourself as a part of one or more U.S. military operations?  If so, this means you took part in the illegal murder of innocent persons and/or illegal destruction of property in order to further the goals of your bosses.  How does this set you apart from one of Al Capone's hit men?  Or as Smedley Butler put it, "a high-class muscle man for Big Business"?

And to answer your direct question, no, I am not alleging Pearl Harbor was a false flag attack.  If you had read any of the links I posted, you would understand that I am alleging the Imperial Japanese Navy was baited, and Tojo et al. took the bait.

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.

Kid ! ? ! ? !  
Who calling "kid" sonny boy?  Haven't you ever been taught to respect your elders?

Now as far as giving you hard evidence about Pearl Harbor having been provoked and known in advance is concerned, I have already lead you to the water, but I can not make you drink.  The evidence consists of documents released under FOIA requests, showing that a Lieutenant Commander who was closely familiar with the inner workings of the Imperial Japanese government listed eight points on how to provoke the Japanese to make the first strike.  Roosevelt implemented all eight.  Theoretically, we could say it was circumstantial coincidnece that Roosevelt just happened to implement the eight points of the McCollum Memo on his own accord without ever having seen the actual memo, thinking it would not provoke the Japanese to attack the sitting ducks anchored in Pearl Harbor, but then we would have to ask the only person who knows what was going on inside Roosevelt's head, but Roosevelt is dead and long gone.

Tell me how you define "hard evidence" please.  Because the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, nor Interpol never had any "hard evidence" that bin Laden was behind 9/11 either.  But he was tried in a kangaroo court of the press, and summarily executed anyway.  Or if you have hard evidence that bin Laden really was implicated, why have you 'bin hiden' ' it for all these years?  The FBI could have used it to build a case against him and he could have been tried in a real court of law and executed officially.

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?

You have never given any evidence of any knowledege of those things.  But from a person by his own admission who has participated in false flag operations (unless my above assumtion was incorrect), what else could we expect.

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.

Whoa!  You've been around here on this forum for over a year, far longer than me.  And you've never seen rude condescension and unwarranted, uncharitable assumptions?  Well then, take a look at the first dozen or so replies to my OP and see what kind of welcoming committee came to greet me.  Sorry, but this forum consists of a large majority of assholes.  You are one of the few whom I (tentatively) consider an exception.  But the fact is, if you have hung around here for more than a year, you must be used to condescending fools whose only way of responding to opinions differing to their own is to hurl insulting remarks like a bunch of teenage ninja mutant idiots.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Kid ! ? ! ? !  
Who calling "kid" sonny boy?  Haven't you ever been taught to respect your elders?

TIL 15 is elderly. Either that or AMF is a dog.

[Moralnihilist]

Tell me how you define "hard evidence" please.  Because the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, nor Interpol never had any "hard evidence" that bin Laden was behind 9/11 either.  But he was tried in a kangaroo court of the press, and summarily executed anyway.  Or if you have hard evidence that bin Laden really was implicated, why have you 'bin hiden' ' it for all these years?  The FBI could have used it to build a case against him and he could have been tried in a real court of law and executed officially.

They had no evidence what so ever....

except his own admission....

[Hakurei Reimu]

Are we all in on it?

Apparently.

Hey, overlords, I want my motherfucking $500 mil for my shilling services! I haven't seen shit in thirteen years and I want my cut and my personal Bitcoin farm!

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Tell me how you define "hard evidence" please.  Because the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, nor Interpol never had any "hard evidence" that bin Laden was behind 9/11 either.  But he was tried in a kangaroo court of the press, and summarily executed anyway.  Or if you have hard evidence that bin Laden really was implicated, why have you 'bin hiden' ' it for all these years?  The FBI could have used it to build a case against him and he could have been tried in a real court of law and executed officially.

They had no evidence what so ever....

except his own admission....

Dude, don't you know it was a Muppet made to look like Bin Laden in those videos? Also Al Quada never existed. All Muppets courtesy of a zombie Jim Henson.

Also in celebration of our recent label:

[youtube:2qcvg5gw]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bojx9BDpJks[/youtube:2qcvg5gw]

[Plu]

Einstein also once said roulette cannot be beaten. I wonder how many of you think roullete cant be beaten?

Roullete can only be beaten by cheating, in the theoretical/mathematical version of the game only the house wins.

[AtheistMoFo]

Because the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, nor Interpol never had any "hard evidence" that bin Laden was behind 9/11 either.

They had no evidence what so ever....

except his own admission....

Right on.

And we have no hard evidence that Moralnihilist did it either...
except YOUR own admission, right there on page 48!

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.

Tell us.
Why did you do it?  Why did you blow up Building 7?  Were you paid by Silverstein?  Do you hate America?  Did Rumsfeld make you do it?  Are you a muslim?  Are you...

[Moralnihilist]

Because the FBI, CIA, MI5, MI6, nor Interpol never had any "hard evidence" that bin Laden was behind 9/11 either.

They had no evidence what so ever....

except his own admission....

Right on.

And we have no hard evidence that Moralnihilist did it either...
except YOUR own admission, right there on page 48!

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.

Tell us.
Why did you do it?  Why did you blow up Building 7?  Were you paid by Silverstein?  Do you hate America?  Did Rumsfeld make you do it?  Are you a muslim?  Are you...

You might want to work on reading. The next line clarifies that statement. This statement was made when I realized that I was arguing with a mentally deficient individual. At that time, and after this little "gifted" response of yours, I realized that you are simply too stupid to realize that what you are claiming happened is impossible. I have shown you the series of things that would have had to happen, and shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that it did not happen. But you are simply too wrapped up in this little fantasy world that you reside in to realize that you have dick for evidence, no credible witnesses, and an impossible set of circumstances that would need have taken place for this little fantasy world of yours to be true.

Face it junior, on a forum full of skeptics, with no evidence to back you up, your position is looked upon with the same disdain as the average religotard spewing their crap. And yet for some reason you and your little sock puppet seem to find this fact astounding. If half the people on this forum believed something with as little "evidence" as you have provided we wouldn't be atheists. And until you can produce one shred of CREDIBLE evidence, that position you find yourself in will not change.

[theory816]

Einstein also once said roulette cannot be beaten. I wonder how many of you think roullete cant be beaten?

Roullete can only be beaten by cheating, in the theoretical/mathematical version of the game only the house wins.

Firstly, what does beaten mean to you? 2nd What does cheating mean to you? Does it mean determining the outcome of the spin? or does it mean directly effecting the outcome? And its true, you cannot determine the exact number but its not needed to beat roulette, and whatever "beat" means to you.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I think it's pretty clear now flight 370 went back in time through a worm hole four times and did it.