Loose Change

[kookbreaker]

It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this?

It also had a fire raging on several floors for at least seven hours.

There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?

Do you have any evidence to indicated that explosives were used? All you are doing is trying to poke holes while producing nothing of your own. There was plenty of damage to WTC7 to cause it to collapse.

 

[WildCat]

It was heavily damaged on one side, so it collapses in a symmetrical free fall. I'm supposed to believe this? There is a dearth of photographic evidence documenting just how damaged the building was. You do realize that the weak supposition given by FEMA in the 9/11 report is that fire from some generators caused the collapse, right? Or do you believe that a girder which may have damaged the facade of the building would result in a total collapse? Do you really believe that, skeptic?

Yes, I do believe that. You, however, believe that 100's of tons of explosives was placed in the WTC and wired together w/o anyone noticing... and was covered up by thousands of people across both political partys. The mind boggles...

 

[hellaeon]

alek,

Tell us what is REALLY the key to what made you go 'this is a cover up'

some of the stuff on the most popular websites is half produced facts and the like about what happened. They make many claims but refuse to show the complete sides of the story as it does not fit. They will show something, take it out of context and then when the source of that info steps forward, 'the government got to them'

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Read that, then argue with the evidence they produce? please, I bet you wont. If you can believe anything written on the nutter sites, why do you refuse to believe whats on one such as this? is it because its just too simple/cold/boring/uneventful? Not movie like enough? Not enough x files?

Alek, is it that hard to accept evidence from 100's of experts in engineering and physics over a few wild misquotes and half truths?

I know where ill put my trust.

 

[kookbreaker]

Notice how the 'tip of the iceberg' is turning out to be an ice cube?

 

[WildCat]

Hardly on fire at all...

 

[hellaeon]

Yes, I do believe that. You, however, believe that 100's of tons of explosives was placed in the WTC and wired together w/o anyone noticing... and was covered up by thousands of people across both political partys. The mind boggles...

hahaha!

I cant believe that this is a theory. Just that factor, how much explosives etc. No evidence of it, then the theory they will built in the cement when the WTC was built is just *spun out*.

These CT guys are all science experts and got their degrees at Hollywood film studios.

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm not a physicist, I'm quoting the work of others.

In other words, you don't understand the physics involved at even the most basic level. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

 

[kookbreaker]

FOr more fun, you can see how Dr. Jones is showing pictures of what is obviouly rebar reenforced concrete with some staining and telling us it is a molten slag of metal. PWAH!

 

[delphi_ote]

I don't need to be a physicist to know that that building's core columns couldn't miraculously fail all at once, resulting in one of the most impressive controlled demolitions i've seen.

You don't need any kind of analytic argument to "know" all of the things you claim. You're engaged in the process of belief. If you were actually skeptical of this subject, you wouldn't be linking to websites you admit you can't even understand.

 

[WildCat]

Video of WTC 7 burning, and firefighters talking about how it is unstable and making sure everyone is out of the way because they believe it will collapse.

But hey, a philosopher at the "scholars for truth" site says it wasn't hardly damaged and in no danger of collapse unless there were explosives planted in it...

 

[Alek]

They don't need to be, steel loses much of its strength at much lower temperatures than is needed.

Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

No, they were not. You better produce serious evidence of this.

Or what? You'll sic Homeland Security on me?

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

If you search the net, you can find indexed versions of the audio, but I'm not your monkey.

Because controlled demolitions are just that: Controlled. They are designed to have minimal impact on the surrounding area. The WTC collapse was nowhere near that as its collapse damaged several buildings and left debris over several acres. Not to mention the dust cloud that covered most of Lower Manhattan for hours afterward. If a demolition crew had these results, they'd be cashiered.

So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11. This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want. You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.

Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete? What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing? BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on? All of this evidence is presented there, and there is more that isn't covered in the film. I realize this isn't as much fun as debunking ghost stories and establishing why the psychic friends network is a fraud, but please, for the sake of truth and our country, at least try to be slightly more objective and open minded? I'm not here to agitate, I'm here to raise awareness, and perhaps learn something.

http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5296

 

[delphi_ote]

No, they do not. Ever hear of the Sampoong Department store?

Nice. In case he's too lazy to Google it:

That is, until the evening of June 29th, 1995, when in less than 20 seconds, the mall came crashing down with an estimated 1,500 unsuspecting shoppers and employees inside. Not just a single floor or area, but five stories of the North wing pancaking into the four basements, killing more than 500 people and injuring over 900. There was no sign of a natural disaster, terrorist act, or a wrecking ball in sight. Yet one minute the department store was bustling with diners and shoppers and the next, all five floors were a heap of rubble. It is considered the worst structural collapse of a building in modern history.

 

[delphi_ote]

Kevin Ryan formerly of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this.

Ahem.

Also, according to the UL company spokesman:

UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center.

 

[WildCat]

Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

Somehow, he doesn't seem to have noticed that a good number of the support columns were knocked out by a 140 ton battering ram hitting them at 450 mph...

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

What is that supposed to show?

So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11. This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want.

Did you also forget about the 140 ton plane hitting the building at 450 mpf, taking out numerous supports?

You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.

Gladly.

The building totalled 32 storeys, with 29 floors above ground and three below. A concrete core and concrete frame supported the first 16 floors. Above that was a central support system of concrete columns, supporting concrete floors with steel perimeter columns. An additional feature was the presence of two 'technical floors' - concrete floors designed to give the building more strength. One was just above the ground level and the other at the 17th floor.

Oops! That building used concrete as it's primary support. And what happened to the steel it did contain?

The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor.

That's gotta hurt, don't it Alek?

Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete?

Yes.

Hence it is theoretically possible for

the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to
particles well within the observed particle size range.​

​

​

What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing?

Seen where?​

BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on?

Yes, I have. I even tolerated the horrible soundtrack beating incessantly through the whole movie. It's complete rubbish.​

 

[kookbreaker]

Kevin Ryan of the Underwriter's Laboratory would seem to take issue with this. Read his letter to NIST:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

Kevin Ryan works at the UL department that examines water. His comments will not impress me at all. It is a straightforward fact that steel weakens with heat.

Or what? You'll sic Homeland Security on me?

Here are the firefighter's tapes:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape.htm

Here are the excerpts:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/firefighter-tape-excerpts.htm

If you search the net, you can find indexed versions of the audio, but I'm not your monkey.

This is bull. Nothing on any of those excerpts indicates that the fires were under control. A few say they personally are not having problems with fire and smoke where they are. The fact that the building was showing visible flames until the collapse means that 'under control' is not what you think it is.

So you're on record as saying that kerosene fires can bring down modern steel structures, right? Does anyone else on this forum want to back him up? You might want to start of by naming one example of this happening in history. It hadn't happend, prior to 9/11.

Yes it did. The Ronan point apartment building, for example, had a partial collapse from fire. Its structure had the advantage in not making a total collapse. This was due to design differences from the WTC. There are other examples, but none as large as the WTC. of course, few of them had a plane full of fuel fly into them.

This is even admitted in the mainstream NOVA documentary "Why the towers fell". I can render an mpeg of this if you want. You might want to explain how the Madrid fire burned uncontrollably for days, yet the structure didn't collapse.

1) Not the same kind of structure as the WTC. Nor was the fire of the same type.

2) It did collapse. The steel columns from the 17th floor did fail, leaving only the concrete structure. The WTC did not have such a feature.

Speaking of the dust cloud, does gravity help produce enough energy to completely pulverize concrete?

Yes.

What about the squibs seen many many floors below in videos of the towers collapsing?

Squibs can be caused by many things, these squibs are likely air & debris being ejected from pancaking floors. Real eplxosives squibs are much more obvious.

BTW, this thread is called Loose Change. Have you even watched Loose Change version 2, the movie this thread is based on? All of this evidence is presented there, and there is more that isn't covered in the film.

So, you are saying that you have twice as much crap as befire.

I realize this isn't as much fun as debunking ghost stories and establishing why the psychic friends network is a fraud, but please, for the sake of truth and our country, at least try to be slightly more objective and open minded? I'm not here to agitate, I'm here to raise awareness, and perhaps learn something.

No, you are determined to beleive in a conspiracy theory with minimal evidence. My mind is open, but you are trying to shovel garbage into it. Meanwhile, yours is so open it fell out onto the floor.

Your magic video isn't going to save you.

 

[Alek]

alek,

Tell us what is REALLY the key to what made you go 'this is a cover up'

The idea that WTC7 collapsed in a symmetric free fall, coupled with the fact that it was an unprecedented failure of structural engineering was the key for me. When I say unprecedented, I mean, it had *never* before happend in history. Please, prove me wrong. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so-called "skeptics" like yourselves can so quickly deny the fact that the building was a controlled demolition, after looking at the video evidence (which I presume at least some of you are objective enough to do, although I'm really not so sure). Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.

some of the stuff on the most popular websites is half produced facts and the like about what happened. They make many claims but refuse to show the complete sides of the story as it does not fit. They will show something, take it out of context and then when the source of that info steps forward, 'the government got to them'

I already admitted there is a lot of disinformation and lies out there, and your generalization is applicable to the official report. "negative association" is an established propaganda technique. Because someone associates aliens with controlled demolition theories doesn't mean the demolition theories are any less valid. Nor can the monolith that is the mainstream media validate the official story by reducto ad nauseum.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Read that, then argue with the evidence they produce? please, I bet you wont. If you can believe anything written on the nutter sites, why do you refuse to believe whats on one such as this? is it because its just too simple/cold/boring/uneventful? Not movie like enough? Not enough x files?

Alek, is it that hard to accept evidence from 100's of experts in engineering and physics over a few wild misquotes and half truths?

I know where ill put my trust.

I've already read it. The PopSci "debunking" was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security. How objective do you think it really is? It's full of propaganda, disinformation, and fallacy, designed to discredit critics of the official story. I'll be happy to read it again and respond item by item, if you're sincerely interested. I will point out the techniques they use, and the bias.

Scientific American had a similar article featuring skeptic Michael Shermer (perhaps some of you have heard of him?). The article features among other things, misquotation, strawman, reverse strawman, and bracketing in the techniques it uses to discredit. Again, this is not to say that much of the information out there isn't worthless, it's to point out how the entire debate is squelched among the narrow-minded because of these psychological tactics.

Like I said before in another post, you people need to overcome the emotional barrier which prevents you from considering possibilities which are highly disturbing, and which would force you to reconsider your entire worldview. Only then can you view the evidence objectively.

We live in a world where the pentagon has an "Office of Strategic Influence", and where "perception management" (propaganda) is commercialized.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/19/gen.strategic.influence/

http://scl.cc/home.php

Wake up.

 

[Alek]

In other words, you don't understand the physics involved at even the most basic level. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

And you do, hence the search for links to convince your roommate.

 

[delphi_ote]

You really want to see math, check out this report!
Which concludes:
[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

The addendum to the above report uses seismic data to calculate the time of the collapses as:
WTC 1 - 13.48 sec.
WTC 2 - 12.07 sec.

That report is great! So many of my quick calculations are close to what they got. I underestimated the energy calculation by about an order of magnitude (I significantly underestimated the weight and I didn't have it falling nearly the same distance. I also wrote MJ when I meant GJ, but that's another story.) That means we're talking about more energy than a ton of TNT!

Especially interesting is this:

a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for subsequent impacts, most of the kinetic energy of collapse is conserved from one floor impact to the next. Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.

Thanks, WildCat. That paper just kills the "free-fall" nonsense. I actually grabbed video of the towers falling. This is the first time in 4.5 years I've watched the towers fall willingly. I usually get angry even if I see this video on T.V. It's such a cheap attention grabber. Nothing gets me upset faster than people disrespecting what happened that day.

But seeing the physics in action is humbling. It's nice to finally see something beautiful in all that destruction and death.

 

[kookbreaker]

The idea that WTC7 collapsed in a symmetric free fall, coupled with the fact that it was an unprecedented failure of structural engineering was the key for me. When I say unprecedented, I mean, it had *never* before happend in history. Please, prove me wrong.

Sampoong. Gone.

Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that so-called "skeptics" like yourselves can so quickly deny the fact that the building was a controlled demolition,
after looking at the video evidence (which I presume at least some of you are objective enough to do, although I'm really not so sure). Practically everyone here has already put more effort into covering up that fact then FEMA/NIST did in the 9/11 report.

Sorry bub, but what you have is zilch, nada, zip, nothing. You have a building that falls quickly (after being pounded with debris and being on fire for 7 hours) and nothing else. There is no evidence of explosives being used (they tend to make noise) nor thermite (which requires a lot of thermite). In the end, you have nothing but your own desire for a conspiracy.

I've already read it. The PopSci "debunking" was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, secretary of Homeland Security.

Poison the well much?

How objective do you think it really is? It's full of propaganda, disinformation, and fallacy, designed to discredit critics of the official story. I'll be happy to read it again and respond item by item, if you're sincerely interested. I will point out the techniques they use, and the bias.

Claiming to be able to do that is a far cry from being able to do it, especially given your pathetic track record so far.

Scientific American had a similar article featuring skeptic Michael Shermer (perhaps some of you have heard of him?). The article features among other things, misquotation, strawman, reverse strawman, and bracketing in the techniques it uses to discredit. Again, this is not to say that much of the information out there isn't worthless, it's to point out how the entire debate is squelched among the narrow-minded because of these psychological tactics.

Again, more complaints without substance.

Like I said before in another post, you people need to overcome the emotional barrier which prevents you from considering possibilities which are highly disturbing, and which would force you to reconsider your entire worldview. Only then can you view the evidence objectively.

Horsefeathers. We look at the facts, the evidence, and we find it wanting, badly. This is such a pile of junk the 9/11 CT'ers have culled together that it is just plain sad. the only reason anyone falls for this junk is an inherent need to beleive in conspiracy theories.

 

[delphi_ote]

And you do, hence the search for links to convince your roommate.

Exactly. I understand momentum, force, gravitation, mass, velocity, kenetic energy, calculus, and algebra. I can write equations and work them out. I can estimate roughly how each hypothesis would play out (especially when they show their math.)

My room mate can't. He's a realtor.