Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Alek said:
Wow. So a group of so-called skeptics here thinks Oswald was the lone gunman, and that the magic bullet theory on which this all depends, is true. How convincing. Appeal to Consensus - another fallacy? I'm not going to discuss the JFK murder here. You may commence with the circle jerk in another thread.
Click to expand...
They re-created the Kennedy assasination on Mythbusters and the "magic bullet" did exactly as described in the official version of events.

Now, a wacko paranoid CT would simply brush that off as further disinformation by the conspirators, so the Mythbusters are now part of the conspiracy. And guess who were featured guests at TAM this year? Mythbusters!!! Thereby proving a direct link between the Kennedy conspirators (who we are told by Alek are the same folks who brought us the Murrah bombing and the 9/11 attacks) and the JREF.

Yes, we are all-powerful world-controlling conspirators of the highest degree!!!!! :cool:
 
kalen said:
Some time was spent on "Loose Change" saying that the steel used at the WTC was of some specified standard. Let us also assume that this steel really doesn't weaken in a jet fuel fire as the conspiracy buffs contend.

Instead of a vast conspiracy, I offer this theory of a smaller conspiracy: Not all the steel in the WTC was not really up to the specs that were required because 1) It's not uncommon for developers to cut costs by cutting corners. 2) The number of people that would have to "be in on it" is considerably smaller. 3) There would only have to be some substandard steel melting/weakening at certain points to initiate a collapse.

To test this theory, it would be nice to have a few pieces of WTC steel.

The video also said something about all the steel being hauled off to be recycled. Is there really no samples or pieces left at all? None?
Click to expand...

According to the ASCE report posted earlier, the integrity of the steel in the WTC ranged from 42 to 100 kips. This is irrelevant, as my point is the fire was not hot enough to cause even the weakest 42 kips steel to weaken significantly. From what I've read, the quality of structural steel doesn't vary nearly as much as the quality of concrete.
 
Alek said:
According to the ASCE report posted earlier, the integrity of the steel in the WTC ranged from 42 to 100 kips. This is irrelevant, as my point is the fire was not hot enough to cause even the weakest 42 kips steel to weaken significantly. From what I've read, the quality of structural steel doesn't vary nearly as much as the quality of concrete.
Click to expand...
Will someone please show Alek the link that shows even a simple house fire burns at 1400F?
 
WildCat said:
They re-created the Kennedy assasination on Mythbusters and the "magic bullet" did exactly as described in the official version of events.

Now, a wacko paranoid CT would simply brush that off as further disinformation by the conspirators, so the Mythbusters are now part of the conspiracy. And guess who were featured guests at TAM this year? Mythbusters!!! Thereby proving a direct link between the Kennedy conspirators and the JREF.

Yes, we are all-powerful world-controlling conspirators of the highest degree!!!!! :cool:
Click to expand...
I didn't know about the Mythbusters recreation. Cool.

The term "magic bullet" is meant to prejudice analysis as to its likelihood. But there was nothing "magic" about it.

We should perhaps take this to another thread. (No doubt Rouser2 will show up within an hour. Yikes!)
 
fowlsound said:
Negligent? Mighty powerful accusation. Whatever.

As for the rest of your post, since you are making very specific and testable assumptions, I suppose you could provide evidence of your assertions? What broadcasts? Will you post links to the transcripts or video footage?
Click to expand...

I made the name of the film pretty clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If the truth is important enough to you, you'll do the research. If not, you're not worth convincing anyway.

Since you are making the claims (and shifting the discussion away from 9/11 rather bluntly) you can provide some evidence to back this up.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Your reading comprehension is poor. I specifically stated that I didn't want to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then the most polite and objective participant in the thread asked me to summarize the evidence, which I did, and now you're accusing me of shifting the discussion.

Or is this going to be the same rehash of your 9/11 conspiracy in which you post no credible evidence and yell at us and insult us for tearing your arguments and theories apart?
Click to expand...

I'm not yelling at anyone. I respond with insults to insult. You haven't torn up anything but your own credibility, as evidenced by the above.
 
Alek said:
According to the ASCE report posted earlier, the integrity of the steel in the WTC ranged from 42 to 100 kips. This is irrelevant, as my point is the fire was not hot enough to cause even the weakest 42 kips steel to weaken significantly. From what I've read, the quality of structural steel doesn't vary nearly as much as the quality of concrete.
Click to expand...

Steel loses strength at temperature starting at 500C+, by the time it hits 700C it is signifigantly weaker than its cool state.

NIST demostrated that uninsulated steel exposed to the fires in the WTC could easily reach those and temperatures.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5B.pdf

Without reference to NISTs fire report, Alek is basicly just guessing.

And, as Wildcat just showed with his link, a simple housefire can reach 1300F in mere minutes.

edit because I messed up some temperatures.
 
alek for gods sake you believe the wtc building came down as part of a demolition based on watching a VIDEO. You do realise that they demolished others after so why are they not part of the conspiracy - was this not done to cover up there tracks?

Answer me PLEASE:

1) how many 'agencies' were involved

2) how many people

3) how much explosives were used

4) where were the explosives used

5) do you have any proper evidence - I mean, residue from explosives, detonators, wires - anything that would help push this part of the story to the fore. Please dont expect ANYONE to believe this was 'removed' before anyone had a chance to see it. it took them ages to clean up the WTC area!!!!

6) Why bother using aircraft. Why not biological weapons. Anthrax? (let me guess, that was the governments plan too!)

7) Give me another example where a passport was not found in an airplane disaster. Then compare that to the average number of airplane disasters where ones were found.

8) Do you enjoy smoking pot?

9) what kind of work do you do (serious)

PLEASE answer these short and sharp with maybe a link or two to a reputable site. PLEASE dont send me to another looney site because your only insulting your own mind reading it. Why do you so distrust science so much ??

Why do you continually assert that because you dont get it, it cant be true.

As for the disinformation - your going to be debating this for aeons and aeons, the same arguements.

* bangs head on wall *
 
Alek said:
I made the name of the film pretty clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If the truth is important enough to you, you'll do the research. If not, you're not worth convincing anyway.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you aren't familiar with the burden of proof. You came here with these claims. You are the one to provide the evidence. We are not going to scurry off and do your work for you.



Alek said:
Are you serious? Your reading comprehension is poor. I specifically stated that I didn't want to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then the most polite and objective participant in the thread asked me to summarize the evidence, which I did, and now you're accusing me of shifting the discussion.
Click to expand...

Still not evidence.


Alek said:
I'm not yelling at anyone. I respond with insults to insult. You haven't torn up anything but your own credibility, as evidenced by the above.
Click to expand...


What credibility have I torn up by asking you to provide evidence to your own claims? You made specific claims abotu OKC and I asked for that evidence. If you don't want to provide it here, then start a new thread, but back up your statements.

Please show where in this thread *I* have insulted you. Your tone is very fitting someone who is attacking because they are losing a debate.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Intelligence, intuition ... and the use of the Idiot's Syllogism ... "If I can't explain it, then I can explain it."

They should meet these people :
Click to expand...

Is it strange how, when we are in the middle of summer, it can be raining out, and one day it is very 'hot,' the next day it is 15 degree cooler, and two days later, it is 'hot' again? Does this seem strange? How about earthquakes in parts of the world, that are so devastating, that if they were to happen here, our whole economy could be ruined. Do you think it is 'odd' that people would suggest that the government can and does control the weather? I know it sounds a little paranoid, but if you do the research to investigate, you will undoubtably arrive at the same conclusions. Our weather is controlled!
Click to expand...

Congratulations. Your arrogant condescension is matched only by your abject ignorance.

S.517 Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (Reported in Senate)
 
Alek said:
Congratulations. Your arrogant condescension is matched only by your abject ignorance.

S.517 Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (Reported in Senate)
Click to expand...


:dl:


Do you have any idea what the content of those are?

Here I'll quote and bold the relevant parts:

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.
Click to expand...


now, do you have any evidence that anyone has this ability currently?
 
Alek said:
I made the name of the film pretty clear. I'm not here to do your homework for you. If the truth is important enough to you, you'll do the research. If not, you're not worth convincing anyway.
Click to expand...
Hey Alek,

I think that is a bit unfair. If you have an argument you should make it. If you have some evidence you should link to it. It's not other people's homework it is yours since you are making the claim.

Why do many independent experts disagree with the CT conclusions?

From the Popular Mechanics web site that explored the conspiracy theory.

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Click to expand...

 
regarding the weather thingo:

It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.
Click to expand...

(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term `research and development' means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.
Click to expand...

(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term `weather modification' means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.
Click to expand...

note how its research to see how it may be possible, not that it is possible.
Also what does this do to further purport your cospiracy theory?
Evidence is not shown by trying to discredit someone.

edit: doh fowlsound beat me to it!
 
Last edited:
GrnMtSkeptic said:
The ASCE is certainly more than qualified to do forensic failure analysis.

http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWsrchkwx.cgi?Failure+investigations

Are you telling us we should assume the FBI has the civil engineering forensics expertise of the ASCE? The FBI is not an engineering body.
Click to expand...

Read the paper. The intent of the ASCE in that paper was to ascertain if and how other buildings could be secured from a similar attack. Their conclusion was to secure airplanes instead. That paper did not document a forensic investigation, and it had more conjecture than science. I'm not claiming the paper was misrepresented as an investigation, I'm merely saying it wasn't one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom