Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
hellaeon said:
who would have thought we would have probes on mars remotely controlled from earth - we cant actually see them. We rely only on what nasa tells us. A cover up of that would be much easier then 911.
Click to expand...

Rely on what NASA tells us about Mars? Are you mad?
imdb.com/title/tt0077294/ (sorry, can't post links yet. getting there.)
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Who (person or group of people), in your opinion, would be qualified to carry out the investigation?
Click to expand...

The FBI, in conjunction with experts from the ASCE and elsewhere. The FBI should have established a chain of custody of the evidence, as well as managing the investigation. Experts like those in the ASCE are there to answer questions, not run criminal investigations.

The NIST report does touch all three towers.
Click to expand...

I've read the NIST report. It's a joke. Indeed it "touches" on the WTC 7 building. It's best hypothesis indicates a "low probability of occurence".

Word games with the executive summary grammar.
Click to expand...

Word games? I agree with their assertion that the majority of the jet fuel was consumed shortly after impact.

per http://www.boeing.com/commercial/767family/pf/pf_200prod.html

Engines
maximum thrust
Pratt & Whitney PW4062 GE CF6-80C2B7F
63,300 lb (281.6 kN) 62,100 lb (276.2 kN)

Maximum Fuel Capacity 23,980 U.S. gal (90,770 l)
Maximum Takeoff Weight 395,000 lb (179,170 kg)
Typical Cruise Speed at 35,000 feet Mach 0.80 530 mph (851 kph)

I'm sure one of the forumites can run the numbers, I won't pretend to do so since I am in database work, not physics/engineering, to provide kinetic energy and impact on the building.

That aside, you imply with "5" thick concrete floor and ceiling slabs" that the planes were penetrating them at something approaching a 90 degree angle, when in fact they would have been colliding with the buildings in such a manner as to direct their kinetic energy into the building and not having to directly punch through the floor/ceiling to enter the building.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that at all. I'm saying the planes impacted a number of floors on each tower, and in addition to penetrating the steel column facade, they would meet the resistance of the floors and ceilings themselves. I'd like to see a scientific analysis of this. I want to know how much inertia those planes had if and when they reached the core columns.

There is ample scientific evidence, you have dismissed it out of hand, or labeled as caused by "other" means that those to which it is ascribed.
Click to expand...

I don't see any equations of note in that report. Do you?

Of course there were things in the building on than kerosene to fuel the fire: the office furniture, whatever other things that were flammable. Additionally, they do not make the claim that it was molten steel; they state it was molten metal. Could have been any source of metal that had melted, not necessarily a steel support beam.
Click to expand...

Once the kerosene burns off, you go from a hydrocarbon to a cellulosic fire. Cellulosic fires not only burn much cooler, but they also don't cause steel structures to collapse. Keep in mind the volume of combustible material doesn't affect the temperature. You could have dumped 100,000 gallons of jet fuel in the WTC as opposed to the 10,000, and the building would have remained standing, even among the most optimal fire conditions. The fuel would have simply taken longer to burn off, it wouldn't burn hotter.

Let me phrase it this way, is there any evidence that can be sighted, any authoritative statements that can be quoted (and cited), that you will believe, and would cause you to rethink your position?
Click to expand...

Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

And I would like to see an analysis of the structural damage inflicted by the jets themselves. The ASCE report offers a lot of estimates, but no science to back them up.
 
Gravy said:
Rely on what NASA tells us about Mars? Are you mad?
imdb.com/title/tt0077294/ (sorry, can't post links yet. getting there.)
Click to expand...


Rely on a fictional movie to tell you what NASA does? Are you mad?
 
Alek said:
Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064

And I would like to see an analysis of the structural damage inflicted by the jets themselves. The ASCE report offers a lot of estimates, but no science to back them up.
Click to expand...
Yes, very scientific. Particularly the assumption that 20,000 gallons of burning jet fuel didn't set anything else on fire... w/ science like that, who needs to publish in a peer-reviewed journal?
:dl:
 
GrnMtSkeptic said:
You were the one who made the claim "Controlled Demolition was the only entity allowed on the scene following the disaster, and the evidence was shipped off to China for recycling." Yet now you deny any knowledge. Curious. Were you just making up the part about Controlled Demolition being the only entity allowed in?
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't "making it up". I read it. What I read about that may be wrong, I don't know. Like I said, I haven't investigated the investigation.
 
Alek said:
No, I wasn't "making it up". I read it. What I read about that may be wrong, I don't know. Like I said, I haven't investigated the investigation.
Click to expand...

So, you're basing your opinion on the validity of the investigation upon whether or not it meets your preconceived notions?


Edit to correct grammar.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm starting to get angry now. Do you ****ing people know how to read english? I said I'm not going to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then I get asked for a summary of the evidence. I provide it. Then I get accused of trying to shift the discussion.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am not going to try and prove any claims about OKC, because I'm not going to get sidetracked. For those who aren't apathetic, and negligent, and who care about the matter, you will either view the film I referenced, or you won't. You are entitled to reject the claims about OKC. Either way, I'm not going to discuss it here.

Stop trolling, and post something substantial about 9/11.
 
Alek said:
I'm starting to get angry now. Do you ****ing people know how to read english? I said I'm not going to get sidetracked by the OKC bombing. Then I get asked for a summary of the evidence. I provide it. Then I get accused of trying to shift the discussion.

I don't know how to make this any clearer. I am not going to try and prove any claims about OKC, because I'm not going to get sidetracked. For those who aren't apathetic, and negligent, and who care about the matter, you will either view the film I referenced, or you won't. You are entitled to reject the claims about OKC. Either way, I'm not going to discuss it here.

Stop trolling, and post something substantial about 9/11.
Click to expand...



It was requested you start a new thread on that, not continue here. DO you read english?

How about addressing the points made since that?
 
hellaeon said:
alek is under pressure as his peers are watching from over in the other forum.
Click to expand...

And the thing is, Alek IS a voice of reason over there. Some of them believe that NO plane hit the south tower. Really. Alek, foolish as he is, is a step in the right direction as far as the Loosers go.
 
Gravy said:
Loosers
Click to expand...
Brilliant, Gravy! Oh, and welcome to the JREF.

I'm now positive you were joking w/ the Capricorn 1 link. :D I swear, after reading all that lunacy over there I can't tell any more... :eye-poppi
 
Hehehe! Chipmunk Stew has been declared a troll now at the Looser forum. He will be banned if he posts anywhere but in the special troll forum, apparently reason and logic and linking to proper scientific investigations will not be tolerated there! :D
 
WildCat said:
Hehehe! Chipmunk Stew has been declared a troll now at the Looser forum. He will be banned if he posts anywhere but in the special troll forum, apparently reason and logic and linking to proper scientific investigations will not be tolerated there! :D
Click to expand...



Very compelling evidence of their "skepticism."
 
So the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the state of New York,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
the Federal Advisory Committee,
the NYPD,
the FBI,
the Secret Service,
the CIA,
the New York Port Authority,
the NYFD,
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
United Airlines,
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the Pentegon,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
Otis Air National Guard Base,
Langley Air Force Base,
Andrews Air Force Base,
Offutt Air Force Base,
the Air National Guard,
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the New York flight control center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the La Guardia Airport control tower,
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
and Emma E. Booker Elementary School were all cooperating in a widespread conspiracy to conduct a controlled demolition, thereby reducing the WTC to a pile of rubble, provide misinformation to the American public, and divert attention from the REAL culprits -- the government?

Holy bat crap Robin... :jaw-dropp

RayG
 
Alek said:
Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
Click to expand...
That analysis makes a calculation of the total heat released when the gasoline undergoes combustion. It's conclusions would be correct if the plane had spread the fuel through the building, and then someone lit a match. An explosion is quite different in terms of the amount of energy dumped into the surroundings. Compare what an exploding gastank would do to a car, with what would happen if the gas were dumped on the car and set on fire.

That analysis has lots of impressive numbers but starts with a false assumption.
 
Alek said:
I'm starting to get angry now.
Click to expand...
Oh shoot, not angry? If you don't want to respond to the claim that's fine but don't get angry at me. You could always withdraw it.

Stop trolling, and post something substantial about 9/11.
Click to expand...
Right, you ignore my post and call me a troll. I did post something substantial about 9/11. Ignoring it is poor form.
 
Alek said:
Yes, I want to see scientific evidence that contradicts this:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064
Click to expand...

The most obvious flaw is the assumption that all the concrete will heat up. It won't concrete is a pretty poor conductor. Steel by comparison is a pretty good one. The result is that most of the heat hitting the concrete will probably be radiated back off. The same will not be the case for the heat hitting the steel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom