Loose Change

[ranson]

I did it again. Ban me.

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.

Whoop. Up until this point, I simply considered him passionate, if wrong.

Now I'm just pretty sure he's a nutbag.

 

[WildCat]

As for the WTC 7, I made a specific statement concerning what I know about how it collapsed. The video evidence is overwhelming. I'm not going to be lied to and led around by "experts", or ignorant, patronizing, so-called skeptics. My own intelligence and intuition have served me well. The NIST has no viable hypothesis for why this building fell. The burden is on the government apologists, like you, to explain why it fell. If you put me in context, it means I accept the possibility that I'm wrong about it, but there had damn well better be extraordinary proof. I don't see that coming from the likes of you or your pals here anytime soon, frankly.

Paranoid delusional post of the year!

I've said it before, but stupid people don't ever realize that they're stupid.

Because they're stupid.

 

[Gravy]

Alek, I'm curious to know if you've done any independent research about 9/11, and if so, what facts you've turned up that you think might be significant or interesting.
Thanks,
Gravy

 

[kookbreaker]

Stop editing my posts, or ban me. I've had enough of the patronizing ignorance here anyway.

'Patronizing Ignorance', means that we don't accept your assertions of "I don't beleive it' in face of the actual evidence.

You are trying for a pathetic martyr ban. Get over yourself. If there was a Big Brother, he wouldn't even think you worth watching.

 

[kookbreaker]

I would have them do a forensic investigation, as if it were the biggest crime scene on earth. Or, is Bush and the FBI's word that Osama Bin Laden did it enough to simply call off an investigation?

Translation: They didn't investigatte the way I wanted them to

I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.

Translation: I read a few kewl konspiracy sites and now I think I know more than you and all the relevant experts in the world.

I've thought about it ever since it happend.

Translation: I want a conspiracy!

How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?

Translation: If I keep changing the subject from one building to the other I can avoid the fact that my ideas are crap,

Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.

Translation: I haven't read the material I claimed to have read.

Now the building is fragile, because you say it is?

Translation: Since I know nothing, I'll pull one word out of the sentence I quoted and make a straw-man.

It's 600C. I've thought about it. Still not convinced.

Translation: I am ignoring all the evidence that says otherwise.

Yeah. Thanks for the sage advice. Maybe if I "think" some more, I'll be as enlightened as you are. I can only hope.

Translation: I'm bitter and getting my butt kicked. All I can do is spit. So spit I shall

It doesn't have to be a secret. Hardly anyone is capable of believing it could be true anyway.

Translation: I'll pretend I'm smart a 'leet 'cause I can make up bad fiction about an event.

Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

I already have. You just aren't listening.

Translation:Spit Spit spit.

 

[ferd burfle]

Additionally, the steel columns would have acted as a giant heat sink. The thermal conductivity of steel is such that even if we are to assume such outrageous air temperatures of 2000F, it would not necessarily cause the steel to weaken enough such that it would no longer bear the load of the structure above.

I call BS. Alek, just what, praytell, is the thermal conductivity of steel? After you scurry off to Google a reference, please be prepared to explain the units and how that fits into your calculations that show the steel sinking away buttloads of heat, necessitating the use of explosives.
Careful now, I work for a company that designs and manufactures heatsinks and cooling products for everything from ICs to locomotives. I'll have the gang here, including guys with Ph.Ds in thermal analysis, review your work. And I'll even give you a little hint---absolutely none of our products uses any form of steel for heat conduction.

What's that noise? Why, it sounds like, like, like....more crickets.

Ferd

 

[ferd burfle]

You mean like this?

[qimg]http://www.explosive911analysis.com/D5.jpg[/qimg]

Note the smoking beams in the lower left. Must be kerosene.

Alek, dude, you are good! When I did material analysis and contamination identification, I had to use all sorts of expensive equipment. I'd start with polarized light microscopy and sometimes that was enough to identify the material by size, morphology and behavior under polarized light. But I usually had to use either Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy or a scanning electron microscope equipped with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis to get a confirmation.

But you're able to tell me what the material trailing the ends of the steel in this photo is not (and presumably is) simply by looking at it! You don't need a sample or even to see it directly, you can just look at a photo!

When my former bosses hear about your abilities they are going to be really, really pissed that I misled them into spending so much money on training and instruments when they could have hired you to just glance at some photos.

Ferd

 

[kookbreaker]

I call BS. Alek, just what, praytell, is the thermal conductivity of steel? After you scurry off to Google a reference, please be prepared to explain the units and how that fits into your calculations that show the steel sinking away buttloads of heat, necessitating the use of explosives.
Careful now, I work for a company that designs and manufactures heatsinks and cooling products for everything from ICs to locomotives. I'll have the gang here, including guys with Ph.Ds in thermal analysis, review your work. And I'll even give you a little hint---absolutely none of our products uses any form of steel for heat conduction.

What's that noise? Why, it sounds like, like, like....more crickets.

Ferd

Once again, Alek makes an off the cuff comment that brings up the question: Why do firemen fight fires in skyscrapers?

According to Alek, they are invulnerable to fire. The only thing firemen would need to do is keep the other buildings from catching and save anyone inside. After that, let it burn and keep people away. You aren't going to save the office materials, since they will be water damaged anyway.

I mean, sure, go in and spray down a little flame in the wastebasket. But once the fire is burning in more than a couple of offices, why risk firemen's lives to save an invincible building?

Golly. Perhaps Alek, the SOOOPER FIREFIGHTING GEEENIUS, can start to lecture firemen around the world about how buildings are invincible and cannot be brought down with fire.

 

[kookbreaker]

When my former bosses hear about your abilities they are going to be really, really pissed that I misled them into spending so much money on training and instruments when they could have hired you to just glance at some photos.

Ferd

Ah, so now its also: Alek, SOOOPER MATERIAL ENGINEER GEEEENIUS!!

He is quite the Rennaissance man, isn't he?

 

[Hellbound]

I would have them do a forensic investigation, as if it were the biggest crime scene on earth. Or, is Bush and the FBI's word that Osama Bin Laden did it enough to simply call off an investigation?

So, because their intent wasn't specifically to find a criminal, but simply to find whatever caused the failure, the science they did is invalid?

I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.

Considering the quality of your thinking so far displayed, it might be a good idea for you to sub-contract it out.

How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?

About 0.2, rough estimate. And probably 0.01 of a building when WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.

Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.

Good thing the jet fuel was not a requirment, just fire from any and all sources, contained within a structure, were temperatures would rise. You do understand the difference between temperature and heat, don't you?

Yeah. Thanks for the sage advice. Maybe if I "think" some more, I'll be as enlightened as you are. I can only hope.

No, I don't think you can. I'd try learning how to use a spatula well, if I were you. Or a shovel. Pitchfork, maybe, if anyone will allow you near sharp objects.

Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

You do know that lemmings don't run off cliffs, right?

I already have. You just aren't listening.

Oh, we are listening. Which is precisely why we don't agree with you. I'd suggest you listen to yourself.

 

[RayG]

As any reader of detective novels knows, the three cardinal elements of identifying a suspect in a criminal investigation are establishing means, opportunity and motive. The only reason I can surmise for your being unwilling to discuss motive is because you can't come up with a plausible motive which fits your predetermined conclusion.

Haven't you been following events since 9/11? Hello? Bush needed a way to increase the budget and save face with his daddy. What better way than going to war? To declare war however, means he needed a fullproof plan. After consulting with 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 he had his diabolical plan. Bush would be innocently reading to elementary students as his co-conspirators put into motion events that would enrage fellow Americans, and spur them on to support a declared war.

The hardest part of 'the plan' was picking the group or country to blame. North Korea? Nah, they have nukes and just might use them. Iceland? No way, this war has to drag on for a few years. Iceland would be blown off the map in a matter of days. Who hates Americans the worst? Canadians. No, no, that wouldn't work, no sense spoiling your neighbor's lawn, you may be moving in to his house. Ok, who else hates Americans? Libya? Yeah baby yeah. Wonderful chance to get back at them for shooting down 189 Americans on Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Well, as appealing as that might be, it paled in comparison to the embarassment caused to daddy Bush by Saddam Hussein. Think about it. President George H. W. Bush (former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency) never got a chance to really flex his military muscle in the first Gulf War. What better way to make sure you're the apple of daddy's eye, than by kicking the snot out of daddy's former tormenter? Do you really think it's a coincidence that Bush senior was the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency? I think not.

What I find most curious about 9/11 is very little, if any, mention of signals intelligence gathering organizations of the Western world (NSA, CSE, GCHQ, DSD, and GCSB).

General Michael Hayden (NSA director during 9/11 and present deputy director of national intelligence) was surprisingly quiet during and prior to 9/11 events. He wasn't so quiet afterwards when he defended a controversial NSA eavesdropping program in January 2006.

"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such," said Hayden.

Umm, General, maybe if you had spent more time during your tenure as NSA director listening to suspected terrorist conversations/communications instead of your own citizens, you may have caught them without any additional "warrantless eavesdropping program" legislation.

You can go on about the combustion temperature of jet fuel and the tensile strength of steel all day, but if you can't provide a plausible argument why the US government, or certain elements within it, would have orchestrated the events of 9/11, it's all so much hot air.

Now you're claiming it was hot air not hot steel that caused the massive demolition effect? I'd like to see you prove THAT one.

RayG

 

[Hellbound]

You know, the motive of making an excuse for war doesn't fit at all, anyway.

Why take such a risk? If evidence of this ever got out (and with a crime this large and comprehensive, that's almost inevitable), it would pretty well polarize the U.S. populace against the current government and end any thought of war. Even if the war went on, those who wanted to benefit would not. The risks are far too high, when there are other methods that could be used for war.

Besides, the primary result of this was war in Afganistan. If Iraq was the actual target, why didn't the government simply go after them first? Iraq was targetted because of Saddam's efforts to gain WMDs (which erroneous intelligence thought he already had). Not because of 9/11. Of course, I have my own thoughts about the Iraq situation, but this is not the forum for them (basically, I think we needed to be there...the idea was good, the execution of it was severely lacking at the higher levels).

The suggested motives are non-sensical, the methods are far too high-risk for the slight reward, and the actual mechanics of an attack of this nature are mind-boggling.

And why in the Ed-driven H3ll would WTC 7 have to be demolished? Although you seem to flop back and forth about whetherWTC 1 & 2 were demolished or just fell, you still insist 7 was demolished. Why? What motive?

Asinine. Absolute, breathtaking illogic.

As I have stated before, the ONLY way this makes sense is if you pre-suppose, before knowing anything about the event, that the government is lying.

 

[kookbreaker]

And why in the Ed-driven H3ll would WTC 7 have to be demolished? Although you seem to flop back and forth about whetherWTC 1 & 2 were demolished or just fell, you still insist 7 was demolished. Why? What motive?

The arguement, as I understand it, is that the CIA, and other TLA agencies had offices in there where there were plans and stuff that would have given away the secrets. So they blew up the building.

Of course, this is hollywood fantasy. In reality, demolishig a building is a terrible way to destroy evidence inside it. In fact it exposes evidence to being discovered by random clean-up crews. It would be far easier, and in fact far less risky to wait it out, and flash the needed badges and say 'we're going in to get sensitive materials'.

The lowest of the low scumbucket CTers try to hint that Mayor Guilliani was involved by noting that he had a 'bunker' in WTC7 or somesuch. Having seen Guilliani in action I can safely say that whatever you might think of him as a mayor: He truly loved the city of New York. The idea that he would be complicit in an act designed to destroy a important part of his proud city is beyond ludicrous. If Bush had suggested such a idea to the Mayor, I suspect the President's face and nose would have been completely bashed in before the Secrete Service could pull Guilliani off him.

But since when has reality ever intruded into the CT'ers fantasy-land?

 

[Belz...]

I'm not the lapdog being spoon fed lies here. If I let other people do my thinking for me, then I would be like you.

Again with the insults. You assume that, if someone disagrees with you, obviously, they're lapdogs.

How many jets hit the World Trade Center 7 building?

None. How many 110-floor buildings collapsed near WTC7 ?

Already been done, read the fire analysis I linked earlier. The jet-fuel weakening steel theory is bunk.

Ah, so heat CANNOT weaken steel. Got it.

It's 600C. I've thought about it. Still not convinced.

Then let me ask: What WOULD convince you ?

It doesn't have to be a secret. Hardly anyone is capable of believing it could be true anyway.

Go with the flow. Indeed. Follow the lemmings off of the cliff.

Lemmings don't jump off cliffs. That's an urban myth.

As for the WTC 7, I made a specific statement concerning what I know about how it collapsed. The video evidence is overwhelming.

Yes. It fell down. That's about all the video evidence can tell you. How could YOU possibly tell the difference if explosives were used ?

I'm not going to be lied to and led around by "experts", or ignorant, patronizing, so-called skeptics. My own intelligence and intuition have served me well.

Just for an instant, re-read the quote above and imagine someone else is saying it. Can you see how arrogant this sounds ? Never mind the "experts", my armchair analysis is much better.

The NIST has no viable hypothesis for why this building fell. The burden is on the government apologists, like you, to explain why it fell.

They did. You just don't believe them.

Have fun in the camps after the government sponsored biological weapons attack.

Now you're off the deep end, pal.

 

[fsol]

Heh, "call me insane..."

http://www.bonjour-america.com/

Charlie Sheen and the Conspiracy Theory

He does say f*ck at one point, just incase you are in an office or somewhere similar.

 

[delphi_ote]

Heh, "call me insane..."

http://www.bonjour-america.com/

Charlie Sheen and the Conspiracy Theory

He does say f*ck at one point, just incase you are in an office or somewhere similar.

The nose of Alf the alien...

 

[chipmunk stew]

delphi,

Here are the conclusive expert analyses that Roxdog keeps referring to:

My interview with Jeff King:

http://www.theeffectivecitizen.com/goat/ftg17_king.mp3
(right click, save target as)

VIDEO PRESENTATION:

QUOTE Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition
Jeff King
14 min 35 sec - Mar 17, 2006

Jeff King goes into detail why the WTC Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by explosives
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=18...ff+King&pl=true


Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
by: Dr. Steven Jones, PHd

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


QUOTE ABSTRACT

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.


QUOTE Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635160132,00.html


BYU Physics Professor, Steven E. Jones' 2/1/06 9-11 academic seminar - video download (260megs)
http://madcowpolitics.com/byu.wmv

Audio version of the seminar, right click save as:
MP3 of Prof. Jones' Utah 9/11 Seminar - Feb.1, 2006 (63megs)

Jones' 9-11 academic seminar powerpoint presentation (30megs)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy...resentation.zip

Professor Jones' website:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=147

 

[RayG]

For example, you keep begging for people to watch the Alex Jones video, yet I highly doubt you've looked into the claims of that video for yourself.

Can't say I've watched the Jones video, but I DID watch the 14 minute video of former MI5 employee David Shayler as per the request put forth by Mathias over on Loose Change.

Maybe you find this a more credible man. Ex MI5, gives a very reasonable assessment of the events.

As a great skeptic, you must watch this. Till the end, I might add.

How on earth could you judge a movie by not seeing it completely, in the film world, that's what we call: Unfair Judgement.

Come on. I mean, I can very fairly say now that all skeptics will not like you for dismissing a movie after four minutes, and not even making it to minute five. If you're so keen on logic, this defies ANY form of logic, or fairplay. And hey, remember, not attacking you, we're on the same team.

Watch the link above. I beg of you.

Sorry, but I simply don't find him credible or reasonable. Now I never worked for five years at MI5, nor have I stayed at a Holiday Inn recently, but I did work for nine years in SIGINT, where my organization communicated regularly with NSA, CSE, GCHQ, DSD, etc. etc. That didn't make me qualified to speak about the structural integrity of buildings, the effects of fire on buildings, damage caused by crashing aircraft, or departments outside my own. Is Shayler somehow qualified? Someone no longer even employed by the agency (he left in 1997), making non-specific statements about events he's unqualified to speak about, that happened years afterwards, is simply not credible. His 14 minute video was filled with speculation, assumption, conjecture, guesstimates, and wishful-thinking. He didn't present a single piece of viable evidence to support his "traitors within the American government" theory. His conspiracy is no more valid than the far-fetched one I posted earlier, even though he's trying to be serious and I wasn't.

If you listen to him (and believe him), if a plane hit the Pentegon it must have "evaporated" because there's no evidence a plane was the culprit. He suggests instead, that the damage was caused by a missle. Why a missle would leave behind commercial aircraft tire rims in the rubble is not explained.

It's rather tiresome watching non-experts being trotted out as though they had something valid to contribute.

Now, don't get me started about the dark side of the moon. If you only knew...

RayG

 

[delphi_ote]

delphi,

Here are the conclusive expert analyses that Roxdog keeps referring to:


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1413&st=147

If it's the same guy, Stephe E. Jones is awesome!

 

[delphi_ote]

If it's the same guy, Stephe E. Jones is awesome!

Dude! It's even better. This is the cold fusion guy!