Loose Change

[CurtC]

Actually, a pound of anything else is about 22% heavier than a pound of gold. Care to guess why?

 

[Manny]

If there had been explosives we would have all seen it. «We» as in BILLIONS of people.

Forget the billions of people. The people on the scene immediately after the towers fell and for months afterward were firefighters. People trained to see the causes of fires even when extensive measures have been taken to cover up the cause. There is no way -- no way! -- that anything resembling a controlled demolition could have been carried out without these guys noticing the aftereffects as they searched the ruins for survivors and traces of the bodies of their brothers.

People like greggy are accusing every single firefighter in the city and thousands from outside the city of intentionally and with malice covering up the murder of 343 of their brothers and 2,700 others. Greggy is accusing them all of treason and murder. Greggy doesn't give a crap about accusing our protectors of treason and murder, of course -- he has a crackpot theory to defend.

 

[Belz...]

it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down.

I think you give too much credit to those support columns. The WTC wasn't designed to handle 20 stories of its own structing coming down on it.

If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly. And while the top part gave away, the mass volume of dust was rather large.

What ? Larger than the whole building ?

NIST and controlled demolition, inc both addressed the pool of molten steel at the bottom of the rubble but the commision did not.

Perhaps you have difficulty reading: explosives don't melt steel, and there wasn't molten steel at the site.

But then I cant post any links as a back up due the request of some posters here...

That's not true. But you have to post RELEVANT sites, not just conjecture. Also, you have to respect rule 4.

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

Er... well... yeah. Sure. If something sounds crazy to me, I'll tend to think it IS crazy. That didn't monopolise too much of your cognitive abilities, did it ?

 

[geggy]

Still waiting for your evidence the US was in on 9/11.

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...

 

[Ramooone]

[qimg]http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg[/qimg]

once again you take another photo out of context as so many CTers do. that photo is from the cleanup of ground zero, you see the main core columns that are left need to be removed and those are cuts from when they are taking them down, theres friggin video of the guys cutting it.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

click the second video down on that link. not only does the guy talk about how they found 14 floors compacted in 8 feet (which supports the pancake theory) but they show where they're cutting the metal beams jackass.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Nothing personal, I wasn't ignoring you. The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff. The real stuff is the connections of caryle-bush, the bin ladens-bushes, pakistan ISI-US CIA, the creation of Al Qaeda by Osama and CIA and their history, the bush family busniess interests, etc, etc all of which I think a lot of people need to know about but not many 9/11 truthers talk about it. These are the kind of things that convinced me that the bush administration had a hand in the attacks.

Good sites with more serious investigators that I'd recommend to you are
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/
http://www.oilempire.us/

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as you look into these sites...

So, are you saying that you are basing your hypothesis on motives for a crime, without knowing whether the crime was committed or not? Or do you assume the crime since you see motives?

 

[chipmunk stew]

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87970.jpg

Evidence of "thermal residue" (whatever that is) from a plasma torch, yes. This is a photo of the clean-up job.

edit: Ramooone beat me to it.

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

You can say that again.

 

[geggy]

I'm with you so far, and fully agree.
Now you've lost me. When the top part of the building tipped over, at that point the support mesh that held it up at the impact point was no longer intact, so failed, and let the top part of the building fall. It fell onto the lower part of the building, obliterating its support mesh and destroying everything as it went down. Why are you saying that the building would tip over 8-10 degrees? There's no way that the supports at the point where the "bend" occurs could take that much strain - it just falls down long before it gets to that point.

I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?

Have you ever noticed when you see a controlled demolition, that the explosives don't seem to produce much dust, but when the building falls down, there is a huge amount of dust? There is just a hugely greater amount of energy available from the falling building to pulverize the concrete than from the explosives themselves. They are just the triggers, not what does most of the destruction.

Yes I've noticed. If you understand how building implosion works, the first set of dynamite would explode at the bottom of the building to weaken the structure then explosive charges on every floor would go off at the same time to allow it to fall with gravity hence producing mass volume of dust as soon as concrete hits the ground. WTC was brought down in a different yet unique way to make it look like the building failed. The top portion of the towers collapsed first, then explosive charges went off in a timely pattern. YOu can come to your own conclusion.

BS. Prove me wrong.

Google "nist molten pool"

Thermal residue? What is thermal residue exactly, and why is this picture evidence for it?

How do you explain the looks of the steel that was melted?

 

[geggy]

once again you take another photo out of context as so many CTers do. that photo is from the cleanup of ground zero, you see the main core columns that are left need to be removed and those are cuts from when they are taking them down, theres friggin video of the guys cutting it.

http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

click the second video down on that link. not only does the guy talk about how they found 14 floors compacted in 8 feet (which supports the pancake theory) but they show where they're cutting the metal beams jackass.

Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...

 

[Manny]

They already know, greggy. That's where they got the footage. Just like they know about the plane parts at the Pentagon and Shanksville, just like they know about the alleged "alive" hijackers, just like everything else. They know but they're lying to protect their al Qaeda masters. So are you.

 

[pgwenthold]

once again you take another photo out of context as so many CTers do. that photo is from the cleanup of ground zero, you see the main core columns that are left need to be removed and those are cuts from when they are taking them down, theres friggin video of the guys cutting it.

Wow. I mean, absolutenfricken wow.

That _anyone_ could seriously present this as evidence of anything just shows how dishonest CTers really are.

"Somebody thought of that
And someone believed it
Look where it's gotten thus far"

I'm not accusing geggy of being dishonest here, but it does illustrate how folks like geggy will latch on to anything that remotely supports their nutty stories without any semblence of critical thought in the least.

If CTers were in any way honest, they would gang tackle idiots that create these distortions. In fact, they don't. All they do is perpetuate it.

It is to the point where I wouldn't trust a CT site to tell me its raining if I were standing outside without an umbrella getting soaked by a rainstorm.

(As Randi likes to say about certain books, the only reliable information in them are the page numbers, but even then I will count the pages to verify they are right)

 

[Tirdun]

WTC was brought down in a different yet unique way to make it look like the building failed. The top portion of the towers collapsed first, then explosive charges went off in a timely pattern. YOu can come to your own conclusion.

So you are arguing that the evidence for a controlled demolition exists within the very fact that the WTC towers fell as if the steel failed where the building was hit by an aircraft.

Do you understand that? Do you grasp the problem here? The twin towers fell

like the building failed. the top portion ... collapsed first

JUST as we would expect from a structural failure, and yet this is evidence that they set off a controlled demolition.

 

[aggle-rithm]

The only reason you think I'm crazy for thinking the reason of the towers were brought down with explosives is because it all sounds crazy to you.

We don't think you're crazy. We think you're either a troll or a blithering idiot.

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, a pound of anything else is about 22% heavier than a pound of gold. Care to guess why?

I know why, but the difference seems to be 33% more (or 25% less), unless the ounces are different, too.

 

[rwguinn]

I know why, but the difference seems to be 33% more (or 25% less), unless the ounces are different, too.

Gold is measured in ounces Troy....

 

[aggle-rithm]

Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...

Wow. Honesty!

Take care that you're not branded a heretic by your "friends". For people called "truthers", they're not very comfortable with the truth.

 

[CurtC]

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

Since I have no idea what you mean, could you please offer a cite from a structural engineer who explains it with math?

Google "nist molten pool"

I tried that - are you referring to "The NIST Center for Neutron Research web pages" or "Measurements of the thermal diffusivity of solid and molten metals are performed using ... laser-based dilatometer scanning the surface of the molten pool" or something else there? I didn't see anything that says NIST said there were pools of molten steel. Again, if you could actually offer a specific cite, that would help the discussion along.

Damn...you got me there. That makes sense to me. I better tell and show the videos to other truthers before they make an ass out of themselves...

Congratulations, by the way, on this admission. My estimate of your character has now gone up a notch. I am very interested in the response you get from the other "truthers" when you tell them. I believe it will tell you something about their character. Would you be willing to provide a link when you tell them, or at least post here with the responses you get?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...The strange collapsing of wtc, the fake osama tape, the pentagon, etc, etc are kids stuff...

Truer words were never spoken.

I'm willing to debate with you as soon as...

You haven't addressed the numerous refutations of points you've attempted to make so far. Why not go back and cover those first?

 

[Gravy]

Evidence of thermal residue unless you think otherwise...

Geggy, you're correct. that IS thermal debris, FROM A BLOWTORCH. Uh, see the torch cutting marks? Uh, see the "thermal residue sitting on TOP of the debris?

I'm actually worried about you, Geggy. There doesn't seem to be any improvement here. You're not down there with the no-planers yet, but you're getting there.

Let me ask you this, has participating here made you change your mind about ANY beliefs you had relating to 9/11? How about this post? Do you agree that the column you pictured was cut by the crews removing debris?

 

[Rolfe]

The plane didnt hit directly the center part of the south tower, instead it hit close to the corner of the building, cutting the columns only on that side while the columns on the other side stayed intacted. It was clearly evident as we all saw the top part tipped over. When the top portion above the impact hole tipped over, it would forced the column frames and joints on that same side the top part was leaning toward to snap down while the intacted side of the columns would pull the joint up and apart and then fall down. If thats the case, the entire building would've tipped over as much as 8-10 degrees. But instead the columns fell down straight down as if the columns were breaking apart evenly.

What? The entire building would have tilled over? Why? Remember my point about how high up these towers were hit. Even the south tower.

The only time the whole building might have toppled was in the seconds following the impact of the plane, when there was considerable horizontal force. However, the tower withstood that, swaying back and forward a few times but not toppling. 45 minutes later or however long it was, there was no horizontal force acting at all. So there was no reason for the entire building to tip over.

What we saw was the section of the building above the impact tip over, as the supports failed at the point of impact. There's no reason at all to imagine that the forces involved here would be transferred right down one side of the tower to cause selective failure of the supports at ground level on that side. The building wasn't constructed that way. Either the lower, undamaged part of the tower would have held up, supporting the debris of the tipped-over and unsupported upper part (with some of it falling over the edge to the ground of course), or the structure would fail entirely, causing a pancaking reaction to start at the point of damage. This was inevitable given the structure, and as we could all see, the second consequence was what happened. Given that the south tower was struck relatively low (compared to the north), the failing structure couldn't support the heavier weight of the unsupported top section for so long.

I understand that but it's a bit complicated. If the top part tipped over the way it did, then either

The weight of the bottom edge would have continued pressed one side of the building to snap down the columns below. That pattern would've lead to more tipping.

Or since the rest of the building collapsed straight down, the top part would have tipped back to it's normal stance but it didnt.

What was strange was thet the top part stayed tipped at 80 degree while it was falling in a free fall manner. How is that possible?

No, no, how can you be so obtuse?

As I pointed out above, the building wasn't designed so that the force of the tipping top section would be transmitted right to the bottom on the same side. The structure was going to fail floor by floor, as a whole.

But now you also seem to be saying that granted the pancaking did happen, the tipped-over section should have righted itself on the way down.

Why?

What forces were acting on it to change its attitude? It was tipped over to a certain point when the floors below it began to fail, one after the other, flat, across their entire area simultaneously. Why should it not then go straight down, frozen at the angle it had reached when the pancaking began?

Why am I arguing with this moron?

Rolfe.