Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
MRWiffen said:
Check the ASTM ( www.astm.org )they should have some numbers for the heat of combustion. Also jp4 is military jet fuel (I think, I've never dealt with this one) commercial jets use Jet A or Jet A-1. I'll look up the specifications when I get to work (I work in a lab that tests Jet A-1).

Ramooone, if you want a little Jet A-1 for a demo burn I can get some but getting it across the border into the US probably won't happen. If you come up to Toronto I can set it up with no problem though.
Click to expand...
Jet A or Jet A-1 Net heat of combustion 42.8 MJ/kg (source ASTM D1655). Now all that is needed is the mass of fuel and the amount of heat that can be produced is easily calculated. Unfortunately the temperature that would be reached is dependent on alot of factors (surface area, time it burned, etc.) that would be at best a guess. Beyond the numbers from the ASTM this gets outside of my area of expertise very quickly and I don't want to even guess. Unlike Geggy I don't like being obviously wrong.
 
Belz...

In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.

Thanks for linking plaguepuppy. Rarely I would go to that site and i didnt realize how much information it holds...Here the video of what I was talking about when the north tower shook before it came down indicating that bombs may have been implanted in the basement of the tower. I'm pretty sure it's legitmate because as the trembling started, you can see the shifting of the smoke.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video archive/Shaking before WTC-1 collapse.mpg
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
You mean, the fact that some facts were omitted is necessarily indication of deception ?
Click to expand...

No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.



Your point ?
Click to expand...

That paragraph was copied and pasted, by me, from the FEMA report. They were trying to trick you into thinking the building in the center of the picture was WTC7.
 
Last edited:
Just want to throw out a big thank you to the people here who have researched this silliness so well. I have been butting heads for months with CTs on a forum called Yahooka (ok I am a bit of a pothead, advancing age and arthritis is to blame....really!). I discovered Gravy's useful analysis and they have been unable to answer any of his points to date. Lots of name calling (shill, government stooge, the usual, since I am Canadian, they are odd charges) followed and they reverently cling to Steven Jones little paper. One particlualrly fun fellow came to his conclusion by interpretting the data himself. Despite the fact that he lacks any kind of university education, he was able to prove (to himself) that seismic readings showed there were bombs in the WTC. Small wonder I have so little hair left.
 
geggy said:
Here the video of what I was talking about when the north tower shook before it came down indicating that bombs may have been implanted in the basement of the tower. I'm pretty sure it's legitmate because as the trembling started, you can see the shifting of the smoke.
Click to expand...

Another day, another mind-blowingly stupid post from our ever-fixéd star of conspiratorial conundrums. geggy, that video is supposed to HELP your cause?

Holy cow. I have to go for a walk.
 
milesalpha said:
Just want to throw out a big thank you to the people here who have researched this silliness so well. I have been butting heads for months with CTs on a forum called Yahooka (ok I am a bit of a pothead, advancing age and arthritis is to blame....really!). I discovered Gravy's useful analysis and they have been unable to answer any of his points to date. Lots of name calling (shill, government stooge, the usual, since I am Canadian, they are odd charges) followed and they reverently cling to Steven Jones little paper. One particlualrly fun fellow came to his conclusion by interpretting the data himself. Despite the fact that he lacks any kind of university education, he was able to prove (to himself) that seismic readings showed there were bombs in the WTC. Small wonder I have so little hair left.
Click to expand...
Welcome aboard! Just minutes ago I finished the second version of my "Loose Change" critique, and I'm very pleased with it. It's a big improvement. I'll post a link to it here shortly.

Check my sig to see what I think of Steven Jones. Lord, i would love to debate him.
 
geggy said:
No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.

That paragraph was copied and pasted, by me, from the FEMA report. They were trying to trick you into thinking the building in the center of the picture was WTC7.
Click to expand...

Geggy the official reports are not obliged to plot and explain the trajectory of every single piece of debris during those collapses. Just because they don't explain you particular favourite blobs it doesn't mean they're hiding anything. If they explained those bits, you'd be demanding explanations for other bits. Likewise, they aren't obliged to answer every single question that gets asked, especially when those questions are absolutely meaningless when viewed alongside all the moutains of real evidence they have in their possession. As much as you'd like to think otherwise, they're simply doing a job, not standing trial.
 
When you cling to CT like a religion, it's not hard to dodge and weave.

True Believer: "The WTC was a controlled demolition."

Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Does that look like a controlled demolition to you?"

True Believer: "Watch this video, man."

Skeptic: "Watch the same unedited video."

True Believer: "Freefall, man. The building fell at freefall straight down."

Skeptic: "Look at this photo. Do see all the material falling faster than the main structure?"

True Believer: "Explosions, man. The buildings were blown up. That's what melted the steel beams and blew out all the dust."

Skeptic: "Explosions don't melt steel."

True Believer: "Thermite, man. Thermite melted the steel."

Skeptic: "Thermite is not an explosive."

True Believer: "Nukes, man. Nukes in the basement."

Skeptic: "Survivors from the basement say otherwise."

True Believer: "The Pentagon, man. Small hole. No plane."

Skeptic: "Different pictures. Big hole. Airplane parts. Passenger DNA. Witnesses."

True Believer: Bush sucks, man.

And so on ...
 
geggy said:
Belz...

In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.
Click to expand...

Ah, progress!!!

So, consider your statement here.

IN a controlled demolition, the dust and debris cloud is made when the building reaches the ground.

Not when the explosives are set off.

Thus, the clouds of dust and debris are not evidence of explosives, just evidence of impact.

Now that we've got that silliness out of the way...
 
geggy said:
No, they didn't address some of the questions that were asked about the puff of dust ejecting, the sounds of bombs going off, etc.
Click to expand...

NIST and FEMA's reports were not written with the intent of satisfying psychopathic nutcase sociopathic ghoulish scumbag conspiracy nutters like you. They were done to answer serious questions about the nature of building construction and how things fail. Those things are concerns for real engineers who have real jobs (unlike all of the Loosers, who've convinced themselves that The Man is keeping them on the night shift at the Dairy Queen). Since things can fail, engineers like to know why. That way they might prevent or reduce failures in the future. So NIST really has little concern for your attempts to feed off the dead. They have important work to do, rather than chase after your silly puffs of smoke or sounds heard during a fire.

The closest NIST has come to commenting on conspiracy psychopaths was to say that there was no evidence of explosives. And there wasn't.
 
gumby said:
In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.
Click to expand...
Finally geggy says something that I can fully agree with. Only took 130 posts.
 
Roxdog just invited me to come on his (her?) radio show.

Is that bad?

LOL
 
New & Improved "Loose Change" critique is out!

I'd llke a few folks to check the file out before I start spreading the word about it. CurtC, I sent you a pm about hosting.

I just want to be sure that the links work for you and that the thing looks okay. It's a 4.8 mb doc file.

And thanks for everyone's constructive criticism...I'm actually proud of this version. You can download it here:

http://media2.uploadjar.com/file.php?file=uploads/911_loose_change_2_guide.doc
 
dubfan said:
Roxdog just invited me to come on his (her?) radio show.

Is that bad?

LOL
Click to expand...

Congrats. I bet you get a nice gift basket when you appear.
Seriously, though, it's a podcast, and he's said it averages about 50 live listeners and 200 downloads.

He could reach far more people with his arguments on this forum, but his technique is simply to dump a bunch of links here and then disappear.

Thare's a reason he likes the live format: he is incapable of debating an issue on its merits in a format like this, where facts are required, but I'm sure he does fine when he controls everything and can shout you down.

When I was posting on the LC forum he kept butting in, throwing insults, then leaving, without ever adding anything productive. So I told him he'd need to apologize to me and agree to a serious, civil debate, but of course he never did.
 
geggy said:
In a controlled demolition project when a building is imploded to the groud it will create dust as the entire building crashes to the ground. In the collapsing of WTC towers, the top part fell first, hence creating ring of dust as it hit the underneath portion of the building.
Click to expand...

Okay... so basically you're saying that it looks like a controlled demo because of the DUST ? How could a building collapse and NOT produce dust ?

Your position is untenable. The "squibs" you see are unconvincing, the pattern of collapse is incompatible with a controlled demolition, and the damage to surrounding buildings was significant, something you don't get in controlled implosion. How do you explain all these discrepancies ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom