How Loony are the Loons?

RemoveBush said:
"[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Anything that stands vertically want to fall due to gravity's effect on it," explained Loizeaux, a 25-year implosion veteran, "We really aren't blowing the structure up. We're using explosives as a catalyst.""

This is what the Truthers have been saying all along, but you refuse to accept it and even with a quote here from experts stating similar statements you will argue against it.

Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.
Click to expand...


Then wouldn't airline Boeing jets filled with fuel suffise to demolish them? Isn't the controlled demolition unnecessary?
 
babazaroni said:
Increasing the resistance of a load on a power supply reduces the current needed to maintain the same voltage.

If you reduce the resistance to zero by shorting the power supply leads, the power supply will try to deliver a huge amount of current and hopefully will blow a fuse before the power supply is damaged.

28K, I mean RemoveBush is correct.
Click to expand...

Yes he is and in my haste to post I misrepresented what I was saying.

Increasing the power demand will increase the current to maintain the voltage was what I meant to say but rereading what I posted, it clear I did not say this. What I said was incorrect. (Too much wine when posting is not good).
 
Timezones are so unfair. :mad:

When I went to bed last night this thread was 4 pages long. When I came back it was 15 pages! So I thought I missed all the fun.

But no, RemoveBush has not given the slightest evidence for his claims, and his claims are little more than standard CT-stuff we have seen so many times.

The only claim I've never heard is this one:
RemoveBush said:
Look at 9/11 and you will see that there were several exercised being performed and that one was scheduled to be performed in October, but Cheney moved it to 9/11.
Click to expand...
Cheney moved a wargame to 9/11? :confused:
Never heard this one before.
 
Pardalis said:
Then wouldn't airline Boeing jets filled with fuel suffise to demolish them? Isn't the controlled demolition unnecessary?
Click to expand...
its funny how CTers jump from claim to claim, a while ago you needed a lot more energy than gravity could provide (since gravity was supplying over 120 tons of TNT that means you need a lot of bombs) but now all of a sudden gravity can do the work just fine

BTW remove, if explosives were used to "remove resistance" as you say, and cause a faster collapse that means LESS GPE is availble for mid-air pulverization of concrete (since that energy is now going to acceleration rather than destruction) you do realize this, right?

in short, a faster collapse needs MORE explosives to blow stuff apart before it hits the ground
 
Good morning, RemoveBush, (28K)!

Still here? I hope so!

Still waiting on what your super Electrometer had to say that was relevant to 9/11.

But then, you can't take me serious, can you? I didn't know what an electrometer was. Oh, the shame I must bear now!

Almost as much as the shame you should bear!

How much do you charge to ride the choo-choo at the mall, anyway, Mr. Engineer?
 
Firestone said:
The only claim I've never heard is this one:Cheney moved a wargame to 9/11? :confused:
Never heard this one before.
Click to expand...
Pre-9/11 Bush created the "Office of National Preparedness". This was supposed to take an overview across Government with regard to dealing with the consequences of a WMD attack, so instead of different agencies running their own training exercises, they had some central coordination. Cheney was supposed to oversee the ONP's development.

Doesn't sound relevant to 9/11, does it? But stick with me. In the statement creating the ONP, Bush said:

This Office will be responsible for implementing the results of those parts of the national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management. Specifically it will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies. The Office of National Preparedness will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/05/20010508.html
Click to expand...

Mike Ruppert noticed this, and in Crossing the Rubicon said of the statement:

This press release was issued May 8, 2001, about a month prior to the change in NORAD’s intercept protocols. While a bit vague in some areas, it does establish certain things. Dick Cheney was charged to oversee the creation of an approach that was “seamlessly integrated and harmonious.” He was also placed in a supervisory management role over the activities of the entire effort, which were operational under FEMA’s supreme command. “Planning and training” were specifically addressed so this would automatically include war game exercises like Tripod II and all the NORAD/Joint Chiefs wargames of 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance, etc.
Page 414
Crossing the Rubicon
Mike Ruppert
Click to expand...
It's not difficult to see that Ruppert is wrong. The Bush statement is talking about the ONP coordinating activities relating to "consequence management", not somehow taking charge of every planning and training exercise throughout all of Federal Government. Of course few of the CTers actually care about that, and by the time Alex Jones had the story it'd become this:

In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm
Click to expand...

In separate developments, one of the exercises running on 9/11 was something called Global Guardian (see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-1796). There are a couple of references suggesting it was supposed to be scheduled for October, but it actually ran in September 2001.

So, putting that all together, the CT assumption is that Global Guardian was rescheduled (possible but unconfirmed), that the rescheduling was a political, rather than a military decision (something for which there is no evidence whatsoever), and that because Cheney was in charge of war games he must be behind it (even though the assumption behind that is fundamentally flawed & there's not the faintest evidence he did anything of the kind).
 
Last edited:
The Mastermind

thum_1223345926db559feb.jpg

Figure 1: The Mastermind​
 
Last edited:
Hello RemoveBush,

First may I say I agree wholeheartedly with your chosen handle. I'm not a GWB lover, personally I think the man is a corrupt imbecile.

I've read the whole thread, and I find that coming to the end of it I really need to ask you 2 simple questions, I hope you will dignify my request with 2 simple answers.

Question 1

Do you believe that two jet liners collided with the twin towers on 9/11?

Now if the answer to this is 'no' then you don't have to bother with the next question which is a bit more detailed.

Question 2

I'm sure you agree that terrorists flying two jet liners into one of New Yorks most prized landmarks and killing many hundreds of people, would in itself, be a massive attack on the people and institutions of the USA and indeed the free world.

It would have caused massive comdemnation, massive anger, massive financial loss, massive life loss and massive loss of face.

It would have, in itself, provoked a tidal wave of reactionary thinking that would have allowed the Republicans in charge of the US government to basically implement just about any policies they needed.

But as an observer I have to say that all of this could have happened, and obviously could have happened without there being any need for the towers to collapse.

The planes, the deaths, the wreckage, the fire, the mourning screaming crying, the pillars of smoke and dust, the terror, ALL of these would have been enough.

So the question is if one imagines that the government staged the event in order to advance a private agenda why did they go to what I'm sure you'll agree is a enormous undertaking in order to make the towers collapse.

As I see it if the government wanted to do 9/11 without a tower collapse, they maybe needed 1 NSA agent to pretend to be an Al Queda man and recruit some naive/murderous patsies to die for the cause. A few more people to plan and arrange for money and training. A few more people to (possibly) ensure that countermeasures were not available on the day in question to prevent the attacks. Finally a few people at the very top who desired the carnage and kicked the events in motion.

Maybe 10 to 15 expert, trusted people.

If they wanted to ensure the collapse of the towers by means of explosives or some other method. Then they needed more money, more of a dangerous paper trail, the inclusion of engineers, explosives experts, transport operatives and other 'grease monkeys' into their scheme. They massively increased the risk of detection during the installation of a vast number of explosives into two of the worlds largest buildings. Then they have to secure the services of more people to ensure that forensic investigations are hushed up and whitewashed. More people. More money. More risk of detection.

All, as far as I can see, for nothing.

If 9/11 was staged to increase Bush's hold on the US, guarantee an election victory, allow military campaigns in the far east, allow institution of draconian anti free speech and terror laws, then why collapse the towers?

It's just not necessary.


I've tried to sum up my thoughts on this as clearly as possible, please let me know what you think. I really do want to have a discussion in this regard with someone of your views, but as to now my attempts to start a dialogue have amounted to nothing.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
You absolutely have to be kidding. Here are some of the things that would have comprised that fuel:

– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (a high estimate)

– 2,000 automobiles and trucks. Not all were burned, but a large percentage were (I'm not aware of a count) Each one with fuel on board, each with four tires, foam and fabric upholstery and carpeting, engine oil, rubber hoses, belts, weatherstripping, wiring harnesses, loads of plastic, paint.

– Carpeting. Doesn't sound like a big deal. Imagine going into your local carpet dealer and asking for installation for your living room. Dimensions: 20 feet wide, 65 miles long. Add carpet backing or padding to that.

– Tens of thousands of miles of wiring covered with plastic insulation.

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

– Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic.

– Hundreds of tons of trading-floor equipment.

– Tens of thousands of telephones covered in plastic.

– Thousands of fax machines covered in plastic.

– Thousands of copiers and toner cartridges covered in plastic.

– Thousands of computer peripherals: printers, scanners, hubs, zip drives (remember them?), millions of CD-ROMs and floppy disks. User manuals for everything. Calculators. Everything covered in plastic.

– All of the electronics above have plastic-insulated wiring and plastic circuit boards.

– About 75,000 chairs, most with foam padding and synthetic coverings.

– Hundreds of upholstered couches.

– Millions of plastic pens and markers.

– Tens of thousands of cardboard boxes

– Tens of thousands of plastic wastebaskets

– Tons and tons of flammable mailroom supplies

– Hundreds of supply closets filled with office consumables, including untold quantities of paper and plastic.

– The contents of the receiving areas: perhaps thousands of boxes of supplies

– Thousands of flammable items used by repair and maintenance crews.

– The contents of over 100 retail stores, with all their merchandise, shelves and display cases, and back rooms filled with stock in boxes. These include 18 clothing stores, several bookstores, newsstands, card shops, two music stores (plastic!), two consumer electronics stores, pharmacies.

– The contents of Windows on the World, the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S. and one of the largest, with all of its supplies, oils, table linens, wall treatments, upholstered furniture, etc.

– The contents of numerous other restaurants, cafés and snack bars.
Click to expand...
No gravy, RB is a engineering genius. He is the smartest troofer out there, he even used some big words! If he says there was no combustible material in WTC 1 and 2 then that settles it. All that office equipment, wiring, carpeting, papers, etc. was removed prior to 9/11. And nobody noticed! It was all replaced by holograms maybe...
 
RemoveBush said:
If the plane is lighter and slower, then I would say that PHYSICS proves the damage would be less. It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.
Click to expand...

RemoveBush said:
NO! Actually a 767 is slightly smaller and about a 100 miles per hour slower than the 707. Perhaps you need to do some research on this??????

The 707 is actually a bigger faster plane. It is however, much less economical than the 767.
Click to expand...

I don't think you fact checked this before you said it.

The 767 has a max takeoff weight of between 315,000 (767-200) and 450,000 (767-400ER) lbs.

The 707 has a max takeoff weight of between 257,000 (707-120B) and 333,600 (707-320B) lbs.

There is obviously some overlap there, but the heaviest 707 is only a bit heavier than the lightest 767.

However, the model that struck one of the towers was a 767-223ER (the ER stands for "Extended Range"), which has a max takeoff weight of 395,000 lbs., which is 61,400 lbs. heavier than the heaviest 707.

The other plane was not the ER version, and so did indeed have a slightly lighter weight than the heaviest 707. I suppose that's where the very general "707 is heavier than 767" claim comes from, but it's highly deceptive at best. Especially considering there is a 767 model which weight more than 100,000 lbs. more than the heaviest 707 out there.

Yes, the 707 has a higher cruising speed, but that has nothing to do with the actual speed at which they hit the towers, or the speed the towers were designed to withstand.

Finally, the towers did survive the impact of the planes. They were brought down by a combination of massive structural damage and intense fire, but a lot of the occupants of the towers were evacuated because the towers did not immediately collapse.

You claim to be an engineer and understand math, but you have posted no evidence of this as of yet.

Could you please provide your calculations as to what actually happened versus what should have happened if planes had hit the towers (as you, I assume, believe they did not)? Innuendo and suggestion is worthless, we would like to see some direct evidence from you.
 
Yes, Perry, Bush has done nothing right. Removing the Taliban was a terrible mistake. I continue to wonder how someone as devoid of critical thinking skills as yourself can resist the incisive, exquisitely reasoned arguments of the fantasists.
 
RemoveBush said:
It measures radiation...... Whether it is Voltage, Current, etc. etc. It is not a multimeter. A multimeter needs to be connected to something. This can measure the "radiation" of something. It is so sensitive that if you wave your hand over it, it will pick it up and show a reading.

My god, no wonder you guys can't comprehend basic physics.
Click to expand...

I take one evening off, and you guys find a new mouse to play with. And then you completely miss the fact that "Mr. Injuneer" seems to be claiming that voltage and current are forms of "radiation"? You guys are slipping!

Oh, and now we're "small minded" people who can't see the "big picture". So much for being "left-brained", huh?
 
Last edited:
Horatius said:
I take one evening off, and you guys find a new mouse to play with. And then you completely miss the fact that "Mr. Injuneer" seems to be claiming that voltage and current are forms of "radiation"? You guys are slipping!

Oh, and now we're "small minded" people who can't see the "big picture". So much for being "left-brained", huh?
Click to expand...

Oh, you're right. I totally missed him saying that!

Also, the part where he says a meter has to be connected to something: Never seen a clamp-on ampmeter, has he?

Well, at least I can blame old age on it!
 
Simple Test

I'm not an engineer, nor do I play one on television. One of my friends who is a structural engineer has devised a test, charming in its innocence and simplicity, for unmasking frauds like RB. He suggests asking the impostor to explain why no skyscrapers are constructed of wood.
 
RemoveBush said:
Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.

Also notice that the buildings can be wired in very little time.....

15 STRUCTURES, 4 COUNTRIES, 1 WEEKEND
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, scale it up for WTC, and factor in the fact that people were WORKING in a building that wasn't clearled up for demo, and you might understand something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom