Loose Change - Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Humor and looney tunes

Pardalis said:
Yeah, to me they don't even have to make them look ridiculous, the whole anti-semitism thing is so senseless by itself. Jewish humour has a way of making us see things as they are, they become laughable. It has a lot of existentialism to it doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Another interesting thing about these fanatics (all fanatics, really) is how they are humorless...notice how they explode when challenged with humor. There's a guy at The History Channel who's a perfect example of that. Yep, a neo-Nazi, hates Jews, spouts conspiracy garbage, has been banned under 47 identities, but keeps coming back for more banning. All he gets now is ridicule, and when he does, he gets enraged...hurls obscenities, demands his opponents kill themselves, roars about his own self-importance.

You see this with other fanatical groups...they can't laugh at anything or anyone, particularly themselves...except when they're stomping on their "enemy." And those "jokes" are merely vicious and cruel.

Another thing connected to the humorlessness is their inability to realize what a negative public image they create with their behavior, statements, and antics. When they spout utter rubbish about conspiracies, space aliens, and the Trilateral Commission, people start laughing. When they denounce their opponents with obscenities, vulgarities, and personal abuse, people turn away. But the fanatics don't realize they're losing their audience.

Being unable to properly assign blame and responsibility, and being convinced that they are bringing the definitive truth to the world (and therefore should be the objects of respect, awe, and fear), they blame their straw enemies: the Jews, the Bilderbergers, the World Wildlife Fund, and so on.

Lyndon LaRouche is a good example of this.
 
Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.
Click to expand...

Ooops! I think it was a problem of me and my "oversensitive bs detector". My apologies.
 
Kiwiwriter said:
I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.
Click to expand...

What comes to mind with me and the 'momentum' crap is on USENET in the middle-late 90's the following phrase was heard from a few diehard supporters:

'Scientology Keeps on Expanding and Expanding!"
 
Expanding scientology

kookbreaker said:
What comes to mind with me and the 'momentum' crap is on USENET in the middle-late 90's the following phrase was heard from a few diehard supporters:

'Scientology Keeps on Expanding and Expanding!"
Click to expand...

And it did.

Until Katie Holmes gave birth! :)
 
Mutton-Head said:
(Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.)
Click to expand...

I think I can speak for the other posters and say we are not, we value your point of view and your thoughts.:)

Mutton-Head said:
The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.
Click to expand...

That's a good point tho. But with all due respect, I think it's a little too quick to jump to the conclusion of explosive demolition.

Mutton-Head said:
(Tailgator, your comment about, extra floors means extra mass has problems in it. I see your logic, but you’re forgetting that extra floors also means extra load bearings to have to overcome. The energy/force that they add ends up being cancelled out because of the structural support that they provide. In the end, a true equation would be VERY complicated, and I’m sure I would not understand it. I do know what you mean, you watch the videos, you see floors falling, you see **** flying all over the place. “What’s the big deal?” I never saw a big deal until maybe a year ago. I think it’s because we’re seeing something we’ve never seen before. We’ve never seen a building that size come down before. So it’s easy to accept the explanation that “the building destroyed itself from pancaking floors.” Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense. To me it doesn’t. The Nova special was for ****.)
Click to expand...

Why is what I outlined so unbeleavable to you? Why is the "unexpected" so difficult to accept? Why does this "uncertainty" and "unknown" factor of the equation the cause for such conspiracy beliefs?
 
Mutton-Head said:
My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.
Click to expand...

NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?

If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:

http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

Like you, he has questions about the NIST report, but none of his questions lead to a conclusion that controlled demo was responsible.

There is a question about whether or not the figure he uses for M is correct (5M tonnes vs. 3.5M-4.0M tonnes), and that has some bearing on some of the downstream calculations. It appears that 5M tonnes is too high a figure, and the number is closer to 4M tonnes.

It would be a good exercise for you and help establish your credibility in this forum if you could argue successfully that a figure of 5M tonnes vs. 4.0M tonnes affects the basic conclusion of his analysis, which is that structural damage from the aircraft alone was sufficient to cause the collapse.
 
Mutton-Head said:
Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Here's the problem Mutton-Head, you're trying to investigate the specifics of the collapse but you'll never have enough data to do it. I don't think there's even consensus on the mass of the towers let alone the trajectory and fate of every piece of metal and every lump of concrete. Simple physics equations aren't going to be of any use. That is why your equation isn't in the official reports.

In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
 
Mutton-Head said:
... I used many generalizations that for me, gave a “picture” or “overview,” since no, I don’t have access to the actual numbers...
Click to expand...
Generalizations are acceptable if they can be back by numbers. For example, we accept that the sun is "really hot". We accept this because it is possible to independently go and do the research, or read someone else's research that explains why the sun is "really hot".

However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used. I also saw somebody point to a link, explaining the cause of the collapse. (I was going to put the link, but the system won't let me being a nubie. whoever posted it, if you can repost) This explanation, in my opinion, is much more vague, and leaves out many factors, like the pulverizing of concrete, the horizontal movement of steel, the breaking of steel bonds (Correct, the steel was not one continuous piece, but pieces welded/bolted together.)

My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.
Click to expand...
For the same reason we accept S. Hawking's work on black holes, or Einstein's work on relativity; the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.

I would love to have all of the math numbers, however, the pieces of evidence, the steel, the concrete, the “puzzle pieces” of the towers are all long gone. Nobody can do the math now. And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces. I consider this to be incompetence.

But, instead of crying over spilled-milk, or calling “fowl,” that all of the hard physical evidence is gone, I am trying to put together a “picture.” To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”
Click to expand...
The thing you will find at this forum, the response to your $100 question will commonly be, "How much are the CDs, hamburgers, pizza, TV, and mp3 player?"

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.
Click to expand...
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.
Click to expand...
Science doesn't work this way. You don't see cosmologists say, "Gee, all those moons around Jupiter make it a lot more difficult to calculate its orbit; let's just ignore them." and you don't see medical doctors saying, "Double-blind studies are a hassle. Screw it, let's just test it like homeopaths do."

...The Nova special was for ****.)
Click to expand...
Why? Or is this only a statement of opinion?

ETA: You can post links after your post count reaches 15, iirc.
 
joseph k. said:
Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.

Not a very successful comedic beginning, luckily this isn't the humor subforum (purposely).
Click to expand...

Joseph K I though it was the funniest first post ever. However its JREF tradition for all the best gags to get an angry response from someone who misread it.
 
Joseph K I though it was the funniest first post ever. However its JREF tradition for all the best gags to get an angry response from someone who misread it.
Click to expand...

Angry? Who said I was angry? For cryin' out loud gall dang stupid (kicks chair and computer) mother-flippin' bah!
 
 
Kiwiwriter said:
I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.

Also, I think Loose Change is getting a lot of attention now because every time I check E-bay, someone's selling the darn thing for $1.50 a pop, so it's seemingly ubiquitous. That makes it like the class nerd who insists on coming to school wearing a suit and tie...a very obvious target.
Click to expand...


Thanks for mentioning this, it is something I have noticed as well while butting heads with revisionists. I would add that, in the same way that CTs lack structural engineers, the revisionists lack real historians. I have been confronted with enough "articles" from psychiatrists, lawyers, political figures to paper a wall, but almost nothing from a trained historian (as opposed to an "internet-trained" historian). Not to mention that both sides want one more big investigation that, they fervently believe, will conclude that their side was right after all.
 
 
Mutton-Head said:
Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.
Click to expand...
The main reason for me is that it fits with the other evidence. It's not like the buildings fell after being empty for months for no apparent reason and then cleaned themselves up. They were hit by airplanes. I saw one of them with my own eyes. Others saw the other one. If you look at closeups of videos of the collapses, you can see the buildings begin to buckle before they fall, and the buckling occurs at the points where the structure was already weakened by those airplanes.

People worked in those towers. They had their desks against the walls which would have had to be cut to insert explosives. They walked down stairwells which would have had to be similarly cut, used the bathrooms, etc. None of them -- none! -- reported any disturbance to the walls which would indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Other people worked for the building's security. After the 1993 bombing, every incoming vehicle was searched for explosives. Dogs, mirrors to see under the vehicles, interior searches, explosives sensors. It was a pretty expensive operation. Of the people who conducted that security, none of them -- none! -- reported any activity which would indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

No offense, since you seem so far at least to be less insane than some of the other Loosers, but it is literally insane to believe that there is any substantial evidence that explosives had been placed in the buildings. Actually, "insane" is by far the most favorable word which can be applied to persons who claim to believe it. There just isn't any evidence -- none! -- that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Mutton-Head, arguing about the exact method of the collapse is an honorable pursuit. It can improve future building safety. Maybe the truss design wasn't what it was supposed to be. Maybe it was, but not properly maintained (fireproofing being allowed to narrow over time, etc.). Maybe there's a problem with the interior column design or the exterior ones. Maybe there are misunderstandings about material properties under extreme stress. But that argument has to be based on actual evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.
 
chucksheen said:
Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums.
Click to expand...
I'm banned there, chuck. Since Loose Change is the #1 video you promote, are you ready do discuss it here with me? Or would you like some time to study up? People on the LC forum have no problem throwing my name around over there and calling me a liar and my work garbage, but no one has come here to face me. Why do you think that is, chuck? They all know I'm here, and they all know I can't post there.

So are you ready, chuck, or would you like more time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom