Loose Change - Part II

[chipmunk stew]

With pleasure...if I could figure out how to do a signature block, I would put it in there:

http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm


Read and enjoy. Comments, criticism, and links are welcome. My e-mail address is somewhere on it.

And a WW2 comment on WTC: my British relatives and friends were immediately taken back to the Blitz, when they saw the TV footage. And one of them reminded me that they had to put up with 9/11 every night.

(Kiwiwriter: click on "User CP" near the top, second from left, for all your avataring and signaturing needs.)

 

[money]

With pleasure...if I could figure out how to do a signature block, I would put it in there:

Just click on the User CP link in near the top of your screen, then go to Edit Signature.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Couldn't find it

(Kiwiwriter: click on "User CP" near the top, second from left, for all your avataring and signaturing needs.)

Found "User Cp." But I didn't find the avatar and signature blocks on that page.

 

[Sultanist]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Found "User Cp." But I didn't find the avatar and signature blocks on that page.

Under "Settings & Options" on the left at the top you should see "Edit Avatar" and "Edit Signature".

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Not there

Under "Settings & Options" on the left at the top you should see "Edit Avatar" and "Edit Signature".

Didn't see it there. I saw the list, but it isn't there. I saw e-mail, options, and password, but that was it.

 

[VespaGuy]

100% right on what I'm trying to convey. Thank you Macky, that was it exactly. I see your mathematical explanation. (I admit, it's been years since college physics.) There seems to be dispute though over those numbers for mass. Also, I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.

[snip]

I've been reading this thread from the beginning (I know, I know... I just can't look away), and I've only chimed in a few times when I see something odd.

Mutton-Head - One of the arguments that you use for a controlled demoliton is that a normal collapse would not be able to pulverise the concrete. This is the concrete that we see getting thrown from the building during the collapse, right?

So, my question is... how does a controlled demolition account for the pulverised concrete? The FLOORS were concrete, not the walls. Are you insinuating that the floors were unnecessarily wired with explosives as well? If the explosives didn't pulverise the concrete, what did?

 

[kookbreaker]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

Huntsman's comments in post #344 are probably not the thing you are looking for, but they are quite important.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

This it?: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1663687#post1663687

 

[chipmunk stew]

Didn't see it there. I saw the list, but it isn't there. I saw e-mail, options, and password, but that was it.

Sounds like a job for a mod.

 

[Hellbound]

If it was last week it's probably in the other loose change thread. I posted some remarks about explosives there, as well.

 

[Pardalis]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

Wait there a second Mutton, this is not a challenge match, it's a discussion forum. Why do you feel the need to challenge us?

 

[Hellbound]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

WTC 1 and WTC 2.

There, challenge beaten. Next?

 

[Tailgater]

My challenge still stands, find any where in the world, any where in the history of buildings, an example of a steel framed tower that pancaked symmetrically.

First of all, ask people on the top floor on a windy day if there was horizontal strength. Second, YOU find a steel framed structure that was hit by a plane full of fuel and burned for hours and fell over sideways. Third, lets just say there was bombs in the building and the government knew.....what was plan B if the demo failed to go off properly? Have you seen how many times demo teams have to redo something that's not wired properly? Why were they too stupid to say there were bombs and the terrorists did it just to allow for the so-called witnesses? The government is so smart in planning it but too stupid in the coverup? You don't think they figured on possible problems or witnesses in cd? If I were the mastermind: "Priority #1 gents is the explanation of the explosions that will obviously be heard be thousands!! hell, millions!! Add it to the list of terrorist acts, its np. Oh, by the way, make sure we find a camel with a chemical bomb on it when we invade Iraq...." HONESTLY

 

[dubfan]

Help please!
I'm debating the "thermite" claim on another board.
Last week I ran across (and I think it was linked in a post here) one individual's lengthy and well thought out rebuttal to the claim that thermite would have been used in the "demolition". I can no longer find the link to it. Can someone help me with that. Thanks.

Links to posts re: thermite (courtesy of Gravy's awesome new thread index)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1599307&postcount=1699 (my personal favorite)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1599322&postcount=1701
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1599327&postcount=1702
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1599425&postcount=1712
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1599442&postcount=1713
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1599574&postcount=1723

Btw, you'll want to grab a copy of Gravy's awesome spreadsheet that indexes the posts here by category/subject, date, and poster. Download it here: http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

 

[Pardalis]

WTC 1 and WTC 2.

There, challenge beaten. Next?

That's perfect Huntsman LOL! Damn you're quick!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Sorry, but the fact that they’re experts, only makes me more suspicious.

Say, doc, I appreciate your diagnosis. But seeing as how you went to medical school for a bunch of years, interned some more, and have been for some time a consultant, lecturer, and award-winning writer in your field...I'm, well, suspicious. I'm gonna see what my florist thinks about this pain in my chest.

 

[Tailgater]

Say, doc, I appreciate your diagnosis. But seeing as how you went to medical school for a bunch of years, interned some more, and have been for some time a consultant, lecturer, and award-winning writer in your field...I'm, well, suspicious. I'm gonna see what my florist thinks about this pain in my chest.

Or Dr. Jones since he's a REAL doctor.

 

[Pardalis]

As a continuation to my previous post, let's examine the issue from another viewpoint. Let's look at the hypothesis that the airliners crashing into the building started a chain of events that caused them to collapse.

The most obvious evidence that this is true is that the buildings were observed collapsing only once in their almost 30-year history, and airplanes crashed into them only once in the same period. The crashes occured first, the buildings collapsed second. This in itself is not sufficient proof. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. However in this case, since both A and B were unique, it is extremely likely that A caused B. We need corroborating evidence, though.

The hypothesis states that the crash sites resulted in structural weakness in the buildings, and the weight of the buildings ABOVE the crash site caused the collapses. Here's where the corroborating evidence comes in: If this were true, then we would expect the building with the MOST weight above the weakened area to collapse first.

(This may seem to be similar reasoning to the "salamander" test described in my last post -- the main difference is that THIS test is designed to CORROBORATE very compelling already-existing evidence.)

And guess what...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Of course, you could always say that explosives were set off in this way to MAKE it consistent with the "official version", but that raises several unanswered questions. Why, at this point in the investigation, is it necessary to posit explosives? How could the "evildoers" behind the conspiracy foresee the need for this corroborating evidence, and yet leave so many of what CT's call "inconsistencies"?

I'm not saying, of course, that these two pieces of evidence were sufficient to explain the collapse. However, as more and more corroborating evidence is added, it becomes less and less likely that the hypothesis is wrong. Such corroborating evidence is plentiful in the official reports that CT's find so questionable.

All the CT's have is purported "inconsistencies", which are not consistent with each other, are not sufficient to disprove the rock solid "official" hypothesis, and are ultimately not helpful in determining exactly what happened.

That's just perfectly said Aggle.

 

[Mutton-Head]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it has never happened.

So what?

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can never happen.

As of now, the only thing I'm discussing is buildings pancaking. The reason for that is the only way to come to any kind of consensus is by taking it a step at a time. I think Gravy agrees with me on that.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it has never happened.

This where you start.

So what?

Just because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can never happen.

This is a conclusion where you may or may not end up, depending upon other factors. But no meaningful discussion can take place until that first step is agreed upon. So for now, until a unanimous agreement is made, I will only be discussing whether or not high-rise steel structures have ever pancaked. I will not respond to accusations about me calling firmen cowards for not running into buildings.

Buildings pancaking. (Falling symmetrically downward, in their footprints.)

I gave you a link:

http://www.restoringearth.co.uk/educ...ilure/pw3.shtm

Or do you discount it since it was not a complete pancaking? Which would not happen with the lesser volume of material above the failure point.

Yes I consider that to be very different. You're conclusion that the volume of material is the culprit is pure speculation.

So, once again, (Maybe it should be a new thread?)

I'm contending that a high-rise steel structure has never collapsed "pancake-style."

That is my challenge. If any body is up for it, throw your submissions into the ring.