Loose Change - Part II

[Stellafane]

In one of the funniest LC posts yet, "Left-Wing Humanist" advocates harassing the law firm that sent Avery the copyright infringement notice:


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5091&view=findpost&p=4820459

Ah yes, harassing a law firm, a pastime right up there with kicking a hornet nest or swimming in shark-infested waters while holding a chum bucket between your teeth. I think the little boys at LC will soon find themselves in more doo-doo than the usual phone call from mommy can get them out of. Welcome to the adult world, kids.

BTW, still not quite finished: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Thanks, Gravy. I couldn't pass this one up.

A little physics.

Very little, as you will see.

An object falling to earth falls with a specific amount of force:

More accurately, a specific force causes an object to fall to earth. But ok, I'll let it slide.

The mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

Mass x Acceleration = Force.

You've got Newton's 2nd Law right, but then you don't use it correctly. You remind me of my students who memorize the facts without understanding the underlying basis for them.

Think of this force as money in a bank account. You only have a specific amount that you can spend. No more.

I can't comment on this, as it doesn't make any sense at all to me. Use a force up? You might be thinking of energy.

It takes force to accelerate any object. Even a falling object.

When an object falls to earth, all of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Its force (M x A = F) is used-up (spent) to accomplish this acceleration.

Stop right there. The force you are talking about is the gravitational force between the earth and the object. This is given by G*m*M/R^2, where m and M are the masses of the object and the earth respectively, R is the distance between the center of the object and the center of the earth, and G is a constant. This force exists all the time, regardless of where the object is or whether it is moving. Sitting on the ground, it experiences this force. Up in orbit, it experiences this force. In the next galaxy, it experiences this force, although by then it is admittedly extremely small. But at no time is this force "used up".

This is called free-fall. If any solid object is situated below this falling object, some of this “free-fall” force will be absorbed (used) (spent).

Again, I think you are confusing force with energy. They are two different concepts. Simply put, a force is a push or a pull. Energy is the ability to do work.

The fact that steel beams are flying outwards, means that the force of the falling floors is being absorbed. The force is being used to accelerate the steel beams away from the tower. It doesn’t matter how fast they are flying, or at what angle, straight out or not, etc… Just the fact that steel beams landed hundreds of feet from the tower, shows that force (from the falling floors) was used (spent). Force was also used to cut up the vertical steel beams.

Again, mistaking energy for force.

All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long.

Much ado has been made lately that the steel beams broke into convenient 30-foot long sections, to be carried away by trucks. Assuming this is true (an assumption I'm not willing to admit to, but we'll stipulate for the moment) what is overlooked is that it those same beams were carried *in* by trucks when the building was constructed. If they have weak points, it would naturally be every 30 feet.

Remember, we’re talking about steel below the point of impact, which wasn’t subject to fire, and so was still structurally sound.

Structurally sound, perhaps, but certainly not designed to absorb the energy (energy, not force!) of the impact of the 30 or so stories above them.

Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder.

All? You mean to say *no* chunks of concrete survived?

This like-wise took force.

Energy. *sigh*

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance.

(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)

Energy, energy, energy.

The falling floors do not have enough force to accomplish all of these things. We know this just from watching the video, because, as stated, the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed.

Energy. And how do you know they don't have enough? Where's the math?

(Not quite, but only a few seconds more. This is judged by comparing the falling tower with the falling debris.)

A few seconds more, and you discredit this? Many claim the towers fell in about 10 seconds. A few seconds more is 3-4. That's a margin of error of 30-40%!!! Heck, even opinion polls have margins of error of 1/10 of that, and that doesn't even deal with the exactness of the laws of physics.

Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually.

I very much doubt you have performed the math necessary to make this statement honestly.

It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)

I take it you are a structural engineer, and are therefore qualified to make the above statement?

As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.)

But a computer simulation can. Can anybody point us to one?

But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder.

I would not agree, as I am not a structural engineer. However, those with the appropriate expertise have said otherwise, and I trust that.

It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.

Energy.

As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account.

And you've done the math? Would you please present it?

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from.

Energy.

Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with.

And here's the underlying problem. Since that's the only explanation you, as a layperson, can come up with, that's the one you're convinced is correct. And you are the sort of person that once convinced, it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented. You are the sort that, had Galileo offered you a peek through his telescope, you would have refused and then claimed that of course the Earth is the center of the universe, because there's no evidence to show otherwise.

This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print.

Perhaps you need to revisit the photographs of Manhattan. What about the debirs that hit WTC7, which you folks like to point out was several blocks away? What about the cloud that covered the lower half of the island? And if what you mean to say is that *most* of the debris fell straight down, well, where the h3ll else did you expect it to go? It would take a tremendous amount of...wait for it....FORCE...to topple a building sideways.

This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash.

I don't know about this. But it's certainly a falsifiable claim. Can anyone out there provide just one circumstance where this *has* happened?

But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions.

Dogs are furry with four legs, two ears, a wet nose and sharp teeth.
This animal exhibits all of those properties. Therefore it is a dog.
(I'm going to ignore the fact that it says "Meow".)

Please excuse the excessive use of alliteration.

Alluding to alliteration is always amusing.

 

[Pardalis]

Especially when you're wearing those striped shirts and berets they all wear...

I'm not sure about the beret, but we do wear striped shirts

 

[Stellafane]

I'm not sure about the beret, but we do wear striped shirts

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/888644790d32c945d.jpg[/qimg]

Yeah, but how are the Expos doing??

 

[WildCat]

This force exists all the time, regardless of where the object is or whether it is moving.

Oh yeah smarty pants - what if the object was in the exact center of the Earths mass?

 

[WildCat]

Yeah, but how are the Nationals doing??

I fixored it for ya.

 

[dubfan]

Is it wrong that I've clicked over to the Loose Change website and re-read that letter from the Naudet's attorney about 5 times now?

I just can't help myself.

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure about the beret, but we do wear striped shirts

Are you telling me all those cartoons were wrong?!

 

[XXX]

911myths.com is full of errors. They use the L’Ambience Plaza. I already showed that was a totally different kind of structure. With “temporary supports” no less.

I wouldn't say it is "full of errors" (especially when compaired to some of the CT sites). L'Ambience Plaza in this reference you may think is an incorrect one, but it DID collapse, and in a progressive manner. I wouldn't quite call that an error, more maybe an inaccurate comparison. You'll have to do better than that to make the claim that 911 myths is full of errors.

Not to mention how funny it is hearing about how another building was a different kind of structure, yet hearing all sorts of CT's constantly compare it to any and every other building on the planet in their own theories.

I remember reading here a link to a guy who said he was going to debunk 911 myths, and his debunking was very weak, flawed, and didn't even address half the stuff on the site!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.

I guess what I mean by that is this:

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized. To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.)

What do you mean by "collapse symmetrically?"

Also, the "contents" were not all pulverized. Of course, our definitions of that word could differ.

You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.”

I take issue when you write a leading phrase like: "You seem to think it is normal." It's also imprecise.

If there's one consistent bit I've seen in my time perusing the on-line thoughts of 9/11 conventional wisdom doubters, it's the repeated use of some variation of it doesn't seem like.

It doesn't seem like...

- the towers should have fallen the way they did
- fire should've brought down the towers
- terrorists could've pulled this off
- the hole in the Pentagon is the right size for the airplane

And on and on.

I want to say this as clearly as I can. Stop. If you, or anyone, thinks something sinister was afoot with 9/11, you need to present proof. Not conjecture. Not guesswork. Not "holes in the NIST report." Proof that what you, or anyone, say happened, happened. I can easily provide a list of items that would do, if you like.

I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires
2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)
3. Buildings collapse symmetrically
(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)

Yes, "the specifics...have different details." So set your wish to construct a fantasy that allows for "the specifics" aside and provide some proof. As I've said on numerous occasions, such a conspiracy would by necessity be the most complex and largest undertaking of its kind in history. So, if that's what happened, finding some proof should be a cakewalk.

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to?

I am not a demolition expert, but I don't need to be to find the flaw above: it is a leading question. Whether or not the way the twins fell resembles in part or in total the way other buildings fall when intentionally or unintentionally demolished is not proof that they did for the reason(s) being suggested.

Let's say you walk into your kitchen and see a broken egg on the floor, its insides splattered. Nearby is a child. Solve the mystery.

I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down.

I tend to get the suspicion now and again that there are those who fail to understand how extraordinarily large each of the Twin Towers were. Plus, there's that ol' debbil gravity, a relentless force if ever there was one.

In relation to this -- and I'm guessing here -- I wonder if there's a prevailing sentiment that considers a building to be some benign object, calmly sitting at rest. If so, that would be wrong. Because of gravity there is a constant, relentless force that a building is, at any moment, dynamically working against in order to stay erect. (Indeed, our physical bodies are engaged in the same process.) Such an event as what initially transpired on 9/11 (extra-violent impact of each airplane) was enough to begin the process whereupon each building could not, due to its design, remain standing.

Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off.

What is your point?

Recently, the Navy intentionally sunk an old battleship off the coast of Florida, in part to create a man-made reef. The process involved detonating demolition charges on board the ship. In a ceremony witnessed by many veterans who served on or were once aboard the craft, including Senator John McCain, the ship went under. Say, maybe it wasn't an iceberg that sank the Titanic after all...

According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

I hate to be a bother about all this, but "sounding right" to us laymen is entirely without merit as a rationale for suggesting alternate and nefarious schemes. The laws of physics are not here to please us.

You know, there was a time when to many people the very idea that the world was round "sounded" preposterous. Why, anyone with eyes could see that it was flat, flat, flat. Many people, amazingly, still hold to this belief. But they don't offer proof.

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

Forgive me, but your analysis has been quite flawed. And your conclusion is hardly "inescapeable."

Also, try as I might, I still can't make out what you mean by the original: "And more importantly, does anybody care?"

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”

Good luck with the Internet as far as this topic is concerned; the signal-to-noise ratio is so out of kilter as to be near debilitating.

Oh, and regarding your final line above: there is no "whether or not it was a controlled demolition." It remains "not"...unless proof can be provided to the contrary.

 

[kookbreaker]

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

Your experience consists of looking at old films. You are not a demolitionist.

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line.

And official line kept by every structural engineer and demoltionist in the ENTIRE WORLD? Rather expansive, aren't they?

They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying.

That's quite an accusation you have there. Let's see what backs it up.

My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

The reason they don't do that is because it is the very definition of UNCONTROLLED! Look at the first word in their company's name.

Remember people, you are all saying that you can easily implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

No, we are saying you can bring down a building in this manner if you don't care about any consequences.

Even if they are big fires. You can't implode a building in this manner.

You cannot implode them but you can bring them down.

Controlled Demolition will further prove my point by never ever employing this much easier and cheaper procedure.

Because they like getting hired to do jobs in the future. That requires them to do it properly.

And remember, it really doesn’t matter how many, or where you cut those steel supports on upper floors. It happened on WTC1 and WTC2, and the damage was very different on each building. Yet the collapse was still completely symmetrical. Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. This is not incredulity. It is sound reasoning.

Nonsense. It assumes that there is a force of shear on the building that would somehow cause them to fall differently. Such a force has not been demonstrated by you.

Remember, it’s not just the fact that an expert says something. Is their reasoning sound? Talk is cheep. If Controlled Demolitions uses the “cut and burn” method to implode buildings in the future, then I will admit that I am wrong on this point.

If CD uses the cut & burn method, they will never work again.

911myths.com is full of errors.

Not really. Certainly this statement has not been proven by you, and the only attempt to debunk it was laughable.

They use the L’Ambience Plaza. I already showed that was a totally different kind of structure. With “temporary supports” no less.

Others have already shown that your comments about the plaza were without merit. It was a collapse that you demanded. Its not our fault you keep moving your goal posts.

 

[DavidJames]

My experience with controlled demolition is that the towers should not have fallen in such a manner.

Does your "experience" involve anything beyond watching videos?

It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition.

When you were called out to provide names for this quote, your response was:

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

You have proven to be as shifty, disingenuous, and intellectually bankrupt as all the others, and to think you showed some promise

 

[Polaris]

On that subject, I wounder how it is that another film "Everybody' gotta learn sometime" is able to get away with having a large piece of "Star Wars Episode 3" in it without lawsuit happy Lucas demanding that they remove it or sueing them, especially since they DID charge to attend the premeire of the film. I sent the Lucasfilm publicity department an email bringing this to their attention a few days back, but have not recieved a response.

Too bad we no longer have debtors' prison - I'd love to see Dylan & Co. get shipped off to South Georgia Island or some former British Empire s-hole to do hard labor after the Naudets sue them for millions.

As for Lucas - he may be lawsuit happy, but he's also happy to spread his creations far and wide to people he likes. That's how Family Guy was able to copy the ending of Star Wars in the episode when Peter goes blind. While I'm thinking about it, how did Mel Brooks get away with Spaceballs? Ok, that's enough derailing for now.

 

[Mutton-Head]

Thank you for the correction Knobby. Yes, I did in fact confuse force for energy. Macky corrected me on that previously, and we continued from there.

No, I would not have rebuffed Galileo. I’m in fact not that sort. Whatever that sort happens to be.
If Galileo had explained to me what stopped the angular momentum when the top of the south tower began to topple, I would have listened. Likewise if the NIST had cared to tackle it, I would have listened.

Anybody care to tackle that one?

 

[XXX]

As for Lucas - he may be lawsuit happy, but he's also happy to spread his creations far and wide to people he likes. That's how Family Guy was able to copy the ending of Star Wars in the episode when Peter goes blind. While I'm thinking about it, how did Mel Brooks get away with Spaceballs? Ok, that's enough derailing for now.

Sorry, just a bit more derailing...Just like with the Naudets footage, Lucas has a right to selectively let his footage be used with or without sueing anyone. If he won;t let Jay and Silent Bob use the phrase "lightsabers" I don't see why he would let a large piece of his film reside in a dingbat 9/11 conspiracy video, considering the subject matter and the potental bad publicity. My only conclusion is that he must not know about it (not suprising).

Ok, done derailing.

 

[Mutton-Head]

They may have said that it is ludicrous, but I guarantee you, that’s just an official line. They do not in fact think it is ludicrous. They are lying. My proof: Controlled Demolitions have never and will never implode a building by cutting out some steel, and starting some fires.

Yeah you're right, I shouldn't have said this one. Some times I do get a little hot under the collar.

I meant I don't believe the word "ludicrous."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Try refreshing the page, you must be reading a cached version.

Would you please provide a link? http://www.loosechange911.com/ seems to be normal. Perhaps I'm not looking in the proper location.

 

[kookbreaker]

Thank you for the correction Knobby. Yes, I did in fact confuse force for energy. Macky corrected me on that previously, and we continued from there.

No, I would not have rebuffed Galileo. I’m in fact not that sort. Whatever that sort happens to be.
If Galileo had explained to me what stopped the angular momentum when the top of the south tower began to topple, I would have listened. Likewise if the NIST had cared to tackle it, I would have listened.

Anybody care to tackle that one?

The answer is that there really wasn't any angular momentum to stop. This was not a hinge effect. There were equal and opposite forces on the 'block' that cancelled each other out.

Here, this document has diagrams that explain:

http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/mae543/eischen/docs/BazantWTC.pdf

 

[Gravy]

Thank you for the correction Knobby. Yes, I did in fact confuse force for energy. Macky corrected me on that previously, and we continued from there.

No, I would not have rebuffed Galileo. I’m in fact not that sort. Whatever that sort happens to be.
If Galileo had explained to me what stopped the angular momentum when the top of the south tower began to topple, I would have listened. Likewise if the NIST had cared to tackle it, I would have listened.

Anybody care to tackle that one?

Gravity. As you can clearly see in any of the close-up videos or still images of the south tower collapse, the top's first –and uninterrupted – move was down. And I'm sure you're aware that the building was designed to have the exterior columns carry most of its weight.

How about tackling all of the questions posed to you in the previous posts, questions you raised with your poorly-considered arguments?

 

[XXX]

Would you please provide a link? http://www.loosechange911.com/ seems to be normal. Perhaps I'm not looking in the proper location.

You should see some light grey text underneth where it says Loose Change 2nd edition. The text should say "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers." Click on that text.