• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Obviousman said:
I have to admit, I wonder how a professional pilot has so much time on his hands. At this time, I have nothing to make me believe he is other than what he claims, but his attitude suggests he doesn't play well with others.
Click to expand...

Welcome Obviousman,

I think the clue is JohnDoes other sig. - Aluminum Driver. I think he drives the tractor that pulls the planes around the runway.
 
realitybites said:
I'm not volunteering mind you. I have neither the congintive capacity nor the patience to sit through that tripe. But I figured someone here might want to lay themselves on the altar if necessary.
Click to expand...

I tried sitting through Terrorstorm, but I didnt make it to the 10 minute mark. I'm sure it would pointless to try to debunk it, because its more political in nature and less scientific...(not calling Loose Change scientific - just saying it can be debunked with science :) )
 
Obviousman said:
Something tells me I won't last much longer over there either. John DOH! wants to exercise his ego again and ban someone. All you have to do is disagree and BINGO! - it becomes "spin" and "BS" and "I'm sick of tolerating this..."

I have to admit, I wonder how a professional pilot has so much time on his hands. At this time, I have nothing to make me believe he is other than what he claims, but his attitude suggests he doesn't play well with others.
Click to expand...
Obviousman! Welcome to the JREF, I lurk over at the loosers site every now and then so I'm familiar w/ you. I've thought of posting over there, but it seems about as productive as smashing my head into a brick wall, or a concrete core w/ 3" rebar on 4' centers...
 
Pat is on the radio presently...so far just a good background lesson on what got him into this, but I am sure more will come, and then the calls...lets see if any of the CTers are brave enough to take him on...(come on JDX, got a radio nearby, got a phone?)
 
Obviousman said:
Something tells me I won't last much longer over there either. John DOH! wants to exercise his ego again and ban someone. All you have to do is disagree and BINGO! - it becomes "spin" and "BS" and "I'm sick of tolerating this..."

I have to admit, I wonder how a professional pilot has so much time on his hands. At this time, I have nothing to make me believe he is other than what he claims, but his attitude suggests he doesn't play well with others.
Click to expand...

Welcome Obviousman. I dont know how you made it this long without a ban!
JDX claims to be an out of work pilot FWIW. I dont doubt that, because its hard to find work as a pilot when you arent one. If he was as experienced as he says, he wouldnt be out of work and he wouldnt have been flying RJs for a small regional airline.....
 
Yeah, he didn't like getting his butt kicked over the 'pen & dot' issue... or the beard issue. He really didn't like having his "evidence" shown up as an advisory, and not mandatory.

I've grown tired of his little rants; I might just go out in a blaze of glory - well, it really won't be glory but it will certainly be cathartic.
 
steve s said:
This has been addressed repeatedly. It's just simple physics. Momentum equals mass times velocity. Each floor that collapses just adds more mass to the falling portion of the building. Therefore the momentum of the falling portion is continually increasing throughout the collapse. Once it gets started nothing is going to stop it till it reaches the ground.

Steve S.
Click to expand...

I think brumsen is look for an analysis that the floor below the damaged section would collapse when the mass above hit it. The NIST report doesn't really present any of this (if it was done.) From looking at the reports it looked like they stopped the simulations just after the upper floors collapsed.

part of the problem with attempting to show this is that the fall later on is obscured by dust and clouds, they really don't have anything validate a model of that part of the collapse.

Even if they ran this part of the collapse one could always claim that they just guessed what happened in the obscured parts of the collapse. Or they faked the model until they got the results they wanted.
 
First of all, brumsen, I agree that you have been civil (and coherent), a welcome change from many who have come over here. I will endeavour to treat you in kind.

brumsen said:
1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
Click to expand...
First of all, the focus of the NIST research was on collapse initiation, not collapse progression. This makes perfect sense if you think about it:
  1. NIST is trying to understand why the collapse occurred
  2. NIST is trying to see if future collapses could be prevented
  3. Whether a building collapses in 15 seconds or 30 is of far lesser import than the fact it collapses at all
  4. Limited time and money for the study
There's also a scientific reason. The sheer number of variables in a dynamic collapse are incredible, compared to the standing structure which is more or less static. I'm not aware of any simulation so complex that has any credibility or repeatability.

I'm also not aware of any large structures that "stop" collapsing. Once you get a few hundred thousand tons moving, and they've already defeated the pillars that were designed to hold them up, the odds that some other portion of the structure will just happen to catch it are, shall we say, low.

brumsen said:
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)
Click to expand...
I've answered similar questions before. Unfortunately they belie a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific investigation. You see, NIST or any other agency did not first formulate a theory of collapse, and then only look for evidence that supported that theory, stopping once they found it, disregarding the rest. It doesn't work like that.

NIST recovered evidence, ran tests, conducted simulations, and then looked to see how all of these fit. It so happens that the facts both confirm the "official" theory and refute the "controlled demolition" theory at the same time.

You cannot send NIST out to test for demolition on a whim. You have to first show that the facts fit both theories, and that a new test that could distinguish the two -- say checking for chemical residue, fracture mechanics, etc. -- was needed. However, since the facts already known do not fit the demolition theory, this is irrelevant. No point going out looking for additional evidence, because that theory is already proven wrong.

This is a basic principle of science. Otherwise we would forever be testing for null hypotheses. In like fashion, NIST did not specifically test to see if the WTC was brought down by an earthquake, a UFO, GodzillaTM, whatever. The tests they conduct are general up until the point that two different theories both fit.

The other option is if we find evidence that doesn't fit the official theory. In that case, opening the field for alternative hypotheses is valid. So... do you have any evidence that doesn't fit the standard collapse scenario? Do you have an alternate theory that also satisfies the evidence collected so far? If so, please tell us about them. But if not, then the official story stands.
 
damn, they just finished with pat on the radio, and never got to any callers...still over all he certainly got his views out there.
 
apathoid said:
I tried sitting through Terrorstorm, but I didnt make it to the 10 minute mark. I'm sure it would pointless to try to debunk it, because its more political in nature and less scientific...
Click to expand...


I think it'd be worth a shot, although Alex Jones seems to be a bitter sharper, and makes his statements more vague, thus making it harder to pin him to anything.

The first half, at least, basically just recounts a series of examples of "Government sponsored terror" so a viewers guide type document could at the very least shed more light onto these events which he claims are "not contested, events where the fact of government sponsored terror is not debated, but in fact openly admitted to by western governments".

That is a VERY bold statement for him to make, especially given the nature of the events:

1933 - Reichstag Fire
1953 - Operation Ajax (CIA/MI6 Coup in Iran)
1964 - Gulf of Tonkin incident
1967 - USS Liberty incident
1946-83 - Operation Gladio (NATO "Stay Behind" armies)

Now I haven't done serious research into any of these yet, but even based on Alex Jones' claimed version of events only two of these would qualify as "Western governments sponsoring terror". And none of the ones I am familiar with are as clear-cut as Alex Jones claims...

-Andrew
 
T.A.M. said:
damn, they just finished with pat on the radio, and never got to any callers...still over all he certainly got his views out there.
Click to expand...
What's w/ all the reverb on the guy reading the news? :eek:
 
T.A.M. said:
damn, they just finished with pat on the radio, and never got to any callers...still over all he certainly got his views out there.
Click to expand...

I should have mentioned earlier that they were only planning on a half-hour segment which they gave me. Most of the time I only get one 10-minute shot (got one of those coming up on Tuesday, not sure it will be 9-11 related). He did have a movie guy coming after me, which is pretty common on Friday talk shows.

I'm working on briefing up the intro since every show will ask that--there's really no need to mention the Huffpo, for example. Doing media's not hard but it does require practice.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
I should have mentioned earlier that they were only planning on a half-hour segment which they gave me. Most of the time I only get one 10-minute shot (got one of those coming up on Tuesday, not sure it will be 9-11 related). He did have a movie guy coming after me, which is pretty common on Friday talk shows.
Click to expand...
I was wondering why the subject was now "Dr. Strangelove".
 
T.A.M. said:
Good job anyway Pat.

I haev a question, when the LC guys are referred to this article about WTC 7, what is their reply??

Firehouse Fire Captain interview
Click to expand...

They'll find one inconsistency in there with somebody else's story and say that proves these guys were in on it. Not hard to see the one they'd highlight there--if it was an hour later the building came down, then this guy was thinking about going into Building 7 at 4:20; what about the fire chief who said they had a transit on it at 2:00 and saw it was moving?

You know how it is, legitimate question, but of course you're expecting every witness' recollection to match up with everybody else's. And anyway, the guy doesn't say it was an hour after he was going to go into WTC 7 that it fell down, but an hour after he did a lot of other tasks in between. Still, they'll focus on that one inconsistency because it's easy. They claim I do the same thing.
 
Last edited:
kevin said:
uh no. Thermite burns down because of gravity. If you turn the container 90 degrees it'll still burn down. You might damage one side of the column, but not any more than the real fires did.
Click to expand...

kevin said:
this dawned on me after i posted. oh well, it's been a bad week, or as a co-worker told me yesterday "you sure are grumpy".

I need to move to a neighborhood with more kids so I can yell at them to get off the lawn.
Click to expand...

I suggest moving to a neighborhood with less gravity, its a well known fact that gravity makes you grumpy.

The towers fell faster than free fall and New Yorkers are notoriously grumpy. Coincidance? I think not.
 
R.Mackey said:
In like fashion, NIST did not specifically test to see if the WTC was brought down by an earthquake, a UFO, GodzillaTM, whatever.
Click to expand...

I dunno about that. Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Japan on September 8, and there are reports Godzilla was photographed -- by US Navy special forces frogmen -- leaving his undersea lair on September 9.
 
guys this one is laughable...

over at LC forum, they are discussing the DNA evidence of the 5 unidentified bodies at the Pentagon site.

So the comment is made that two of the 5 bodies were IDed as brothers.

So then one of the long time truthers, DECIDER, makes the comment "..what did they find a twin gene", insinuating that there was no other way to determine two pieces of DNA were that of siblings, unless there was some mysterious twin gfene. Who the F^*k is this guy...He has no godamn idea what he is talking about...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom