Loose Change - Part IV

[Class]

He has no godamn idea what he is talking about...

None of the Loosers know what they are talking about.

 

[dubfan]

Where was Godzilla on September 10? There are reports that large quantities of concrete dust at the WTC site were contaminated with trace amounts of uranium, which could only have been produced by the radioactive breath of a mutant tyrannosaur.

AND WHY WAS THE STEEL SHIPPED BACK TO JAPAN?

What was Donald Rumsfeld trying to hide?

 

[Brainster]

Or, like the truthers at Ground Zero, they claim the FDNY was in on it.

I wonder if that's a corollary to the way the Loosers resent the passengers (and their families) so they start inventing all sorts of nonsense about them--that they're in on the plot, or else they're so stupid they can't tell their loved ones from computer simulations. In extreme cases, they claim a man sent his son off to die.

Unless you're a 9-11 Denier in New York, in which case (according to the hilarious story about MarkAbby a weekend or so ago), it's the firemen--ergo the nutbars imagine they must be in on it. Each group shoos off the demons by saying they're in on the plot.

 

[SRW]

Just wandered into a paltalk room and guess who is here chucksheen.
he is playing Tarply on mikeMalloy.com. in room called 911 discussion.

As soon as I say anyting I will be bumped.

 

[Brainster]

Just wandered into a paltalk room and guess who is here chucksheen.
he is playing Tarply on mikeMalloy.com. in room called 911 discussion.

As soon as I say anyting I will be bumped.

Anybody got anything good on Tarpley? I know he's a LaRouchie, but that's pretty passe, as is the Bush, Sr., book. I haven't looked at Synthetic Terror, I assume it's the same drivel as Griffin?

 

[SRW]

Anybody got anything good on Tarpley? I know he's a LaRouchie, but that's pretty passe, as is the Bush, Sr., book. I haven't looked at Synthetic Terror, I assume it's the same drivel as Griffin?

So far flight 11 landed in Cleavland, CD on bld 7 and the stock market.

 

[tacodaemon]

By the way, someone ought to go in and clear up the confusion in this Wikipedia section regarding who is behind 911research.wtc7.net and Gravy's viewer guide and the Screw Loose Change blog and MarkyX's video of the same name. I would do it but I'm afraid I'd screw up the facts somewhere along the line too.

 

[tacodaemon]

So far flight 11 landed in Cleavland, CD on bld 7 and the stock market.

The REAL truth the OCT proponents don't want you to know is that it transformed into a dirigible and attached itself to the Empire State Building's mooring mast!

 

[SRW]

The REAL truth the OCT proponents don't want you to know is that it transformed into a dirigible and attached itself to the Empire State Building's mooring mast!

And that is why the Empire State Building sits in Cleavland to this day. (It a hologram)

 

[brumsen]

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.

Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.

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.

Interestingly your answer seems to conflict with that given to me by JayUtah over on BAUT. Basically, if I remember well, he said that one starts with a hypothesis which then must be checked for its validity, and that one cannot check several hypotheses at the same time.
My problem here is that if one truncates the timeline as NIST did, it may be that your evidence is compatible with more than one hypothesis. Or in other words, that the alternative hypothesis has not been excluded by the evidence considered. Whereas this is the impression that the relevant sentence in their report gives. Anyway, I should probably point you towards this discussion, on BAUT. Lots of reading, but I doubt there's a point in repeating the discussion here.

BTW thank you all for being civil with me.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.

if i take a ball, hold it out at arms length, then let go, i dont need to do any further research to know its going to fall until it hits the ground, i dont need to do any modelling to know its not going to stop

once the collapse began the forces acting on the structure were far too great for any part of the structure to withstand, and it was inevitable that it would collapse all the way to the ground

 

[gumboot]

My problem here is that if one truncates the timeline as NIST did

You have mentioned this several times.

What do you mean by "truncates the timeline"?

-Andrew

 

[Orphia Nay]

Woah, I've been busy at other forums (and taking a bit of a break) and I've got 13 pages of this thread to catch up on! I was only gone a week, and I just read the last 10 pages of part 3. Phew!

Back on page 89 of LC Part III:

I posted a review on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831315/usercomments-8

I believe you can indicate your approval or disapproval at the bottom of the page.

Great comment at IMDB, Shrinker. I reluctantly gave the film a 1 (the lowest vote possible), and voted 'yes' for all the helpful comments criticising the film (except the extreme 'LC is disinfo' type nutter's). It seems the majority of votes are critical of the film, but others need to so some voting as I'm sure there are Troofers bombing the page.

I saw another possibly familiar name commenting: crbin. Was that c0rbin from here?

 

[brumsen]

if i take a ball, hold it out at arms length, then let go, i dont need to do any further research to know its going to fall until it hits the ground, i dont need to do any modelling to know its not going to stop

once the collapse began the forces acting on the structure were far too great for any part of the structure to withstand, and it was inevitable that it would collapse all the way to the ground

Come on. You know that the complexity of the latter is not comparable to the former. This is just plain silly.

 

[brumsen]

NIST said they didn't include an analysis of post-collapse initiation events in their final report. I'm not aware that anyone at NIST said they didn't study the whole collapse.

Do you mean to say that they studied it, but for some reason didn't include that in the report; or are you making a finer distinction here which I am failing to grasp?

 

[sophia8]

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.

I wonder if he has any sort of job at all. I have health problems that keep me stuck at home for 90% of the time. But I only spend 5-6 hours a day on the computer, and that includes paid work. I simply wouldn't have the time to moderate a busy forum, post dozens of replies a day and surf the internet as well.
Unlike JDX, I have a life beyond my computer - I read, do art, go face-to-face with people and do that business with the flapping mouth.....

 

[sleahead]

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

The answer to your question is in this thread, T.A.M.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9595&st=30+

JerryB9105 responds to a set of firefighter quotes with the usual cocktail of lies, distortion and paranoia. Seemingly, firefighters can only be trusted when they report they heard explosions. What they actually saw with their own eyes in relation to wtc7 does not count.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Come on. You know that the complexity of the latter is not comparable to the former. This is just plain silly.

The complexity of the callculations to determine the resistance offered by remainder of the twin towers may be vastly more complex than determining air resistance from your shoulder to the sidewalk, but once you have that figure and you can see that the force being applied against it is far greater, then you know that figuring out the rest is pointless.

EDIT: One of these days, I'm gonna have to stop putting my thoughts down in loooooong run-on sentences like that.

 

[Obviousman]

BTW, I notice that John DOH! uses his "cloaking device" now as a mod.

Strange. I'd normally associate that with people who'd like to hide in dark corners and jump out with a "GOTCHA!" at some perceived wrongdoing.

 

[sleahead]

While you're here, Obviousman, I just want to tell you how much this Pom enjoyed you and your fellow Aussies effort on the Hanjour thread over on LC. Not only was it very good, it was also very funny. Give my regards to Billzilla when you talk to him.