• 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.
Johnny Pixels said:
I get the feeling this is true. The moderator on the British 9/11 Truth forum seems to have decided that I'm a piece of software, so he emailed some guy he knows to analyse my posts, and then it came back that he was 90% certain I was human, but there could be some top secret AI in use, but everyone would deny that existed anyway.
Click to expand...


Are you sure you are not synthetic? Your memories could have been planted. It's all in the documentary film Bladerunner.

"90% certain":D
 
DavidJames said:
Thanks - Man that thread just exploded.

Watching JDX get "the power of mod" and implode was not unlike watching the evolution of Darth Vader in the episode 3.
Click to expand...

Not unlike at all:

JohndoeX said:
By the way... its quite possible you may get banned anyway for the way you have been. Another mod may come along that isnt as tolerant as me.
Click to expand...

"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"
 
Johnny Pixels said:
I get the feeling this is true. The moderator on the British 9/11 Truth forum seems to have decided that I'm a piece of software, so he emailed some guy he knows to analyse my posts, and then it came back that he was 90% certain I was human, but there could be some top secret AI in use, but everyone would deny that existed anyway.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp
 
realitybites! And there's no vaccine for his realityrabies!

879044d68c1b10925.jpg



Got this in my email from an anti-CTer. :D

879044d72d1d3e2cc.jpg

Ramoooooooooooone, definiitely come out on Sat. if you can. We'll be there from about 1 to 4:30.
 
chacal said:
hi

Do you remember which channel was this camera crew from? Did they have any logo's or were they perhaps Finnish truthers? I'm just asking because it would be interesting to know whether some channel is making something related to 9/11 "truth".

You see I live in Helsinki and we have our own crazy truth movement here. Infact the nuclear bomb in the WTC basement theory stems from an anynomous Finnish "military expert" affiliated with the local truth movement.

.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum, chacal. I don't know who that camera crew was. There were no identifying signs, but they were there to film the CTs, and they got a good dose of us when we arrived. They left before I could talk to them.

I get a fair amount of CT email from Suomi. None from the "mini-nuke" guy, though. He would be fun to play with.
 
gumboot said:
Heat output, by floor area, has multiplied by 6 times since 1970 - where before a given space would have one person releasing body heat, now you have three people in the same given space, each with a PC (the average PC has roughly the same heat output as a single person).

That means more air conditioning units.
Click to expand...

This is not a given. More efficient units could also be used. A/C design has not remained static since the 70's. I'm also not sure what affect you think this might have had on the building falling.

As you can see, failing to factor in the affect of fuel on the aircraft is only one error, and that one error alone has many ramifications. I recall one of those involved in the building describing the impact of a 707 as like a pen pushed through a mosquito net. This implies they didn't think the wings would penetrate the building.
Click to expand...

Actually it means they didn't think of the affects on the internal structure of the building. the wings just make the pencil bigger. This was also an off the cuff analogy made by the site manager. Not un-knowledgeable but not a detailed analysis either.

It may just be the extra mass provided by the jet fuel, but to me such an assertation seems ludicrous (as materially demonstrated on 9/11) and supports how limited any real analysis of such an impact was.
Click to expand...

The extra mass of the fuel could be taken into account easily (without having the calculations available this may have actually been done), but they could not calculate where the fuel would go, or what it would do to the contents of the building. Additionally the fuel for a transcontinental flight in the 767 is distributed in the wings (not sure this is true in a 707). This means the fuel was distributed over a much larger area.

Another error in the "calculated impact" of a 707 is, as I mentioned above, the massive difference in available fuels in the building itself from 1970 to 2000.
Click to expand...

Since no calculations were done on fuel at all the difference in fuels between 1970 and 2000 would have no change on the calculations (on the results between a crash then and now -- yes, but that wasn't calculated).

Another error is in fire proofing. At the time WTC was built there was NO guideline for how much fire proofing to put on steel.
Click to expand...

BTW, no one in the CT movement has caught onto this yet, but according to the NIST report, the fireproofing was changed during the construction of the WTC. The lower levels used a hard board like material, but it contained asbestos. Fears about asbestos started to come to light during construction so they changed to the spray on fireproofing and went through the lower levels and encapsulated all the asbestos fireproofing. If they had used the stiffer harder fireproofing all the way up would it have stood up to a crash?

Also several inspection photos (prior to 9-11) in the NIST report show the spray on proofing had fallen off on it's own (they have pictures where sections of the trusses are bare).
 
kevin said:
Also several inspection photos (prior to 9-11) in the NIST report show the spray on proofing had fallen off on it's own (they have pictures where sections of the trusses are bare).
Click to expand...


A similar picture can be drawn for WTC7. IIRC some time prior to 9/11 a fire safety assessment of WTC7 found that the floor with the large diesel tank on it (which FDNY had been strongly opposed to having in the building at all) was totally lacking in any fire-protection or fire-suppression systems at all.

CTers assume the WTC was state of the art, with the best fire protection money could buy. It's a false assumption - just like it's a laughably false assumption to claim that the Pentagon is "the most heavily protected building in the world".

Want to know how you produce the most protected building in the world? you BURY IT UNDER A MOUNTAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.

-Andrew
 
kevin said:
Some sort of reinforcement would be required. Rebar is probably being used, you just don't see it. Note that they are building the core before the building. This would be standard, and opposite of what a certain kook claims.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? I was under the impression that rebar was primarily used for roads and surfaces since it adds strength in tension (wheras concrete has strength in compression.. I may have these backwards.) This two form strenght may not be needed in a skyscraper, where the weight is mostly compressive.

I could be way wrong, however.
 
Gravy said:
realitybites! And there's no vaccine for his realityrabies!

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/879044d68c1b10925.jpg[/qimg]


Got this in my email from an anti-CTer. :D

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/879044d72d1d3e2cc.jpg[/qimg]​

Ramoooooooooooone, definiitely come out on Sat. if you can. We'll be there from about 1 to 4:30.
Click to expand...
Okay, obviously you can tell by the look on my face that the CTers rarely (if ever) shower.

Realitybites has learned two things today:
1. Always, always, always screen the photo BEFORE you agree to have it publicly posted.
2. Keep cameras the hell away from Gravy.
 
gumboot said:
A similar picture can be drawn for WTC7. IIRC some time prior to 9/11 a fire safety assessment of WTC7 found that the floor with the large diesel tank on it (which FDNY had been strongly opposed to having in the building at all) was totally lacking in any fire-protection or fire-suppression systems at all.

CTers assume the WTC was state of the art, with the best fire protection money could buy. It's a false assumption -
Click to expand...
the WTC was not subject to NYC Firecode

see pg 115 of - Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center
by Angus K. Gillespie written before 9/11

It is also extensively in City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz, Eric Lipton

Port Authority in an effort to save money claimed in effect that they were exempt from the rules as a two state agency. Corners were cut.

My argument is that if you are exempt from the fire rules, (rules written in blood - someone died, then the rule was written) then don't expect the FDNY to fight your fire (from inside - in small places like oh say, Oneonta the FD fights fires from outside.)- FDNY is not made of that kind of stuff - they went in to fight it.
 
realitybites said:
Okay, obviously you can tell by the look on my face that the CTers rarely (if ever) shower.
Click to expand...


(you do kind of have that 'I smell sheep' look on your face.)

Soap and deodorant are a plot - ask roysinister over at the nutbar forum.

(roy is my favorite jailbird over there.)
 
60hzxtl said:
Port Authority in an effort to save money claimed in effect that they were exempt from the rules as a two state agency. Corners were cut.
Click to expand...

Not according to the NIST report. They were technically exempt but said they would follow the codes at that time (as they did on all the Port Authority buildings). The NIST report agrees that the building met or beat all the codes.

I'll find the actual cite later, i'm supposed to be at work in a few minutes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom