• 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.
kookbreaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

Vertical constructions don't take strictly vertical loads. Although the WTC was designed to reduce things like wind loads on the central core it still took some. Same for other buildings, there will be side to side loads. Because the vertical structure is tied at one end, and sways at the other end you can need more reinforcement than a flat surface.

The wikipedia article cites a typical reinforcement is 1% steel by cross-sectional area steel for a horizontal structure and 6% for a vertical structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete

It is possible they're using plastic reinforcement or fiber reinforcement instead of rebar, but that isn't very common except in special cases.
 
Gravy said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well i hope the film crew doesn't do something too pro conspiracy theory.

you get mail from Suomi... (do you watch late night with Conan O'Brian?) ... I guess there are a fair amount of truthers here. They have some activity like they rent a movie theater and show LC and in plane site and so on. And they have speaking guests like Andreas Von Buellow.

I would like to know who the mini-nuke military expert is. As far as I know Finnland doesnt have nuclear weapons.:)
 
DJLegacy said:
Yeah that was my question...

Possibly demo charges and very small WMDs...? It would explain the EMP burst just before collapse and the explosion and ejection of the debris.

Seems like a bigger and bigger project each time we get into this though...
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why CTs are nutjobs.
 
Does anyone know what the flight data recorder sub forum in the LC Pentagon subforum is all about? It's password protected, and I'm in some bizzarre limbo ban there.
 
It's interesting to me how in one breath the CTs rant on about how the gubmint is evil, turning the USA into a police state, concocting this massive conspiracy to hide the twoof about 9/11, and in the next breath ban opposing points of view, remove posts that contradict the party line, and generally act like the very Gestapo that they rant on about. I'd type more but I've already got irony dripping onto my carpet and it's hell to get out.

P. S. I live in Bridgeport, Connecticut and would love to make it down to GZ sometime to debate with the twoofers. I'll check with Mrs. Jhunter and see if it would be officially sanctioned.
 
kevin said:
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.
Click to expand...
(some snippage by TjW)
Large aircraft always carry fuel in the wings. They may have tanks in the fuselage as well, but the majority will be in the wings. A load distributed along the wing does not contribute to the bending moment of the wing spar when flying.
 
chipmunk stew said:
There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810
Click to expand...

I think this will definitley happen. I see it as preparation for the eventual release of the "100% accurate" 'Final Cut'. Of course, it won't be 100% accurate and people will be slamming it in the skeptics forum and elsewhere. Can't have skeptics negating the sales drive, can we?
 
I wonder if anyone will have any objections of me slapping all famous truth movement members slapped onto some good old nazi group photos using the poorest photoshop techniques now.

It seems so...suitable now.
 
gumboot said:
I'm sorry.

Did you say "nuclear" bomb?

:hb:
Click to expand...

Yeah, there's a lot of nuke talk. I think Siegel makes a claim of mini-nukes at the WTC in one of the versions of 9-11 Eyewitness. And there's a very weird lady in the Smorgasbord video from the Loosers who says there were elevated radiation levels at the Pentagon. See, she called a friend, who just happens to have a geiger counter in her purse and...

Let's remember, these people have the attention span of a cow, so the only way to keep them interested in the CT is to regularly raise the "woo" level in your new video. I joke about it, at times, but I fully expect somebody to start pushing the "no-buildings" theory in the next round.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom