Loose Change - Part IV

[Arus808]

FROM START TO FINISH, FOR THIS ENTIRE WTC TOWER TO COLLAPSE INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT TOOK 9.4 SECONDS IN TOTAL

In reference to? where did they start their "count" and when did they "end it". since much of the collapses are covered by smoke and debris (so the "ending" could not have been known by anyone.

OVER 200,000 CUBIC YARDS OF CONCRETE WAS CONVERTED INTO 50-MICRON DUST IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS

HUNDREDS OF TONS OF STEEL COLUMNS VIRTUALLY DISAPPEARED IN THETIME IT TOOK FOR YOU TO READ THIS SENTENCE

Yes, 50 microns
http://img.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101020909/landfill/images/1.jpg
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/groundzero/1.html
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/groundzero/4.html
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/groundzero/8.html
http://www.debunking911.com/g02.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/cstripped.jpg
http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/11_september_2001.htm

Yes they disappeared. So, those photographs above are just a movie set?

MASSIVE 4-TON STEEL SECTIONS WERE BLOWN UP TO 600 FEET AWAY

Wow, just this statement alone just contradicted his last two statements above.

SEE THE STEEL BEAMS AND PLUMES OF PULVERIZED CONCRETE SHOOTING VERTICALLY UPWARDS?

Another contradicting statement.

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THIS SPECTACULARLY POWERFUL ENERGY?

let see....2 110 steel skyscrapers collapsing maybe?

KEROSENE?

that is a fuel.

YES, LESS THAN 10 SECONDS[/qutoe]
as determined by what?

WHERE ARE THE MASSIVE STEEL CORE COLUMNS?

well, at least he recongizes that they were STEEL core columns, not concrete ones. as for where they are? They are in that 6 story rubble in the photographs above.

WHERE IS THE PILE OF 110 CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS THAT “PANCAKED”?

they are in that 6 story rubble in the photogrpahs above.

AND BUBBLING INVISIBLY IN THE ‘PILE’ DEEP UNDRGROUND?

TONS OF MOLTEN METAL BUBBLING AT 2,500 DEGREES

there are reports by firefighters and rescue workers seeing and "feeling" the intense fires that continued to burn under that 6 story rubble found in the photographs above.

 

[Bell]

LOOK CAREFULLY AGAIN. STUDY THE PICTURES.

THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF...

YOU DON’T NEED “TECHNICAL EXPLANATIONS”

ALL YOU NEED ARE YOUR EYES.

Yes, because Google images are so much more reliable than actual engineers who studied this stuff.

 

[DavidJames]

Yes, because Google images are so much more reliable than actual engineers who studied this stuff.

CTist so desperately want to be important and significant. But most of them don't actually have any relevant education, knowledge or practical experience to intelligently analyze or even intelligently comment on the technical details of the events of 9/11. So they try and neutralize their inadequacies and say all you need is to look at the pictures and view them with an open mind. Now they feel they leveled the playing field and will use their superior sense of observation to revel the truth.

 

[Josh Redstone]

Debris weighing 4 tons and less than 50 microns in size. Was the WTC made from black hole matter?

Ssshh! You might give them more silly ideas.

 

[steve s]

Yes, 50 microns
http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/11_september_2001.htm

Thanks for posting all those links. Look at this pic from that Conservationtech site you linked to. Look at that large section of perimeter beams at lower right. It's at least 5 or 6 stories long. If explosives were placed on every floor, then why would there be such large pieces of building still intact? Loosers don't think before they speak.

Steve S.

 

[Jennie C.]

Hey, guys, I just made it to part 2 of this thread.

Please tell me I'm not replying to part 12 or something like that.

I just passed something about explosives mixed in the concrete when they built the WTC. Mind boggling.

 

[Hellbound]

Hey, guys, I just made it to part 2 of this thread.

Please tell me I'm not replying to part 12 or something like that.

I just passed something about explosives mixed in the concrete when they built the WTC. Mind boggling.

It actually became "C-4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centers".

 

[delphi_ote]

It actually became "C-4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centers".

With thermite thrown in there somewhere for some odd reason.

 

[Gravy]

Hey, guys, I just made it to part 2 of this thread.

Please tell me I'm not replying to part 12 or something like that.

I just passed something about explosives mixed in the concrete when they built the WTC. Mind boggling.

Stay calm, walk quickly, and don't look back.

 

[tsig]

Talking deads

Like any sequel, it gets worst and worst.

Somebody owes me 10 minutes of life that I spent watching.

I'm collecting from the next who looks.

Fair warning.

 

[tsig]

CTist so desperately want to be important and significant. But most of them don't actually have any relevant education, knowledge or practical experience to intelligently analyze or even intelligently comment on the technical details of the events of 9/11. So they try and neutralize their inadequacies and say all you need is to look at the pictures and view them with an open mind. Now they feel they leveled the playing field and will use their superior sense of observation to revel the truth.

one point most don't seem to realize is the temp of the flame has no relation to the final temp achieved.

You can melt steel with a match if it burns long enough and you have the right insulation.

all that matters is that you keep adding BTU's

 

[T.A.M.]

Rather than start a new thread on it, I will post here.

A guys with the UN=poppop over on the SLC Blog, states that we should all watch this video and "try" to debunk it. he insiuates that we cannot. I have already begun to look into the pakistani "gul hamid" aspect of the video. ANyoen care to watch it and throw in some facts to counter this fiction.

Underlying Politics of 9/11

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The pakistani ISI guy they mention is such a biased source, I almost spit up my coke reading the transcript of his interview with borchgrave of UPI, where he says the jews and america, no OBL, did 9/11.

Hamid Interview

TAM

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Rather than start a new thread on it, I will post here.

A guys with the UN=poppop over on the SLC Blog, states that we should all watch this video and "try" to debunk it. he insiuates that we cannot. I have already begun to look into the pakistani "gul hamid" aspect of the video. ANyoen care to watch it and throw in some facts to counter this fiction.

Underlying Politics of 9/11

TAM

The fact that these CTists continually say, "debunk this," or something similar just proves how disingenious they are being. It's not, "we have some compelling evidence, what's your take?". It's not, "I found this persuasive, do you see any errors?". It's a goddamn competition to them. The problem is, they're not competing to find the truth first, or to even to have the most air-tight case; they're competing to win. It's evident every damned day in their tactics, their attitudes, and their arguments.

 

[jon]

Don't fancy watching the whole thing, but again the video does the nice CT trick of referencing a source, but completely misrepresenting what it says. The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases. Great, so what's the title of this article which gives the video its solid confirmation? "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases"

If you read the article, it goes on to say that:

THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.
But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.
The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on Friday. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight crashed into rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, Ahmed Alghamdi, allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.

I could go through the above to highlight all the occurences of words like 'may' - frankly, can't be bothered, though. At any rate, while the article may suggest something interesting to investigate, it clearly doesn't confirm anything.

 

[Belz...]

Rather than start a new thread on it, I will post here.

Yeah, we need the extra pages, after all!

 

[Muckar-duva]

For you, jon; I was a tad bored.

THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.
But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.
The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on Friday. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight crashed into rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, Ahmed Alghamdi, allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Don't fancy watching the whole thing, but again the video does the nice CT trick of referencing a source, but completely misrepresenting what it says. The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases. Great, so what's the title of this article which gives the video its solid confirmation? "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases"

If you read the article, it goes on to say that:


I could go through the above to highlight all the occurences of words like 'may' - frankly, can't be bothered, though. At any rate, while the article may suggest something interesting to investigate, it clearly doesn't confirm anything.

i know one theory is too much to ask, but could the CTers at least stick to one overall plot arc

do military-trained hijackers now mean there actually WERE hijackers?

 

[Jennie C.]

Still reading part 2 of the thread.

Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory. Somewhere else, someone suggested firing a bullet into the ground to simulate what happened to UA93 in the field in PA.

(That latter may have been in the LC thread started by the AA flight attendant...I get these threads mixed up sometimes).

Anyway, would either of those things work? A miniature of the tower doesn't have the mass. Ditto with the bullet.

I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't take even high-school physics (chemistry was too hard-i chickened out). This is something I greatly regret now in my advanced years (51 ). So I have to hope to understand other folks' examples in order to understand the whole picture.

So, CAN you simulate something that had such a huge mass (building and plane) relative to the miniature with which you're simulating?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Still reading part 2 of the thread.

Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory. Somewhere else, someone suggested firing a bullet into the ground to simulate what happened to UA93 in the field in PA.

(That latter may have been in the LC thread started by the AA flight attendant...I get these threads mixed up sometimes).

Anyway, would either of those things work? A miniature of the tower doesn't have the mass. Ditto with the bullet.

I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't take even high-school physics (chemistry was too hard-i chickened out). This is something I greatly regret now in my advanced years (51 ). So I have to hope to understand other folks' examples in order to understand the whole picture.

So, CAN you simulate something that had such a huge mass (building and plane) relative to the miniature with which you're simulating?

iirc, the bullet was to test crater formation and debris dispersal at different angles.