Loose Change

[Gravy]

Thanks for your hard work, Here are my suggestions and fixes:


Page 29, Bottom picture: I get no picture, says I need a plugin. Not sure if this is a concern or not. This pops up a few more times, pictures requiring some sort of plugin. I would consider changing them all to a single format.

Thanks! You prompted me to actually run spell check, and it found lots of typos. Serves me right for doing all this from the comfy couch with a wireless keyboard and mouse, about 7 feet from the monitor.

I'll check the graphics. I had resized evey pic and thought they were all jpegs, but I guess not.

 

[dubfan]

Can anyone confirm that he (Bermas) is actually saying "The people are secondary?" I've listened a few times and isn't perfectly clear. Not that it would be surprising – it's exactly the kind of thing they say. But I wanted to slip that quote into my new critique, and I don't want to get it wrong.

I'm not sure if it's confirmation, but that's certainly how I heard it. I agree, it isn't easy to make out, but it seems as if he's saying the issue of the what happened to the people is secondary.

 

[Gravy]

There's a difference between taking this picture, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg, and jumping the gun and saying "FEMA manipulated their facts!", and looking at it objectively. It doesn't particularly convince me as to when it was taken and where the smoke exactly comes from, but I'm sure it wasn't the only piece of evidence FEMA had in their hands to make their investigation. I was just saying this specific piece of evidence is insufficient to make ANY conclusion.

Actually, we can say some things for sure from that photo. See the glare on the buildings and glass, and how the shadows fall? The sun is in the southwest. It's late in the afternoon. And we know that rubble was not smoking like that in front of WTC 7 at that time. Yes, you'd need to see one of the hundreds of other images taken at that time to confirm that, but that's easily done.

Rather than do that, geggy ASSUMES (who knows why?) that FEMA is being DECEPTIVE, as if no one is going to check their work, and he posts his triumphant discovery here.

geggy, you say you do your homework. Maybe that's true. But you get it wrong every single time. What does that tell you?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm done trying to edumacate geggy. I can't recall a single time that one of his "proofs" has been correct, and he shows no signs of learning ANYTHING from his mistakes. Just pathetic.

 

[WildCat]

I have a question, maybe someone here is familiar with the videos and already knows this. In some of the videos of the towers collapsing, I have seen these tall skinny pieces left sticking up after the rubble pile passes, and these pieces then start to tip over since they're no longer supported sideways. I've thought that these pieces were sections of the steel core columns that were left behind. I would like to check out the idea that this could have been the North Tower, and those pieces fell to the North, causing the reported gash in the South face of WTC7. It's just an idea, but I've always wondered how far sideways they could have fallen and what they would have hit.

There's some great photos here showing the site on Sept. 13, 2001. Enormous pieces of the WTC were thrown quite a ways away, as you can see.

 

[60hzxtl]

There's some great photos showing the site on Sept. 13, 2001. Enormous pieces of the WTC were thrown quite a ways away, as you can see.

and not to forget that there is a 7 plus story void UNDER the WTC, going down to the PATH trains, making a lot of the debris that fell straight down not apparent, its compressed below the street level. I worked across the street beginging the first Sunday after, and I saw an 8 - 12 story pile of smoking rubble - rubble that smoked until at least December.

 

[Hagrok]

There's some great photos here showing the site on Sept. 13, 2001. Enormous pieces of the WTC were thrown quite a ways away, as you can see.

I honestly don't see how any thinking human being could see those pictures and say "controlled demolition".

 

[Pardalis]

Actually, we can say some things for sure from that photo. See the glare on the buildings and glass, and how the shadows fall? The sun is in the southwest. It's late in the afternoon.

I stand corrected. Judging by the direction of the sun, and comparing it to pictures taken during the collapse, this picture:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehost/8790445b605f2381c.jpg, could not have been taken between 10:08 and 10:28 AM on sept 11.

Thanks Gravy.

 

[geggy]

Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

LOOK AND COMPARE

As you can see the squibs ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building free fall into the ground.

As you can see the squibs ejecting one at a time 1-2 seconds apart starting from top to down.

 

[WildCat]

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

Is this an admission that the collapse of the WTC towers does not look like a controlled demolition?

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

As you can see the squibs ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building free fall into the ground.



As you can see the squibs ejecting one at a time 1-2 seconds apart starting from top to down.

A quick lesson in logic:

The above is what a controlled demolition looks like.
The WTC does not look like this.
Ergo, the WTC was not a controlled demolition.

You've done a great job providing the evidence for this line of logic, Geggy. I'm only too happy to complete the thought for you. Nice job.

 

[kookbreaker]

Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

What the heck is this 'different way'?

LOOK AND COMPARE

Been there, done that, tossed the looser.

As you can see the squibs ejecting at the same time to allow the entire building free fall into the ground.

1) The building will not free fall.
2) The building is not yet falling.

As you can see the squibs ejecting one at a time 1-2 seconds apart starting from top to down.

Actually, it looks like only one squib shown over multiple frames.

Also:

1) The building is already falling. Why the need for more explosives?
2) Still looks nothing like the charges shown on the first picture.

You lose, looser.

 

[geggy]

Controlled demotlition...timed demolition...whatever you want to call it...

 

[CurtC]

By the way, there have been questions asked at the LC forum recently, about why there are no structural engineers who dispute that fires could have caused the collapses, and it seems to be getting some attention.

In this thread, Sun Zoo says:

What else do you want - a professionally liscenced practicing structural engineer, right?

I'll have one within days I believe, a week max.

I'm a headhunter. In the Consulting Engineering world in the USA (though I don't talk to people, usually, about anything 9/11 in the course of conducting business). It's my job it's what I do.

There MUST be brave ones out there now ready to look at this information, I'll start making more calls..

Call it the Loose Change Contingency Search Assignment.

We'll get one, from New York City. That's where I'll find him. A high rise pro struct eng, who upon making his own investigation and examination, fully believes in 9/11 truth as we are presenting it, to certify, that the official story is utterly absurd nonsense and a great Big Lie, of the farthest reaching proportions and significance..

I am waiting with bated breath to see where this leads.

In the thread Wanted: Structural Engineer With Cajones, anybody got a line on this?, josephborden's interest was piqued by the question, so is starting this thread to find any structural engineers that he couldn't find in his searching.

In this thread, jenabell jumps in with both feet on the Van Romero subject, the New Mexico structural expert who claims to have been misquoted immediately after 9/11, and now says that there is no evidence for explosives. jenabell makes the case that he was bought and paid for, so to speak.

 

[Ramooone]

i wonder if any of the loosers believe in "The montauk project" thats personally my favorite conspiracy theory. it deals with time travel, aliens, nazi's, a bigfoot type creature. oh man, its fantastic. hours of entertainment.

 

[rwguinn]

In this thread, jenabell jumps in with both feet on the Van Romero subject, the New Mexico structural expert who claims to have been misquoted immediately after 9/11, and now says that there is no evidence for explosives. jenabell makes the case that he was bought and paid for, so to speak.

we went through this back on like page 3 of this circular thread.
It was very early in the thread. I am NOT going back to look for it.
I love latecomers who haven't bothered to look at what's been done already here...

 

[DavidJames]

geggy:
You missed my questions.

The top portion broke into pieces as it fell into the ring of dust, there couldn't have been enough weight for the top to force down the floors below.

How much weight was there pushing down. How much weight would have been necessary, show your work.

If you think the top portion was the reason for forcing the floors below down, then then why didnt the top part pause it's movement even for a millisecond if it was to force the weight down? The top just fell straight down and smoothly that is.

What evidence, other then a video, do you have that that there was no pause and how much of a pause should there have been, please provide, from a structural engineering perspective the analysis which supports your conclusion.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just anticipating what geggy's next question would be.
When the planes initially hit, there was some flaming wreckage ejected from the impact and falling out the holes after.
But at what point in the timeline was the picture taken?

No idea, really.

 

[kookbreaker]

Controlled demotlition...timed demolition...whatever you want to call it...

Either way, the WTC was nothing of the sort.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Dr Adequate...

I understand completely what you're saying but WTC may have been imploded in a different way to make it look like the structure of the building was failing...

But this is not possible. Consider the following:

(1) We know the immediate cause of the collapse of the South Tower. It's 'cos the top of the tower fell onto the rest of it.

(2) We know that the immediate cause of this was that the floors below it had been weakened.

(3) We know that those floors were definitely weakened by (a) a plane crash (b) an aviation fuel fire.

(4) We know that there cannot have been any explosives on those floors just before the tower collapsed because they would have been ignited in the fire.

Do you see? In order for explosives to cause the collapse which we can all see on the video, they would have to be planted exactly where the plane hit, and they would have to survive the impact and ensuing fire.

The first would just require the world's most acurate plane crash ever (your "squibs" are ejected exactly at the bottom of the hole made by the plane --- coincidence?)

But the second is downright impossible. There can't have been any explosives on the relevant floors any more than there could have been a team of men with steel-cutting equipment.

In the absence of any other explanation, I suggest that the relevant floors were weakened by a plane crashing into them. WE CAN ALL SEE THE HUGE HOLE IN THE BUILDING, DAMMIT!

 

[Hellbound]

WE CAN ALL SEE THE HUGE HOLE IN THE BUILDING, DAMMIT!

Holograms, duh.



I still like my four independant conspiracies theory.

Or my malfunctioning anti-gravity device theory.

They're at least internally consistent.