• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
kookbreaker said:
The CTs complete lack of understanding of explosives has been a great source of amusement and pain. I've had them tell me the initial detonation of explosives was the fireball we saw on impact because: Ta-da! Jet Fuel is a combustable, not an explosive. So it couldn't blow up.
Click to expand...

The affect though, to be fair, can be explosive - if the fuel is contained in a sealed container (drums, fuel tanks, vapor in a building) and set alight, it will cause a (relatively) mild explosive effect. I say "mild" because if you compare the effects of a drum of jet fuel to a drum of C4, well, you can imagine the difference.
 
^varg said:
ahhhhh hah! i have been in 9/11 debates in a certain black metal forum, and the whole thing was a joke. i was virtually the ONLY one arguing that loose change was crap in every 9/11 based thread, and it was EXASPERATING. when i finally found THIS thread, it was like a breath of fresh air.

as much as i enjoy metal, i've been so detatched from the fan base for so long that i find it less and less appealing to be involved in any level, but i guess this is probably a problem that i'd encounter within any genre.
Click to expand...

Interesting mate and cant agree more. Im heavily involved in my bands management, promotion, interstate shows etc, but im fairly detached from the fan base as well. As you know yourself, the average metal forum discussion is usually about who a 'f*gget' or whos not 'troo', 'cult' or because you like tool, enya or wolfmother, your a 'poser'. Its so unsatisfying mentally and im too far removed from being musically 'metal only' to care enough to be involved at the personal level.

These days despite playing every day on my drums I listen to more trance, Pink floyd and soundtracks then metal.

My cd is released today! I'll post a link to the site people so we can all bask in non CT mayhemic metal!
 
hellaeon said:
These days despite playing every day on my drums I listen to more trance, Pink floyd and soundtracks then metal.
Click to expand...
Of course, the old joke is:

Q:What do you call a guy who hangs out w/ musicians?

A: A drummer.

(runs and hides)
 
Q. How do you know if the stage is exactly level?




A. The drummer drools out both sides of his mouth at the same time.
 
How do you get a drummer off your front porch?





Tip him $5 and say "thanks for the pizza".
 
Interesting mate and cant agree more. Im heavily involved in my bands management, promotion, interstate shows etc, but im fairly detached from the fan base as well. As you know yourself, the average metal forum discussion is usually about who a 'f*gget' or whos not 'troo', 'cult' or because you like tool, enya or wolfmother, your a 'poser'. Its so unsatisfying mentally and im too far removed from being musically 'metal only' to care enough to be involved at the personal level.
Click to expand...

interesting!

i'm involved a bit myself with various projects and such. what band are you involved with? links! links!
 
i like how their arguments with the pentagon basically turn into the whole "if it isnt on video it never happened."

the only "evidence" they have is videotapes!

you just want to roll up a newspaper and hit them in the head and say "no!"
 
Just as with other explosives, you need to apply some energy to C-4 to kick off the chemical reaction. Because of the stabilizer elements, it takes a considerable shock to set off this reaction; lighting the C-4 with a match will just make it burn slowly, like a piece of wood (in Vietnam, soldiers actually burned C-4 as an improvised cooking fire). Even shooting the explosive with a rifle won't trigger the reaction. Only a detonator, or blasting cap will do the job properly.
Click to expand...

One of the arguments against the CD theory has been that the demo charges might have gone off during the impacts, thus making the 'plan' a very dumb one. Is that argument now invalid, or are we assuming that the fire will set off the blasting caps instead?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Argh! Back to basic chemistry 101 with them!
Click to expand...

University level chemistry? How about 3-2-1 Contact, where I learned the effects of heating sealed containers (HUUUGE flashback for all you children of the 80's out there)?

Or how about the label on a shaving cream can that says not to immerse the can in hot water or store it next to hot objects like radiators, ovens, furnaces, FLAMING AIRCRAFT WRECKS or frigging TOWERING INFERNOS?!?
 
Ramooone said:
i like how their arguments with the pentagon basically turn into the whole "if it isnt on video it never happened."

the only "evidence" they have is videotapes!

you just want to roll up a newspaper and hit them in the head and say "no!"
Click to expand...

This is more evidence for what I think it our perfect little conspiracy storm here -- one aspect of which is the rapid spread and availability and searchability of information via the internet. Problem is, people forget that these were real events with real physical forensic evidence, and that the case is largely based on THAT, and not a collection web pages with varying degrees of authority.
 
Shrinker said:
One of the arguments against the CD theory has been that the demo charges might have gone off during the impacts, thus making the 'plan' a very dumb one. Is that argument now invalid, or are we assuming that the fire will set off the blasting caps instead?
Click to expand...

They seem to overlook the fact that the impacts would've also severely damaged or destroyed any wiring that had been installed for the demo charges (pointed out to me by Dr. Greening).
 
To get back to the Pentagon videos. I have heard many claim that "it looks like a missile hitting the building to me."

Once again, I have to ask a very fundamental question: do they have video of a missile hitting a building, and can they show me how these Pentagon videos are similar to that?

We heard for how long that the falling of the WTC towers "looked like a controlled demolition." However, upon closer inspection, the only similarity between the WTC falling and controlled demolition is that buildings fall down. The manner in which they fall are completely different. Even geggy ultimately had to admit that, and made up a new type of controlled demolition that looks very different from any controlled demolition.

So if they claim it looks like a missile hitting a building, they must have something that shows what a missile hitting a building looks like. I'd like to see that.
 
Polaris said:
The affect though, to be fair, can be explosive - if the fuel is contained in a sealed container (drums, fuel tanks, vapor in a building) and set alight, it will cause a (relatively) mild explosive effect. I say "mild" because if you compare the effects of a drum of jet fuel to a drum of C4, well, you can imagine the difference.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, it's most damaging if dispersed in an aerosol mist and ignited, producing what's known as a Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE).

Not sure if you're familiar with explosive ratings, but they each are associated with an RF value. The RF value is a comparison of their relative explosive force. By definition, TNT has an RF of 1. Black powder is something like .5 (so 2 lbs of black powder is equivalent to 1 pound of TNT). C-4 checks in about 1.3 or 1.4 (can't recall which).

FAE's rated with an RF value clock in around 5. Both Jet Fuel and Gasoline can highly explosive, in the right conditions.
 
So how about some conjecture about how LC3 will be different from LC2? I think the biggest difference between LC1 and LC2 was that they dropped the whole "missile pod" nonsense on the 767s that hit the WTC towers.

For the next round of changes, I've seen at the LC forum that they no longer use Karl Schwarz (Pentagon engine part is from an A3) as a reference. And Dylan says that the blue tent at the Pentagon is "just a tent." So those will be out of LC3.

My thought is that the WTC7 collapse will be much more emphasized, how it fell down looking like a CD. And they'll spend more time on the "squibs" of dust coming out of the towers during the collapses, plus they'll feature the "9/11 Eyewitness" tapes with the little pops of wind noise supposedly indicating explosions three miles away, while those explosions were not heard by the people actually in Manhattan.

And I bet they've found more innuendo, relationships among neocons that can be twisted to look suspicious. What else?
 
dubfan said:
This one should be worth watching.

Loosers catch a real, live structural engineer. He's not amused.

:D
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, they didn't catch a very good one. Or at least not one who has looked at the attacks with any seriousness. This is going to go poorly and leave the Loosers more convinced than ever that they're right.

A couple of errors I noticed immediately:

Regarding the picture of the WTC construction, he's right about the self-building cranes. But some of those columns he's referring to did indeed provide some horizontal load bearing in addition to the vertical loads (I'm surprised he missed that, since he correctly referred to them as tie-ins for the floor trusses). In addition, they are not "thin I-beams" at that level but rather box columns basically constructed from two I-beams. They become single I-beams at higher levels (where the aircraft hit) and become thinner.

7 WTC was not " built as a steel and glass box in the 1970's. A strong but not castle like structure." If it were, it might have stood. At the least, had it collapsed the collapse probably would have looked more like what the Loosers think a steel-frame building collapse "should" look like. It was built in 1984 to maximize column-free space. All the vertical support for the buildings was at the perimeter and in the elevator cores; there was no vertical support inbetween as there is in a more traditional "steel and glass box." 1 BT Plaza (the Deutsche Bank building) was such a box, as were 4, 5, and 6 WTC and (for design purposes, though the loading was different) 3 WTC.

The Millennium (which is also spelled sometimes correctly with one "n" -- don't ask -- did not sustain serious outer damage. It was thought to have initially, but in fact it sustained only cosmetic damage.
 
I see the Loosers have already gone to their 'Krusty is coming' defense. If the woman was seen in the gash, the fire couldn't have been bad, right? Right?

Why do you think we call them 'Loosers'?
 
CurtC said:
My thought is that the WTC7 collapse will be much more emphasized, how it fell down looking like a CD. And they'll spend more time on the "squibs" of dust coming out of the towers during the collapses, plus they'll feature the "9/11 Eyewitness" tapes with the little pops of wind noise supposedly indicating explosions three miles away, while those explosions were not heard by the people actually in Manhattan.
Click to expand...

People in manhattan were experiencing full blown amnesia at the time of the attacks and the collapsing of the towers, they wouldn't remember what they had seen or heard. Firefighters and emergency personals, on other hand, usually stay cool under enormous panicky situations thus many of them have claimed to hear what may have been sounds of explosives going off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom