• 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.
geggy said:
The "old" WTC 1 and 2 was built in the late 60's/early 70's so it's hardly "old". WTC7 was built in 1985 so that is hardly "old".

Chimpmunk reminded me about this thread in that other thread. So chimpmunk would you kindly copy and paste in this thread the brief summary of what I've posted in that thread.
Click to expand...
What, this?:
geggy said:
The towers were ridiculously over engineered, a staggering 47 central steel core partly supported the towers. So the towers had 47 central steel core that the only way the floors would pancake on one and other is if thousand of joints were broken. And what would be the best way to sheer the joints? By using explosives.
Click to expand...

or this?:
geggy said:
Hey stupid[folks]...read this brief, yet excellent timeline of the rise of the neocons...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x932617
Click to expand...
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25239004&postID=114595373546579771&isPopup=false

I thought you were going to get back to us with your point. Instead we get another non sequitur and a definition of denial?
 
geggy said:
Denial: 1. A refusal to comply with or satisfy a request. 2. a. A refusal to grant the truth of a statement or allegation; a contradiction. b. Law The opposing by a defendant of an allegation of the plaintiff. 3. a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief. b. Psychology An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings. 4. The act of disowning or disavowing; repudiation. 5. Abstinence; self-denial.
Click to expand...

Loopy : Subspecies of Flame Warrior:

Loopy's messages are incomprehensible to all but himself. Loopy is easily aroused and exuberant in battle and fearlessly flings himself at any Warrior - even Kung-Fu Master. Loopy's main weapons consist of a disarming array of nonsequiturs, tautologies, and bizarre metaphors, which can often gain him an advantage in the initial stages of an attack. Combatants very quickly realize, however, that Loopy is a certifiable nut case and generally avoid further engagement. Jerk and Evil Clown revel in egging Loopy on for their own amusement. CAUTION: Loopy cannot be defeated with conventional weapons - any response to his attacks will provoke a fusillade of incoherent messages, so Loopy is best left undisturbed.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/loopy.htm
 
Yes! That's it. I will explain in broader spectrum of why I think explosives were planted inside the buildings before the attacks took place.

Here is why I have a problem with the official explanation of why the buildings collapsed as it is filled with contradiction...('cuse my sloppy english, I'm eating on a break, thinking and explaining all at the same time ha)

FEMA stated that fire weakened the structure in the area of the impact hole therefore the heavy portion of the building above the impact hole gave away and acted as a hammer to push down the floors causing it to pancake on top of one and other. The reason there was visible puff of smoke shooting out of buildings and the pulverizition of concrete was because air was pulled in and shot back out as it was collapsing (snickering).

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce. The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed, the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges, which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding, breaking the central steel core into pieces to "weaken the steel columns structure of the building". The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second. If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing. After the complete collapse, the billowing of the dust was too great and moving at high speed, covering most part of manhattan. The explanation of this has to be because of the high percentage of the concrete, abestos, office supplies, etc, etc in the building were transformed into nothing but dust. The north tower collapsed for the same reason as I explained above. The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."
 
geggy said:
Yes! That's it. I will explain in broader spectrum of why I think explosives were planted inside the buildings before the attacks took place.

Here is why I have a problem with the official explanation of why the buildings collapsed as it is filled with contradiction...('cuse my sloppy english, I'm eating on a break, thinking and explaining all at the same time ha)

FEMA stated that fire weakened the structure in the area of the impact hole therefore the heavy portion of the building above the impact hole gave away and acted as a hammer to push down the floors causing it to pancake on top of one and other. The reason there was visible puff of smoke shooting out of buildings and the pulverizition of concrete was because air was pulled in and shot back out as it was collapsing (snickering).

Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer. Each and every floors were pulverizing into dust and small bits, the only logical explanation for the was because there was a great deal of energtic supersonic waves in which high explosives have the ability to produce. The reason you see puff of smokes ejecting at accelerating speed, the reason there were witnesses who heard something that was going "pop pop pop", was because they were most likely explosive charges, which has the ability to reach the temperature as high as 5000 degree F, exploding, breaking the central steel core into pieces to "weaken the steel columns structure of the building". The buildings came down in a free fall manner in only 10-13 seconds, with every 10 floors falling every second. If the pancaking of the floors was true, then each floor that pancaked on the top of the floor below would've slowed down during the process of the collapsing. After the complete collapse, the billowing of the dust was too great and moving at high speed, covering most part of manhattan. The explanation of this has to be because of the high percentage of the concrete, abestos, office supplies, etc, etc in the building were transformed into nothing but dust. The north tower collapsed for the same reason as I explained above. The twoers were built to withstand high winds, earthquakes because it was "ridiculously over engineered."
Click to expand...

That is nothing but conjecture. If you want to take that hypothesis and examine it you need to:
* Predict what the expected volume and mass of ejected debris should be for the given collapse
* Make calculated estimates of the actual volume and mass of ejected debris
* Compare the two
* If there are differences, revisit both steps to check for missing data or bad calculations
* Make calculated estimates of volume and mass of ejected debris for your hypothetical explosives
* Compare this with the calculated estimates from step 2 above

For the pancaking section of your hypothesis
* Calculate the amount of energy needed to collapse the floors below the point of breakage
* Calculate the amount of energy available from the floors above the breakage, taking in to account the volume and mass of the ejected debris calculated above
* If the amount of energy is insufficient begin looking for _all possible_ reasons the collapse may have happened

For your explosives
* Determine what data would lend credence to the idea
* Determine what data would falsify the idea
* Look at the available data and see under which category it falls

And for all of the above; provide your information/calculations to everyone for review.

etc
 
There's a smilie for that, you know.

:hb:
geggy said:
Show me an evidence that fire brought down the towers.
Click to expand...
This documentary. A very interesting watch, if you missed it. I presume you're familiar with the transcript? So please explain in detail what's wrong with the explanations. Leaving out your own personal hunches.

Rolfe.
 
geggy said:
Ok now let me start from the top. As the top portion of the building gave away, there were far too great volume of dust already spewing forth out of the impact hole of the building. While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer.
Click to expand...
Geggy - please use a bit of logic here. The top part would weighed exactly the same whether it was in one piece or a million pieces, and the impact would have been exactly the same.
Sand is millions of tiny pieces of rock, but a pound of sand weighs exactly the same a a pound of rock, and would have the same inpact if dropped on your foot.

As for your belief that the could only have been bought down by a controlled demolition, you've clearly never seen a CD being prepared. There was a CD of a tower block in my home town a few years ago, and the demolition firm allowed the local news cameras in to record everything being made ready. The block was about thirty stories high and right in the middle of town. Houses were all around and a rather expensive office block was alongside. So the block had to be brought down exactly right.
The CD crew didn't go in until the block was stripped back to concrete and brick inside. Then they drilled very large holes in each of the support columns on every single floor; I dunno what kind of drills they used, but they certainly weren't Black&Deckers.
The explosives got packed into the holes, then all the explosive packs were wired together in a very precise sequence. Once that was finished the crew then tested every single bit of wiring and equipment; everything was tested and checked and double-checked and triple-checked and quadruple-checked - over and over again until the crew were satisfied that nothing could go wrong and that the building would fall the way they wanted it to.
All that drilling and packing and checking - for a 30-floor block - took a large demolition crew a full five days. And they were working quite fast, as the building had serious structural flaws and had to be bought down quickly.

And you believe that a tiny demolition crew managed to get inside the WTC, wire up all the top floors with explosives, get all the wiring right, get all the detonators right, get the ignition sequence right, all within an unproven 30-hour blackout, with nobody noticing anything at all? And it all worked perfectly well, even with a jet plane ploughing into the building, wrecking all the wiring and setting off the detonators wrong?

Geggy - you have an organ called a brain. Use it.
 
By the way, there is part here that makes no sense:


While the top part was falling, it was already breaking into pieces, therefore the weight wasn't heavy enough for the top portion to act as a hammer.
Click to expand...

OK, you've got (let's say) a 10-ton weight hanging above your head. It starts to fall, but as it does, breaks into 2000 pieces. Each piece weighs 10 pounds each. Now, assuming that the weight lands on your head, how much weight will hit you?

10 tons.

The total weight doesn't lessen because of breaking up.

I'd suggest you try thinking about the stuff you're posting.

ETA: Sophia beat me to it :)
 
geggy said:
*bangs head on keyboard*
Click to expand...
geggy, You're relying on a "common sense" explanation.

The problem is, there's no frame of reference for jumbo jets crashing full speed into skyscrapers or 110-story collapsing structures with unique construction--there's no "common sense" to be had in this case.

The only reliable tool for analyzing such a complex and unprecedented event is tedious, methodical, scientific investigation.

If you've reached a conclusion based solely on videos and photographs of such an event, you've probably reached the wrong one.
 
No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
 
geggy said:
No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you're frustrated that when you throw out some half-baked idea that we aren't running off to do the legwork for you, eh? Cry more.
 
geggy said:
No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
Click to expand...
see how it works is, you make the claim, you try and provide the evidence to support it, otherwise all you have wild speculation.
The "official" story is pretty well supported by the evidence, but even if you could poke enough holes in the explanation which is accepted by every expert who has looked at the evidence, that would not be enough to support your "theory", it's not an either or situation, even if the accepted expiation of why the towers fell were to be completely debunked, that in itself would provide zero evidence of a controlled demolition.
please provide any positive evidence for your position, we have provided a lot of evidence for ours.
 
*sigh*

CONVENTIONAL EXPLOSIVES WILL NOT GENERATE TEMPERATURES OF 5000 DEGREES, NOT FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN A VERY MINIMAL AMOUNT OF TIME. EXPLOSIVES WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO PRODUCE ANY SORT OF MELTED METAL. EXPLOSIVES WORK WITH BLAST FORCE AND CONCUSSION, NOT HEAT. THE EXPLOSIVES THEORY WOULD HAVE A HARDER TIME EXPLAINING THE MELTED METAL THAN FIRE, AND WOULD STILL HAVE TO RELY ON POST-COLLAPSE FIRE FOR AN EXPLANATION.

LEARN something before you open your mouth and spew your ignorance, you dim wit. Don't come on an Internet board and give your uninformed and ignorant conclusion on a subject you obviously know nothing about to those who do have experience in the field, some of whom can be regarded as experts.

If you had bothered to do any research on explosives outside of the latest Hollywood action flick, you'd realize how little you know.
 
geggy said:
No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
Click to expand...

Gee, that might have something to do with the fact that there isn't the slightest tiniest weeniest bit of evidence that they were.

You might as well "demand" that people show you an invisible pink unicorn (who voted Republican and wanted to help G. W. Bush's poll numbers) pushed down the towers by pissing on them.

Can you prove it's IMPOSSIBLE? No? Well then, it must have happened that way.
 
Skeptic said:
Gee, that might have something to do with the fact that there isn't the slightest tiniest weeniest bit of evidence that they were.

You might as well "demand" that people show you an invisible pink unicorn (who voted Republican and wanted to help G. W. Bush's poll numbers) pushed down the towers by pissing on them.

Can you prove it's IMPOSSIBLE? No? Well then, it must have happened that way.
Click to expand...
Watch it Skeptic, I have it on very good authority that the IPU is a registered Democrat, she will not be slandered like that. ;)
 
Possibility that explosives brought down the towers: A calculation.

1) Probability of dozens of tons of explosives being placed in secret within the WTC: .000000000000000000000000001%
2) Probability of none of the hundreds (if not thousands) of people necessary to pull fo the scam talking: .00000000000000001%
3) Probability of explosives leaving no detectible residue or debris from timers and detonators: .00000000000000000000000000000001%
4) Probability of explosive remaining intact and able to be detonated after a plane slams into the building: 10%
5) Probability of the explosives going off and producing almost no visible evidence: .00000000001%

So, you multiply that together, and the probability of explosives being used to bring down the WTC towers is about the same as the probability that I am actually the ultimate force in the Universe.

You may call me "Master".
 
geggy said:
No, because of the conjunctures I've made, no one has yet calculated the possibility of the explosives being used to bring down the towers.
Click to expand...

I think you mean "probability". And there are too many unkown initial conditions to calculate the probability. I would expect that it would be very close to zero, especially since we have a much more likely explanation already, one that any five-year old can easily understand:

Airplanes flew into the towers. They caught fire. They fell down.

This theory has the advantage of being plausible in that every detail can be explained by scientific means. It is also supported by a HUGE amount of evidence, each piece of evidence relevant and of high quality. One doesn't have to make wildly improbable assumptions in order to believe it.

Can your theory say the same?

(If you reply with a non-sequiter, I will just assume you didn't take your medication today and let it go at that. )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom