Loose Change - Part II

[Kiwiwriter]

Split from "Loose Change" to try and make it more accessible. Part 1 can be found here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102
I heard about this DVD from seeing it advertised on E-Bay for $1 a pop ad nauseum. I read the screenplay on a website that debunked it, and got very angry after reading it.

Stuff like "Loose Change" and all these conspiracy theories are a massive insult to the cops, firefighters, PA cops, and PA employees who died in that building on September 11. Through my wife, I know 85 of the PA guys who died in it. A high school classmate died in it (a big wheel in the PA), and so did the brother of another alumnus (and son of one of my teachers).

My pal Mike Sheridan was operations manager of the WTC during the 1993 blast. Not AN operations manager, THE operations manager. He had a key ring that would cost him $75,000 to replace. He could open every door in the building. He saved lives in 1993, then retired to Florida. But because of his post and importance in the union, he was in touch with all the PA people from top to bottom. He got to see the people he saved in 1993 die horribly in 2001, watching it from his lounger in Boca Raton.

Mike and I have discussed the WTC bombings many times, and he's made it clear that the conspiracy theories are horse manure on a grand scale. Yes, the building could be knocked down by planes full of jet fuel. Yes, it was knocked down by planes full of jet fuel. Yes, the official story is what happened. No, George Bush, the Mossad, the Masons, the Bilderbergers, and the World Wildlife Fund did NOT blow up the buildings and kill thousands of innocents to cover up launching a war, stealing gold, or imposing a Fascist dictatorship on the United States.

The real problem, as I see it, is that thanks to Vietnam, Watergate, and the scandals since then, we now have whole generations of intelligent people in the United States, who simply do not believe anything authority tells them. They are completely cynicized, regard everything but urban legends, conspiracy theories, and Comedy Central as being part of some grand conspiracy, and nothing but liars.

They don't trust anybody...except their psychic. :boggled:

[Regnad Kcin]

Excellent post, Kiwiwriter. And welcome to the forum!

[kookbreaker]

Explosives...mixed...with concrete?

Mixed?

Explosives?

*Huntsman shakes it off*

You know, I can mix a couple hundred eggs with concrete, but it doesn't leave me with anything useable in an omelet.

Someone actually may have said as much earlier in this thread, although it may have been in the 'Any Conspiracy Busters in here" thread.

In any case, he was impervious to the idea that mixing the two leaves you with something that is neither good for demolition or for structuring.

[Gravy]

Someone actually may have said as much earlier in this thread, although it may have been in the 'Any Conspiracy Busters in here" thread.

In any case, he was impervious to the idea that mixing the two leaves you with something that is neither good for demolition or for structuring.
That was "love" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1340538&postcount=116) in the "Any Conspiracy Busters..." thread. If anyone reading this thread finds CTs to be obstinate lunkheads, try reading that one. It's absolutely brutal. geggy is a breath of fresh air and light comedy compared to "thesyntaxera" on that thread. In his first post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1336872&postcount=21), he gets almost everything wrong, despite having been "researching (not just debating)" (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1336995&postcount=28) these issues for four years. I wish I had found that thread before jumping into this stuff. The logic and evidence demonstrated by Year Zero, Kevin Lowe, kookbreaker, CurtC, MRC Hans, Manny, and others, combined with he moonbat claims of thesyntaxera, make for a good introduction to debunking of any kind.


eta link

[aggle-rithm]

Someone actually may have said as much earlier in this thread, although it may have been in the 'Any Conspiracy Busters in here" thread.

In any case, he was impervious to the idea that mixing the two leaves you with something that is neither good for demolition or for structuring.

I saw a special on the building of the Hoover Dam where the question arose of whether any workers were entombed in the concrete after accidentally falling in. An expert said, "Of course not! They would never let that happen. The bodies would have weakened the concrete."

You can imagine what tons of explosives would have done.

[Hellbound]

Not to mention that the explosives most likely would not work.

Scratch that, it would not work, not if there was enough concrete left to still function function as concrete.

I mean, these people apparently think that all you have to do to get plastic explosive is mix some smokeless powder with some Play-DohTM. It doesn't work that way.

The depths of ignorance never cease to astound me.

[Correa Neto]

What exactly are the CT's "proposals" that would work? Still have not seen any.

All I see is stupidity. Like the small nuke and the thermite "theories". The "theories" involving missiles and UAVs can be easilly debunked by reading info and specs readilly avaliable in defense magazines and sites.

[Hellbound]

Yeah, but there are levels of ignorance.

You know, the thermite claim shows an ignorance of explosives and structural engineering. The Concrete-explosives mixed claim shows an ignorance of chemistry, physics, explosives, structural engineering, and construction techniques.

Just seems to be a broader, deeper ignorance than the run-of-the-mill stupidity.

[Correa Neto]

You know, just like some woos, these guys seem to take ideas right up from the lower end of their digestive system... Never check, never care about considering feasibility. The explosives/concrete mix is an example. Note that besides the obvious problems related to strenght of the concrete, explosive location, concentration, and placement of detonators, it would imply WTC was meant to be destroyed since it was planned!!!!

Its stupid.

They spend days checking the latest CT buzz but never care to check, say, the specs of a sidewinder missile to see if it can do what they claim it did!!!

Its stupid.

[Hellbound]

Yep.

The majority of their claims could be disproven with 5 minutes on Google.

Heck, even with 10 minutes and a good encyclopedia, for most.

But, as much as they talk about how important it is, and how dedicated they are, and how the truth must be found...they don't do even the basic checking of facts. They don't even attempt to find unbiased sources. They look only for CT sights and CT papers, assuming that only those who already believe are objective. It's an odd case of begging the question. Beggint he question by proxy, maybe (they only look for or accept evidence from those who already agree with their pre-formed conclusion).

[Ramooone]

oh man, i hope this thread is a joke, if not then...i dont even know, im speechless

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4711&view=findpost&p=4627571

[Overman]

I am on page 13, I plan on reading this whole thing. I am currently argueing (I don't know why I am, but I feel compelled to) with a couple CTers on www.stereokiller.com

The first 5 pages were just about all I needed to refute many of their claims. I can't wait till I get to page 78!!(holy crap this is a monster thread)

Thanks for all the info everyone!

P.S. This is what the alphabet would look like if R & Q were eliminated.

[Gravy]

oh man, i hope this thread is a joke, if not then...i dont even know, im speechless

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4711&view=findpost&p=4627571
Unfortunately not a joke, just another moron. This is from that guy's website: (http://www.xanga.com/pr0mythius)

Expertise: really messed up ****, the illuminati, anunnaki, psychic vampirism, witchcraft, giving advice(more like showing options, but yea), i pretty much become a mild expert at anything i show an interest in .. i'm the type to research stuff hardcore for months at a time
But the funniest thing on that thread is when "Terrorcell" gets involved with a "correction."

1) I hate David Icke.

2) If you're going to discuss the Annunaki then you need to do a little homework on them first. Long story short. 12th planet on a crazy orbit enters close to our planet every 1,200 or 12,000 years I forget. The Anunnaki are "God". They played scientist with the monkey DNA in order to create a slave race to mine gold for them. Gold is their oil. Thus this is the reason we have a gold based economy. They were worshipped by the Sumerians I believe.

3) If you really want to learn about the Annunaki then you need to visit Zecharia Sitchin and stay away from Icke.

[Hutch]

oh man, i hope this thread is a joke, if not then...i dont even know, im speechless

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4711&view=findpost&p=4627571

Yeah, I have been following that myself--David Icke and Planet X and terrorcell (who started his post sounding quite sane) dragging in Stichin and somebody else mentioning Hovind---all in the same thread--:covereyes

That one killed brain cells.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yep.

The majority of their claims could be disproven with 5 minutes on Google.

Heck, even with 10 minutes and a good encyclopedia, for most.

But, as much as they talk about how important it is, and how dedicated they are, and how the truth must be found...they don't do even the basic checking of facts. They don't even attempt to find unbiased sources. They look only for CT sights and CT papers, assuming that only those who already believe are objective. It's an odd case of begging the question. Beggint he question by proxy, maybe (they only look for or accept evidence from those who already agree with their pre-formed conclusion).

I'd disagree on the Google point. There is so much drek from CT sites cluttering search results it gives me a headache trying to do fact checking against their claims.

[Hellbound]

I'd disagree on the Google point. There is so much drek from CT sites cluttering search results it gives me a headache trying to do fact checking against their claims.

Well, I limit most of my searches to .edu and .gov domains, so perhaps I miss a lot of that :)

[dubfan]

Yeah, I have been following that myself--David Icke and Planet X and terrorcell (who started his post sounding quite sane) dragging in Stichin and somebody else mentioning Hovind---all in the same thread--:covereyes

That one killed brain cells.

Not there now. Following the link returns an error.

ETA: weird, you have to log in to see it. I wonder if "Alternative Theories" is viewable only to registered members. The skeptics forum was that way for a while, too.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Well, I limit most of my searches to .edu and .gov domains, so perhaps I miss a lot of that :)

Probably. I find that I end up with a search string of "<stuff i'm looking for> -<ct website> -<ct website> -<ct website> -<ct website> etc"

[kookbreaker]

Not there now. Following the link returns an error.


Can woowoo's make a theory so goofy that even they can't stand it?

[Hutch]

....If they ever do, must be problems in giving a name, location, and birthdate--heck, some regulars here left because of the rule, can you imagine the CT'ers take on asking for that info???

Anyway, rather than keep this thread going-to very likely answer the same questions again--I would propose that 4-5 threads be started with titles much like a HS Debate for each of the major topics. For example:

Resolved: Flight 77 Hit the Pentagon

Resolved: Flight 93 Crashed in Pennsylvania

Resolved: Flights 11 and (sorry, I vapor lock) hit the WTC 1 and 2.

Resolved: WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by demolition charges

Resolved: WTC 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition

This would at least quantify the arguments and focus them on the major points, rather than being all over the place like this thread and also will dispense with some of the odder ideas (Icke's reptiles, explosives in concrete)

Just a though if/when the LC'ers get approval.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can woowoo's make a theory so goofy that even they can't stand it?

As a whole? No. On an individual basis? Yes.

[Correa Neto]

All I can get is a
You do not have permission to view this topic
Message.

And checking LC forum main page I can not find a link to Alternative Theories. Quite possibly, its only for members.

[CFLarsen]

I'm there. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4910&st=0&#entry4727506)

[Hutch]

I'm there. (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4910&st=0&#entry4727506)

Now they're for it; JREF has deployed its WMP (Weapon of Mass Posting) :eek: :cool:

Seriously, I think that is why the few skeptics posting there cause so much consternation--I mean, they reference a Danish newspaper, we have a bloody Dane to rebut it. They are quite unused to having people with knowledge and skills opposing them, IMHO.

[pgwenthold]

P.S. This is what the alphabet would look like if R & Q were eliminated.

Hey, you took that from Mitch Hedberg's letter to his dad!

(I think it was Mitch Hedberg - there is another comedian named Mitch that is kind of similar, but in a cruder way - Ducks eat free at Subway!)

[CFLarsen]

Now they're for it; JREF has deployed its WMP (Weapon of Mass Posting) :eek: :cool:

Hehehe....

Seriously, I think that is why the few skeptics posting there cause so much consternation--I mean, they reference a Danish newspaper, we have a bloody Dane to rebut it. They are quite unused to having people with knowledge and skills opposing them, IMHO.

Yep, I noticed the flustered responses too.

Gee, someone could actually check what they claimed. And rebut it too, by pointing out that the story came from AP and not the Danish journalist!

One false story down, a million to go...

[money]

Wow, this thread is up over 100,000 views. That's pretty impressive...

[Pardalis]

oh man, i hope this thread is a joke, if not then...i dont even know, im speechless

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4711&view=findpost&p=4627571

Forget about all the physical evidence and basic logic to try to convince anyone that LC is wrong. All we need to do is show anybody who is "on the fence" some of these LC threads and they'll realise how nuts these conspiracists are.

[Gravy]

Not there now. Following the link returns an error. ETA: weird, you have to log in to see it. I wonder if "Alternative Theories" is viewable only to registered members. The skeptics forum was that way for a while, too.
I simply couldn't allow that thread to go on, so I psychically vampirically sucked it off the site.

Now they're for it; JREF has deployed its WMP (Weapon of Mass Posting) :eek: :cool:

Seriously, I think that is why the few skeptics posting there cause so much consternation--I mean, they reference a Danish newspaper, we have a bloody Dane to rebut it. They are quite unused to having people with knowledge and skills opposing them, IMHO.
That Ekstra Bladet article made as much sense to me as anything i've seen on the LC forum, and I don't speak Danish.

[dubfan]

I simply couldn't allow that thread to go on, so I psychically vampirically sucked it off the site.

If only. I just talked to one of the mods over there. The "Alternative Theories" Forum should be visible to non-members now.

[Mr. Skinny]

Wow, this thread is up over 100,000 views. That's pretty impressive...
Not really. 237.5 of those views are mine. We government shills have to monitor the thread closely, but only post the occasional disinformation needed to prop up the "Skeptics Theory (ST)" We ST'ers are sneaky that way!:)

Edited for mis-acronyming?

[WildCat]

This would at least quantify the arguments and focus them on the major points, rather than being all over the place like this thread and also will dispense with some of the odder ideas (Icke's reptiles, explosives in concrete)
Hutch, CT'ers cannot stay on topic, it's programmed into their DNA. I guarantee you their first post in the Pentagon thread would involve WTC 7.

[hellaeon]

Unfortunately not a joke, just another moron. This is from that guy's website: (http://www.xanga.com/pr0mythius)


But the funniest thing on that thread is when "Terrorcell" gets involved with a "correction."

Isnt the planet Tiamat, and expected every 3600 years?
I need to go and get my 12th planet book!

[Beleth]

Originally Posted by Beleth http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1654812#post1654697):
What exactly would be investigated?

I mean, the physical evidence is pretty well gone. Wherever it went, be it China or Jersey or that warehouse they put the Ark of the Covenant, the physical evidence has all been moved and cooled.

Videos? That's being done constantly anyway.

Eyewitness testimony? Given that memories change after the fact, these aren't going to be of much use either.

Sekrit gubmint files? If they exist, we'll never see them. Not for another 50 years at least.

So what is left?
So in your opinion, NIST's soon to be released report of the collapsing of WTC7 will be inconclusive?

Videos of police and firefighter testimony of hearing explosives might be as useful of an evidence as videos of a plane hitting the pentagon?

If the fbi and the cia failed to connect the dots prior to sept 11, how were they able to name 19 hijackers within a week of the attacks? Simply by looking at the passenger manifest including the arab-sounding names? If these names are on the terrorist watch list, how were they able to get in and out of the US with the visa prior to sept 11? Your questions don't answer my question.

What is left to investigate further?

[Correa Neto]

If only. I just talked to one of the mods over there. The "Alternative Theories" Forum should be visible to non-members now.
Thank you.

You just showed me drinking alcohol is not the only way to burn neurons. This one really sucks...

[NoZed Avenger]

Unfortunately not a joke, just another moron. This is from that guy's website: (http://www.xanga.com/pr0mythius)


Expertise: really messed up ****, the illuminati, anunnaki, psychic vampirism, witchcraft, giving advice(more like showing options, but yea), i pretty much become a mild expert at anything i show an interest in .. i'm the type to research stuff hardcore for months at a time


I hope his next project is "grammar and punctuation." Geeze.

[dubfan]

Thank you.

You just showed me drinking alcohol is not the only way to burn neurons. This one really sucks...

It hurt me worse than it hurts you.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<Gomer Pyle>
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
</Gomer Pyle>

Arkan_Wolfshade,
Your member account at Loose Change Forum has been temporarily suspended.

Your account will not be functional until Jun 24 2006, 02:31 AM (depending on your timezone). This is an automated process and you do not need to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.

Board Address: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php

[dubfan]

Me too. Not sure what I did (or didn't do) to warrant the lesser punishment, though.

Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on May 26 2006, 08:29 AM.

ETA: looks like an IP ban, too.

[Ramooone]

The CT claim that silverstein made alot of money off the collapse of WTC 7 is completely untrue.

His lease only covered WTC 1 and 2. It was on the news today because of the new WTC7 opening up, they explained about how his lease and insurance worked and WTC7 was not part of it. if i can find the clip i'll post it.

[chucksheen]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.

[dubfan]

Welcome to the JREF forums, chuck.

[Pardalis]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Kind of a rude way to start, but welcome anyway...

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org

The site starts with :'It is the duty of EVERY citizen of Earth to view this film!!!"

Kind of demagogic isn't it?


b) Watch all documentaries and get informed

I suggest you read this entire thread too, should take you as long and it would inform you too.

c) Form an opinion

Already have, don't need advice from you.


d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

I will try to watch them, just for the sake of argument. But you have to read this whole thread as well.


UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.

All right already. Don't judge us before we have said anything. Keep it cool.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.

Two posts in and already he's being arrogant and calling names.

This should be short, but entertaining.

[Manny]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Welcome to the forums, C. Here's the thing: On the top list of videos, I've already seen LC, of course. Turns out, Every. Single. Material. Factual. Allegation. Is. False. That has been demonstrated by Gravy's as yet un-rebutted guide to that particular piece.

Then, moving to the second list of videos, I notice that the second video, the one which is bolded, is from a person, Jesse MacBeth, who was in fact not an Army Ranger and did not say or do the things he claims to have said or done-- indeed, there's no small question as to whether he was ever in the army at all!

So my question is this: If the very table of contents of your link is full of documented lies, what incentive does a fair-minded person have to spend literally 13 hours wading through the videos themselves?

[Regnad Kcin]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here...Dear Conspiracy Theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RK

[dubfan]

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs.

70 Million Americans Can't Be Wrong! (http://universalseed.org/)

If that wasn't enough to get your attention, the site also features a prominent, highlighted link to discredited fraud Jesse Macbeth.

FWIW, I started your challenge. Viewed Pentagon Strike, Thermite Experiments, South Tower Collapse, and of course, have already seen Loose Change.

Nothing new in any of these.

Not an auspicious debut, chuck.

[Pardalis]

Now I'm almost half-way throught the first movie (I admit I fast-forwarded alot of the long bits and the interview with the non-expert-in-anything-witness-from-the-other-side-of-the-river-guy). They are trying to make us believe that there were multiple explosions before the first collapse. But they only rely on the footage of a camera set on the other side of the river, so we can't really see or hear anything (except some wind blowing into the camera's mic).

There's also speculations about helicopter having something to do with the collapse because of "suspicious" flashes of light... Gosh... How can I take this seriously?

Anyway, just for the sake of argument, I'll finish watching it...

[bob_kark]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.

Charles! Glad to see you finally made it! I had a question for you. What type of explosives were used to demolish the WTC?

[hellaeon]

Dear Conspiracy Theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RK

hahahaha

Interesting to note members from here are told to practice tolerance?

Anyway, ill have a squiz to, the good thing about it is perhaps another wave of properly researched critiques can be made from these other vids?

I'd like to ask CS, what do you think could explode in a building besides explosives? nothing?

Does it disturb you that the official story stays very much the same and only expands as answers are found but every conspiracy theory is beaten, changed, mangled, manipulated to fit the 'current' facts? - each supported by similar distorted half truths and misquotes, illogic

[karim]

chucsheen Google Jesse Macbeth. Looks like he's not quite honest. And by the way I just visited an islamic forum and there it was, Jesse Macbeth video. Can you guess the reaction. So thank you "Jesse Machbeth" for making the anger even more deeper.

[Gravy]

Howdy, sports fans.

I've been thinking about the problem of people coming here for our take on 9/11 issues and quickly being overwhelmed. Not wanting to repeat the same arguments, we ask newcomers to read this thread before debating us. While that may be a good idea, I doubt if many people have the time or patience to make it through 4,600 posts.

I've made a clickable index of what I consider to be the most informative (and a few of the funniest) of the recent 9/11 posts here and on other JREF 9/11 threads. It's an Excel spreadsheet, and the link to it is in my signature below. Any spreadsheet program should open it.

The index only goes back to November, 2005, so I apologize to anyone who posted great 9/11 material before that. I reviewed over 7,000 posts, and that's enough for now!

The spreadsheet file has three pages (tabs at the bottom of the window), each with the same links but sorted differently:
Page 1: sorted by category
Page 2: sorted by date, oldest to newest (links contain chronological page and post numbers)
Page 3: sorted by poster.

Of course, you can sort this info any way you like, create more categories, highlight your favorite entries, etc. To save time I made just a few broad categories.

To me, by far the most interesting info is in the "Conspiracy Thought" category. It's a clinic on critical thinking and how to confront complex questions – and difficult people – logically. Thanks to everyone who contributed. I can't tell you how many times I had "Why the hell didn't I think of that?" experiences while reading your posts.

I hope this will be a useful resource for newcomers and old-timers alike.

-G

[CptColumbo]

I only have dial-up, so I'm afraid you have to present your arguments in your own words.

I'm sorry we don't have cool smilies here, we just have good posts.

[Gravy]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.
Welcome, chucksheen!
First, I'd like to point out that there's more than one way to take this statement:
If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention.
I've been extremely appalled since I started looking into the truth behind 9/11 conspiracy claims, including the claims made in several videos on your list.

I probably won't get to all of the items on that list soon. I've seen LC2 and 911 Eyewitness, and I'm familiar with the work of Jones and Griffin. Aside from those, which video do you recommend first as being particularly impressive and accurate?


edited to rearrange

[Pardalis]

Man, I can't watch this junk, this is torture! Forget it, I can't do it.

Chuck, why don't you raise a specific question regarding 9/11 and we'll try our best to debate it, because this is indeed a discussion forum, not a boxing arena. I'm afraid your "challenge" to watch all these "movies" is just humanly impossible to accomplish. You win. It's too horribly wrong and insane.

Now lets debate.
pardalis

[karim]

There's also speculations about helicopter having something to do with the collapse because of "suspicious" flashes of light... Gosh... How can I take this seriously?

Yeah, what are they trying to say or what have flashes from a chopper got to do with the collapse. I guess it's up to us trooth seekers to make our own minds. It could have something to do with alien technology, right?


Chucsheen, I watched the "road to tyranny" like two years ago and at that time it was like the most hilarious film I'd ever seen. AJ is crazy but in an entertaining way if you don't take him too seriously. ;)

[Pardalis]

I've made a clickable index of what I consider to be the most informative (and a few of the funniest) of the recent 9/11 posts here and on other JREF 9/11 threads.

Wow, what a brilliant and resourceful guy you are Gravy! This will come in handy!

I was starting to think the large extent of this thread would become it's own flaw, that newcomers wouldn't dare to read it because of that.

Great work Gravy!

[dubfan]

Scholars for 9/11 Truth buy into the Jesse MacBeth fraud (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArWeAreTerrorists23May2006.html).

[chipmunk stew]

Me too. Not sure what I did (or didn't do) to warrant the lesser punishment, though.



ETA: looks like an IP ban, too.*sigh*
stipmunk chew,
Your member account at Loose Change Forum has been temporarily
suspended.

Your account will not be functional until Jun 24 2006, 02:27 AM
(depending on your timezone). This is an automated process and you do not need
to do anything to expediate the unsuspension process.

Board Address: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php)
I didn't even stray from the Skeptics forum...

[fsol]

All that measuring of photos to "prove" the drone theory reminds me somewhat of all that measuring of photos to "prove" that Patty exists.

"No no, it's all in the ratios..."

[SezMe]

Dear Conspiracy Theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RK
Rk, this seems to be a damn poor way to welcome a new poster. Sure, he may have proven himself a nutter elsewhere, but I have not been "elsewhere" so have no preconceived notion; I suspect the same is true for most others on this forum. If he is "100% wrong" welcome him with open arms and let the facts fall where they may. Let the EVIDENCE prove him "100% wrong". Your "welcome" is anything but. Sure we're skeptics but let the sketicism work, not your harsh prejudgement.

[SezMe]

It's an Excel spreadsheet, and the link to it is in my signature below.
Why did you put it in your sig? I have sigs turned off so can't get at it. Why not just imbed the link in your post? With the link in your sig, it will show up in Humor, Forum Management, or wherever else you may post. It will be irrelevant there. But putting it in your post will attrack the attention of those who are reading this thread and, thusly, really interested.

[Ducky]

Why did you put it in your sig? I have sigs turned off so can't get at it. Why not just imbed the link in your post? With the link in your sig, it will show up in Humor, Forum Management, or wherever else you may post. It will be irrelevant there. But putting it in your post will attrack the attention of those who are reading this thread and, thusly, really interested.


Conversely, I also show up in humor, forum management and wherever else and am rather irrelevent there too.

[kookbreaker]

Me too. Not sure what I did (or didn't do) to warrant the lesser punishment, though.

ETA: looks like an IP ban, too.

Looks like their little dictator instincts kicked in again.

I expect Hutch and Claus to be banned by the end of the day.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It's reaching critical mass over there. I fully expect massive bannings of everyone that does not follow the Gospel of Dylan in the near future.

I want my million from Randi! :D

Mine's just an account ban, not an IP ban (or at least not my home IP, find out if my work IP is banned when I get there)

[aggle-rithm]

Man, I can't watch this junk, this is torture! Forget it, I can't do it.

Chuck, why don't you raise a specific question regarding 9/11 and we'll try our best to debate it, because this is indeed a discussion forum, not a boxing arena. I'm afraid your "challenge" to watch all these "movies" is just humanly impossible to accomplish. You win. It's too horribly wrong and insane.



Maybe it's like that movie "The Circle", and your brain will explode in seven days if you don't make copies and distribute it...

No, I'm sure that's not true. Try not to think about it. ;)

[Shrinker]

I want my million from Randi! :D

Mine's just an account ban, not an IP ban (or at least not my home IP, find out if my work IP is banned when I get there)
I wonder what our new (and very welcome) guest, chucksheen has to say about this?

Chucksheen, what is the real-life equivalent of a forum account suspension? If the US government were comprised entirely of LC forum moderators, what would happen to people who engaged in political debate?

[kookbreaker]

It looks like Gravy is really, really getting to poor old Dylan.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/05/do-something.html

Now he has to refer to 'sekrit nowlege' to back up his laughable arguements.

[Gravy]

Why did you put it in your sig? I have sigs turned off so can't get at it. Why not just imbed the link in your post? With the link in your sig, it will show up in Humor, Forum Management, or wherever else you may post. It will be irrelevant there. But putting it in your post will attrack the attention of those who are reading this thread and, thusly, really interested.
I'll admit I forgot that the sigs could be turned off. If I get more requests I'll reconsider what I've done. Here's why I posted the link in my sig:

Visibility: I've made 716 posts. If anyone, from here or via any search engine, goes to any post of mine, they'll see the links in my sig.

Flexibility: I've already revised the document twice, and plan to do so weekly.

Portability: I like to think that the documents I link to, and the reasons that I created them, are relevant wherever I post on this forum, and I hope others pick up on the idea. For instance, since you mentioned it, I'd love to see someone's personal "best of the Humor subforum."

I like the way this forum is organized, and I like its ease of use. My dream forum would include the option for a poster to enter more metadata (category, subject, keywords, etc.) as well as for a reader to be able to flag favorite posts, so that everything could be sorted like a database and we could each have a favorites list in any category or thread.

[Belz...]

The real problem, as I see it, is that thanks to Vietnam, Watergate, and the scandals since then, we now have whole generations of intelligent people in the United States, who simply do not believe anything authority tells them. They are completely cynicized, regard everything but urban legends, conspiracy theories, and Comedy Central as being part of some grand conspiracy, and nothing but liars.

They don't trust anybody...except their psychic. :boggled:

Nice post, man. Welcome.

[Gravy]

So that's three JREF bans in one day at LC? Does anyone have any idea why? Did group 2 forget to stay after class?

By the way, does anyone expect chucksheen to show up here again to actually discuss anything? I certainly don't.

[Hutch]

Looks like their little dictator instincts kicked in again.

I expect Hutch and Claus to be banned by the end of the day.

Well, as of 0630 CST Thursday, I am still in there; maybe because I have been nibbling around the edges and haven't gone head-to-head on any of the big-ticket items.

We shall see.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So that's three JREF bans in one day at LC? Does anyone have any idea why? Did group 2 forget to stay after class?

By the way, does anyone expect chucksheen to show up here again to actually discuss anything? I certainly don't.

Mu. He'll brag at LCf (1) we won't "watch the movies and learn the truth".

[Belz...]

oh man, i hope this thread is a joke, if not then...i dont even know, im speechless

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4711&view=findpost&p=4627571

Agh!

Man, I'd really HATE to find out the whole alien bit is true.. I don't think I can handle another traumatic awakening on top of the 911 one...

Is there an eye-twitching smiley ?? I'm feeling a stroke coming on...

[Belz...]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.

What's your point, really ?

[WildCat]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.
Chuck, this is not the way things work around here. This is not a movie critic forum - it's a forum for debating facts and forming opinions based on those facts that pass muster.

You've done what every other Loose Change afficiendo has done, which is simply to post links to movies, conspiracy web sites, and threads in conspiracy forums. That dog don't hunt here.

I've lurked on the LC forum enough to know that there probably aren't 2 people there who agree on a single conspiracy theory - pod or no pod? Missile or drone? Bombs or thermite? Etc etc...

So, why don't you stick around here and argue your beliefs in your own words. You will not be banned here simply for disagreeing, a far cry from the LC forum.

So how about you post your theory of what happened on 9/11, and the reasons why you think so. Then we have a starting point for a debate.

Good luck!

[WildCat]

It looks like Gravy is really, really getting to poor old Dylan.

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/05/do-something.html

Now he has to refer to 'sekrit nowlege' to back up his laughable arguements.
Haha!This is great news, poor little Dylan!
Stop bitching about our movie, and make your own. Prove us wrong, instead of relying on petty insults and ridiculous assumptions about three people you know nothing about, except maybe our names.

Now that is rich! What is it w/ these people and movies? Does everything have to be in movie form to be admissable as evidence?
If you really want somewhere to shoot your mouth off, again, that's what the forums are for. Go nuts.
Perhaps we have the reason for the recent suspensions there?

[Gravy]

It looks like Gravy is really, really getting to poor old Dylan.
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/05/do-something.html
Now he has to refer to 'sekrit nowlege' to back up his laughable arguements.
From Avery's blog
If you guys really knew what went on behind the scenes 24-7, and if you actually took the time to meet us in person before drawing conclusions about us or our work, then your assinine websites and your "Viewer Guides" would drop off the radar pretty damn quick.
Dylan, you're forgetting two things:

1) I asked you guys in person (I asked Bermas while you were there), "Do you stand behind your work?" He said "Damn right." So what's this about "drawing conclusions?" Since we aren't in your inner sanctum, on what should we base our conclusions if not on the work that you produce, feverishly promote, and boast about?

2) I REQUESTED a meeting with you before your last visit to New York. Why didn't you respond? If you can show me that you've taken a drastic turn towards producing valid work, I think I can be influential in changing people's minds here.

I'm posting this here because you haven't responded to my emails, your mods have banned me from your site (although I broke no rules), and you no longer allow comments on your blog.

Here's something to think about: I never would have produced my "Viewer's Guide" if your website allowed free discussion. In the past few hours three more JREF people have been banned from that site. Perhaps you can explain how this is in keeping with a search for knowledge.

[Gravy]

Did you know that the Loosers are expecting a tsunami to hit the east coast of the U.S. today?

No, really. They are.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4933&view=getnewpost

[Darat]

Did you know that the Loosers are expecting a tsunami to hit the east coast of the U.S. today?

No, really. They are.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4933&view=getnewpost

As are we: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660513#post1660513

I can do you an inflatable dinghy - it's yours for the deeds to your house...

[Hutch]

.....What is it w/ these people and movies? Does everything have to be in movie form to be admissable as evidence?

I have noticed that too, Wildcat; it seems that virtually every thread is some type of video, usually "proving" a particular POV.

My hypothesis is that many of who we are talking to over there are fairly young (20-somethings) who have grown up and with video and computer/internet all of their lives. To them, what is on tape and played over the net IS REALITY--and they accept it as same. I won't say all of us here are old fogeys, but most of us have been known to read a book or to or search for solid and verifiable sources, with the math and science to back it up.

And that, IMHO, is very scary for the future. Very scary indeed.

[chipmunk stew]

I have noticed that too, Wildcat; it seems that virtually every thread is some type of video, usually "proving" a particular POV.

My hypothesis is that many of who we are talking to over there are fairly young (20-somethings) who have grown up and with video and computer/internet all of their lives. To them, what is on tape and played over the net IS REALITY--and they accept it as same. I won't say all of us here are old fogeys, but most of us have been known to read a book or to or search for solid and verifiable sources, with the math and science to back it up.

And that, IMHO, is very scary for the future. Very scary indeed.Don't worry. I was young and stupid once, too--and not terribly long ago.

[kookbreaker]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here.

Here is the challenge should you accept:

a) Visit UniversalSeed.org
b) Watch all documentaries and get informed
c) Form an opinion
d) Respond and THEN debunk the claims

Practice tollerance. Character assasination attempts help no one. I am looking for informed, honest, researched discussion. I have looked at all the information put forth advocating the official story. If you have smoking guns I will be willing to listen to you AFTER you watch the documentaries/films.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs. If you're not appalled, you're not paying attention. Wilfull ignorance and childish naivity is like blood to the coyotes, we can smell/taste the ignorance.


Dear CHUCKSHEEN,

Thank you for your submission of _STOCK PHRASES_ and _CHEST BEATING COMMENTARY_.

We regret that we must refuse your sumbission for now as it:

( ) Does not suit our present needs
( ) Clashes with the decor
( ) Is not OCEA certified
(*) We already have ample supply of _STOCK PHRASES & CHEST BEATING COMMENTARY_

Please note that if 'ample supply' is checked, we request that you do not resubmit your submission, as in many cases a little of these things goes a long way.

Thank you for your continued interest,

The Management

[Gravy]

As are we: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660513#post1660513

I can do you an inflatable dinghy - it's yours for the deeds to your house...
Aah, but our thread started with a smiley face...a BIG GREEN smiley face.

Hmm. That could just mean the poster doesn't live on the east coast.

Now I'm bummed that I sold my canoe last year.

[Pardalis]

Now I'm bummed that I sold my canoe last year.

What about a kayak?;)

[Pardalis]

I have noticed that too, Wildcat; it seems that virtually every thread is some type of video, usually "proving" a particular POV.

My hypothesis is that many of who we are talking to over there are fairly young (20-somethings) who have grown up and with video and computer/internet all of their lives. To them, what is on tape and played over the net IS REALITY--and they accept it as same. I won't say all of us here are old fogeys, but most of us have been known to read a book or to or search for solid and verifiable sources, with the math and science to back it up.

And that, IMHO, is very scary for the future. Very scary indeed.

Chucksheen's: "Here is the challenge should you accept" did sound alot like "Mission Impossible".

[Stellafane]

I challenge any rational, reasonable, critical thinker here...[typical CT stupidity that proves he doesn't know the meaning of rational, reasonable, or critical...or thinker for that matter]

Welcome, chucksheen. Assuming that you're the real Chuck Sheen (and not just one of those lonely little boys who wishes he were), are you still dating whores?

(I know I know, ad hom, ad hom...)

[chipmunk stew]

Don't worry. I was young and stupid once, too--and not terribly long ago.I was never this stupid, though:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4831

[sophia8]

Welcome, chucksheen. Assuming that you're the real Chuck Sheen (and not just one of those lonely little boys who wishes he were), are you still dating whores?

(I know I know, ad hom, ad hom...)Oh, leave him alone! He's only little - go pick on somebody your own size...

Anyway, welcome Chuck. In response to your challenge, how about you reading through every single post on this thread, then giving us your opinion?

[Pardalis]

I was never this stupid, though:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4831

According to these CT nuts, there seems to have been an inordinate number of flashes of light that day (on the second plane, on helicopters, before and during the collapse). Wouldn't it be possible that it was because this was early in the morning and the sun was still low when these pictures were taken (thus these flashes could be simply light reflections on metal) ? Why jump to the conclusion that these were explosions?

100% proof? Give me a break.

[Belz...]

I'll admit I forgot that the sigs could be turned off. If I get more requests I'll reconsider what I've done. Here's why I posted the link in my sig:

Visibility: I've made 716 posts. If anyone, from here or via any search engine, goes to any post of mine, they'll see the links in my sig.

Flexibility: I've already revised the document twice, and plan to do so weekly.


Great ressource, Gravy. Once again, you are our saviour.

Didn't expect to find some of my own posts in there. Thanks!

[Belz...]

Did you know that the Loosers are expecting a tsunami to hit the east coast of the U.S. today?

No, really. They are.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4933&view=getnewpost

<Giggling uncontrolably>

[Kiwiwriter]

If that wasn't enough to get your attention, the site also features a prominent, highlighted link to Jesse MacBeth.

FWIW, I started your challenge. Viewed Pentagon Strike, Thermite Experiments, South Tower Collapse, and of course, have already seen Loose Change.

Nothing new in any of these.

Not an auspicious debut, chuck.

What amuses and frightens me at the same time about these conspiracy theories is that they all seem to wind down to the same basic idea, in the end: rehashing the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." In the end, they all blame the same target: Satan's tools, the evil Jews.

If there hadn't been so much genocidal slaughter over the centuries because of this idiotic theory -- more survivable than cockroaches after a nuclear war -- it would be funny.

And if there really was a "Jewish conspiracy," I'd be earning a LOT more money.

[Abbyas]

So that's three JREF bans in one day at LC? Does anyone have any idea why? Did group 2 forget to stay after class?

Four. I was also suspended. No idea why.

[Kiwiwriter]

Excellent post, Kiwiwriter. And welcome to the forum!

And your warm words.

I also applaud your use of Mr. Peabody as your avatar. He was always one of my favorite cartoon characters.

Back in my misspent days as a Navy radio broadcaster, I did Bullwinkle the Moose on radio spots, but we had a guy who did him better, so we did a spot in which Bullwinkle (him) pulls Marvin the Martian (me) out of that hat.

The conspiracy theories about 9/11 irritate me on so many levels. Not only because of my intense dislike of such nonsense, but because I'm on Newark's Emergency Operations and Homeland Security Committees. On 9/11, I wrote the press releases and statements from the city to our residents from our command center. All the federal, state, county, and city agencies were there, activated.

I can assure you...they were taken by complete surprise, too.

Another one that irritates me is the story that 4,000 Jews were "warned to leave" New York and the World Trade Center. Those obviously did not include my brother, my wife, my best friend's wife, the executive director of the Port Authority (Neil Levin); and the executive secretary of the PA, who was a high school classmate, Daniel Bergstein. The latter two died in the North Tower.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can understand extremely complicated conspiracy theories, heavily dependent on "dangerous speculation," but can't accept or understand simple answers. I often wonder if the conspiracy theory precedes the event or the other way around.

[kookbreaker]

Four. I was also suspended. No idea why.

Thoughtcrime.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thoughtcrime.

Well that's double-plus ungood!

[Kiwiwriter]

Well that's double-plus ungood!

Obviously, you don't "bellyfeel Ingsoc."

I'm amused that the authors of a conspiracy theory DVD that questions the government would ban commentary on their own words. But I've noticed a similar thing in Holocaust denial...they will tolerate no criticism of Adolf Hitler, no matter how mild.

"Loose Change is double-plus goodful duckspeak!" :D

[Gravy]

What about a kayak?;)
Sorry, one blade is all a man needs if he knows how to use it.

[kookbreaker]

Obviously, you don't "bellyfeel Ingsoc."

I'm amused that the authors of a conspiracy theory DVD that questions the government would ban commentary on their own words. But I've noticed a similar thing in Holocaust denial...they will tolerate no criticism of Adolf Hitler, no matter how mild.

"Loose Change is double-plus goodful duckspeak!" :D

Loose change forum rectify. Milliplentyfy skeptic thoughtcrime. Rectify. Skeptic unperson. Minitrue forum plusgood Goodthink. Dylan Avery doubleplusgood!

[Gravy]

The conspiracy theories about 9/11 irritate me on so many levels. Not only because of my intense dislike of such nonsense, but because I'm on Newark's Emergency Operations and Homeland Security Committees. On 9/11, I wrote the press releases and statements from the city to our residents from our command center. All the federal, state, county, and city agencies were there, activated.

I can assure you...they were taken by complete surprise, too.

Another one that irritates me is the story that 4,000 Jews were "warned to leave" New York and the World Trade Center. Those obviously did not include my brother, my wife, my best friend's wife, the executive director of the Port Authority (Neil Levin); and the executive secretary of the PA, who was a high school classmate, Daniel Bergstein. The latter two died in the North Tower.

It never ceases to amaze me that people can understand extremely complicated conspiracy theories, heavily dependent on "dangerous speculation," but can't accept or understand simple answers. I often wonder if the conspiracy theory precedes the event or the other way around.
Welcome, Kiwiwriter. Your insights are very much appreciated here.

[SBrown]

Hi I am new here and was looking around a little bit and realized something I wanted information on. The 911 CT seems to be the biggest going right now, and the movement seems to be growing if you believe the Zogby poll.

So my question is if it is so easy to attack this movement and prove it wrong, why has James Randi himself not written anything that directly attacks and debunks the supposed holes that the CT'rs claim? It seems to me this would be better publicity and recognition for him than hunting silly psychics and dog intuitions?

If he does have attacked it could someone point me to his research?

Thanks

[chipmunk stew]

Hi I am new here and was looking around a little bit and realized something I wanted information on. The 911 CT seems to be the biggest going right now, and the movement seems to be growing if you believe the Zogby poll.

So my question is if it is so easy to attack this movement and prove it wrong, why has James Randi himself not written anything that directly attacks and debunks the supposed holes that the CT'rs claim? It seems to me this would be better publicity and recognition for him than hunting silly psychics and dog intuitions?

If he does have attacked it could someone point me to his research?

ThanksHow 'bout his email address: randi@randi.org

[Gravy]

Hi I am new here and was looking around a little bit and realized something I wanted information on. The 911 CT seems to be the biggest going right now, and the movement seems to be growing if you believe the Zogby poll.

So my question is if it is so easy to attack this movement and prove it wrong, why has James Randi himself not written anything that directly attacks and debunks the supposed holes that the CT'rs claim? It seems to me this would be better publicity and recognition for him than hunting silly psychics and dog intuitions?

If he does have attacked it could someone point me to his research?

Thanks
Welcome!
Couple of questions:

1) Why should we believe the Zogby poll, which was written by the leaders of 911truth.org?

2) Have you asked Mr. Randi?

[Mutton-Head]

I ran across this site, and had to comment

Forget for a moment the “conspiracy theory.” I always like to take it a step at a time. Let’s pretend we’re on CSI. (I think I’ve seen one episode.) Our first is task to determine: “What happened?” It’s not yet our job to determine “Who did it?” or “How many were involved?” or “How much did they spend?” or “Why did they do it?” These questions would be premature at this point.

Also, let’s keep it simple. I like to use the following rule:
If I can’t verify a piece of information, I throw it out. (For example, this witness said, this video is missing, I see missile launchers, etc. Yes, some or allot of this stuff is laughable.)
Let’s start with things that are incontrovertible. (At least as close to incontrovertible as one can get.)

A little physics.

An object falling to earth falls with a specific amount of force:
The mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

Mass x Acceleration = Force.

Think of this force as money in a bank account. You only have a specific amount that you can spend. No more.

It takes force to accelerate any object. Even a falling object.

When an object falls to earth, all of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Its force (M x A = F) is used-up (spent) to accomplish this acceleration. This is called free-fall. If any solid object is situated below this falling object, some of this “free-fall” force will be absorbed (used) (spent). The fact that steel beams are flying outwards, means that the force of the falling floors is being absorbed. The force is being used to accelerate the steel beams away from the tower. It doesn’t matter how fast they are flying, or at what angle, straight out or not, etc… Just the fact that steel beams landed hundreds of feet from the tower, shows that force (from the falling floors) was used (spent). Force was also used to cut up the vertical steel beams. All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long. Remember, we’re talking about steel below the point of impact, which wasn’t subject to fire, and so was still structurally sound. Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder. This like-wise took force.

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance.

(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)

The falling floors do not have enough force to accomplish all of these things. We know this just from watching the video, because, as stated, the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed. (Not quite, but only a few seconds more. This is judged by comparing the falling tower with the falling debris.)

Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually. It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)

As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.) But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder. It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.

As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account.

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from. Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with. This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print. This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash. But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)

Thanks for your time.

Please excuse the excessive use of alliteration.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Would Shermer do?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

editors' commentary on the response to the piece:
http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/05/a_conspiracy_of.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip for brevity>
(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)
</snip for brevity>

Show your math please.

[milesalpha]

I don't think this is quite Randi's field. Anyway I can't quite see what the 9/11 "truth" movement needs with another series of questions they can't answer.

[Gravy]

I ran across this site, and had to comment

Forget for a moment the “conspiracy theory.” I always like to take it a step at a time. Let’s pretend we’re on CSI. (I think I’ve seen one episode.) Our first is task to determine: “What happened?” It’s not yet our job to determine “Who did it?” or “How many were involved?” or “How much did they spend?” or “Why did they do it?” These questions would be premature at this point.

Also, let’s keep it simple. I like to use the following rule:
If I can’t verify a piece of information, I throw it out. (For example, this witness said, this video is missing, I see missile launchers, etc. Yes, some or allot of this stuff is laughable.)
Let’s start with things that are incontrovertible. (At least as close to incontrovertible as one can get.)

A little physics.

An object falling to earth falls with a specific amount of force:
The mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration due to gravity.

Mass x Acceleration = Force.

Think of this force as money in a bank account. You only have a specific amount that you can spend. No more.

It takes force to accelerate any object. Even a falling object.

When an object falls to earth, all of its potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. Its force (M x A = F) is used-up (spent) to accomplish this acceleration. This is called free-fall. If any solid object is situated below this falling object, some of this “free-fall” force will be absorbed (used) (spent). The fact that steel beams are flying outwards, means that the force of the falling floors is being absorbed. The force is being used to accelerate the steel beams away from the tower. It doesn’t matter how fast they are flying, or at what angle, straight out or not, etc… Just the fact that steel beams landed hundreds of feet from the tower, shows that force (from the falling floors) was used (spent). Force was also used to cut up the vertical steel beams. All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long. Remember, we’re talking about steel below the point of impact, which wasn’t subject to fire, and so was still structurally sound. Also, all of the concrete was turned into powder. This like-wise took force.

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance.

(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)

The falling floors do not have enough force to accomplish all of these things. We know this just from watching the video, because, as stated, the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed. (Not quite, but only a few seconds more. This is judged by comparing the falling tower with the falling debris.)

Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually. It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)

As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.) But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder. It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.

As I said, the equation is way out of balance. If you add up the cost of:
1.) accelerating the top floors to free-fall speed
2.) cutting beams into pieces
3.) throwing beams out away from the building
4.) pulverizing the concrete (and everything else) to powder.
… You have a total that was more than we had in our bank account.

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from. Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with. This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print. This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash. But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)

Thanks for your time.

Please excuse the excessive use of alliteration.

Since you know the "equations don't balance," please present your math.

[Shrinker]

the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed. (Not quite, but only a few seconds more.

Welcome Mutton-Head, I'm sure we all (especially the non-physics-experts) appreciate your detailed and hyperlink-free explanation. You have mixed up the concepts of force and energy pretty badly, but your point still works for me.

The above quote does not however. A 'few seconds' means a lot in freefall calculations. In this thread is has already been shown that the acceleration of the towers was only about 60-70% of freefall acceleration, even when using timings supplied by CT advocates. This means at least 30% of the potential energy of the tower was available for the destructive process you describe. That's A LOT.

[Hellbound]

Also, present your evidence that it "fell within it's own footprint", especially since your earlier statements contended that pieces of steel were thrown "hundreds of yards from the building". Also in light of the fact that buildings over a huge area were damaged by the fall, and photos of the aftermath clearly show debris shtrewn for a wide area outside the footprint.

[chipmunk stew]

All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long.
It wasn't "cut". The towers were built up in sections (look at your picture again). You didn't think they used 415-meter lengths of steel, did you?

We know this just from watching the video, because, as stated, the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed. (Not quite, but only a few seconds more. This is judged by comparing the falling tower with the falling debris.)
You seem to have a fairly good grasp of physics, but you need to hunker down and follow through. Since time is squared when you're dealing with acceleration, a few seconds ends up making a monumental difference, especially when you're dealing with masses as large as the WTC. Before you go any further, see if you can work out the ratio between energies of a mass falling 415 meters in 9.2 sec (time at free-fall) and one falling 415 meters in 14 sec (time at actual acceleration). The difference, you'll find, is quite large--sufficient to account for "lost" energy.

Another illustration to chew on: an object dropped from twice the height of the WTC would hit the ground only about 4 seconds after an object dropped from the top of the WTC.

As an experiment, take a high-rise building, and drop it on a bunch of concrete. (Yes I know, we can’t actually perform this experiment.) But I bet you would agree, the concrete would not turn to a fine powder. It would take more force than the mass of the building during free fall can supply.
Drop it from how high? If I drop it from a plane, not only would it be obliterated into a fine powder, but also it would cause a massive earthquake, levelling other surrounding structures.

[CurtC]

The fact that steel beams are flying outwards, means that the force of the falling floors is being absorbed. The force is being used to accelerate the steel beams away from the tower. It doesn’t matter how fast they are flying, or at what angle, straight out or not, etc… Just the fact that steel beams landed hundreds of feet from the tower, shows that force (from the falling floors) was used (spent).Your analysis confuses force and energy, but I can figure out what you mean. I agree that some of the energy of the collapsing tower would be used to pulverize the concrete and to fling those beams outwards.

But you can also see that the avalanche of collapse falls slower than the debris that's free-falling, right? For your analysis to be taken seriously, you need to actually do the math and show how much energy pulverizing the concrete, and flinging out beams takes, then show that the amount the building is slowed is not consistent with that. If you can't do that, you're just spouting hot air.

[chipmunk stew]

Welcome Mutton-Head, I'm sure we all (especially the non-physics-experts) appreciate your detailed and hyperlink-free explanation. You have mixed up the concepts of force and energy pretty badly, but your point still works for me.

The above quote does not however. A 'few seconds' means a lot in freefall calculations. In this thread is has already been shown that the acceleration of the towers was only about 60-70% of freefall acceleration, even when using timings supplied by CT advocates. This means at least 30% of the potential energy of the tower was available for the destructive process you describe. That's A LOT.Aw man, Shrinker already supplied you with the answer, Mutton-Head. Anyway, I suggest you still crank through the calculations on your own--it's mind-boggling when you realize the magnitude of the dynamics involved in the collapses. Don't go looking for a pre-conceived answer, though. Be honest with your variables and constants.

[CurtC]

I'll admit I forgot that the sigs could be turned off.Not only can sigs be turned off, but to me, that's the only way to read these forums. Avatars too. It's just clutter that's not needed.

You can also turn off sigs and avatars at the LC forum, which is almost a necessity over there. I've also used the Adblock extension in Firefox to block all their damn smileys, which makes reading that forum much more tolerable.

By the way, I have not been banned from the LC Forum. I was suspended a couple of weeks ago because I questioned TheQuest's opinions on depleted uranium, then by the help of dubfan the suspension was rescinded, and so far I'm still posting.

[Belz...]

The fact that steel beams are flying outwards, means that the force of the falling floors is being absorbed. The force is being used to accelerate the steel beams away from the tower.

So far so good. This means we don't need explosives...

What we end up with, is an equation that doesn’t balance.

Alarm bells start ringing.

(The force of the falling floors) = (free falling floors) + (steel beams cut into pieces) + (steel beams thrown away from building) + (pulverized and powdered concrete)

The falling floors do not have enough force to accomplish all of these things. We know this just from watching the video, because, as stated, the top floors fall at almost free-fall speed. (Not quite, but only a few seconds more. This is judged by comparing the falling tower with the falling debris.)

Not only do the falling floors not have enough power to accomplish these four things, they don’t even have enough power to accomplish each of the last two (throwing beams, pulverizing concrete) individually. It doesn’t even matter if the steel at the top of the towers was turned into melted butter. The vertical beams at the middle and bottom of the tower would be intact. (No fire, no plane impact) (I’ve included a picture of the tower being built. Judge for yourself how much vertical steel went into its construction. Notice in particular the vertical beams in the center section. These were omitted/ignored in the NIST report.)

So many pretty words, and so little actual demonstration. You, of course, DO have the actual mathematical calculations used to reach this conclusion, don't you ?

Of course you don't.

Oh, and welcome, and such.

[Belz...]

Not only can sigs be turned off, but to me, that's the only way to read these forums. Avatars too. It's just clutter that's not needed.

Weakling. ;)

[chipmunk stew]

Reporting to base:

Like I said this is NOT the UN it is loose Change and if you are NOT one of us and are NOT interested in the movement and are Here for sport....time to go hit the road they are here for sport only. That is a key word , they are NOT here for truth and are NOT here to promote Loose Change matter a fact they think the Movie is SH**...WTF....

The trolls/shills/feds will come and the F*** you will come and that is to be expected we will deal with them, but be goddamned if we are going to let members from another board that supports, promotes, and distributes a HIT PIECE on Loose Change come on this board and try to make us look like fools and argue until we are blue in the face, they hate this Movie and It's maker, they think CT are clowns and will NEVER join our Cause they believe what the Boss told them and are having a good laugh at what we post and discuss over here. We believe that the Boss has LIED to us and Killed 3,000 Civilians for crying out loud they were Americans at that.. This is NOT a Joke or a game or for sport. They @ JREF have there bi***es that come over here and "report" back to base

This is NOT the UN...if that were the case....Hell you might as well give Gravy an account on this board (LC) and have him post up his HIT PIECE in the Skeptics Forum. That should go over real well with Dylan and the Members Here

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4948&view=findpost&p=4753002

Oh, he just cracks me up! I just love having a good laugh at his expense! ROFLMAO!!!

Long live Teh BOSS!!!

[Manny]

All of the structural steel was cut into pieces no larger than 30 feet long. Remember, we’re talking about steel below the point of impact, which wasn’t subject to fire, and so was still structurally sound.Below is a picture of one of the conspirators cutting the steel into those convenient sections. He's obviously a slacker, as he has waited until after the buildings collapsed to do his job.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Reporting to base:



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4948&view=findpost&p=4753002

Oh, he just cracks me up! I just love having a good laugh at his expense! ROFLMAO!!!

Long live Teh BOSS!!!

Pet Peeve Rant Mode On

Killed 3,000 Civilians for crying out loud they were Americans at that..


Known country
Australia 3
Bermuda 1
Britain 1
Canada 5
China 2
Dominican Republic 1
El Salvador 1
England 11
Germany 6
Israel 1
Japan 3
Mexico 10
USA 2902

Known foreign citizenship
Australian 1
Belgian 1
Brazilian 3
British 67
Chinese 2
Colombian 17
Congonese 2
Ecuadorian 3
Filipino 15
French 1
German 5
Ghanaian 2
Guyanese 3
Haitian 2
Honduran 1
Indian 1
Indonesian1
Irish 1
Israeli 2
Italian 4
Ivory Coast 1
Jamaican 16
Japanese 23
Lebanese 3
Lithuania 1
Mexican 15
Moldavian 1
Nigerian 1
Peruvian 5
Portuguese 3
Russian 1
Swedish 1
Taiwanese 1
Ukrainian 1
Uzbek 1
Venezuelan 1

from http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm

9/11 affected the world, not just the US. And this brings up an additional gripe of mine. Why would it be, if the evidence points to this being a US gov't operation that _all_ of the above countries are not asking for Bush's head?

[chucksheen]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums. Videos speak many words and there are WAY too many posts here for me to read and carry on with my business.

2 quick must see videos:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4837634583766795751
BetterBadNews.com

[chipmunk stew]

CurtC demonstrates that they can't even get their "smoking gun" right.

Even after watching WTC7 collapse "about a million times", Roxdog missed the fact that the east penthouse collapsed about five seconds before the rest of the building started to collapse:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4733&view=findpost&p=4750036

[bob_kark]

Below is a picture of one of the conspirators cutting the steel into those convenient sections. He's obviously a slacker, as he has waited until after the buildings collapsed to do his job.

This one made me chuckle. You can't trust those union guys.

[chipmunk stew]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums. Videos speak many words and there are WAY too many posts here for me to read and carry on with my business.

Perhaps you can put a good word in for those of us who have been suspended:
Arkan_Wolfshade: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660156#post1660156
dubfan: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660169#post1660169
"stipmunk chew": http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660383#post1660383
Abbyas: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660943#post1660943

[Regnad Kcin]

Dear Conspiracy Theorist:

You are 100% wrong.

Love,

RKRk, this seems to be a damn poor way to welcome a new poster. Sure, he may have proven himself a nutter elsewhere, but I have not been "elsewhere" so have no preconceived notion; I suspect the same is true for most others on this forum. If he is "100% wrong" welcome him with open arms and let the facts fall where they may. Let the EVIDENCE prove him "100% wrong". Your "welcome" is anything but. Sure we're skeptics but let the sketicism work, not your harsh prejudgement.SezMe, perhaps you have not followed this thread and its peripherals as I have, and in addition conversed with numerous CTers, each of whom displays ignorance coupled with arrogance as if it were a bright shiny badge. You may also have also missed the set-up to my little note above, which might've helped you understand.

Still, I accept your criticism. Thanks.

[bob_kark]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums. Videos speak many words and there are WAY too many posts here for me to read and carry on with my business.

This one made me chuckle too. How can you have a serious debate when disagreeing with forum members gets you banned?

[money]

Oh, leave him alone! He's only little - go pick on somebody your own size...

Anyway, welcome Chuck. In response to your challenge, how about you reading through every single post on this thread, then giving us your opinion?

No way that's going to happen... after all, Xraye is obviously still working on it...

edit- oops I see he already owned up to it ten posts ago!

[chipmunk stew]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums. Videos speak many words and there are WAY too many posts here for me to read and carry on with my business.
If you want serious debaters over there, talk to jackchit:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660943#post1660943

Time to clean up.... and get rid of the smell.
I hold my hands up I'm the one who suspended the accounts as i could feel the frustration and anger towards the cretious thinkers from my friends on the board.
But hey you guys still have the jref forum to post your views and i'm sure if anyone is interested enough and has been swayed by the posts made here by the jref'ers they will be welcomed over there with open arms..

good luck guys, Jack

[Abbyas]

Perhaps you can put a good word in for those of us who have been suspended:
Arkan_Wolfshade: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...56#post1660156
dubfan: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...69#post1660169
"stipmunk chew": http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...83#post1660383
Abbyas: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...43#post1660943
__________________

How can I figure out why I was suspended? Or should I just not care.

[Abbyas]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums. Videos speak many words and there are WAY too many posts here for me to read and carry on with my business.

Or feel free to start a new topic. Maybe one with a specific point that can be discussed.

[Regnad Kcin]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums. Videos speak many words and there are WAY too many posts here for me to read and carry on with my business.

2 quick must see videos:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4837634583766795751
BetterBadNews.comNo, videos do not "speak many words." The eyes are often unreliable. (For examples of this, try clicking here (http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/).)

Sir, this is a forum dedicated to critical thinking. While this particular thread may be of epic length, it contains countless answers to your questions. Should you actually be interested in considered analysis of this topic, it would seem a relatively small task to read it though, a bit at a time. You will likely be enlightened.

Welcome to the forum.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Or feel free to start a new topic. Maybe one with a specific point that can be discussed.

Indeed, the more narrow the topic of discussion the better. I would, hestitatingly, suggest that perhaps it should be in the Politics forum.

[Hellbound]

How can I figure out why I was suspended? Or should I just not care.

Check chipmunk's post right before yours.

Apparantly, you were all suspended because "it was upsetting to the Loosers" to have to actually present valid evidence and use logic.

When their points were proven wrong, and you didn't respond to their arguments of "Is too!", they banned you, so they could continue with "open" debate.

OW!!!

Sorry, I think I just sprained by brain trying to do the mental gymnastics that Loosers do.

[Trifikas]

A few things to consider that might help out, as well. I admit this is overly simplified, others can flesh it out / correct mistakes as needed.

Remember those "Newton's Cradel" desktop toys? the 5 metal balls suspended In a line, and when you pull one away, and let it go, it hit's the line and the ball on the opposite end gets sent away? (and note that it takes practicly NO time for that transfer of energy to take place) That's your conservation of momentum at work. If you pull two of the five balls back, and release them, two go flying off from the other side.

Now, the tricky part - Pull back 3 balls. Since you have to conserve the momentum, when they collide with the other two, those two balls plus 1 of the three that were pulled back continue on. The mass has to be equal for the momentum to be conserved.

What does this have to do with WTC? Well, as the floors above the crash site drop, they have momentum. They impart that momentum onto the floors they crash into, so what you have isn't so much a collapse but a pile-driver breaking the floors below. You have "X" number of floors hitting one floor, some of the energy is lost breaking stuff, and the ball at the end of the line (in this case, the floor at the top of the Stack) loses it's momentum, but the rest of the mass keeps moving, it doesn't "Stop at each floor" like we've seen on some posts.

You don't see the top of the stack flying off at each floor because it's still effected by gravity, and still somewhat connected to the rest of the stack. So continues to be dragged down with the rest of the pile.

Now, your thinking, "wait a minute..It doesn't hit one floor, it hits the entire remaining mass of the tower". Well...yes and no.

Ever see a martial arts demonstration where they break many boards at once? Notice that they don't just stack the boards on top of each other, they have small "Spacers", maybe half an inch thick, between the boards? That's so you don't have to break the strength of all 10 boards (or however many), you just need the force to break 1 board 10 times. Some momentum is lost at each board, but the martial artist is still using his muscles to Compensate.

The WTC Towers are like that - each floor is a board, and are connected to the outside walls, the central colum, and various interior walls and such that act as the spacers do, making it easier for the X-number-of-stories mass to break through each floor. Now instead of trying to break the entire 70-some odd floors remaining, it only needs to do it one floor at a time. While a mathmatical amount of momentum is lost in each colision, Gravity was still accelerating the mass. Also, with the exception of what is ejected from the collision, each floor colided with adds its mass to the force comming down. even if it's pulverized, it still has mass, wich adds to the force applied on the floor below it.


Hope that makes sense, any corrections that need to be made, let me know. like I said, it's somewhat (allright, a lot) simplified. But the idea should be pretty clear.

[chipmunk stew]

Check chipmunk's post right before yours.

Apparantly, you were all suspended because "it was upsetting to the Loosers" to have to actually present valid evidence and use logic.

When their points were proven wrong, and you didn't respond to their arguments of "Is too!", they banned you, so they could continue with "open" debate.

OW!!!

Sorry, I think I just sprained by brain trying to do the mental gymnastics that Loosers do.It looks like they're starting to weed out the Skeptics subforum so that eventually they'll only be left with token skeptics who are easier to beat up on.

[kookbreaker]

If you want serious debaters over there, talk to jackchit:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1660943#post1660943

Wow. Sniveling intellectual cowardice at its most loathsome best. Have fun building your little fortress of fortitude, Loosers.

[Abbyas]

Apparantly, you were all suspended because "it was upsetting to the Loosers" to have to actually present valid evidence and use logic.

I guess it's not surprising. Some (not all) of those who question the government detest it when they, themselves are questioned.

Also, considering all the times I was called "b-tch", "bloodthirsty racist", "shill", "pathetic", etc, etc by those who believe, I can completely understand their needing to be protected from me.

It's exciting, I've never been suspended from a forum before! I have decided to blame the Illuminati.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Pet Peeve Rant Mode On


Known country
Australia 3
Bermuda 1
Britain 1
Canada 5
China 2
Dominican Republic 1
El Salvador 1
England 11
Germany 6
Israel 1
Japan 3
Mexico 10
USA 2902

Known foreign citizenship
Australian 1
Belgian 1
Brazilian 3
British 67
Chinese 2
Colombian 17
Congonese 2
Ecuadorian 3
Filipino 15
French 1
German 5
Ghanaian 2
Guyanese 3
Haitian 2
Honduran 1
Indian 1
Indonesian1
Irish 1
Israeli 2
Italian 4
Ivory Coast 1
Jamaican 16
Japanese 23
Lebanese 3
Lithuania 1
Mexican 15
Moldavian 1
Nigerian 1
Peruvian 5
Portuguese 3
Russian 1
Swedish 1
Taiwanese 1
Ukrainian 1
Uzbek 1
Venezuelan 1

from http://www.september11victims.com/september11victims/COUNTRY_CITIZENSHIP.htm

9/11 affected the world, not just the US. And this brings up an additional gripe of mine. Why would it be, if the evidence points to this being a US gov't operation that _all_ of the above countries are not asking for Bush's head?

Your list is off by about 20 canadians: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sep11/cdncasualties.html

But you make an excellent point. Knocking over the two biggest office buildings in the financial district of the financial capital of the worlds strongest economy will kill people from all over the world. Osama Bin Laden, for all his moral failings, is not a stupid person. He undoubtedly knew this and just didn't care. This war is for all of us, american or not.

[chipmunk stew]

I guess it's not surprising. Some (not all) of those who question the government detest it when they, themselves are questioned.

Also, considering all the times I was called "b-tch", "bloodthirsty racist", "shill", "pathetic", etc, etc by those who believe, I can completely understand their needing to be protected from me.

It's exciting, I've never been suspended from a forum before! I have decided to blame the Illuminati.Wow! "Bloodthirsty racist"? I'm jealous. Do you have a link to that thread?

[Hellbound]

IIt's exciting, I've never been suspended from a forum before! I have decided to blame the Illuminati.

Hey, don't blame us! We had nothing to do with this one!!

Um, that is, if we existed we wwouldn't have had anything to...Um..

I mean, ah...if the Illuminati existed, they, ah, would have had nothing to do with this.

Yeah, that's it.

:D

[aggle-rithm]

It's exciting, I've never been suspended from a forum before! I have decided to blame the Illuminati.

Hey! We had nothing to do with it! ;)

ETA: Dang, too slow!

[chucksheen]

The writing is on the wall. The cat is out of the bag. :catfight:

If you can prove the pancake theory, Jimmy Walters will reward you with $1,000,000. ReOpen911.org.

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs.

[kookbreaker]

Uh-oh! Double Illuminati claim posts!

[aggle-rithm]

Hey, don't blame us! We had nothing to do with this one!!

Um, that is, if we existed we wwouldn't have had anything to...Um..

I mean, ah...if the Illuminati existed, they, ah, would have had nothing to do with this.

Yeah, that's it.

:D

I've never seen you at the meetings!

Not that there ARE meetings....

[Hellbound]

I've never seen you at the meetings!

Not that there ARE meetings....

Wait, are you Illuminati People's Front? Or the People's Illuminati Front? Or the People's Front of Illuminati?

Please don't tell me you're part of that wussy Front of Illuminati Peoples!!!!

[kookbreaker]

The writing is on the wall. The cat is out of the bag. :catfight:


The pontoon is one the river..yadda.yadda.yadda.


If you can prove the pancake theory, Jimmy Walters will reward you with $1,000,000. ReOpen911.org.


No thanks. Like Ken Hovind's bogus 'challenge' I consider proving things to deliberately ignorant people with absurd standards to be a waste of time.


UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs.

Why are there so many lies on your source for truth?

[aggle-rithm]

Wait, are you Illuminati People's Front? Or the People's Illuminati Front? Or the People's Front of Illuminati?

Please don't tell me you're part of that wussy Front of Illuminati Peoples!!!!

The Illuminati Frontispiece. It's a splinter group.

[Kiwiwriter]

Welcome, Kiwiwriter. Your insights are very much appreciated here.

Happy to help out. As I say, after 25 years in journalism, growing up in a science-minded household, I have little tolerance for frauds, quacks, demented ideoogues, conspiracy theorists, and con men.

Most of my work in this field (which isn't much) actually deals with Holocaust deniers and their ilk, who share many of the character traits of the 9/11 whackos, down to the conspiracy theory claims...Holocaust deniers create a topsy-turvy world where a vast and unseen Jewish conspiracy has fabricated a Holocaust myth for various nefarious purposes, 9/11 nuts do the same thing with the attacks on America.

Both seem to be fueled heavily by anti-Semitism, as far as I can tell. It's interesting to see how web pages like iamthewitness.com, which is full of vicious anti-Semitic material, or Stormfront, blast the Jews and the events of 9/11. The general theory is that the Jews are behind it all.

I wrote a column about the "mythical Jewish conspiracy" at my web page at http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com which goes into this in more detail.

I sure wish there was one...it would make my life easier, as I wrote on the page.

Three questions for the veterans around here: how does the ranking system work, second, when can I put in a signature block and an avatar?

Third, my other favorite paranormal lunacies are psychic "predictions" and the Bermuda Triangle. I haven't heard much about the latter lately. Is there a thread about it on this site?

[Abbyas]

Wow! "Bloodthirsty racist"? I'm jealous. Do you have a link to that thread?

Would show you if I could, but I can't even read the thing. If I try, I get the suspended error message. But it was along the lines of Jennabel asking me to let go of my hate. Kind of a reverse Emperor Palpatine.

[Kiwiwriter]

Nice post, man. Welcome.

Thanks for that welcome. Interesting bunch of folks here. It's actually quite refreshing.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Would show you if I could, but I can't even read the thing. If I try, I get the suspended error message. But it was along the lines of Jennabel asking me to let go of my hate. Kind of a reverse Emperor Palpatine.

Delete the cookie from invisionfree.

[Kiwiwriter]

Loose change forum rectify. Milliplentyfy skeptic thoughtcrime. Rectify. Skeptic unperson. Minitrue forum plusgood Goodthink. Dylan Avery doubleplusgood!

Wow! You got it exactly! Winston Smith would be proud.

Unfortunately, you will have to visit Room 101. I hope they believe me when I tell them that my greatest fear involves having a bunch of my favorite actresses and me in a ritzy hotel room. :duck:

A more serious note on "1984," for anyone who doesn't know...when Eric Blair Jr. wrote that on a Scottish island, he was very sick with the TB that ultimately killed him. He said as he was finishing the book that if he hadn't been so sick, it might not have been so bleak.

There is also a clue that "Oceania" ultimately falls. Note the essay at the end about "Newspeak." It's written in the past tense, as if "Newspeak" is an old and dead language, being reviewed by a scholar of the future. Interesting.

[Kiwiwriter]

Also, present your evidence that it "fell within it's own footprint", especially since your earlier statements contended that pieces of steel were thrown "hundreds of yards from the building". Also in light of the fact that buildings over a huge area were damaged by the fall, and photos of the aftermath clearly show debris shtrewn for a wide area outside the footprint.

A very wide area...they were finding bits of WTC debris and paper on Brooklyn's Ocean Parkway. I remember someone finding a waybill from Bank of New Zealand lying on that road. It stood out in my mind because that's my bank back in New Zealand.

[chipmunk stew]

Most of my work in this field (which isn't much) actually deals with Holocaust deniers and their ilk, who share many of the character traits of the 9/11 whackos, down to the conspiracy theory claims...Holocaust deniers create a topsy-turvy world where a vast and unseen Jewish conspiracy has fabricated a Holocaust myth for various nefarious purposes, 9/11 nuts do the same thing with the attacks on America.And in some cases they're the same person.

See: Eric Hufschmid (and roll in moon-hoaxer while you're at it)

Welcome to the forums, Kiwiwriter.

[chipmunk stew]

Delete the cookie from invisionfree.I think the cookie's actually called "Loose_Change_Forum".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I think the cookie's actually called "Loose_Change_Forum".

Ah, the plugin I use with Firefox shows the domain info, not cookie name. My bad.

[kalen]

The Illuminati Frontispiece. It's a splinter group.

SPLITTERS!!

[Pardalis]

Welcome Kiwiwriter

What amuses and frightens me at the same time about these conspiracy theories is that they all seem to wind down to the same basic idea, in the end: rehashing the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." In the end, they all blame the same target: Satan's tools, the evil Jews.


I really don't understand why this particular ethnic group/religion is always the target for such accusations, throughout history. Good thing you have kept your sense of humour about it!;)


Welcome Mutton-Head

Our first is task to determine: “What happened?” It’s not yet our job to determine “Who did it?” or “How many were involved?” or “How much did they spend?” or “Why did they do it?” These questions would be premature at this point.

The next step then, would be to find out where this extra force came from. Explosives are the only plausible explanation that I can come up with. This also would solve the problem that the building collapsed symmetrically in its own foot-print. This has NEVER happened spontaneously, from a fire, or earthquake, or hurricane, or plane crash. But we have seen it occur hundreds of times from controlled demolitions. (Explosives inside the building at predetermined locations, exploded in a predetermined sequence.)


Aren't you jumping to conclusions here? Are "explosions" really the only possible conclusion to all your physics and "maths"?

This "second step", as you call it, inevitably leads to the third step, wich is to ask ourselves who on earth could possibly have planted these explosives, when and why and how? All these questions to me are completely absurd.

I'm in no way a physicist, or even a scientist, so you can take my opinion for what it's worth, but wouldn't the "pancaking effect" cause an increase of energy, adding more wheight and force as every floor collapse onto the next?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

SPLITTERS!!

Wait... was that the Peoples' Front of Judea, or the Judean Peoples' Front?

[Tailgater]

[QUOTE=Mutton-Head;1661105]I ran across this site, and had to comment

Forget for a moment the “conspiracy theory.” I always like to take it a step at a time. Let’s pretend we’re on CSI. (I think I’ve seen one episode.) Our first is task to determine: “What happened?” It’s not yet our job to determine “Who did it?” or “How many were involved?” or “How much did they spend?” or “Why did they do it?” These questions would be premature at this point.


When an object falls to earth.......blah blah....saving space
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This thread would not exist if we used the CSI method. It exists because loose change starts with "who did it?" and "why". Then goes to find reasons "how".

You are not adding the additional floors to your equation. If anything, it should accelerate as it goes down. More mass=more force to the rest of tower as it falls. I laugh when I see the picture of the towers with the arrows and caption saying "this has to smash this in this many seconds." That's like 3rd grade thinking.

The building was designed NOT to fall over even when one side loses support!!!!! It could only fall into itself!!!! Think there is an engineer report on NOVA that was earlier in thread that discussed it. Wasn't a bias piece on 911, but actually went in to the design of it. Sorry no time to look, maybe someone can link it. The thing was buillt like a vertical suspension bridge that also helped with its speed in falling.

A train derailed 15 houses down from me. I found a piece of metal in my yard. The train wasn't the tallest in the world. So what? Stuff crashing=stuff flying all over the place.

hmm....quote went very wrong

[Kiwiwriter]

And in some cases they're the same person.

See: Eric Hufschmid (and roll in moon-hoaxer while you're at it)

Welcome to the forums, Kiwiwriter.

Yes, Eric Hufschmid...that's a name I've heard....apparently he's the East Coast distributor of neo-Nazi weirdness/conspiracy theories/anti-Semitism. I hope there's a resource where I can look him up.

Yes, 9/11 nuts and Nazis are often one and the same. But once you're into the basic conspiracy theory that everything is controlled by a shadowy and powerful entity, then all these major events are connected.

The other interesting thing to me is the outrageous sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists attach to themselves. They act as if they are the center of the universe...always on the edge of defeat at the hands of their oppressors, while simultaneously leading a popular charge about to win victory to defeat those same opporessors. The reality is that outside of their fellow paranoids, nobody cares about them.

Also, the 9/11 butcher's bill includes one New Zealander.

[Kiwiwriter]

Welcome Kiwiwriter



I really don't understand why this particular ethnic group/religion is always the target for such accusations, throughout history. Good thing you have kept your sense of humour about it!;)



I subscribe to the Mel Brooks/Deborah Lipstadt theory...if you laugh at neo-Nazis and their ilk, make them look ridiculous, they cease to be a threat. They get off on frightening people...it gives them a sense of power and self-importance they do not merit or deserve. Laughing at them is better.

Deborah Lipstadt, who had to fight that noted neo-Nazi, David Irving, in London's libel courts, writes at the end of her book of the importance of slapping the jester's cap and bells on neo-Nazis, anti-Semites, and other lunatics. She's absolutely right.

As I say, I wrote about it on my web page, which is my plug, I guess.

[SBrown]

So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?

My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?

Thank you.

[kookbreaker]

The other interesting thing to me is the outrageous sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists attach to themselves. They act as if they are the center of the universe...always on the edge of defeat at the hands of their oppressors, while simultaneously leading a popular charge about to win victory to defeat those same opporessors. The reality is that outside of their fellow paranoids, nobody cares about them.


I've said it on this thread twice: Conspiracy theories are the opiates of the self-impressed.

On the bautforum, someone stated the relevance of CT'ers as this:

Conspiracy Theorists are like guard dogs that growl and bark at every shadow. In their minds, they think they are doing a wonderful job. In reality, they are worse than useless since they cause so many false alarms the real intruders get through.

[Abbyas]

Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?

Interesting question. I seriously doubt anyone here feels threatened by the 9/11 truth movement.

My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?

I'm sure you will get many responses to this, but there isn't anyone here that is stronger than anyone else. You will find that anyone that can present their case in a clear way that can stand up to the evidence or rebuttal will tend to earn the respect of this forum, new or regular poster.

Also, if there is another documentary or theory that you would like to discuss, please feel free to begin a new topic.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.

Who said that? I don't think anyone can speak for Mr. Randi except himself.


It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?

Well, delphi_ote started it. Literally, as his was the OP. LC seems to have the highest profile in mainstream media and, just as Sylvia, or Edwards, or Geller are high profile, you deal with those first as it is the easiest way to get the other side of the equation into visibility.


My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?
Thank you.
I think you'll find the majority of posters here deal with corrobatable evidence, sound logic, rational reasoning, and an effort to limit personal bias when viewing such things. Tenure, or whatever you want to call it that "stronger members" have is moot. If the evidence speaks for itself, is clear, and independently verifyable, you claim will have merit.

[kookbreaker]

So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum.


Maybe. I'd say it would be lightweight version of the euphoria JFK CTs felt after the release of the Ollie Stone movie. It eventually dries up a bit when people get a handful of facts in their system.


You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?


Loose Change is merely the latest popularization of the nonsense. We have covered stuff from Dr. Jones and a few others. Its all pretty much the same material when you get down to it. What you are then left with is a Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea situation.

Loose Change also gets a bit more attention due to the cult-leader antics of their lord and master, Dylan Avery.


My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?


If you look back you will see there are a handful. They are not as smart as they think they are, and they are very bad art forming arguements. Look up the following names: geggy, love, thesyntaxera and conspiracybeliever. All of these folks came here convinced from all the high-fiving and backslapping on the other forum that their arguements were effectively invincible. in fact, they were horribly wrong and very bad about admitting it.

Edited due to a big speling error.

[Pardalis]

Also, the 9/11 butcher's bill includes one New Zealander.

And some children, wich to me have no nationality.

[joseph k.]

I have lurked for awhile, so let my first post be rife with heartfelt thanks since it is highly deserved.
Thanks to Penn & Teller for introducing James Randi to me through some bullsh[8]t show. Thanks to James Randi for this forum and his many stellar works. Thanks to Gravy for the devastatingly thorough work he's done, as well as his continued and future efforts. I have sent tens of people over here, challenging them to take a jog through the gauntlet, and as expected none tried arguing their inane points. Hopefully they learned something, at least. I have also linked and/or sent the LC guides to anyone I know who bought a bit of that mirage-collage. Thanks to the insight and comic stylings of Delphi, nicK dangeR, i assume, Wildcat and many others. I needed laughs to unravel this excruciatingly twisted thread. It is over 115 pages of babysitting and I read every post, the very useful evidentiary links, as well as too many LC posts (sad, scary and funny all at once) .Thanks to folks like Geggy, Alek, Roxdog and the rest of the LC forum for providing themselves as perfect examples why these uncorroraborated theories are sad exercises in mastubatory cyclical [il]logic.

Again, thanks to everyone!!! You have made my life easier and this forum is like the beacon of sense for which I have been searching. Perhaps, I can find a way to help, though it hardly seems needed.


Sincerely,
David Icke


.................kidding.

Anyway here's a funny link you may or may not have seen from Mr. "Painful Questions":

www[dot]erichufschmid[dot]net/Axis_of_Perverts2[dot]html

k.

[chipmunk stew]

So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him.Please ask permission to post it here if he replies.

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?There are no other threads devoted to other 9/11 CT groups, but this thread touches on many of them, and Gravy has moved on to other groups in his formal critiques (see his sig). Loose Change became a focal point because of its rapid spread through Google video, and many of us had stumbled across it on our own or had had people recommend it to us or ask us about it. Dylan Avery, for better or for worse, has become the de facto flag-bearer for the 911 Truth Movement. As such, he gets the lion's share of attention. I hope that answers your question--I don't really see it in terms of the either/or that you presented.

My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?It's my belief, based on anecdotal evidence and at least one informal poll, that it's almost unanimous among JREF regulars that there's little to no chance that 9/11 was an Inside Job.

Thank you.You're welcome.

[Pardalis]

I subscribe to the Mel Brooks/Deborah Lipstadt theory...if you laugh at neo-Nazis and their ilk, make them look ridiculous, they cease to be a threat.

Yeah, to me they don't even have to make them look ridiculous, the whole anti-semitism thing is so senseless by itself. Jewish humour has a way of making us see things as they are, they become laughable. It has a lot of existentialism to it doesn't it?

[Abbyas]

.................kidding.

Please feel free to detail what you have a problem with. No one is stopping you, and I guarantee you will not be banned for dissent.

[chipmunk stew]

If you look back you will see there are a handful. They are not as smart as they think they are, and they are very bad art forming arguements. Look up the following names: geggy, love, thesyntaxera and conspiracybeliever. All of these folks came here convinced from all the high-fiving and backslapping on the other forum that their arguements were effectively invincible. in fact, they were horribly wrong and very bad about admitting it.Don't forget Alek!

[Shrinker]

So you say James Randi does not feel the need to touch this subject. I am awaiting his reply from my email from him. Mr Randi is a magician who uses his knowledge to expose conmen. Conspiracy theorists don't use a lot of magic tricks in their act so it may not be of much interest to him. I get the feeling however that he will have some strong opinions.



It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?
Those of us outside the 'movement' don't see any difference between Loose Change and all the other 911 'groups'. In fact I don't think we see any distinction between them either. It's just a continuum with dumb at both ends.

My last question is there does not seem to be a lot of folks that are here disputing your claims. Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job? Or are people not willing to challenge the stronger members of this forum?

Thank you.
This forum has its fair share of contrarians and clowns but this thread is far too big to interest their lazy minds. A CT supporter posted a poll a while back about the 911 issue. I think he only got 2 votes on his side. (Yes you can vote in your own poll.)

[Mr. Skinny]

Please feel free to detail what you have a problem with. No one is stopping you, and I guarantee you will not be banned for dissent.
He was "kidding" about the David Icke signature.

[chipmunk stew]

Please feel free to detail what you have a problem with. No one is stopping you, and I guarantee you will not be banned for dissent.
edit: What Mr. Skinny said.

Welcome, joseph k.! I'm glad this forum has been a useful resource for you.

[Abbyas]

He was "kidding" about the David Icke signature.

Oh. I thought it was an "I like you...not!" after taking a look at the link he/she posted.

[Kiwiwriter]

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum. You guys seem very in tune to counteracting these theories. I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group. Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?


Thank you.

I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.

Also, I think Loose Change is getting a lot of attention now because every time I check E-bay, someone's selling the darn thing for $1.50 a pop, so it's seemingly ubiquitous. That makes it like the class nerd who insists on coming to school wearing a suit and tie...a very obvious target.

[Mutton-Head]

Hello again, Thanks for the comments. You are all correct in that I don’t have specific numbers. I said “all of the beams cut,” when it really should be “most, or allot of the beams were cut.” (I was not suggesting that a worker cutting steel beams apart with a torch was a conspirator. That of course would be ludicrous.) I used many generalizations that for me, gave a “picture” or “overview,” since no, I don’t have access to the actual numbers. However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used. I also saw somebody point to a link, explaining the cause of the collapse. (I was going to put the link, but the system won't let me being a nubie. whoever posted it, if you can repost) This explanation, in my opinion, is much more vague, and leaves out many factors, like the pulverizing of concrete, the horizontal movement of steel, the breaking of steel bonds (Correct, the steel was not one continuous piece, but pieces welded/bolted together.)

My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.

I would love to have all of the math numbers, however, the pieces of evidence, the steel, the concrete, the “puzzle pieces” of the towers are all long gone. Nobody can do the math now. And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces. I consider this to be incompetence.

But, instead of crying over spilled-milk, or calling “fowl,” that all of the hard physical evidence is gone, I am trying to put together a “picture.” To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.

I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.


(Tailgator, your comment about, extra floors means extra mass has problems in it. I see your logic, but you’re forgetting that extra floors also means extra load bearings to have to overcome. The energy/force that they add ends up being cancelled out because of the structural support that they provide. In the end, a true equation would be VERY complicated, and I’m sure I would not understand it. I do know what you mean, you watch the videos, you see floors falling, you see **** flying all over the place. “What’s the big deal?” I never saw a big deal until maybe a year ago. I think it’s because we’re seeing something we’ve never seen before. We’ve never seen a building that size come down before. So it’s easy to accept the explanation that “the building destroyed itself from pancaking floors.” Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense. To me it doesn’t. The Nova special was for ****.)

I also want to add a clarification about “collapsing in its footprint.” Steel was found hundreds of feet from the towers “footprint,’ but this steel was ejected outward. We see it happen in the video. The building did not tip over. There was no angular momentum. Anything outside of the footprint was ejected in a circle around the “Footprint.”

Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.

[joseph k.]

Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.

Not a very successful comedic beginning, luckily this isn't the humor subforum (purposely).

[Kiwiwriter]

Yeah, to me they don't even have to make them look ridiculous, the whole anti-semitism thing is so senseless by itself. Jewish humour has a way of making us see things as they are, they become laughable. It has a lot of existentialism to it doesn't it?

Another interesting thing about these fanatics (all fanatics, really) is how they are humorless...notice how they explode when challenged with humor. There's a guy at The History Channel who's a perfect example of that. Yep, a neo-Nazi, hates Jews, spouts conspiracy garbage, has been banned under 47 identities, but keeps coming back for more banning. All he gets now is ridicule, and when he does, he gets enraged...hurls obscenities, demands his opponents kill themselves, roars about his own self-importance.

You see this with other fanatical groups...they can't laugh at anything or anyone, particularly themselves...except when they're stomping on their "enemy." And those "jokes" are merely vicious and cruel.

Another thing connected to the humorlessness is their inability to realize what a negative public image they create with their behavior, statements, and antics. When they spout utter rubbish about conspiracies, space aliens, and the Trilateral Commission, people start laughing. When they denounce their opponents with obscenities, vulgarities, and personal abuse, people turn away. But the fanatics don't realize they're losing their audience.

Being unable to properly assign blame and responsibility, and being convinced that they are bringing the definitive truth to the world (and therefore should be the objects of respect, awe, and fear), they blame their straw enemies: the Jews, the Bilderbergers, the World Wildlife Fund, and so on.

Lyndon LaRouche is a good example of this.

[Abbyas]

Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.

Ooops! I think it was a problem of me and my "oversensitive bs detector". My apologies.

[kookbreaker]

I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.

What comes to mind with me and the 'momentum' crap is on USENET in the middle-late 90's the following phrase was heard from a few diehard supporters:

'Scientology Keeps on Expanding and Expanding!"

[Kiwiwriter]

What comes to mind with me and the 'momentum' crap is on USENET in the middle-late 90's the following phrase was heard from a few diehard supporters:

'Scientology Keeps on Expanding and Expanding!"

And it did.

Until Katie Holmes gave birth! :)

[Pardalis]

(Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.)

I think I can speak for the other posters and say we are not, we value your point of view and your thoughts.:)

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

That's a good point tho. But with all due respect, I think it's a little too quick to jump to the conclusion of explosive demolition.

(Tailgator, your comment about, extra floors means extra mass has problems in it. I see your logic, but you’re forgetting that extra floors also means extra load bearings to have to overcome. The energy/force that they add ends up being cancelled out because of the structural support that they provide. In the end, a true equation would be VERY complicated, and I’m sure I would not understand it. I do know what you mean, you watch the videos, you see floors falling, you see **** flying all over the place. “What’s the big deal?” I never saw a big deal until maybe a year ago. I think it’s because we’re seeing something we’ve never seen before. We’ve never seen a building that size come down before. So it’s easy to accept the explanation that “the building destroyed itself from pancaking floors.” Our “gut reaction” is that it all makes sense. To me it doesn’t. The Nova special was for ****.)

Why is what I outlined so unbeleavable to you? Why is the "unexpected" so difficult to accept? Why does this "uncertainty" and "unknown" factor of the equation the cause for such conspiracy beliefs?

[dubfan]

My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.


NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?

If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:

http://911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html

Like you, he has questions about the NIST report, but none of his questions lead to a conclusion that controlled demo was responsible.

There is a question about whether or not the figure he uses for M is correct (5M tonnes vs. 3.5M-4.0M tonnes), and that has some bearing on some of the downstream calculations. It appears that 5M tonnes is too high a figure, and the number is closer to 4M tonnes.

It would be a good exercise for you and help establish your credibility in this forum if you could argue successfully that a figure of 5M tonnes vs. 4.0M tonnes affects the basic conclusion of his analysis, which is that structural damage from the aircraft alone was sufficient to cause the collapse.

[Shrinker]

Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.
Here's the problem Mutton-Head, you're trying to investigate the specifics of the collapse but you'll never have enough data to do it. I don't think there's even consensus on the mass of the towers let alone the trajectory and fate of every piece of metal and every lump of concrete. Simple physics equations aren't going to be of any use. That is why your equation isn't in the official reports.

In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... I used many generalizations that for me, gave a “picture” or “overview,” since no, I don’t have access to the actual numbers...

Generalizations are acceptable if they can be back by numbers. For example, we accept that the sun is "really hot". We accept this because it is possible to independently go and do the research, or read someone else's research that explains why the sun is "really hot".


However it seems like anybody who believes the official NIST account is likewise accepting generalizations, which in my opinion, are much more vague than the ones I used. I also saw somebody point to a link, explaining the cause of the collapse. (I was going to put the link, but the system won't let me being a nubie. whoever posted it, if you can repost) This explanation, in my opinion, is much more vague, and leaves out many factors, like the pulverizing of concrete, the horizontal movement of steel, the breaking of steel bonds (Correct, the steel was not one continuous piece, but pieces welded/bolted together.)

My question then is: why are you so convinced of the validity of this explanation, and of the NIST report? They have absolutely no math. They left out many important points.

For the same reason we accept S. Hawking's work on black holes, or Einstein's work on relativity; the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.


I would love to have all of the math numbers, however, the pieces of evidence, the steel, the concrete, the “puzzle pieces” of the towers are all long gone. Nobody can do the math now. And the NIST wrote an official report without using these pieces. I consider this to be incompetence.

But, instead of crying over spilled-milk, or calling “fowl,” that all of the hard physical evidence is gone, I am trying to put together a “picture.” To me the analogy would be “Is $100 enough to buy 5 music CDs, 4 hamburgers, and a large pepperoni pizza?” You might say “No,” but I think most reasonable people would say “Yes,” or at least, “Very highly probable.” In contrast, “Is $100 enough to buy 5 CDs, 4 hamburgers, a 24” TV, and cheap portable mp3 player,” I think most people would say “No.”

The thing you will find at this forum, the response to your $100 question will commonly be, "How much are the CDs, hamburgers, pizza, TV, and mp3 player?"


Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.

Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."


I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.

Science doesn't work this way. You don't see cosmologists say, "Gee, all those moons around Jupiter make it a lot more difficult to calculate its orbit; let's just ignore them." and you don't see medical doctors saying, "Double-blind studies are a hassle. Screw it, let's just test it like homeopaths do."


...The Nova special was for ****.)

Why? Or is this only a statement of opinion?

ETA: You can post links after your post count reaches 15, iirc.

[Shrinker]

Me and my "jokes". Yes, I was kidding about being David Icke. I could be wrong, though, maybe his most recent book "proves" that he and I are both the same exact lizard inside.

Not a very successful comedic beginning, luckily this isn't the humor subforum (purposely).

Joseph K I though it was the funniest first post ever. However its JREF tradition for all the best gags to get an angry response from someone who misread it.

[Abbyas]

Joseph K I though it was the funniest first post ever. However its JREF tradition for all the best gags to get an angry response from someone who misread it.

Angry? Who said I was angry? For cryin' out loud gall dang stupid (kicks chair and computer) mother-flippin' bah!

[chipmunk stew]

Mutton-Head--

Math:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1535382&postcount=503
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1484479&postcount=22
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507819&postcount=158
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507292&postcount=85
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507325&postcount=88
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1552229&postcount=434

As for the NIST report--the one you're referring to is an executive summary. Like a Cliff's Notes version. They've put out far more detailed analyses: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

[milesalpha]

I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit." But even the Holocaust deniers themselves admitted at the time that David Irving's 2000 London legal defeat was a crusher for their movement, after blasting Irving for not putting other deniers on the stand. They're angrier at him now for backpedaling on the Holocaust when he stood trial in Austria. So I'm amused by that "momentum" quip.

Also, I think Loose Change is getting a lot of attention now because every time I check E-bay, someone's selling the darn thing for $1.50 a pop, so it's seemingly ubiquitous. That makes it like the class nerd who insists on coming to school wearing a suit and tie...a very obvious target.


Thanks for mentioning this, it is something I have noticed as well while butting heads with revisionists. I would add that, in the same way that CTs lack structural engineers, the revisionists lack real historians. I have been confronted with enough "articles" from psychiatrists, lawyers, political figures to paper a wall, but almost nothing from a trained historian (as opposed to an "internet-trained" historian). Not to mention that both sides want one more big investigation that, they fervently believe, will conclude that their side was right after all.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Mutton-Head--

Math:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1535382&postcount=503
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1484479&postcount=22
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507819&postcount=158
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507292&postcount=85
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1507325&postcount=88
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1552229&postcount=434

As for the NIST report--the one you're referring to is an executive summary. Like a Cliff's Notes version. They've put out far more detailed analyses: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/


This post reminds me; anyone seen delphi_ote recently?

[Manny]

Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.The main reason for me is that it fits with the other evidence. It's not like the buildings fell after being empty for months for no apparent reason and then cleaned themselves up. They were hit by airplanes. I saw one of them with my own eyes. Others saw the other one. If you look at closeups of videos of the collapses, you can see the buildings begin to buckle before they fall, and the buckling occurs at the points where the structure was already weakened by those airplanes.

People worked in those towers. They had their desks against the walls which would have had to be cut to insert explosives. They walked down stairwells which would have had to be similarly cut, used the bathrooms, etc. None of them -- none! -- reported any disturbance to the walls which would indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Other people worked for the building's security. After the 1993 bombing, every incoming vehicle was searched for explosives. Dogs, mirrors to see under the vehicles, interior searches, explosives sensors. It was a pretty expensive operation. Of the people who conducted that security, none of them -- none! -- reported any activity which would indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

No offense, since you seem so far at least to be less insane than some of the other Loosers, but it is literally insane to believe that there is any substantial evidence that explosives had been placed in the buildings. Actually, "insane" is by far the most favorable word which can be applied to persons who claim to believe it. There just isn't any evidence -- none! -- that explosives had been placed in the buildings.

Mutton-Head, arguing about the exact method of the collapse is an honorable pursuit. It can improve future building safety. Maybe the truss design wasn't what it was supposed to be. Maybe it was, but not properly maintained (fireproofing being allowed to narrow over time, etc.). Maybe there's a problem with the interior column design or the exterior ones. Maybe there are misunderstandings about material properties under extreme stress. But that argument has to be based on actual evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.

[Belz...]

Oh, he just cracks me up! I just love having a good laugh at his expense! ROFLMAO!!!

Long live Teh BOSS!!!

That's kinda sick.

I like how he writes "Movie" and "Members" with capital "M"s.

And what does ROFLMAO means ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's kinda sick.

I like how he writes "Movie" and "Members" with capital "M"s.

And what does ROFLMAO means ?

Rolling On the Floor Laughing My A** Off.

[Belz...]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums.


Just to get banned ?

Non merci.

[Pardalis]

The main reason for me is that it fits with the other evidence.[...].

Nominated! Manny, you have a way of exactly formulating my ideas in clear english.:D

[Gravy]

Any serious debaters should join the LooseChange911.com forums.
I'm banned there, chuck. Since Loose Change is the #1 video you promote, are you ready do discuss it here with me? Or would you like some time to study up? People on the LC forum have no problem throwing my name around over there and calling me a liar and my work garbage, but no one has come here to face me. Why do you think that is, chuck? They all know I'm here, and they all know I can't post there.

So are you ready, chuck, or would you like more time?

[Belz...]

If you can prove the pancake theory, Jimmy Walters will reward you with $1,000,000. ReOpen911.org.

Maybe you'd care to build a miniature version of the damn thing and test it out, dufus.

[Belz...]

Thanks for that welcome. Interesting bunch of folks here. It's actually quite refreshing.

Oh, I think you'll find I'm not all that interesting... ;)

[Gravy]

Chucksheen and other LC newcomers: you can get the gist of what goes on here by reading the posts linked in the index I made. Download it here: http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

I did this for you all. No more excuses about the length of this thread.

[XXX]

If you can prove the pancake theory, Jimmy Walters will reward you with $1,000,000. ReOpen911.org.

I'm sure Jimmy has no intention of ever giving out that 1,000,000. Just take a look at the end of his rules section...

"The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers."

Just wait until those scientific lawyers get through with you. I'm sure none of them will be willing to verify the proof.

[Pardalis]

The writing is on the wall. The cat is out of the bag.

What the hell does that mean?

UniversalSeed.org, for all your truth needs.

Can't you think for yourself? Can't you debate without always refering to this trash? Damn, this site is like a drug to you isn't it?

If you have any specific question you'd like to adress about 9/11 please tell us.

[Pardalis]

Hello! Just joined up here at JREF. I found this place while doing 9/11 research and I really wanted to join in the conversations that were being had.

Welcome!

Seems like there are many fairly intellegent people here.

Hope I will make the cut!;)

[Abbyas]

Damn, this site is like a drug to you isn't it?

I'll bet it's his own site. He's the drug pusher.

[Darat]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

[Gravy]

...I look around and see this thread has 119 pages about the loose change group, yet no other threads that I see counteracting any other 911 CT group.
this thread is a catch-all for 911 discussion. In my signature there's a link to my critique of the NY 911truth.org's literature.

What would you like to discuss, Sylvia?

[Tailgater]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1661566#post1661566

I never read the NIST report. Probably won't. The NOVA link was an article written on the building construction and not a show. I'll try to look it up before I leave for weekend. It's WAY back in this thread. This thread also had links that dicussed how the supports of the floors worked and how the top section coming apart probably affected the support on the floors below causing less resistance. This was not a concrete fortress. It was a new design more like a steel and glass shell with heavy floors and supports covering areas of the building. LC forum concentrates so much time on how the buildings fell and not enough on how the building was designed in the first place. Plus, most buildings that have collapsed due to non-demo were found later to have either problems with the design, materials used, and factors with things added to the building later that were not figured in. ie: mall that collapsed from air units that were not figured in to support beams killing hundreds. Just because it was designed to withstand something, doesn't mean it will. Too many variables for it to be fullproof. These are things we OR the government will never know. I'm guessing there are things they still can't figure out. Yes, good math would help on the fall, but people will still argue over seconds unless it's groundbreaking. If that amount of material is falling into itself, it has no where to go but OUT in EVERY direction. I still don't understand what you think it SHOULD do, or what you are getting at with the footprint. Maybe a bad analogy or missing the point, but look at a meteor crater. They are usually almost perfect circles with huge rocks scattered in every direction even though they didn't fall straight down. A physics major can jump on all that.

I see stew already jumping on the math part.:)

[chipmunk stew]

Chucksheen and other LC newcomers: you can get the gist of what goes on here by reading the posts linked in the index I made. Download it here: http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756

I did this for you all. No more excuses about the length of this thread.This is where I got the links for Mutton-Head. Found 'em within ten minutes. Thanks, Gravy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

W00t! We earned a v2.0! errr... I mean, yes, works for me.

[Shrinker]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

Seems like a reasonable idea but a bit mean on the newcomers, especially Mutton-Head, who's just getting going. Can his posts and the responses be split into a new thread? Likewise with chucksheen's keyboard thumpings.

[Manny]

If you can prove the pancake theory, Jimmy Walters will reward you with $1,000,000. ReOpen911.org.Well, gee. Why doesn't he just send it to Peter Rinaldi (http://www.prism-magazine.org/sept03/phoenixman.cfm), who "recalls seeing five stories of the North Tower, with layers of floor, rug, cement, and steel compressed into 2 feet, looking like soil stratum."

Others also personally witnessed floors compressed into each other. This isn't just stuff people made up -- it's based on evidence recovered from the site. NIST and other actual scientists and engineers didn't limit themselves to what they could Google. They did real live investigations, talked to actual people, inspected actual steel, extensively modeled on computers designed for that purpose. You pathetic terrorist supporters with your compression artifacts and '9.8 m/s/s give or take an order of magnitude' grade-school physics aren't dog crap on the shoes of real investigators.

[Manny]

Seems like a reasonable idea but a bit mean on the newcomers, especially Mutton-Head, who's just getting going. Can his posts and the responses be split into a new thread? Likewise with chucksheen's keyboard thumpings.I think this is a good idea. Pick a place back a couple of pages where we're all making Illuminati jokes to each other and split it there, please.

[kookbreaker]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

I protest!

[chipmunk stew]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!But we haven't even reached 5000 posts, yet!
I like Shrinker's idea of a split at a point that incorporates newcomers' contributions, and perhaps an OP that links back to this thread as a sort of archive.

[Mutton-Head]

First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.

Some of your comments that jump out at me.

“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.

To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.

Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.

Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[ZouPrime]

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.

On what are you basing your belief?
If it's science, then provide the numbers, as other have stated.
If it's intuition, then your intuition has to be backed by experience. How many ruins of structures the size of the WTC have you studied? Are you a structural engineer?
If the answer is just "your gut feeling", then I'm afraid this isn't much.

[Mutton-Head]

First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.

Some of your comments that jump out at me.

“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.

To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.

Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.

As for the firemen, do a search for interviews with them. (If you’re interested.) I was shocked at the number of on camera interviews where the firemen say they heard explosions, “boom boom boom boom boom.” (Gestures with his hand from top to bottom with each “Boom.”) Describing it like controlled demolition. Written interviews where firemen say they were told by superiors not to discuss explosions they say they saw. A fireman who stormed out of NIST testimony because they would not listen to his claims of explosions. Here is my prediction. In a year or two or so, these firemen are going to start coming out openly in the main-stream news with these stories. That’s my prediction. If I’m wrong, you can all go “Na na na na na,” to me. (Just like the Beatles, “Hey Jude.)

Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Darat]

Give me a sensible break point and I'll split from that point into a "part 2".

[Pardalis]

First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.

Some of your comments that jump out at me.

This thread, as you might notice, has been going on for quite some time. The comments you felt attacked with weren't directed at you, but were a part of more general discussions about other conspiracists that clearly are nuts (not you). So far, you have seemed to me reasoned and well intentioned. Hope this will clear some of the misunderstanding.

[Abbyas]

Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

Here is a list of some of the groups that were involved with the creation of the NIST report:

The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
The American Institute of Steel Construction
The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
The Structural Engineers Association of New York
The American Concrete Institute
The Council of American Structural Engineers
The New York Dept. of Design and Construction
The New York Dept. of Buildings


And this is an incomplete list of all the experts involved in the development of the NIST report. This is why I (an individual who doesn't have a large grasp of physics) would be loathe to believe a seperate theory without at least one or two structural engineers behind it.

Edited for grammar

[chipmunk stew]

First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.

Some of your comments that jump out at me.

“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.

“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.

To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.

Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.

Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!At least several of us have read Steven Jones' paper. Here is one glaring point of idiocy in the paper:

He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero, and from this, he hypothesizes thermite. From what you know about thermite, based on Jones' paper or your own further research, is thermite capable of providing the continuous heat source that would be required to keep steel molten for hours, much less days, much less weeks at a time?

Jones' leaps of illogic are abundant. Red flags pop up all over his paper.

Greening's has its own set of problems, but he's open to criticism and has reworked his calculations on several occasions. Not that it's unassailable, but it's clearly much stronger as an academic analysis.


edit: Did you look at that NIST link I gave you, or any of the other math links I gave you? There's a slew of numbers and calculations for you to explore at your leisure.

[Gravy]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!
Well, I waded through 200 pages in the last week to create my index, but no one has ever accused me of being in my right mind. :boggled:

I'm certainly in favor of a split.

ETA: my index goes up to midnight last night (12:01 am today). Not that anyone will ever read it (sulks in corner), but that's my suggestion for a cut-off point. I chose to do it this week because it was quiet in terms of actual debates on this thread.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Here is a list of some of the groups that were involved with the creation of the NIST report:

The Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Society of Fire Protection Engineers
The American Institute of Steel Construction
The Council of Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
The Structural Engineers Association of New York
The American Concrete Institute
The Council of American Structural Engineers
The New York Dept. of Design and Construction
The New York Dept. of Buildings


And this is an incomplete list of all the experts involved in the development of the NIST report. This is why I (an individual who doesn't have a large grasp of physics) would be loathe to believe a seperate theory without at least one or two structural engineers behind it.

Edited for grammar

Now, if Mutton-Head, has some evidence as to why these groups should not receive provisional agreement as to their expertise of the matters involved, I'm all for it being presented.

[chipmunk stew]

I heard about this DVD from seeing it advertised on E-Bay for $1 a pop ad nauseum. I read the screenplay on a website that debunked it, and got very angry after reading it.

Stuff like "Loose Change" and all these conspiracy theories are a massive insult to the cops, firefighters, PA cops, and PA employees who died in that building on September 11. Through my wife, I know 85 of the PA guys who died in it. A high school classmate died in it (a big wheel in the PA), and so did the brother of another alumnus (and son of one of my teachers).

My pal Mike Sheridan was operations manager of the WTC during the 1993 blast. Not AN operations manager, THE operations manager. He had a key ring that would cost him $75,000 to replace. He could open every door in the building. He saved lives in 1993, then retired to Florida. But because of his post and importance in the union, he was in touch with all the PA people from top to bottom. He got to see the people he saved in 1993 die horribly in 2001, watching it from his lounger in Boca Raton.

Mike and I have discussed the WTC bombings many times, and he's made it clear that the conspiracy theories are horse manure on a grand scale. Yes, the building could be knocked down by planes full of jet fuel. Yes, it was knocked down by planes full of jet fuel. Yes, the official story is what happened. No, George Bush, the Mossad, the Masons, the Bilderbergers, and the World Wildlife Fund did NOT blow up the buildings and kill thousands of innocents to cover up launching a war, stealing gold, or imposing a Fascist dictatorship on the United States.

The real problem, as I see it, is that thanks to Vietnam, Watergate, and the scandals since then, we now have whole generations of intelligent people in the United States, who simply do not believe anything authority tells them. They are completely cynicized, regard everything but urban legends, conspiracy theories, and Comedy Central as being part of some grand conspiracy, and nothing but liars.

They don't trust anybody...except their psychic. :boggled:My suggested starting post for split.

???

[kookbreaker]

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?


Simple: Jones paper isn't good engineering, and its isn't good physics. Greening, whatever your opinion of his figures, at least does proper mathematics and physics calculations, even if his assumptions of mass were initially wrong.

Jones work is little more than the usual conspiracy junk with his Physics PHD stamped on them. Where Jones does strike out on his own, he embarasses himself. Examples of this would include his comments that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics means 'Things topple over'. Equally embarassing are his attempts to declare a piece of concrete with rebar sticking out of it to be a piece of cooled, formerly molten steel.

Jones' knowledge of structures is weak, his knowledge of explosives even weaker, and his evasion of peer review is pathetic. I don't know what review process Greening has put his paper under, but I have not heard about Engineers in Greening's school saying he was way out of line and completely wrong. They may not agree with his conclusions, but they are not claiming he's completely off base either. The structural engineers at Jones school pretty much stated that Dr. Jones was far off base.

What Jones is doing is decidedly not science. It is rumor mongering dressed up as science.

[Hellbound]

Not to mention thet Steven Jones is not a recognized or current structural engineer. IN other words, he's a false expert, and he has no idea what he's talking about.

IIRC, isn't he the one currently practicing medicine without a license? Chipmunk...I think you found the data out? Or was it delphi?

[Edited for correction, this was another expert, not Jones. Thanks to chipmunk for the correction.]

In any case, it's a matter of [vast majority of physicists, almost all demolition experts, almost every structural engineer in the world, NIST] on one side and [a few biologists, a few lawyers, a very few physicists, and Loose Change] on the other. You tell me whose experts you'd trust.

Just to chime in, his knowledge of explosives is woefully inadequate (and thermite is not an explosive, either). I nthyis area, at least, my own expertise tells me he failed to do even basic research on the subject matter. And of course, if he can't spend a few hours to understand the basics of explosives, which make up a major part of his hypothesis, it immediately brings the rest of his assertions into question as well.

FYI I have been trained in explosives and incendiaries by the U.S. Military, I'm authorized for non-electric blasting, assisted in EOD operations on small and large scales, and have been trained in improvised explosives and improvised incendiaries as well.

[Pardalis]

As for the firemen, do a search for interviews with them. (If you’re interested.) I was shocked at the number of on camera interviews where the firemen say they heard explosions, “boom boom boom boom boom.” (Gestures with his hand from top to bottom with each “Boom.”) Describing it like controlled demolition.

You have to be able to discern between something that "looks" like a controlled demo, and something that "is" a controlled demo. Especially if the only evidence you have is eyewitness accounts by people obviously in shock.

Written interviews where firemen say they were told by superiors not to discuss explosions they say they saw. A fireman who stormed out of NIST testimony because they would not listen to his claims of explosions.

Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without beeing explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves.

[rwguinn]

Hello again, Thanks for the comments. You are all correct in that I don’t have specific numbers.
That is obvious

.......
Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain, eject steel out in a complete circle around its footprint?

I say no.
You would be wrong, in that case. Absolutely, 100% wrong.

I chose not to discus energy, because in my opinion/experience, it relies too much on references, which, can be a little confusing and too complicated. (Yes, I know you’re all laughing at me right now.) An entry in wikipedia says, “For example, a speeding bullet has kinetic energy in the reference frame of non-moving observer, but it has zero kinetic energy in its proper (co-moving) reference frame -- because it takes zero work to accelerate a bullet from zero speed to zero speed.”

Ah--let's try to make a simple issue complex, by posting quotes which sound complex to anyone who has not accomplished a passing grade in elementary algebra


How about if we come up with an equation that balances the work done (the amount of time the top floors fell + the pulverizing of all of the concrete + the breaking of most vertical steel welds + horizontal ejection of many steel beams)

With

The energy available, which was the mass of top floors accelerated until they hit the ground. We will take as a given the steel cut by the plane. We will also take as given that the fires melted/weakened a vast quantity of steel above the crash. I think it safe to assume the steel below the crash was still sound.

This will be our equation. Let me hear your opinions for how to set up this equation. I’m sure you all will have no problem with general numbers (for weight of steel, weight of concrete, strength of steel, etc.), since you had no problem with the NIST version that had absolutely no specifics.
Because we can look up numbers and do the math ourselves

KE=PE=mgH=w*h where g= your favorite gravitaional constant, m is mass (not weight)m and h is the building height at the mass location.
It ain't hard.

snip of meaningless drivel
Anybody who wants to participate the formulation of this equation, please submit your opinions. If you feel the NIST report with no specifics is adequate, please explain why.

Thanks.

go get a beer can and 3 cinder blocks. Empty the beer can, if you're old enough, drink it.
Place 2 blocks on top of the beer can. Gently place the 3rd block on top of them. The can holds up easily.
Now, take the 3rd block off, and hold the 2nd block exactly 1 block's thickness above the remaining block.
Drop it.
The can will smash flat (pretty much within its own footprint), and you will have a lot of rubble (broken cinder blocks, since I doubt that you know what rubble actually is) on the ground.
Multiply this by a factor of a couple of billion, and you can see why we seriously doubt you guys explanation

[chipmunk stew]

IIRC, isn't he the one currently practicing medicine without a license? Chipmunk...I think you found the data out? Or was it delphi?That was Jeff King, not Jones. I think delphi dug that up from his plaguepuppy bio.

[Hellbound]

Thanks, chipmunk. I struck out my comment and posted a correction up there :)

[Shrinker]

Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
I'll leave others to discuss the specifics of the experts you mention as its not my field. If you look around this forum however you'll see the same argument come up over and over. Others will have different answers but here's mine.

One thing you have to bear in mind at this forum is that many people here are actually 'experts'. Only yesterday one of our regulars was on the BBC discussing his field. I've been on TV and radio too and in the press (once described as a 'boffin' in the tabloids), doing my little bit. Aside from anything else, being an expert gives you an insight into experts. You find that they are just ordinary people. Some of them are idiots, some of them are geniuses. Most are average (obviously by definition) but almost all, know a heck of a lot more about the subject than the average joe.

Therefore being an expert in one field, gives you a little respect for experts in other fields, but at the same time you're aware that anyone, no matter what their credientials, could be a complete blagger. So the safest position, I've learned, is to side temporarily with the majority of experts in the field, while analysing in detail (and being prepared to accept), the claims of the maverick.

It is at this point usually, that the frauds usually expose themselves by using faulty logic, dishonest debating, or downright lies. You don't need to be an expert in a particular field to spot those. At that point I can comfortably embrace the Generally Accepted Theory for the time being.

Of course I may be wrong at this point. By sheer chance the maverick may have been right, but was an idiot who didn't know how to present his argument. Thankfully however I know that fields of expertise are always filled with rivalries and conflicting opinion, and if there is any weakness in the Generally Accepted Theory, a pretty damn smart person will be along soon to pick it apart.

Of course it ain't perfect, but that's humanity for you.


Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.
Well, Mutton-Head, after typing your name I find myself overcompensating in the politeness department. It is a little disconcerting.

[dubfan]

“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?

You didn't answer that question.

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.

Oh yes, I'm quite familiar with that, and spoke to Dr. Greening about it personally. You're making an exaggerated claim yourself, here -- he did not over-exaggerate the mass. The figure he used initially came from a professor at MIT, IIRC. There is no commonly accepted engineering consensus (that I've seen) on the live load mass of a single WTC tower. The mass figures range from 3.5M tonnes to 5.0M tonnes, with the most likely value (again, from what I've seen on the net) being somewhere in the neighborhood of 4.0M tonnes.

When doubt was cast on that 5.0Mt figure, he re-ran his computations (well, some of them) over the range of possible mass values. They did not affect his conclusions regarding the term "t" in his model, which is the estimated time for each tower to collapse. I posted these results over at the LC forum.

There are other calculations in Greening's model which are dependent on M which I am not sure yet if he's re-worked. I have been meaning to do them myself, and when I do, I'll post my results.

Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?

Yes, I have. Without writing a book about it, I'll just say briefly, because Greening's science is better. Greening's paper describes a mathematical model based on verifiable facts and assumptions. Jones' paper -- while perhaps raising legitimate issues regarding the NIST report -- fails to propose any sort of verifiable, testable model for his hypothesis. Jones seems to be saying in effect, the NIST report is imperfect, therefore we need to investigate the possibility of controlled demolition. I don't find his "evidences" convincing that CD necessarily had to be involved, and I don't find his line of reasoning that the flaws in the NIST report point to CD as the cause very convincing either.

That said, I'm not a structural engineer, and if Jones could get a panel of professional structural engineers (heck, I'd settle for ONE) to support what he's saying, I'd be more inclined to believe him.

[Pardalis]

Mutton-Head, what I don't personally understand about your way of thinking is, as though there might be discrepencies and anomalies about the WTC towers collapse, what makes you jump to the explosives devices explanation so quickly? How can you make such a leap?

[dubfan]

Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without beeing explosions.

And a lot of things explode that aren't bombs, or demolition charges.

[Regnad Kcin]

Closing this thread and starting a new one will be fine. However, expect that one to go on and on, and then the next thread to go on and on, and so forth. 9/11 conspiracy theorists seem not to be much interested in anything outside their comfort zone, certainly not to the point of spending time actually reading that which might challenge it.

[CurtC]

I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide.The NIST report used real mathematical models. Now let's look back at your post.

You said, in essence, that the towers' gravitational energy was amost all converted to downward kinetic energy, with hardly enough left over to pulverize the concrete and fling steel beams outward. What you did not do, is to show how much energy it would take to pulverize the concrete and fling the beams, nor how that would be too large to account for the observed amount of slowing down. You're making specific claims, ones that are normally expected to be backed up with numbers, yet you put no numbers to them. Can you see the problem?

[Belz...]

Well, well...

It seems as though 911 CT's are starting to gain momentum.

Popularity does not mean veracity.

Is this because the loose change group is the biggest/strongest or most threatening? Or is this because they are the weakest and easiest targets?

False dichotomy.

Is this a common belief within this form that there is no chance that 911 was not an inside job?

If you don't grasp language enough to avoid double-negatives, I have nothing further to say.

[Belz...]

I've heard Holocaust deniers spout the same thing...that Holocaust denial is gaining momentum. That the "Holocaust is unraveling faster than a three-dollar suit."

For some reason it seems to be the kind of argument that convinces people, as though we were talking about a company whose stocks just went up. People don't seem to understand that popularity means nothing when evidence is concerned.

[Belz...]

Is the top of a building able to fall very fast, pulverize all of the concrete, break or bend all of the steel so that no full lenths remain,

And, may I ask what that full length is ?

[Mutton-Head]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable.

“Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.”

Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc. If a large group of firemen who lost their brethren told me that they heard/saw/felt explosives, you bet your life I would investigate it in my official report.


Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.


Arkan Wolfshade said

“Now, if Mutton-Head, has some evidence as to why these groups should not receive provisional agreement as to their expertise of the matters involved, I'm all for it being presented.

Yes. In the NIST report, there were many respectable firms involved. But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone. The report is compromised. If I were in charge of this crime scene investigation, I would have had all of the steel, and as much of the powder carted off to a secure location. Not melted down and sold. I would have reconstructed the towers. Does this sound funny? When an airliner blows up, its pieces are reconstructed. Yes it’s expensive, but IMHO, it is worth it. Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how. The how is a big piece IMHO. I would have had the steel at least partially reconstructed. Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, so that when they were taken to a secure location, it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.
This to me, is negligence of the highest order.



Huntsman says
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.



Pardalis says“Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without being explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves”

Well, that’s allot of coulds and probablies for me.


Rwguinn says“KE=PE=mgH=w*h where g= your favorite gravitaional constant, m is mass (not weight)m and h is the building height at the mass location.
It ain't hard.”

Thank you for your knowledge. I agree it’s not hard. Potential energy, kinetic energy, mass, height, acceleration due to gravity. I am impressed. The hard part is the rest of the equation, the resistance of the building and the work done to cause the damage.

Three cinder blocks on an aluminum can. Did you spend any amount of time and thought on that analogy? Is doesn’t even deserve a response.


Dubfan says

“Greening's paper describes a mathematical model based on verifiable facts and assumptions.”

Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”


Pardalis says“Mutton-Head, what I don't personally understand about your way of thinking is, as though there might be discrepencies and anomalies about the WTC towers collapse, what makes you jump to the explosives devices explanation so quickly? How can you make such a leap?”

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored.



Shrinker says

“Well, Mutton-Head, after typing your name I find myself overcompensating in the politeness department. It is a little disconcerting.”

Yes! My Kung Foo is strong! Mere mortals you all are!

This starting to feel like 50 against one.

Whew.....

[Belz...]

And it did.

Until Katie Holmes gave birth! :)

Kiwi... please. stop. using. smileys. overload. imminent.

[Abbyas]

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence

They didn't say heard/saw/felt explosives, they say heard/saw/felt explosions. Does that make things clearer?

I would have reconstructed the towers

I'm not sure how you can say that not doing this is negligence. Is there another engineer that says that would be the normal and appropriate method?

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored.

The testimony that they heard explosions wasn't ignored. I think you'll see that the NIST report does include stuff blowing up (to be crude), just not explosives.

This starting to feel like 50 against one.

Ha, understandable. Feel free to invite anyone who agrees with you or has more information to come on down.

[Belz...]

Rolling On the Floor Laughing My A** Off.

Bah! Why don't people use WORDS instead of damn acronyms!

[pgwenthold]

You have to be able to discern between something that "looks" like a controlled demo, and something that "is" a controlled demo. Especially if the only evidence you have is eyewitness accounts by people obviously in shock.


I say, go back and compare the videos of the WTC towers falling and some controlled demolitions. Outside of "buildings fell down," there is basically no comparison.

The falling of the WTC towers in fact looks NOTHING like a controlled demolition. Heck, our own favorite CTer geggy has admitted it.

[Belz...]

As Admin:

Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!

If you do that, Darat, I'm going to see to it that not only you get your own little private hell down here, but also that NONE of your socks match anymore.

Beign #1 henchman has its advantages.

[Gravy]

...Others also personally witnessed floors compressed into each other. This isn't just stuff people made up -- it's based on evidence recovered from the site. NIST and other actual scientists and engineers didn't limit themselves to what they could Google. They did real live investigations, talked to actual people, inspected actual steel, extensively modeled on computers designed for that purpose. You pathetic terrorist supporters with your compression artifacts and '9.8 m/s/s give or take an order of magnitude' grade-school physics aren't dog crap on the shoes of real investigators.
Boy, am I with Manny on this. Actually, I'm always with Manny here because his posts make so much damn sense. He doesn't post as often as some of us do, but when he does, attention should be paid.

The CTs and newcomers here have no idea how often we have to deal with this issue of experts. This is totally, utterly, mind-blowingly baffling to me. If (Ed forbid) your child was hit by a car, would you want her to be treated at a trauma center with triage nurses, a full staff of emergency doctors and specialists, radiologists, anesthesiologists. etc? Or would you want her treated by chiropracters, homeopaths and psychic healers?

Well, the latter option is exactly the type of "treatment" suggested by CTs for the trauma suffered on 9/11. MANY times it has been suggested that the experts involved in the investigation were "suspect" because they had worked on other high-profile cases, or because they had "connnections' to the government. The phrase "so-called experts" is used by CTs on a daily basis. The phrase "no investigation at all was done" is also used on a daily basis.

Suppose that on 9/13 we fired all of the FBI evidence experts, all the firemen, police, engineers, steelworkers, demolitions experts, construction experts, forensics experts. And we replaced them with the "Scholars for Truth." Would CTs be satisfied with the result of their "investigation?" Of course not. They'd scream bloody murder.

Because these people are not only unqualified to conduct such an investigation, they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people. And every one of us who posts here regularly can prove it. Doubt me? Then pick a name at random from the published CT crowd. And within minutes I'll show you a pack of lies. We're plenty fallible here, and there will always be a lot we don't know, but unlike the CT bunch, WE DON'T HAVE TO LIE TO SUPPORT OUR STATEMENTS.

This issue came up again today, as it does almost every day. I received an email from someone who

A) wanted my opinion about the temperature the steel in the towers had to reach in order for collapse to occur, and,

B) Listed three members of "Scholars for Truth" and informed me that two were structural engineers and one was a fire safety engineer.

My reply was: A) I make no claim about the temperature of steel in the towers, but if you want to make such a claim I'll be glad to look at it, and since I may not understand it, I'd prefer to run it past a structural engineer.

B) That's big news if true. I'll check it out. I tried to verify the professions of the three but couldn't, so I emailed the claimant as well as Jim Fetzer of ST911, and I'm awaiting a reply.

I hate to sound cynical, but I'm 99% sure that these three people are not licensed in the given professions.

I'm 99% sure of that because no credentials are listed for these people on the ST911.org site, and because every time a CT has made a similar claim, they've been wrong.

Every single time.

So, yeah, some of us get ticked off at being lied to constantly by the "Truth Movement." This isnt a subject to lie about.

[Mutton-Head]

all for moving the thread

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Manny says,
“There is no evidence whatsoever that explosives were placed in those buildings.”

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence. Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted. In my opinion, firemen saying they heard/saw/felt explosives is good evidence. I would consider them reasonable experts in the field. Not ultimate experts, but reasonable.

What, exactly, in context, did the firemen say?


“Then approximately 10,000 New York City Firefighters spent months at the scene. These are guys who lost 343 of their brothers and who are trained in many cases to examine fire debris to find the causes of fire. None of them -- none! -- reported finding any blasting caps or fuses or wires or anything else which indicate that explosives had been placed in the buildings.”

Firemen said they found nothing but dust. No desks, no chairs, no computers, no phones, etc. If a large group of firemen who lost their brethren told me that they heard/saw/felt explosives, you bet your life I would investigate it in my official report.

explosions <> explosives

A fire extinguisher will explode under compression, it is not an explosive. Full soda cans will explode under pressure or heat, they are not explosives. etc


Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.

Yes http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ygfXLagit1wBVM:www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour/MoltenAlumInCrucible.jpg
It http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:bQOZ5FH9QdTnzM:www.alliedmetalcompany .com/images/moltenal05.jpg
Does http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:9eCqdaasFQfuPM:media.collegepublisher .com/media/paper305/stills/d676oeaq.jpg
Glow http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:7qgEQ-wRwoLHeM:www.herculesengines.com/Foundry/Foundry%2520Images/2002_0619_190931AA.jpg
Orange http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:-g4rnKbNeIYM2M:www.submarineboat.com/sub/images/casting_sand_14.JPG


Arkan Wolfshade said

“Now, if Mutton-Head, has some evidence as to why these groups should not receive provisional agreement as to their expertise of the matters involved, I'm all for it being presented.

Yes. In the NIST report, there were many respectable firms involved. But the evidence (the steel) was carted away. That is negligence. I cannot trust their findings. It doesn’t matter whose fault it was that the evidence is gone. The report is compromised.

Part of the responibility of the people taking part in the investigation is to ensure that all relevent data is available for the investigation. Why did none of the people involved complain about evidence being removed prior to examination? Or are you suggesting they are all negligent?


If I were in charge of this crime scene investigation, I would have had all of the steel, and as much of the powder carted off to a secure location. Not melted down and sold. I would have reconstructed the towers. Does this sound funny? When an airliner blows up, its pieces are reconstructed. Yes it’s expensive, but IMHO, it is worth it. Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how. The how is a big piece IMHO. I would have had the steel at least partially reconstructed. Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, so that when they were taken to a secure location, it could be reconstructed like a big plastic model. The pieces and the instructions would all be there. How much extra time and money would it have taken to mark the pieces as such. Even if you later decide you don’t want to do the reconstruction, the pieces are available. As of now, they are gone, and that is that.
This to me, is negligence of the highest order.

Not entirely bad ideas, but still no evidence of intentional criminal activities. Instead you point out procedures you disagree with and assign intent and value to them without providing evidence for doing so.


Huntsman says
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.

A cutter charge is an explosive. I'll defer to Huntsman, resident expert on explosives, to deal with the particulars of thermite.


Pardalis says“Alot of things could sound and look like explosions without being explosions. Probably these alledged "superiors" were just doing these firemen a favour so that they wouldn't make fools of themselves”

Well, that’s allot of coulds and probablies for me.

Opinion noted.


Rwguinn says“KE=PE=mgH=w*h where g= your favorite gravitaional constant, m is mass (not weight)m and h is the building height at the mass location.
It ain't hard.”

Thank you for your knowledge. I agree it’s not hard. Potential energy, kinetic energy, mass, height, acceleration due to gravity. I am impressed. The hard part is the rest of the equation, the resistance of the building and the work done to cause the damage.

Which is why it needs to be hard math and not pseudocode.


Dubfan says

“Greening's paper describes a mathematical model based on verifiable facts and assumptions.”

Assumptions. Back to my question of why the steel is gone. Back to “My expert is better than your expert.”

Did you even notice the word "verifiable" in that sentence?


Pardalis says“Mutton-Head, what I don't personally understand about your way of thinking is, as though there might be discrepencies and anomalies about the WTC towers collapse, what makes you jump to the explosives devices explanation so quickly? How can you make such a leap?”

Because the firemen’s of the testimony, which was ignored.

Transcripts of this testimony, or verifiable quotes from the firemen indicating such?