PDA

View Full Version : Loose Change - Part IV


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21

jhunter1163
22nd September 2006, 05:34 PM
Well done, TAM. I knew you'd come through.

And I agree with you. There are certainly unanswered questions regarding 9/11, and I believe that the USG has been less than completely forthcoming in its answers to those questions. However, that being said, I also believe that the official version of the events of 9/11 is as close as we'll ever come to the truth, and the obfuscation of the USG has far more to do with (rule8)-covering than it does with any purported conspiracy. The official story works, despite its holes. Maybe in 20 or 30 years more details will be declassified, but until then we'll have to limp along with the official story as best we can.

Kryptos
22nd September 2006, 05:46 PM
the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government.
...
Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics.

Well said. All this CT garbage is a distraction, and I hate to see us get sidetracked. We need to remember the real perpetrators of 9/11 and the many other incidents.

-Kate

Kryptos
22nd September 2006, 05:52 PM
Maybe in 20 or 30 years more details will be declassified, but until then we'll have to limp along with the official story as best we can.

I would have to recommend Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton's book, "Without Precident", which describes their frustrations in getting the FAA and NORAD to be forthcoming to the 9/11 Commission. Basically, the various agencies are trying cover their incompetence, screw-ups, and protect their bureaucratic turf. Government as usual. Which is why it amazes me that CTs have such wild expectations of what government is capable of, like what they see in Hollywood or in 60 minutes of CSI.

-Kate

Kent1
22nd September 2006, 06:22 PM
You know they are hurting when they start personally attacking people now. Poor, mediocre, or great use of the English language does not invalidate one's claims.

The writer has made no evidence in the entire article as to whether or not "Pull it" is truly a controlled demolition term involving explosives. We have our evidence, from people in the demolition industry to the footage at "America Rebuilds" where they use cables to pull WTC 6.

They are afraid of us and it's showing.

EDIT: Speaking of which, PM does mention that no fire fighting was at WTC7. True, but the firemen were there, but they weren't fighting the fire due to warning signs the building was giving out of a possible collapse. You can read their statements in the New York Times listed on the Screw Loose Change video site.

EDIT: They also included my 9/11 Deniers Speak video...awww

Jones states:
"So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?"

Well, in earlier reports like FEMA they mentioned there was no one in the building HOWEVER, in later reports such as NIST, there were various reports of firefighters in the building even after 12:00. There were various search and rescue attempts mentioned sometime between 12:30 and 2:00.
See NIST
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf
Starting at around pg 108

Also at sometime after 11:30 there were numerous firefighers and officers coming out of building 7. These firefighers indicated that several blocks needed to be cleared around building 7 beacuse they thought the building was going to collapse. See page 110


And of cource Mike's site
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

Even Paul Thompsons timeline mentions this.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=building+7&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go

I agree with the grammar, he should clean it up a little, but its a small point.

njslim
22nd September 2006, 07:19 PM
EDIT: Speaking of which, PM does mention that no fire fighting was at WTC7. True, but the firemen were there, but they weren't fighting the fire due to warning signs the building was giving out of a possible collapse. You can read their statements in the New York Times listed on the Screw Loose Change video site.




FDNY personnel were searching the building for any victims or stragglers
left behind. If you read the FIREHOUSE magazine interviews - Capt Boyd
mentions that FDNY did attempt to fight fires but were hampered by lack
of water (building collapses severed most of the water mains in the area),
along with heavy personnel and equipment casualties. Boyd relates how
the crew was forced to scrounge hose ("rollups" in FDNY speak) and breathing
apparatus ("masks") from damaged or abandoned fire apparatus. Later FDNY
commanders decided to abandon WTC 7 and concentrate on rescue and
avoid further casualties. What FDNY personnel that were in the building
withdrew ("pulled") and a collapse zone (equal to 2 1/2 times height of
building ) was established. WTC 7 was left to its fate - remember listening
in on radio communications from scene while in my firehouse in NJ. By 2PM
FDNY was aware that WTC 7 was shifting and too dangerous to approach.
The CT moonbats have no concept of how firefighting operations are
conducted.

StoneWT
22nd September 2006, 07:28 PM
Watson is incredibly stupid. Linking to Mark's video is a colossal blunder. It will cause a good number to defect from the CT cult.

Paul Joseph Watson may have only watched the first portion 9/11 Deniers Speak. The later parts of the video are even more powerful than the portion with Jack Blood.

MarkyX
22nd September 2006, 09:16 PM
Watson is incredibly stupid. Linking to Mark's video is a colossal blunder. It will cause a good number to defect from the CT cult.

Paul Joseph Watson may have only watched the first portion 9/11 Deniers Speak. The later parts of the video are even more powerful than the portion with Jack Blood.

Not to mention that he thinks I'm taking the Jack Blood part out of context.

No, they are laughing at the idea that people were willing to submit to a group of people with a "small box cutter". You know, those small box cutters AKA knives that are used to hurt people VERY badly and *gasp* kill them.

They think knifes are harmless. I would like for them to tell a friend of a friend of mine, who happens to be six feet below somewhere in Toronto, who was killed in a stabbing (no internet sympathie please)

And Paul thinks I am taking this **** out of context? No Paul, they are laughing at the victims who "couldn't stand up" to a knife and a threat of a fictional bomb.

Kent1
22nd September 2006, 10:00 PM
Not to mention that he thinks I'm taking the Jack Blood part out of context.

No, they are laughing at the idea that people were willing to submit to a group of people with a "small box cutter". You know, those small box cutters AKA knives that are used to hurt people VERY badly and *gasp* kill them.

They think knifes are harmless. I would like for them to tell a friend of a friend of mine, who happens to be six feet below somewhere in Toronto, who was killed in a stabbing (no internet sympathie please)

And Paul thinks I am taking this **** out of context? No Paul, they are laughing at the victims who "couldn't stand up" to a knife and a threat of a fictional bomb.
Ron Wieck (pomeroo) has a funny post over at 911blogger
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3111?page=1

Its right after the UFO and poetry guys and right before the the guy who said
"People just need to STFU with all the grammar stuff, including Paul Joseph Watson. PrisonPlanet has been good to me and has published some of my stuff, but that article just sucks. You suck even more for replying to it."


Also I saw some of the hate e-mail debunking911 recieved from the Alex Jones article.
Here's one of many stellar examples:

"hiding your idenity ,then coming up with some clever reason why still only means you have something to hide my guess you’re a jew, maybe this is the adl ,thanks for supporting the big lie.also another reason I think this site is jewish is because if you get down to the hardcore 911 truths the jews played a big part in 911,its no wonder to me that the only group of people coming out to debunk 911 are jewish ,you got something to hide?the talmud has taught you well to lie and deceive the goyim every chance you get.by the way I like most jews just because I'm calling a pig a pig does'nt mean I'm anti-pig .it just means I'm anti-you"

tsig
23rd September 2006, 02:15 AM
Not to mention that he thinks I'm taking the Jack Blood part out of context.

No, they are laughing at the idea that people were willing to submit to a group of people with a "small box cutter". You know, those small box cutters AKA knives that are used to hurt people VERY badly and *gasp* kill them.

They think knifes are harmless. I would like for them to tell a friend of a friend of mine, who happens to be six feet below somewhere in Toronto, who was killed in a stabbing (no internet sympathie please)

And Paul thinks I am taking this **** out of context? No Paul, they are laughing at the victims who "couldn't stand up" to a knife and a threat of a fictional bomb.

one quarter inch of steel is enough to kill, if you have the strength and you have the will.

Bell
23rd September 2006, 03:04 AM
They also seem to forget all the close combat training these muscle hijackers followed. And anyway, I'm pretty sure before any of the passengers had any idea what was going on, the hijackers stabbed/killed one or more flight attendants/passengers, and that would have more than enough psycological effect on the other passengers to back away. That, and the bomb threat. They also seem to forget that before 9/11, planes got hijacked, where flown to some airport, and a standoff began, in which the hijackers wanted their demants met.

Alareth
23rd September 2006, 06:47 AM
The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.


So they admit that even a child can see through the BS they try to promote?

Hellbound
23rd September 2006, 08:10 AM
Just to re-make the point on the "boxcutters"...

Look at the pics of the knife from the Moussini(sp?) trial. The term "utility knife" would be better. It's one of those with the long, extentable, break-away blades. The kind that can be extended to 4 inches or so, and usually has multiple blades in the handle.

It's not a little bitty handle with a 1/4" corner of blade sticking out.

CptColumbo
23rd September 2006, 10:01 AM
Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.

What "crescendo of positive media attention?" Using the plural of medium implies that more than one outlet (TV, radio, internet, and newspaper) was giving it "positive" attention. Most noncritical news I've seen on the CT surrounding 9-11 has been reporting it's popularity on the Internet. IMO and as far as I can see the only medium outside of the net that gives it any regular attention at all is radio, and except during the anniversary of 9-11 it is restricted to the fringe programs like Coast to Coast.

The "official" story he speaks of is not the creation of the government alone, it is the accepted account of thousands of journalists, independent investigators, eyewitnesses, and (yes) gorvernment investigators. It's a case of trying to poison the well and demonize the theory before someone even mentions it by labeling the actual events as the "official" or "government" version.

njslim
23rd September 2006, 11:01 AM
The real name for these knives is "tactical knives" - was case few months
of person in Atlanta (ex military) who was jumped by gang of teenage punks
armed with shotgun and pistol. All he had was tactical kife with blade
of about 2 1/2 - 2/34 ". He was able to kill one of gang and wound another!
Hey I want this guy backing me up in any kind of fight!

jhunter1163
23rd September 2006, 11:50 AM
NJSlim, I saw a similar case in Philly a little while ago. An ex-Navy Seal was jumped by four punks, one with a gun, one with a knife. He killed one and badly wounded another before the others ran away. I think Philly muggers hold the world's record for stupidity, as two others tried to mug Joe Frazier a couple years ago. Yes, THAT Joe Frazier. Ex-heavyweight-champ Joe Frazier. Needless to say, it didn't go well for them.

Brainster
23rd September 2006, 03:08 PM
This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

TAM

I've only watched the first 20 minutes or so. It does appear to be a non-conspiracy type video, but it's not called 9-11 Press for Truth by accident. Note particularly the creepy music whenever Bush is on the air, as compared to the soft, gentle music when the Jersey Girls appear.

This whole "let's have another investigation" farce is just a distraction. The Jersey Girls got their 9-11 Commission (headed by a former New Jersey Governor no less); if they want more let them hire private investigators; lord knows they can afford it.

They go into a lot of the CT stuff without doing the CD or Bumble Planes. For example, consider the bit at about 6:00 where they "ask" why the US military didn't stop any of the four planes. They say that the military was made aware at 8:38 of the first hijacking and that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 (of course that's Denier BS, the plane crashed at 10:03). But of course the military was actually notified of the last plane a couple minutes after it crashed. One of the Jersey Girls then chuckles "that's almost two hours." No, even using their times it's less than an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01).

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

So my read is that this film is dishonest as well, just not as openly dishonest as Loose Change.

ETA: Next they go into the supposedly instantaneous response to Payne Stewart's plane, apparently not realizing that military jets reached his plane an hour and twenty-one minutes after it was reported as not responding to air traffic controllers. Remember, these are their first arguments in the film, supposed to be their best and strongest. I'm going to add this to the Press for Truth thread as well.

Oliver
23rd September 2006, 03:17 PM
*snip*My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.
TAM

Thank you, TAM. I really hope that the smart people in here get to this point. I also have this unanswered question about what really happend that day. That´s why everything else is senseless to me regarding the stupid theories out there. They change nothing but fading away from the truth... :(

T.A.M.
23rd September 2006, 05:13 PM
I've only watched the first 20 minutes or so. It does appear to be a non-conspiracy type video, but it's not called 9-11 Press for Truth by accident. Note particularly the creepy music whenever Bush is on the air, as compared to the soft, gentle music when the Jersey Girls appear.

This whole "let's have another investigation" farce is just a distraction. The Jersey Girls got their 9-11 Commission (headed by a former New Jersey Governor no less); if they want more let them hire private investigators; lord knows they can afford it.

They go into a lot of the CT stuff without doing the CD or Bumble Planes. For example, consider the bit at about 6:00 where they "ask" why the US military didn't stop any of the four planes. They say that the military was made aware at 8:38 of the first hijacking and that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 (of course that's Denier BS, the plane crashed at 10:03). But of course the military was actually notified of the last plane a couple minutes after it crashed. One of the Jersey Girls then chuckles "that's almost two hours." No, even using their times it's less than an hour and a half. And anyway, the question is not how long the air defenses had to react to all the hijackings, it's how long they had to react to each individual hijacking. As we know, that's not a very long time (http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01).

Flight 11: NEADS notified at 8:38. Crashed at 8:45.
Flight 175: NEADS notified at 9:03. Crashed at 9:03.
Flight 77: NEADS notified at 9:34. Crashed at 9:37.
Flight 93: NEADS notified at 10:07. Crashed at 10:03.

So my read is that this film is dishonest as well, just not as openly dishonest as Loose Change.

ETA: Next they go into the supposedly instantaneous response to Payne Stewart's plane, apparently not realizing that military jets reached his plane an hour and twenty-one minutes after it was reported as not responding to air traffic controllers. Remember, these are their first arguments in the film, supposed to be their best and strongest. I'm going to add this to the Press for Truth thread as well.


I agree there are definitely hints, overtones that they think something is up with the USG in terms of involvement. I think the creators played it smart, knowing that this documentary, to be taken truely seriously, and to avoid an "insta-debunk" would have to sit the fence, or at least be very vague in its indirect accusations. My hats off to the "smarts" of the creators for this.

I believe (don't quote me) that the initial version of this film, came out before the release of the NORAD/FAA tapes. I am not excusing their "criticism" of the timeline, but I think that part of the film is also early on, maybe even before the commission section, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that they do not go back to give "Kudos" to the commission for clearing it up.

I think Paul Thompson is very shreud, and should be taken quite seriously as a CTer, if that is what he is. He doesn't seem to associate himself much with the "wack" theories.

Overall, I would like to know more about the "Pakistani" connection, but I doubt we ever will...they are too much of a strategic allie to the USG. I mean look at the spin now that both are in the news with each other now.

TAM

T.A.M.
23rd September 2006, 07:27 PM
What do we know about this guy...

"Adnan el-Shukrijumah"

Apparently this guy could be about to unleash a nuclear WMD in the NYC/Washington areas. See this article for more...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018

TAM

Blue Mountain
24th September 2006, 08:52 AM
What do we know about this guy...

"Adnan el-Shukrijumah"

Apparently this guy could be about to unleash a nuclear WMD in the NYC/Washington areas. See this article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018) for more...

TAM
I can't comment on the article itself, since I must confess I didn't take time to read it thoroughly and follow-up its links.

But the site itself appears to be stronly anti-Islamic, with a sidebar advertisement for a book titled "The Truth About Muhammed" carrying the text, "The bloody life and vicious teachings of Muhammed, the founder of the world's most violent religion ..."

That alone raises alarm bells for me about the site's journalistic standards.

T.A.M.
24th September 2006, 09:52 AM
There is no doubt the site seems to have a conservative slant. I think the advertising banners are from an advertising source though, albeit a conservative one. There are different adverts up their now.

I guess it is likely as good as most of the sources the CTs use, but you are right, not as good a source as lets say a CNN (although I got the article through a link from Glen Beck site).

TAM

T.A.M.
24th September 2006, 11:38 AM
Original Interview with Al-qaeda's Abu Dawood by Hamid Mir. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/paul-williams091606.htm)

This shaite, if real, is godamn scary. This is the stuff the world needs to be focused on, not chasing down wild gooses of Controlled Demolition.

TAM

MarkyX
24th September 2006, 12:20 PM
Original Interview with Al-qaeda's Abu Dawood by Hamid Mir. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/paul-williams091606.htm)

This shaite, if real, is godamn scary. This is the stuff the world needs to be focused on, not chasing down wild gooses of Controlled Demolition.

TAM

Fortunately the government isn't really focused on controlled demolition, just the population.

But Bush is trying to play a politically correct war and has made numerous blunders in the past.

W6102LA
24th September 2006, 05:20 PM
Hi all, 1st post here. I've been reading through this thread and found a lot of good info. I found this on YouTube and thought you might like to see it...

http'//www'youtube'com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0

JohnDoeX seems to be the only person that recieved this animation from the NTSB

ps, sorry if it's already been posted

cheers

T.A.M.
24th September 2006, 06:33 PM
Welcome W6102LA to the JREF Skeptics forum on Conspiracy Theories. Your opinons will be allowed, if not accepted, regardless of where you stand on issues.

I will check out the video.

TAM

MarkyX
24th September 2006, 07:42 PM
Found something interesting to prove the argument yet again, that the firefighters expected the WTC7 to collapse!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlINYVXgBvE

Gravy
24th September 2006, 08:14 PM
Found something interesting to prove the argument yet again, that the firefighters expected the WTC7 to collapse!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlINYVXgBvE
Yes, that's an excellent clip. Mike has had it linked on 911myths.com for a long time. In a couple of days I'll have material ready that I hope will shut the CTs up for good regarding their silly "Pull it" claim.

CurtC
24th September 2006, 08:19 PM
I found this on YouTube and thought you might like to see it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzR-q0ijbV0

JohnDoeX seems to be the only person that recieved this animation from the NTSB
I'm not sure who all got that video from the NTSB. What strikes me most about the video is the poor altitude control that Hanjour demonstrated. The descending turn is not at all a nice, smoothly-controlled descent. He drops altitude in the first part, then actually climbs for a while until he notices, the drops at a rapid rate, slows that down, etc. Right before the roll-out he's not even descending at all, then when he rolls out he suddenly starts losing lots of altitude.

An instrument missing from the video is the Vertical Speed Indicator - I'd like to see that instead of having to mentally differentiate the altimeter. And I'd like to see a g-force indicator. It would have been a pretty uncomfortable ride for the passengers - they would have felt like they were on a roller coaster.

MarkyX
25th September 2006, 04:15 AM
I got a nice email today that I plan on posting soon. Although I don't know if I need to ask to "'expose it" first if I keep the name anoymous. I'm sure most of you know this already, but this is someone from the inside


Hey Mark,
I'm currently serving as an Army officer in the Medical Service Corps -
basically the logistics side of the medical field in the military, planning and
running the doctors, PAs, and medics that make up the provider side.

I just wanted to mention real quick something about the MASCAL reference in the
original "Loose Change" video that I don't think a lot of people realize.
First of all, MASCAL is military shorthand for MASs CASualty - a term that
means any time there are more casualties than there are medical
facilities/providers to treat them. A MASCAL can be as small as two soldiers
wounded on the battlefield with only one medic to treat them, and as large as
something like 9/11. Any time the wounded outnumber the treatment available,
it is considered a MASCAL.

Going along with that, "Loose Change" makes it sound like the MASCAL exercise at
the Pentagon was a rare occurence, something special and out of the ordinary.
To the contrary - as anyone in the medical field can tell you, MASCAL exercises
are conducted yearly on every Army installation in the country in order to test
emergency systems and practice medical training on a massive scale across the
post. Considering the Pentagon is a military installation with its own medical
section, it would not be out of the ordinary to have said medical section
involving other components in planning and exercising MASCAL training once a
year.

Not only that, but MASCAL exercises typically use threat ideas as the basis for
the training. Earlier this year I was serving at a military installation that
used the idea of a carbomb going off on post to train the MASCAL exercise.
Other MASCAL exercises that fellow soldiers I know of have trained at involved
dirty bombs, out of control riots, chemical weapons, and the like. Considering
the Pentagon's proximity to Reagan National, it would make sense that they would
use the unlikely but realistic scenario of a plane crash to train the medical
personnel on site and to test the in place emergency services.

Just something that a lot of people wouldn't know, that taken out of context
seems like a likely conspiracy theory supporting fact - when in reality it is a
common facet of the military medical community and nothing more than annual
training for medical personnel.

Thanks for working hard to fight the myth of a government-planned and operated
9/11 - it's good to see someone out there still has their head screwed on
right.

qarnos
25th September 2006, 04:32 AM
Just something that a lot of people wouldn't know, that taken out of context seems like a likely conspiracy theory supporting fact...

Be careful, or this quote might be chopped up and used in the next edition of LC.

"...a likely conspiracy..." - U.S. Military insider.

ETA: Woohoo! 100 posts!

Hellbound
25th September 2006, 06:36 AM
Just to support the point MarkyX,

I was also a medic in the militayr for some time. In my three years as a medic on active duty (rest of my time was Guard or Reserves), I participated in four mass casualty exercises:

1. Simulation of a chemical attack during a NATO TacEval (Tactical Evaluation), military assets only (although from multiple nations).
2. Simulation of a terrorist bombing of a bus...exercise required coordination with civillian authorities.
3. Simulation of conventional bomb attack during field exercise (military assets only).
4. Simulation of a terrorist attack on a hospital (required coordination with local German authorities and civillian personel).

So they are not rare occurances, and are done regularly...typically about once a year, more often during certain circumstances. We did both 1 and 2 above were within a year, and were done in preperation for a deployment. The other two were routinely scheduled evals. Also note that this was from 1994 to 1997, before terrorist attacks became a much larger threat/issue.

Bell
25th September 2006, 03:36 PM
I got a nice email today that I plan on posting soon. Although I don't know if I need to ask to "'expose it" first if I keep the name anoymous. I'm sure most of you know this already, but this is someone from the inside

That's a great e-mail, Mark. Even if it was for this one person alone, your fight is worth it.

I'm not sure, but maybe you can contact the Pentagon press officer and ask if he can verify the statements? (offcourse after consulting the sir who mailed it) Not that I don't believe this sir, but it makes even stronger counter argumenty if two people confirm this explaination.

T.A.M.
25th September 2006, 05:56 PM
So I am listening to AJ talk to Lauro Chavez. So Chavez says that an airforce colonel in charge of the airforce said that there was a "Standown" order given.

Alex asks "Do you remember the name of the colonel"

Chavez "No"

Alex says "Well we will have to get photos of the colonels there and have you identify him, so that we can get him under oath in front of a grand jury."

Ya...we'll see how far that goes...

TAM

LashL
25th September 2006, 07:34 PM
So I am listening to AJ talk to Lauro Chavez. So Chavez says that an airforce colonel in charge of the airforce said that there was a "Standown" order given.

Alex asks "Do you remember the name of the colonel"

Chavez "No"

Alex says "Well we will have to get photos of the colonels there and have you identify him, so that we can get him under oath in front of a grand jury."

Ya...we'll see how far that goes...

TAM

Yes, indeed.

I think I'll add this tidbit to my daytimer to follow up on in three months' time, and then send a query to AJ along the lines of, "so how's that working out for you?"

Heh heh.

JamesB
25th September 2006, 09:42 PM
So I am listening to AJ talk to Lauro Chavez. So Chavez says that an airforce colonel in charge of the airforce said that there was a "Standown" order given.

Alex asks "Do you remember the name of the colonel"

Chavez "No"

Alex says "Well we will have to get photos of the colonels there and have you identify him, so that we can get him under oath in front of a grand jury."

Ya...we'll see how far that goes...

TAM

Chavez is a complete fraud. No surprise they have started several threads on him on the Loose Change forum. How much do you want to bet Fetzer starts promoting him on his radio show Thursday?

Alareth
25th September 2006, 11:00 PM
So whatever happened with the LC'ers "smoking gun" witness from the gas station who isn't standing where he claimed he was in the recently released surveillence tape?

LashL
25th September 2006, 11:16 PM
So whatever happened with the LC'ers "smoking gun" witness from the gas station who isn't standing where he claimed he was in the recently released surveillence tape?

His non-appearance in the surveillance videos released from the gas station where he worked appears to have caused some difficulty with his story...

Gee, go figure.

jhunter1163
26th September 2006, 02:20 AM
[QUOTE=T.A.M.;1952547]<snip> So Chavez says that an airforce colonel in charge of the airforce said that there was a "Standown" order given.

Alex asks "Do you remember the name of the colonel"

Chavez "No"

Alex says "Well we will have to get photos of the colonels there and have you identify him, so that we can get him under oath in front of a grand jury."

<snip>
/QUOTE]

Am I to understand from this that Chavez thinks that a COLONEL is in charge of the United States Air Force? How many generals are there in the USAF, anyway? I'd guess dozens, if not hundreds. Any one of whom rank this alleged colonel-in-chief.:bwall

Mancman
26th September 2006, 03:54 AM
A rather crappy video of WTC7 footage here, the same that Dylan posted a snippet from in the Loose Change forum a short while ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IzIVdW0_do

As well as tiny, meaingless flashes, there's another one of their smoking guns in there, a WTC7 worker says: "I was part of the emergency management crew on the 23rd floor and when all the power went out in the building another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor and there was an explosion and we were trapped on the 8th floor"

Considering that we know:
a) The collapse of WTC2 took out the power for lower Manhattan
b) The collapse of WTC1 impacted WTC7
C) The collapses were 29 minutes apart

It would be quite reasonable to assume that the 'explosion' was WTC1 collapsing into WTC7.

But why think about it? He said EXPLOSION! :rolleyes:

T.A.M.
26th September 2006, 04:02 AM
I have a question. If a general, or someone else, leaves a "top secret" document open on a computer within a secure facility, and you are a low E5 fixing a computer, and you happen upon this document,

(a) are you allowed to read through the document (Chavez admits he did)?
(b) Should you then broadcast what was in the document on public radio (as Chavez did on AJs show)?

I'm just asking questions.

TAM

jon
26th September 2006, 04:16 AM
I have a question. If a general, or someone else, leaves a "top secret" document open on a computer within a secure facility, and you are a low E5 fixing a computer, and you happen upon this document,

(a) are you allowed to read through the document (Chavez admits he did)?
(b) Should you then broadcast what was in the document on public radio (as Chavez did on AJs show)?

I'm just asking questions.

TAM

What document's this? Just asking questions (but actually an answer would be appreciated in this case :D )

Hutch
26th September 2006, 05:40 AM
I have a question. If a general, or someone else, leaves a "top secret" document open on a computer within a secure facility, and you are a low E5 fixing a computer, and you happen upon this document,

(a) are you allowed to read through the document (Chavez admits he did)?
(b) Should you then broadcast what was in the document on public radio (as Chavez did on AJs show)?

I'm just asking questions.

TAM

T.A.M., I'm not a soldier but as a Government worker I get yearly security briefings as do military personnel.

If a general or high-ranking Officer EVER left a Classified document unprotected where any E5 could read it, they would be in a world of trouble. One thing that gets drummed into us constantly is to NEVER let Classified material out of our sight even for a minute, if you have to use the bathroom, you're supposed to lock it up or leave it with someone who has the necessary Security Clearance. Now a general might (heck, any of us might) ignore that, but with an unsecure office and an E5 either in there or arriving? I am skeptical. and if it was on the computer, well, we're told to lock our machines anytime before we leave the office, even if for 4-5 minutes, and I would think a General would do the same.

As for the E5 reading the document, his "by-the-book" course of action would be to report the violation to the Security Officer, but I'll give Chavez the benefit of the doubt here and note that not many E5's are going to risk their necks reporting a boo-boo by a General. That said, reading it was definitely an offense and if caught, he could have been in as much trouble (or even more) than the Officer.

Upshot; Not impossible, but given the stringent warnings all Military and DoD civilians get, the idea that a General Officer would leave a Top Secret document open where anybody could read it--well, I am skeptical.

IMHO as always.

Hellbound
26th September 2006, 06:04 AM
Just to chime in, I work on computers for the military, including classified systems (Secret level, not TS or SCI). I agree with Hutch's comments.

However, just to add to it, even if, through some oversight or whatever, an E-5 found these documents (and was not authorized to view them), talking about them still would be considered a violation of standing orders. Just as an additional note, if it was a computer with a Top Secret document on it, them it was, de facto, in a secure area. Which means this E-5 computer tech would have to have a Top Secret level clearance himself to even work on the systems or be in the room.

Just as an example, our Secret level areas were locked, and you could not eneter unless you had clearance. Every Army system outside this area (including the Commanding General of the 90th Reserve Commmand, that covers about five states) had these large, red stickers clearly stating "this system will not be used to process classified material."

Basically, the story is fishy on many levels, and sounds more like a made-for-TV movie than reality.

jon
26th September 2006, 06:15 AM
If a general or high-ranking Officer EVER left a Classified document unprotected where any E5 could read it, they would be in a world of trouble. One thing that gets drummed into us constantly is to NEVER let Classified material out of our sight even for a minute, if you have to use the bathroom, you're supposed to lock it up or leave it with someone who has the necessary Security Clearance. Now a general might (heck, any of us might) ignore that, but with an unsecure office and an E5 either in there or arriving? I am skeptical. and if it was on the computer, well, we're told to lock our machines anytime before we leave the office, even if for 4-5 minutes, and I would think a General would do the same.


Maybe/hopefully security has improved since then, but remember the Wing Commander who left the 1991 Gulf War plans on a laptop, in the boot of his unoccupied car; the laptop got nicked :eek: See story below (from 26/6/91 issue of the Times):

THE theft of the ``Crown Jewels'' from the boot of Wing Commander David Farquhar's car gave allied commanders the worst scare of the Gulf war.

For three weeks they had no idea whether the deception plan devised by General Norman Schwarzkopf...was in the hands of the Iraqis.

Fortunately for the allies, the theft of the lap-top computer containing the secret plan was carried out by an opportunist thief, known only as Andrew, who posted it back to the defence ministry with a message suggesting that the man responsible for the loss should be hanged.

T.A.M.
26th September 2006, 12:07 PM
He was discussing this with AJ on his radio show.

The top secret document was a folder that a "general" or someone had left open on the desk. Whilst working on the computers, our noble Chavez decided to sit down and read through it.

Go listen to AJs show on it, and here it for yourself.

He is either making it up, or will be in extremely deep shaite if it gets out to the military.

TAM

Hellbound
26th September 2006, 12:51 PM
He was discussing this with AJ on his radio show.

The top secret document was a folder that a "general" or someone had left open on the desk. Whilst working on the computers, our noble Chavez decided to sit down and read through it.

Go listen to AJs show on it, and here it for yourself.

He is either making it up, or will be in extremely deep shaite if it gets out to the military.

TAM

Hmmm.

More plausible, but still unlikely. To work on computers in the military, you must have at least a Secret level clearance (it's a job requirement for the MOS feild). Which means our enterprising young tech must have had at least one securoty breifing (they're required periodically to maintain clearance) and thus would have known what he was supposed to do regarding secure documents.

Thus, he has admitted to violating a direct (standing) order, violating his security clearance, overlooking a security violation (not sure what the official term for this would be), and now, since he's talking about it, violation of his security agreement and, possibly, treason (assuming all this is true). And he can't even plead ignorance...if his story is true, he knows (or should have known) the procedures for secure documents.

However, again, I find it highly unlikely that a person without a Top Secret clearance would be allowed to work in an area where TS documents were stored, without being granted that same clearance level. Does Chavez claim he had a TS clearance?

chipmunk stew
26th September 2006, 12:59 PM
Hmmm.

More plausible, but still unlikely. To work on computers in the military, you must have at least a Secret level clearance (it's a job requirement for the MOS feild). Which means our enterprising young tech must have had at least one securoty breifing (they're required periodically to maintain clearance) and thus would have known what he was supposed to do regarding secure documents.

Thus, he has admitted to violating a direct (standing) order, violating his security clearance, overlooking a security violation (not sure what the official term for this would be), and now, since he's talking about it, violation of his security agreement and, possibly, treason (assuming all this is true). And he can't even plead ignorance...if his story is true, he knows (or should have known) the procedures for secure documents.

However, again, I find it highly unlikely that a person without a Top Secret clearance would be allowed to work in an area where TS documents were stored, without being granted that same clearance level. Does Chavez claim he had a TS clearance?
So if he's not arrested and charged in a military court, either:
1. his claims are bunk
2. They want us to believe his claims are bunk

Incidentally, assuming he is lying, is he actually breaking any laws, military or civil?

Hellbound
26th September 2006, 01:00 PM
If he's lying? Possibly slander agains the general he's accusing of leaving a document out, if he names names.

Other than that, I don't think so, but we're getting outside my lane with the legal questions. I only know the ones about secure documents because I do computer work for the military and have sat through the briefings :)

T.A.M.
26th September 2006, 02:01 PM
In the AJ broadcast he claimed to have the proper clearance to be where he says he was.

Not only did he accuse a general of leaving a TS doc out (he doesnt name the general, of course), but he also accuses a colonol, who he says was in charge of some portion of the air force, of claiming there was a "Stand Down" order given on 9/11. Now since all of the USG deny this, he is accusing the entire administration of purgery when they gave testimony to the commission.

TAM

T.A.M.
26th September 2006, 05:36 PM
My new favorite word is...."CONSPIRANOIA".

I love it.

TAM

LashL
26th September 2006, 05:40 PM
My new favorite word is...."CONSPIRANOIA".

I love it.

TAM

That is a GREAT word.

I have no doubt that it will soon spread far and wide.

Heh heh.

T.A.M.
26th September 2006, 05:52 PM
http://www.gnn.tv/A02578

Unlike the CTers, who continuously spout off others ideas, and take credit themselves, I will not.

Thank Bill Weinberg for the new word.

TAM

apathoid
27th September 2006, 12:23 AM
Interesting post on the screwloosechange forum.

Here's a good one about them ! When I registered with Loose Change I used a new and sepearte Yahoo email address for the single purpose of registration only. No one else knows the email address and I have never used it for anything else. Whilst I was at LC I had my address hidden so only the admin and mods could see it. Suddenly the email address has been bombed with loads of porn spam. Just shows what the mods and admin are really like over there. Anyhow, I contacted Yahoo and explained to them about the setting up of the address and that it was used for one purpose only and they have closed it now. The guy who contacted me said they are had similar complaints and that LC had been mentioned in those complaints ! So looks like one of them at least is a porn-freak who gets ex-members email addresses signed up for dialy porn. I also emailed one of the sites and they replied saying that the IP address of the person who signed me up was logged and will notify the ISP ! Just shows what a complete bunch of wankers they really are over there. I work for a media business and will make sure that this goes to print to warn peoplke of what they are really doing.

Wow, I'm truly, truly :shocked:
This has chucksheens fingerprints all over it. We know that he: a) installed browser hijacking viruses at a Bestbuy(?), redirecting those computers to universalseed and b) is a hit whore for universalseed(or whatever the hell it's called now), even editing users posts to link to it. I'm also thinking that this may be the only semblance of a job he has(somebody has the create those porn spam viruses)..

Gravy
27th September 2006, 06:45 AM
Cave Canem! Car tires everywhere halted, punctured!

Can "Curb Your Human" laws be far off?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/southern_counties/5382878.stm

Abbyas
27th September 2006, 11:24 AM
Originally Posted by Deksta
Here's a good one about them ! When I registered with Loose Change I used a new and sepearte Yahoo email address for the single purpose of registration only. No one else knows the email address and I have never used it for anything else. Whilst I was at LC I had my address hidden so only the admin and mods could see it. Suddenly the email address has been bombed with loads of porn spam. Just shows what the mods and admin are really like over there. Anyhow, I contacted Yahoo and explained to them about the setting up of the address and that it was used for one purpose only and they have closed it now. The guy who contacted me said they are had similar complaints and that LC had been mentioned in those complaints ! So looks like one of them at least is a porn-freak who gets ex-members email addresses signed up for dialy porn. I also emailed one of the sites and they replied saying that the IP address of the person who signed me up was logged and will notify the ISP ! Just shows what a complete bunch of wankers they really are over there. I work for a media business and will make sure that this goes to print to warn peoplke of what they are really doing.

This is definitely a story of which I want to hear more.

Gravy
27th September 2006, 11:41 AM
This is definitely a story of which I want to hear more.
Admit it: you just like seeing "porn" and "wankers" in the same post.

T.A.M.
27th September 2006, 12:27 PM
so now I have two new favorite words:

"Conspiranoia" and "Pornwanker".

TAM

jhunter1163
27th September 2006, 01:53 PM
Just my US$0.02 on the secrecy thing...

My ex-father-in-law was a major in the Air Force, with Secret clearance. One day his travels took him to five different locations within NORAD. He was promptly called into the CO's office and asked to explain why he was in each of these locations. It turned out that there was an above-top-secret project which used all five of those locations. Just coincidentally, he visited each of them.

The moral of the story is, I suppose, that both top-secret materials AND the individuals who access them are monitored quite closely indeed. I have a hard time believing Chavez's story.

Oliver
27th September 2006, 02:16 PM
Why is this thread not a "sticky"-one and what/who
makes it a sticky thread?

Gravy
27th September 2006, 03:05 PM
posted by mickky in the 9/11 editorials thread:

"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/1) by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot -- not the bits and pieces, but the whole story, put together -- that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter.

Bell
27th September 2006, 03:14 PM
posted by mickky in the 9/11 editorials thread:

"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/1) by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

He means, like this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63965) ?

Kent1
27th September 2006, 03:15 PM
posted by mickky in the 9/11 editorials thread:

"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/1) by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
Wow that's a good one...LOL!

Gravy
27th September 2006, 03:16 PM
He means, like this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63965) ?
Exactly! Smacco's Rozar in full effect.

bob_kark
27th September 2006, 03:25 PM
Why is this thread not a "sticky"-one and what/who
makes it a sticky thread?
We're not finished yet! The moderators will make it sticky once there are enough posts.

Abbyas
27th September 2006, 03:32 PM
"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

God, that is good.

Jennie C.
27th September 2006, 04:03 PM
I think I'm getting close to the end of Thread 1 !!!! I'm on page 108. And this caught my eye:


I've never heard a CTist acknowledge the basic fact that everything from spray cans and pop bottles to undischarged fire extinguishers, power transformers and propane or oxygen tanks can and will explode when immersed in flames.


Not that that had never occurred to me, but it was the "when immersed in flames" that caught my eye.

I'm not the only one here who remembers when soda came in glass bottles, right? Well in that yesteryear, my husband had the distressing habit of putting one in the freezer and not telling me, nor setting any kind of timer.

About 30 mins later, I would wonder what that funny noise was and then clean all the glass and brown fuzzy ice out of my freezer.

Lots of ways to make an explosion, gang. Lots and lots.

Bell
27th September 2006, 04:05 PM
I think I'm getting close to the end of Thread 1 !!!! I'm on page 108. And this caught my eye:



Not that that had never occurred to me, but it was the "when immersed in flames" that caught my eye.

I'm not the only one here who remembers when soda came in glass bottles, right? Well in that yesteryear, my husband had the distressing habit of putting one in the freezer and not telling me, nor setting any kind of timer.

About 30 mins later, I would wonder what that funny noise was and then clean all the glass and brown fuzzy ice out of my freezer.

Lots of ways to make an explosion, gang. Lots and lots.

You are saying they used Coke and a giant freezer to bring down the WTC? :p

delphi_ote
27th September 2006, 04:11 PM
However, again, I find it highly unlikely that a person without a Top Secret clearance would be allowed to work in an area where TS documents were stored, without being granted that same clearance level. Does Chavez claim he had a TS clearance?
In my experience, there is no way in hell something like this would happen. Nobody handles TS documents like that. Especially when the content is something seriously compromising.

His story basically boils down to a guy who doesn't know the first thing about classified materials and has seen one too many action movies trying to give himself credibility that nobody can check.

tsig
27th September 2006, 05:13 PM
Discovery Times is broadcasting a 9-11 show right now complete with computer enacments.

Destroys the CTers

stateofgrace
27th September 2006, 05:33 PM
Well this is suppose to be my 1,000th post, so here it goes...

9/11 - Press for the Truth
-------------------------
I just finished watching this documentary. It is a 9/11 film that follows the pathes of the "Jersey Girls" as well as "independent researcher" Paul Thompson.

This film has been touted by almost all of the "9/11 Truth" movement as the "undebunkable" documentary for them, and that it is the ultimate film to represent their stance. Well if that is the case, than all I can say is that 90% of the people who claim to be a part of that "9/11 Truth" movement, are lying. Why do I say this. Not because the film is "debunkable", it maybe, but I do not have all the knowledge to debunk it myself. No, the reason I say they are lying is very simple. 90% of the people who we encounter at the various CT websites, the "Scholars" the "LTW Followers" the "Truth Trolls" push enormous amounts of conjecture, heresay, speculation, and downright wrong "evidence" that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the points made in this film. So any "truther" who says that this film is the best representation of what they "are about" is likely lying.

This movie does not, IN ANY WAY, make mention of, debate over, or even recognize, arguments concerning the "Controlled Demolition" or the "Missile into the Pentagon" or the "No Hijackers", or any of the hundreds of "Truth" conjectures/theories about 9/11. If you are about to watch the film expecting to find ANY of this in it, do not waste your time.

This film, I believe, is one of the more honest films, in terms of what really needs to be asked about 9/11. It begs questions on what role did "Pakistan" play in 9/11 funding. I do not claim to know, but I think that the american people are entitled to a well researched answer. It asks the questions concerning "What did the USG know about an impending attack on the US prior to 9/11" and I believe this is a question that should be answered. I believe, to a large degree, it has...if you know where to look for the info.

What this film does not do, is it does not implicate the USG in an "inside job", it does not say "Bush did it" it does not go into PNAC or any of the rediculous things we have been forced to debunk to keep the air clear in cyberspace.

I am still a full fledged debunker, don't get me wrong. I still believe the towers were brought down by Al-Qaeda Hijackers, in cohorts with OBL. I believe the Pentagon was hit by AA77, and I believe in the heroic efforts of the passengers of flight 93. What this film has done for me, is made me realize that the loons of the "truth" movement have distracted many of us from realizing that a part of their "movement" are legitimate people, with legitimate questions for their government. Now if the vast majority of their questions have been answered through the Commission report and all the other information out there, than fine, but if the victim families of the 9/11 attacks feel that the vast majority of their questions have gone unanswered, to their satisfaction, than I say they have a right to the answers.

My final thoughts are for those people that seek the "Truth" about 9/11, those that seek the "Real Truth". For those people I would say, clean your house. Get rid of all the useless junk scientists, the loony tunes, the wingnuts. Get rid of all the silly "theories" of "No Planes" and "Thermite", and "Cruise Missiles". Get rid of the LC lunatics. This, I know, would be a courageous thing to do, as the "Truth" movement owes alot of its publicity to their cockamame tall tales. Trust me though, in the end, if your cause is to win the hearts and minds of the american people, and reasonable people worldwide, you will have to keep the "Truth" house in order, and right now it is in such disarray, that it will only fade further, and further, until the world forgets there were even questions that have not been answered.

TAM

TAM this is an excellent post, I hope you don't mind but I would like to copy and paste this on to other forums.

stateofgarce.

LashL
27th September 2006, 05:33 PM
posted by mickky in the 9/11 editorials thread:

"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/1) by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Here's a great line from that Rolling Stone article:

If you can't put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you're doing is jerking off -- and it's not like no one's ever done that on the Internet before.


Jerking off, JAQing off, same thing :D

Pardalis
27th September 2006, 05:51 PM
I was trying to find the link to the Loose Change forum just now, because I haven't bookmarked it, and this is what I found Googling the words:

http://www.loose-change.org/

:D

T.A.M.
27th September 2006, 05:59 PM
TAM this is an excellent post, I hope you don't mind but I would like to copy and paste this on to other forums.

stateofgarce.

I would be honored, feel free. I am blushing now...lol

TAM

Regnad Kcin
27th September 2006, 10:14 PM
"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" by Matt Taibbi, Rolling StoneExcellent in every way.

steve s
27th September 2006, 10:54 PM
Here's a great line from that Rolling Stone article:


And another...

There are as many Thomas Paines in the 9/11 Truth movement as there are Isaac Newtons among the Intelligent Design crowd.

Steve S.

Hellbound
28th September 2006, 06:05 AM
In my experience, there is no way in hell something like this would happen. Nobody handles TS documents like that. Especially when the content is something seriously compromising.

His story basically boils down to a guy who doesn't know the first thing about classified materials and has seen one too many action movies trying to give himself credibility that nobody can check.

Yeah, pretty much my assessment as well. It's technically possible, but very, very unlikely.

I've only worked with Secret rated materials, although I had a buddy that handled TS/SCI level info (technical and tactical intelligence). So I know a bit about it :)

If you check the Lauro Chavez thread, I've sent an FOIA request for all publicly releasable records related to this guy...we currently believe his DD 214 was doctored.

Pardalis
28th September 2006, 06:10 AM
Excellent in every way.

I particularly find funny the fact that he ends up making Bush sound intelligent, given the ridicoulous complexity of the plot!

:dl:

Hawk one
28th September 2006, 08:24 AM
I'm not the only one here who remembers when soda came in glass bottles, right? Well in that yesteryear, my husband had the distressing habit of putting one in the freezer and not telling me, nor setting any kind of timer.
As a complete aside, they still sell cola and a few other assorted soft drinks in glass bottle here in Norway. Good thing too, because it really tastes much better than in the plastic bottles. Especially the 1.5 liter plastic bottles.

CptColumbo
28th September 2006, 08:27 AM
posted by mickky in the 9/11 editorials thread:

"The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracies" (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspir acies/1) by Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

Have you read some of the comments about that article. Holy [rule 8]! They still don't get it. At least one guy is trying to explain to them about WTC7, but they keep parroting the line about "pull it."

Graham2001
28th September 2006, 08:33 AM
As a complete aside, they still sell cola and a few other assorted soft drinks in glass bottle here in Norway. Good thing too, because it really tastes much better than in the plastic bottles. Especially the 1.5 liter plastic bottles.

It's mostly plastic here in Australia though recently I visited a seafood restaurant and all the coke/fanta/sprite were in old style glass bottles in the chiller, took me back quite a way that did.

rwguinn
28th September 2006, 08:43 AM
As a complete aside, they still sell cola and a few other assorted soft drinks in glass bottle here in Norway. Good thing too, because it really tastes much better than in the plastic bottles. Especially the 1.5 liter plastic bottles.

Originally Posted by Jennie C. http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1957194#post1957194)
I'm not the only one here who remembers when soda came in glass bottles, right? Well in that yesteryear, my husband had the distressing habit of putting one in the freezer and not telling me, nor setting any kind of timer.
Growing up in West Texas/Eastern New Mexico, USA--In summertime, we kept those bottles in air conditioned areas because otherwise, about 16% of them would send shrapnel all over the place--just from the exposure to sunlight and Desert SouthWest heat.In the grocery stores, where they were stacked up, when 1 went, a BUNCH of them went blooie!
That was one of the reasons they changed to plastic--there were actually people injured (minor cuts, that I personally know of)

Blue Mountain
28th September 2006, 09:06 AM
As a complete aside, they still sell cola and a few other assorted soft drinks in glass bottle here in Norway. Good thing too, because it really tastes much better than in the plastic bottles. Especially the 1.5 liter plastic bottles.
Have you conducted blinded experiments to see if there is a detectable difference?

delphi_ote
28th September 2006, 09:11 AM
I've only worked with Secret rated materials, although I had a buddy that handled TS/SCI level info (technical and tactical intelligence). So I know a bit about it :)
I'm TS/SI. A document with such sensitive information would not be left open on someone's desk, even in an area where everyone is cleared, and a computer system in that area would not be connected to the internet. Nobody working on it would be "waiting for some patches to download."
If you check the Lauro Chavez thread, I've sent an FOIA request for all publicly releasable records related to this guy...we currently believe his DD 214 was doctored.
I read that whole thread. Excellent detective work all around. I also really admire your caution about jumping to conclusions. I look forward to the outcome of that request!

Hellbound
28th September 2006, 10:08 AM
I'm TS/SI. A document with such sensitive information would not be left open on someone's desk, even in an area where everyone is cleared, and a computer system in that area would not be connected to the internet. Nobody working on it would be "waiting for some patches to download."

Ah, didn't hear that part :)

Yes, it would not be connected to the network or Internet (to my understanding, there are classified networks, but they are completely seperate from unclassified systems and not Internet-connected).

I read that whole thread. Excellent detective work all around. I also really admire your caution about jumping to conclusions. I look forward to the outcome of that request!

Well, part of my caution is because, having been in the military, I know how screwd up they can get paperwork at times (and how many will take easy ways to correct mistakes, such as liquid-papering instead of retyping a document). However, I feel certain at this point that something is fishy about the form :) I'll be curious to see how the request goes, as well. I just hope they don't ask for too much of a fee...the fundage is not currently abundant :)

JamesB
28th September 2006, 10:27 AM
Ah, didn't hear that part :)

Yes, it would not be connected to the network or Internet (to my understanding, there are classified networks, but they are completely seperate from unclassified systems and not Internet-connected).



Well, part of my caution is because, having been in the military, I know how screwd up they can get paperwork at times (and how many will take easy ways to correct mistakes, such as liquid-papering instead of retyping a document). However, I feel certain at this point that something is fishy about the form :) I'll be curious to see how the request goes, as well. I just hope they don't ask for too much of a fee...the fundage is not currently abundant :)

This version of the DD-214 is computer generated. The last I checked liquid paper doesn't work too well with a laser jet printer. :D

Hellbound
28th September 2006, 10:29 AM
This version of the DD-214 is computer generated. The last I checked liquid paper doesn't work too well with a laser jet printer. :D

True, it is the automated FormFlow form. However, knowing not only military personnel, but also FormFlow (software which is only about 14 years out-of-date), it wouldn't suprise me if the form was printed off and the info typed, either. I've seen similar things done. Another reason I suggested caution at the beginning.

Of course, I'm 99% certain it's falsified at this point.

delphi_ote
28th September 2006, 10:38 AM
Yes, it would not be connected to the network or Internet (to my understanding, there are classified networks, but they are completely seperate from unclassified systems and not Internet-connected).
No machine in an area where real time flight planning is going on would be connected to any kind of outside network. Even unclass machines that might be connected to the internet couldn't pull down executable files. The risk of an information leak is nothing compared to the risk of a user accidentally downloading a virus that takes down a critical machine or network. Those computers are locked down tight.

A supposed computer expert would not refer to "downloading" a patch unless he meant exactly that. This guy is a fraud.

Hellbound
28th September 2006, 10:53 AM
No machine in an area where real time flight planning is going on would be connected to any kind of outside network. Even unclass machines that might be connected to the internet couldn't pull down executable files. The risk of an information leak is nothing compared to the risk of a user accidentally downloading a virus that takes down a critical machine or network. Those computers are locked down tight.

A supposed computer expert would not refer to "downloading" a patch unless he meant exactly that. This guy is a fraud.

Welllll....

We used internal Windows update servers to distribute patches within our network. THey would be dowloaded and examined first, then place on the patch servers for distribution within the network.

Now, admittedly, I didn't work on a high-security area, so I dunno. They wouldn't be downloading form teh Internet or an outside network, butif they ran an internal network (just the classified machines), would they have an update server attached to it? ONe they controlled, and placed the updates they had determined as "okay" on it for distribution?

You know more about the classified systems and networks than I do...we had a couple individual secret-level computers, but nothing major.

Just a slight addition: the 74B20 MOS is not "Computer Expert". I'd plac eit on par witht he Techs at CompUSA or BEst Buy. So don't place too much faith in the Army's computer training program (and this is the job I have for the Army as well, so I know a bit about this MOS).

TK0001
28th September 2006, 10:56 AM
He means, like this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63965) ?

Hey! I thought of the CT Timeline as I was reading this article! I should submit it to him....

Bell
28th September 2006, 11:08 AM
Hey! I thought of the CT Timeline as I was reading this article! I should submit it to him....

Yes, do so. I was thinking of mailing him and refering to that JREF topic as well. But it's your thread, so the honor is yours :)

TK0001
28th September 2006, 11:17 AM
Yes, do so. I was thinking of mailing him and refering to that JREF topic as well. But it's your thread, so the honor is yours :)

I left a link in the comments section, for what it's worth.

Almo
28th September 2006, 02:12 PM
I was trying to find the link to the Loose Change forum just now, because I haven't bookmarked it, and this is what I found Googling the words:

http://www.loose-change.org/

:D

That's a damned good site there. I'm completely serious about that. Great. Is there any way to sound serious? This is sort of like if I said "It's true," when I really mean it.

Check out the punctuation! "It's true" is a complete sentence in the quotes, but I ended it with a comma INSIDE the quotes. Which I believe is correct. ;)

Jennie C.
28th September 2006, 05:42 PM
You are saying they used Coke and a giant freezer to bring down the WTC?


Well, heck yeah. Why not? As plausible as any of the other CT theories, no?

Jennie C.
28th September 2006, 05:44 PM
As a complete aside, they still sell cola and a few other assorted soft drinks in glass bottle here in Norway. Good thing too, because it really tastes much better than in the plastic bottles. Especially the 1.5 liter plastic bottles.


Well, I always thought my beer (Genesse, get it?) tasted better in glass too. But I thought that was just because the bottles were returnable and I was drinking the stuff at about 45cents per pint.

But then they stopped filling the longnecks, so I went to Budweiser in cans.

njslim
28th September 2006, 05:44 PM
>As a complete aside, they still sell cola and a few other assorted soft drinks >in glass bottle here in Norway. Good thing too, because it really tastes >much better than in the plastic bottles. Especially the 1.5 liter plastic
>bottles.

But they sell 40 oz malt liquor in glass bottles - figure that out!

delphi_ote
28th September 2006, 06:17 PM
We used internal Windows update servers to distribute patches within our network. THey would be dowloaded and examined first, then place on the patch servers for distribution within the network.
That's usually the way tech support handles that kind of thing. But that wouldn't leave someone waiting a long time for the patch download to read a document left open on the desk, which is his claim. The file would come right across the internal network.
Just a slight addition: the 74B20 MOS is not "Computer Expert". I'd plac eit on par witht he Techs at CompUSA or BEst Buy. So don't place too much faith in the Army's computer training program (and this is the job I have for the Army as well, so I know a bit about this MOS).
Would they turn someone loose like that on the computers in the middle of a critical area of CENTCOM?

I know some crazy things happen in secured areas from time to time. Even "the best and brightest" can be careless bureaucratic nitwits. But his story is so unlikely the more I think about it. There are all of these convenient lapses in security, unlikely descriptions of secure facilities, oddities in the way he describes the events on the most remembered day in recent history, and the man just happened to hear exactly the information the CT community has claimed for ages over the course of two days? And he doesn't have any further information or details to add? Not even the names of the people he overheard or exactly what they said?

Mr. Skinny
28th September 2006, 06:40 PM
True, it is the automated FormFlow form. However, knowing not only military personnel, but also FormFlow (software which is only about 14 years out-of-date), it wouldn't suprise me if the form was printed off and the info typed, either. I've seen similar things done. Another reason I suggested caution at the beginning.

Of course, I'm 99% certain it's falsified at this point.
Concur that FormFlow bites. It could have been printed, then typed, but where I work in the AF it's hard to find a typewriter these days (YMMV).

Agree about the TS computers. Ours are not connected to the network and undergo a ******** of security measures that users must comply with.

Let's see....oh yeah, we have quarterly security briefings, and at least once a year it's devoted to COMSEC.

And...the global email listing varies from installation to installation. Some keep their database current; some don't.

Sorry, can't remember all the other points.

CurtC
28th September 2006, 07:59 PM
Let's see....oh yeah, we have quarterly security briefings, and at least once a year it's devoted to COMSEC.

Sorry, can't remember all the other points.
Lotsa good all those security briefings did!

Hellbound
29th September 2006, 07:30 AM
I know some crazy things happen in secured areas from time to time. Even "the best and brightest" can be careless bureaucratic nitwits. But his story is so unlikely the more I think about it. There are all of these convenient lapses in security, unlikely descriptions of secure facilities, oddities in the way he describes the events on the most remembered day in recent history, and the man just happened to hear exactly the information the CT community has claimed for ages over the course of two days? And he doesn't have any further information or details to add? Not even the names of the people he overheard or exactly what they said?

True enough on all points (even those not quoted).

I'm just saying that his story is theorectically within the realm of possibility. Just as it's theorectically within the realm of possibility that I'm actually adopted, and my real parents are extremely rich royalty of some other nation, and I'm the next in line for the throne.

I agree with you otherwise, though. It's so improbable that unless I see hard evidence of the specific event, I can't accept it as true in any way, shape, form, or fashion.

delphi_ote
29th September 2006, 10:05 AM
True enough on all points (even those not quoted).

I'm just saying that his story is theorectically within the realm of possibility. Just as it's theorectically within the realm of possibility that I'm actually adopted, and my real parents are extremely rich royalty of some other nation, and I'm the next in line for the throne.

I agree with you otherwise, though. It's so improbable that unless I see hard evidence of the specific event, I can't accept it as true in any way, shape, form, or fashion.
You're absolutely right about it being within the realm of possibility. As I said before, I admire your caution. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the whole narrative. When you spend a lot of time picking at the details, you can lose sight of the big picture. After deconstructing it and putting it back together... wow. This is quite a tale.

I really hope we get some details from that FOIA request you put in. It would be really nice to put this story to bed once and for all.

Kent1
29th September 2006, 10:09 AM
You're absolutely right about it being within the realm of possibility. As I said before, I admire your caution. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the whole narrative. When you spend a lot of time picking at the details, you can lose sight of the big picture. After deconstructing it and putting it back together... wow. This is quite a tale.

I really hope we get some details from that FOIA request you put in. It would be really nice to put this story to bed once and for all.

Speaking of FOIA's I just want to let people know that NIST will currently take FOIA requests. I recieved an e-mail from them with instructions.
Instructions for submitting FOIA requests are available on the NIST web site at http://www.nist.gov/admin/foia/foia.htm.

But don't except anything on WTC7, they are still working on the investigation.

Kiwiwriter
29th September 2006, 10:09 AM
....right now. Over lunch. I'll let you know. :)

Slothrop
29th September 2006, 10:39 AM
As a brief little reply to the talk about top secrets, as a Norwegian I served a year of mandatory military service. Firstly, you need to pass a quite intense security clearance to be in a room where anything that is secret could potentially be contained. Secondly, the protection of any and all of these secrets is taken extremely seriously by everyone involved. Thirdly, probably every single one of these secrets is not as exciting as the word "secret" would have you believe. Fourthly, being in the military and being exposed to government secrets does not make you inhuman; if anything along the line of "We're going to kill a bunch of civilians in order to have an excuse to go to war. Don't tell anyone!" came through the ranks, the whistleblower wouldn't be the janitor.

rwguinn
29th September 2006, 11:01 AM
As a brief little reply to the talk about top secrets, as a Norwegian I served a year of mandatory military service. Firstly, you need to pass a quite intense security clearance to be in a room where anything that is secret could potentially be contained. Secondly, the protection of any and all of these secrets is taken extremely seriously by everyone involved. Thirdly, probably every single one of these secrets is not as exciting as the word "secret" would have you believe. Fourthly, being in the military and being exposed to government secrets does not make you inhuman; if anything along the line of "We're going to kill a bunch of civilians in order to have an excuse to go to war. Don't tell anyone!" came through the ranks, the whistleblower wouldn't be the janitor.

But that's simply because you yurpeans have all been through your colonial periods,and besides, you are much more noble than we brash, self-centered selfish (and those are our OWN peoples terms) Americans...:bs: :D

StoneWT
30th September 2006, 03:58 PM
Loose Change Final Cut (http://www.jackbloodforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10246)

Enjoy. The linked-to clips apparently are part of the content for the oft-delayed release of TROOF: Final Version. Please promise to not laugh uncontrollably and spew beverages on the monitor.

CptColumbo
30th September 2006, 10:04 PM
Here is an interesting report about the pentagon.

aVaRtZnrgNE&NR

The "fisheyed' thing hadn't occured to me.

Crungy
30th September 2006, 10:33 PM
I just saw this gem posted in the "Where is Dylan" thread at the Loony Change forums.

Yeah, he recently posted in this forum. I made a post suggesting to lower the prices in the shop so that more people could be exposed to the video. He responded by insulting me and telling me to get off my soap box.

Due to my noob status, I can't type the link in full, so just add the missing prefix below.

s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15539

MarkyX
1st October 2006, 02:18 PM
Can someone who has the LC board post here:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15629

AJ made another idiot prediction again. Want to guess his source of information?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/paul-williams091606.htm

Pardalis
1st October 2006, 02:56 PM
Awesome video Cpt Columbo. Nice work inspector. :D

Bell
1st October 2006, 03:07 PM
Awesome video Cpt Columbo. Nice work inspector. :D

http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

This is the site of the creator, and has the complete simulation.

Pardalis
1st October 2006, 03:27 PM
Loose Change Final Cut (http://www.jackbloodforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10246)

Like any sequel, it gets worst and worst.

60hzxtl
1st October 2006, 03:37 PM
Talking heads! How convincing.

Where's my Million Dollars!

Jim Marrs! Half his personality is in his hat - (pssst Jones - get a hat!)

T.A.M.
1st October 2006, 07:00 PM
Can someone who has the LC board post here:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15629

AJ made another idiot prediction again. Want to guess his source of information?

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/paul-williams091606.htm

I saw this Canadafreepress article weeks ago and mentioned it here. I wouldn't take such as being false flag, but as a serious warning. I mean if there is any truth to it, than USA is in a tonne of **** soon. I assume Alex is saying that the USG will now capture these guys, and when they do it will be proof that they were just a part of the plot by BUSH/PNAC to take away freedoms.

TAM

MarkyX
1st October 2006, 07:27 PM
Alex Jones can predict all he wants. I just want to show his cult following where he gets his "uber duper secret information"

Belz...
2nd October 2006, 04:48 AM
Like any sequel, it gets worst and worst.

Most of the times, anyway.

MarkyX
2nd October 2006, 02:16 PM
Another link via email

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nti7fdZebs

The Landmark tower, from the people's POV. Doesn't look anything like the WTC 1,2, and 7. Not to mention that it's freaking loud!

apathoid
2nd October 2006, 03:31 PM
Another link via email

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nti7fdZebs

The Landmark tower, from the people's POV. Doesn't look anything like the WTC 1,2, and 7. Not to mention that it's freaking loud!

OFMG, look at teh pyroclastic flow LOL!!!11!!

/ctmode

T.A.M.
2nd October 2006, 05:20 PM
you notice it didn't come down straight like WTC7...so this must obviously be a conspiracy. That could not have been a controlled demolition that brought the Landmark down...so what did?

:D TAM:D

Kent1
2nd October 2006, 10:22 PM
Killtowns site has some use. He has a large collection of the MANY different plane impacts.

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

Kent1
2nd October 2006, 10:57 PM
Another new debunking site

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

W6102LA
3rd October 2006, 01:17 AM
you notice it didn't come down straight like WTC7...so this must obviously be a conspiracy. That could not have been a controlled demolition that brought the Landmark down...so what did?

:D TAM:D
ha ha..that's easy....FAKE VIDEO !!!!!

*takes off tin-foil hat*

:)

Josh Redstone
3rd October 2006, 06:16 AM
I saw this Canadafreepress article weeks ago and mentioned it here. I wouldn't take such as being false flag, but as a serious warning. I mean if there is any truth to it, than USA is in a tonne of **** soon. I assume Alex is saying that the USG will now capture these guys, and when they do it will be proof that they were just a part of the plot by BUSH/PNAC to take away freedoms.

TAM

Say, is Canada free pres andything like the American Free press, as in, non-realiable, or prejudice? It's just that I've never heard of the Canada Free Press before.

Sultanist
3rd October 2006, 11:50 AM
"Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"
By Steven E. Jones, "Scientist", Brigham Young University

The Book of Mormon makes the bold statement that Jesus Christ, shortly following His resurrection, visited people in the New World and invited them to "feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am...the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world"...

Several years ago, an idea popped into my head: Would people in the New World who also saw Jesus Christ leave memorials of this supernal experience by showing marked hands of Deity in their artwork? So I began a search with the following hypothesis-to be tested: Ancient artwork portraying a deity with deliberate markings on his hands will be found somewhere in the Americas. A crazy idea, maybe - but wait till you see the artwork of the ancient Maya!
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/vase%20itzamna.jpg
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/hands0%7Bimage3%7D.gif
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/hands0%7Bimage5%7D.gif

These discoveries have provided me a deeper appreciation for the reality of the resurrection of Jesus and of His visit to "other sheep" who heard His voice and saw His wounded hands as did Thomas. My hope is that these new insights will encourage you to seriously consider the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Christ. Why don't you start reading right away?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/jones/rel491/handstext%20and%20figures.htm

_______________________________________________
"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"
By Steven E. Jones, "Scientist", Brigham Young University
In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives

I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html

:rolleyes:

Gravy
3rd October 2006, 04:45 PM
Hey, Sultanist, good to see you again! Don't be such a stranger!

T.A.M.
3rd October 2006, 04:48 PM
Say, is Canada free pres andything like the American Free press, as in, non-realiable, or prejudice? It's just that I've never heard of the Canada Free Press before.

I am unsure. I suspect it may be the canadian version, but I noticed the adverts on it certainly are not the same neo-nazi adverts you see on AFP.

Good question though. Maybe MarkyX or someone other canadian more familiar can answer.

TAM

Arkan_Wolfshade
3rd October 2006, 07:25 PM
I am unsure. I suspect it may be the canadian version, but I noticed the adverts on it certainly are not the same neo-nazi adverts you see on AFP.

Good question though. Maybe MarkyX or someone other canadian more familiar can answer.

TAM

Cursory search seems to suggest they are not nearly as bad as AFP, but neither are they unbiased:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press

MarkyX
3rd October 2006, 08:07 PM
I am unsure. I suspect it may be the canadian version, but I noticed the adverts on it certainly are not the same neo-nazi adverts you see on AFP.

Good question though. Maybe MarkyX or someone other canadian more familiar can answer.

TAM

Nah, I know just as much you do. Usually the newspaper I read are either the Toronto Sun (very conservative, but at least is willing to tell Stephen Harper to screw off once in a while), or if I am really deseperate for news, The Toronto Star.

WildCat
4th October 2006, 08:32 AM
In other LC news, it appears that Merc is no longer an admin.

Josh Redstone
4th October 2006, 08:38 AM
Cursory search seems to suggest they are not nearly as bad as AFP, but neither are they unbiased:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Free_Press

Yeah, seems like they've seen their share of controversy as well, according that article.

And on a tinfoil hat related note - I decided to join the LC forums, and maybe get myself on of those cool 'Banned from LC' badges :cool:

Bell
4th October 2006, 08:42 AM
Yeah, seems like they've seen their share of controversy as well, according that article.

And on a tinfoil hat related note - I decided to join the LC forums, and maybe get myself on of those cool 'Banned from LC' badges :cool:

Keep us informed on your progress, 'kay?

jon
4th October 2006, 08:55 AM
looked over on the loose change forum (man, I must be bored) and saw a thread on David Icke. Nice to know the CTs are sticking together:

I think he's ok. I actually admire the lizzard thing. It is a bold socialogical statement. Far out thought can be the seeds of both acceptance and invention. People who thought we could fly or have cars were probably thought to be loonies in ancient times. Although, many farout thoughts never came to be, some have. Look at all the progress in the 50's and 60's when people used to believe in monster movies and ESP. There were quite a few vampire and werewolf believers.

First protypes can tend to be ridiculous. But the main ideas stand. If not lizzard people, they have found fully evolved humans around at the same time as those evoling. They may have as many as 3 million years on the others. The Aberiginies killed a pair of them and dug them up every year to burn their remains again. Sounds like a plan...lol

CptColumbo
4th October 2006, 09:04 AM
I think this is where all the Lizard stuff started.

tVK4UOxIn8o

MortFurd
4th October 2006, 01:52 PM
Concur that FormFlow bites. It could have been printed, then typed, but where I work in the AF it's hard to find a typewriter these days (YMMV).

Formflow bites. The only thing worse is the replacement. Fillable PDFs. Now all we need is Adobe Acrobat professional on all the workplace PCs so that we can save the bloody things - and still don't have database functionality to keep the data organized.

Fillable PDFs bite much worse than FormFlow.

CurtC
4th October 2006, 01:56 PM
In my opinion, PDFs suck for most of the things they're used for. If you're distributing a document that is to be printed on a sheet of paper and not read on the computer, then PDFs are great. In my experience, about 2% of the PDFs out there have that specific purpose; the other 98% would be better formatted as something else.

jon
4th October 2006, 02:03 PM
I think this is where all the Lizard stuff started.

Nice :) I'm sure the Loosers would have been quite happy to find Truth in a typo, anyway...

Actually, I think the alien lizard idea is a pretty nice one. So much more creative than thermite and all that BS. They're both b*llocks, of course, but lizards are at least funnier b*llocks :D

Kent1
4th October 2006, 03:37 PM
Spot how many errors you can find on this page by Kevin Barrett and "aeronautical engineer" Nila Sagadevan
:jaw-dropp
http://mujca.com/groucho.htm

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THIS SPECTACULARLY POWERFUL ENERGY?

KEROSENE?

YES, LESS THAN 10 SECONDS

WHERE ARE THE MASSIVE STEEL CORE COLUMNS?

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


AND BUBBLING INVISIBLY IN THE ‘PILE’ DEEP UNDRGROUND?

TONS OF MOLTEN METAL BUBBLING AT 2,500 DEGREES

DavidJames
4th October 2006, 03:39 PM
Spot how many errors you can find on this page by Kevin Barrett and "aeronautical engineer" Nila Sagadevan
:jaw-dropp
http://mujca.com/groucho.htm

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THIS SPECTACULARLY POWERFUL ENERGY?

KEROSENE?

YES, LESS THAN 10 SECONDS

WHERE ARE THE MASSIVE STEEL CORE COLUMNS?

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


AND BUBBLING INVISIBLY IN THE ‘PILE’ DEEP UNDRGROUND?

TONS OF MOLTEN METAL BUBBLING AT 2,500 DEGREESYou mean other then his broken caps lock key?

Arkan_Wolfshade
4th October 2006, 03:42 PM
I see the dust particle size is shrinking.

Kent1
4th October 2006, 03:43 PM
What I can't believe is that the "full" scholar members are often far dumber than the average CT'er.

Alareth
4th October 2006, 03:45 PM
Debris weighing 4 tons and less than 50 microns in size. Was the WTC made from black hole matter?

Arus808
4th October 2006, 03:48 PM
FROM START TO FINISH, FOR THIS ENTIRE WTC TOWER TO COLLAPSE INTO ITS OWN FOOTPRINT TOOK 9.4 SECONDS IN TOTAL

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Another contradicting statement.

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF ALL THIS SPECTACULARLY POWERFUL ENERGY?
let see....2 110 steel skyscrapers collapsing maybe?

KEROSENE?
that is a fuel.

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

[quote]WHERE ARE THE MASSIVE STEEL CORE COLUMNS?
well, at least he recongizes that they were STEEL core columns, not concrete ones. as for where they are? They are in that 6 story rubble in the photographs above.

WHERE IS THE PILE OF 110 CONCRETE FLOOR SLABS THAT “PANCAKED”?
they are in that 6 story rubble in the photogrpahs above.



AND BUBBLING INVISIBLY IN THE ‘PILE’ DEEP UNDRGROUND?

TONS OF MOLTEN METAL BUBBLING AT 2,500 DEGREES
there are reports by firefighters and rescue workers seeing and "feeling" the intense fires that continued to burn under that 6 story rubble found in the photographs above.

Bell
4th October 2006, 03:52 PM
LOOK CAREFULLY AGAIN. STUDY THE PICTURES.

THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF...

YOU DON’T NEED “TECHNICAL EXPLANATIONS”

ALL YOU NEED ARE YOUR EYES.

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

DavidJames
4th October 2006, 03:59 PM
Yes, because Google images are so much more reliable than actual engineers who studied this stuff.
CTist so desperately want to be important and significant. But most of them don't actually have any relevant education, knowledge or practical experience to intelligently analyze or even intelligently comment on the technical details of the events of 9/11. So they try and neutralize their inadequacies and say all you need is to look at the pictures and view them with an open mind. Now they feel they leveled the playing field and will use their superior sense of observation to revel the truth.

Josh Redstone
4th October 2006, 04:35 PM
Debris weighing 4 tons and less than 50 microns in size. Was the WTC made from black hole matter?

Ssshh! You might give them more silly ideas.

steve s
4th October 2006, 10:29 PM
Yes, 50 microns
http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/11_september_2001.htm


Thanks for posting all those links. Look at this pic (http://www.conservationtech.com/MAIN-TOPICS/5-NYC-World-Trade/FEMA-WTC-photos/08.tower1.collapse.ap.jpg) from that Conservationtech site you linked to. Look at that large section of perimeter beams at lower right. It's at least 5 or 6 stories long. If explosives were placed on every floor, then why would there be such large pieces of building still intact? Loosers don't think before they speak.

Steve S.

Jennie C.
5th October 2006, 10:34 AM
Hey, guys, I just made it to part 2 of this thread.

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

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

Hellbound
5th October 2006, 10:35 AM
Hey, guys, I just made it to part 2 of this thread.

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

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

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

delphi_ote
5th October 2006, 06:00 PM
It actually became "C-4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centers".
With thermite thrown in there somewhere for some odd reason.

Gravy
5th October 2006, 06:04 PM
Hey, guys, I just made it to part 2 of this thread.

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

I just passed something about explosives mixed in the concrete when they built the WTC. Mind boggling. :rolleyes:
Stay calm, walk quickly, and don't look back.

tsig
5th October 2006, 06:18 PM
Like any sequel, it gets worst and worst.

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

I'm collecting from the next who looks.

Fair warning.

tsig
5th October 2006, 06:25 PM
CTist so desperately want to be important and significant. But most of them don't actually have any relevant education, knowledge or practical experience to intelligently analyze or even intelligently comment on the technical details of the events of 9/11. So they try and neutralize their inadequacies and say all you need is to look at the pictures and view them with an open mind. Now they feel they leveled the playing field and will use their superior sense of observation to revel the truth.

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

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

all that matters is that you keep adding BTU's

T.A.M.
6th October 2006, 04:10 PM
Rather than start a new thread on it, I will post here.

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

Underlying Politics of 9/11 (http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=575)

TAM

T.A.M.
6th October 2006, 04:13 PM
The pakistani ISI guy they mention is such a biased source, I almost spit up my coke reading the transcript of his interview with borchgrave of UPI, where he says the jews and america, no OBL, did 9/11.

Hamid Interview (http://www.robert-fisk.com/hamid_gul_interview_sept26_2001.htm)

TAM

Arkan_Wolfshade
7th October 2006, 03:06 AM
Rather than start a new thread on it, I will post here.

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

Underlying Politics of 9/11 (http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=575)

TAM

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

jon
7th October 2006, 03:48 AM
Don't fancy watching the whole thing, but again the video does the nice CT trick of referencing a source, but completely misrepresenting what it says. The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases. Great, so what's the title of this article which gives the video its solid confirmation? "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases (http://www.prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html)" :D

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

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

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

Belz...
7th October 2006, 05:07 AM
Rather than start a new thread on it, I will post here.

Yeah, we need the extra pages, after all! ;)

Muckar-duva
7th October 2006, 05:54 AM
For you, jon; I was a tad bored.
THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.
Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source.
But there are slight discrepancies between the military training records and the official FBI list of suspected hijackers—either in the spellings of their names or with their birthdates. One military source said it is possible that the hijackers may have stolen the identities of the foreign nationals who studied at the U.S. installations.
The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on Friday. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight crashed into rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, Ahmed Alghamdi, allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center.

defaultdotxbe
7th October 2006, 06:56 AM
Don't fancy watching the whole thing, but again the video does the nice CT trick of referencing a source, but completely misrepresenting what it says. The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases. Great, so what's the title of this article which gives the video its solid confirmation? "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases (http://www.prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html)" :D

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


I could go through the above to highlight all the occurences of words like 'may' - frankly, can't be bothered, though. At any rate, while the article may suggest something interesting to investigate, it clearly doesn't confirm anything.
i know one theory is too much to ask, but could the CTers at least stick to one overall plot arc

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

Jennie C.
7th October 2006, 07:36 AM
Still reading part 2 of the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

Arkan_Wolfshade
7th October 2006, 07:52 AM
Still reading part 2 of the thread.

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

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

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

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

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

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

rwguinn
7th October 2006, 08:22 AM
one point most don't seem to realize is the temp of the flame has no relation to the final temp achieved.

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

all that matters is that you keep adding BTU's
We went thru this before.
No. and yes
You cannot raise the temperature of something above its environment. You cannot bake a cake at 350 degrees in a 250 degree oven. You cannot melt ice in a 0 degree freezer.

Eos of the Eons
7th October 2006, 08:39 AM
The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases.HM, are the CTers suggesting we discriminate to prevent people from taking flight training just because they aren't native to USA? What if their parents weren't born here? How do you prevent people from taking flight lessons from anywhere if they have never committed a crime before?

jon
7th October 2006, 08:45 AM
For you, jon; I was a tad bored.

Thank you. And who could want more confirmation than that :)

Credit where credit's due - at least the article says that this *may* have happened. Have seen others (Alex Jones, for example) showing articles that explicitly reject their position, as confirmation of said position...

MikeW
7th October 2006, 10:29 AM
The video quotes (and shows a pic of) a newsweek article 'confirming' that the hijackers trained at US military bases. Great, so what's the title of this article which gives the video its solid confirmation? "Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained at U.S. Bases (http://www.prisonplanet.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html)" :D
Oddly they don't point out that one of these trainees, who's supposed to have registered a car in March 1997, would have been only 17 at the time (if it was the same guy at the alleged hijacker). And in fact other articles talk about this particular Saeed Alghamdi being in Florida since 1992, making him perhaps 12 or 13. Doesn't this suggest that maybe, just possibly, it's a different guy?

R.Mackey
7th October 2006, 10:46 AM
Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory. Somewhere else, someone suggested firing a bullet into the ground to simulate what happened to UA93 in the field in PA.

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

So, CAN you simulate something that had such a huge mass (building and plane) relative to the miniature with which you're simulating?
Not really, no. There are ways to build relevant models but it's nowhere near as simple as just scaling things down. Despite your admission of having a non-technical background, your intuition that it's not so easy is dead on -- that puts you leaps and bounds beyond the Loosers! :D

Material properties, fluid flow, and heating are alll things that really don't scale well. Let's say you were to build a perfect miniature of the WTC towers, all scaled down by a constant factor S. Then a steel column, for instance, would be S times shorter and S times narrower. If you made this mini-column out of the same structural steel, you have a problem. The strength of the column (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling) will decrease by a factor of S2, but the amount of gravitational potential in this column decreases by S4 -- the mini-column is S3 times lighter, being of the same density but S times smaller in each of three dimensions, and it's S times closer to the ground since the whole building is smaller.

So scaling the problem means you've created a mismatch between strain and gravitational energy. There is no reason to suspect the scaled model would behave the same as the original article. This should be obvious if you take it to an extreme, for example the milk-carton getting hit by a pencil igniting a thimble-full of kerosene argument I've seen in conspiracist discussions. Bizarrely, the conspiracists seem not to realize the absurdity is because it's a bad model, not that what really happened in WTC 1 and 2 is impossible.

Sometimes, if you're careful, you can compensate for these scaling errors by changing the model. If all we cared about was yield strength and gravity, we could compensate by changing materials. If we found a new material that had a different ratio of strength (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulus_of_elasticity) to weight -- say, replaced all of the columns in our model with lead -- then we could scale it some and have consistent results. For example, have you ever heard of a water tunnel (http://www.rollinghillsresearch.com/Water_Tunnels/Water_tunnel.html)? It's the same thing as a wind tunnel, but with water instead of air. Sometimes you can scale down an aircraft problem and get correct results by changing the operating fluid to water.

In our WTC example, though, there are so many things going on at once that trying to balance them all will be impossible. Our mini-tower made of lead will now behave incorrectly with respect to the initial airplane impact, and have improper heating characteristics. The air and fuel flows governing the fires will be wrong. Wind load on the building will be different, as will coupling to the bedrock underneath. And this assumes we've done a meticulous job recreating it. Something so crude as a solid-core bullet simulating Flight 93 is obviously not going to be close.

The only way to make decent models are to take pieces of the structures -- say recreate a single column of the WTC, and apply a load and heat -- or to use a computer model. These approaches can be accurate, if you're careful. Many such experiments have been done, notably in the NIST report. This is part of the reason why the scientific community is satisfied with the official explanation.

Jennie C.
7th October 2006, 12:13 PM
Not really, no. There are ways to build relevant models but it's nowhere near as simple as just scaling things down. Despite your admission of having a non-technical background, your intuition that it's not so easy is dead on -- that puts you leaps and bounds beyond the Loosers! :D

[shortened for space...the post is only a little above here anyway]

In our WTC example, though, there are so many things going on at once that trying to balance them all will be impossible. Our mini-tower made of lead will now behave incorrectly with respect to the initial airplane impact, and have improper heating characteristics. The air and fuel flows governing the fires will be wrong. Wind load on the building will be different, as will coupling to the bedrock underneath. And this assumes we've done a meticulous job recreating it. Something so crude as a solid-core bullet simulating Flight 93 is obviously not going to be close.

The only way to make decent models are to take pieces of the structures -- say recreate a single column of the WTC, and apply a load and heat -- or to use a computer model. These approaches can be accurate, if you're careful. Many such experiments have been done, notably in the NIST report. This is part of the reason why the scientific community is satisfied with the official explanation.

Tnx, Macky. You know, you can't always just take 1/2 of all the ingredients when you're downsizing a recipe either. The 1/2 egg is usually the hardest.

My main instinct in asking this question is that if you, for instance, even halve the height of the entire building (which would still leave it unmanageably big, I should think), you are reducing the whole volume of space by 8, not 2.

Not to mention it would be really hard to find the teeny little airplane to simulate flying in...

I tend to make random observations as I go through these old threads, so sometimes I think folks think I'm giving credence to the CTers. I'm not. I couldn't watch the events of 9/11 live, as I had no access to TV at work. But the local AM station gave continuous (no ads) coverage to the ABC coverage, so I got it as real-time as possible under the circumstances. But I've no doubt that it was the planes, flown by the fanatics, who perpetrated these monstrosities.

defaultdotxbe
7th October 2006, 12:31 PM
Tnx, Macky. You know, you can't always just take 1/2 of all the ingredients when you're downsizing a recipe either. The 1/2 egg is usually the hardest.

My main instinct in asking this question is that if you, for instance, even halve the height of the entire building (which would still leave it unmanageably big, I should think), you are reducing the whole volume of space by 8, not 2.
very true, this is somethign CTers always miss, they look at size and nothign else (anyone ever told them size doesnt matter? :D ) so they might buildd a model of the towers to scale as far as size is concerned, but they dont scale other factors, like weight and speed of the planes, and completely ignore factors liek density and strength/weight ratios

tsig
7th October 2006, 01:03 PM
We went thru this before.
No. and yes
You cannot raise the temperature of something above its environment. You cannot bake a cake at 350 degrees in a 250 degree oven. You cannot melt ice in a 0 degree freezer.

maybe a link?

I said if you have perfect insulation and keep adding btu's the temp will increase.

tsig
7th October 2006, 01:05 PM
It actually became "C-4 coated 3" rebar on 4' centers".

Last I looked he was up to 6" rebar.

steve s
7th October 2006, 01:08 PM
You cannot bake a cake at 350 degrees in a 250 degree oven.

A totally erroneous comparison. An oven has a thermostat that turns the heat on and off to maintain a costant temp. The fires in the WTC were continually pumping out heat which means that the temperature can climb dramatically.

Steve S.

tsig
7th October 2006, 01:15 PM
A totally erroneous comparison. An oven has a thermostat that turns the heat on and off to maintain a costant temp. The fires in the WTC were continually pumping out heat which means that the temperature can climb dramatically.

Steve S.

Thanks Steve S.

One of the worst assumptions about the collapse of the towers is that the final temp could not be more than the temp of JetA burning.

Belz...
7th October 2006, 03:05 PM
Still reading part 2 of the thread.

Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory

Actually, I jockingly suggested that the JREF ninjas build a full-scale tower and ram real jets into it to prove to "einsteen" that the towers fell the way we claim they did.

Jennie C.
7th October 2006, 04:56 PM
Actually, I jockingly suggested that the JREF ninjas build a full-scale tower and ram real jets into it to prove to "einsteen" that the towers fell the way we claim they did.

Wasn't trying to poke fun at you, of course, Belz. It was just that when I read your post and thought about the miniature, I remembered the bullet-in-the-ground thing. The first time I read that (the bullet thing), I thought, how could that possibly be the same.

And I do know a little (emphasis on little) bit about firing weapons, but zilch about plowing aircraft into the ground. Gotta admit, I never fired at the ground though. Never saw a target there.

(I'm pretty darn good with a 38-special in the Weaver stance, but not much good at rifles/shotguns :) )

Mancman
8th October 2006, 09:51 AM
Jon Gold films Jason Bermas
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1049489263988152113&q=wtc

Bermas on Mark Roberts: "I just say hey, you're entitled to believe what you want but you're wrong, and I think you know you're wrong. I told him yesterday 'how does it feel to be betraying humanity yet again today' and he didn't have a response for that"


Pondlife.

Belz...
9th October 2006, 08:40 AM
Wasn't trying to poke fun at you, of course, Belz.

(why doesn't anyone notice the dots ?)

(I'm pretty darn good with a 38-special in the Weaver stance, but not much good at rifles/shotguns :) )

I prefer fireballs, lightning bolts and cloudkills, myself.

T.A.M.
9th October 2006, 09:08 AM
Jon Gold films Jason Bermas
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1049489263988152113&q=wtc

Bermas on Mark Roberts: "I just say hey, you're entitled to believe what you want but you're wrong, and I think you know you're wrong. I told him yesterday 'how does it feel to be betraying humanity yet again today' and he didn't have a response for that"


Pondlife.

Betraying humanity. Hah. All Mark and the rest of us do is point out the honest facts for everyone to see. It is Bermas and his "near" primate group at LTW that are accusing hundreds of honest americans of covering up the mass murder of 3000 people...hmmm I wonder who is betraying humanity?

TAM

delphi_ote
9th October 2006, 02:54 PM
Don't fancy watching the whole thing, but again the video does the nice CT trick of referencing a source, but completely misrepresenting what it says.
They really are pulling out all the old creationist tricks (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html).

tacodaemon
9th October 2006, 07:54 PM
I was just watching that video the CTs put up where Bermas argues with Abby and then Jones and Foti argue with Gravy. Bermas had my brain melting with his claims that the firefighters are lying and covering up the conspiracy so that the conspirators don't kill them. Can someone tell that twit that (1) people who become firefighters aren't the type to put their own lives ahead of millions of other people's, and (2) with 300+ firefighters already dead on 9/11, there's no reason they'd trust the conspirators not to kill them too no matter whether they blab about the conspiracy or not.

Dog Town
9th October 2006, 08:02 PM
with 300+ firefighters already dead on 9/11, there's no reason they'd trust the conspirators not to kill them too no matter whether they blab about the conspiracy or not.

If their paranoid delusions were real, we would never have heard of them!
I call that irony!


Tribute:
" Fire Fighters run into buildings...not out" FDNY

Brainster
10th October 2006, 02:27 PM
Still reading part 2 of the thread.

Belz suggested to someone that they build a miniature of the tower and test their theory.

Been there (http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/04/wings-break-off.html), done that (http://www.freewebs.com/democraatus/page04.htm).

Dog Town
10th October 2006, 03:53 PM
Looks as if Russell P over @ LC, has had enough of their "fly over" theory.

Somebody explained using photos as an example of each pole break and base break how the poles were damaged and laid in the highway in broad daylight in such a way that the witnesses experienced it as an aircraft knocking them down? They also explained why this was done to account for 15 feet of altitude to make the story more "convincing" instead of just saying the plane was at a slightly steeper angle? Even with the risk of adding multiple people and white vans etc. into the formula?

Somebody has found direct evidence that the witnesses who get accused of being a conspiracy to mass murder have some sort of an actual intelligence background or a history of such behavior?

Somebody has explained the movement of a 20 ton generator pinned in on all sides with a demonstration of the exact type of explosives that could do this without blowing anything back onto the lawn? Did they identify the tool used to carve the flap track in the roof for the aerial photos 3 days later?

Somebody has explained the hole in the wall without anything being blown backwards directly behind it but instead have the debris ejected in a deflection angle that corresponds to an impact?

Has the mechanism for debris distribution been described since the security video doesn't show anybody running around but yet clearly displays the debris raining down for 10 seconds. For some reason that video also doesn't show anything flying over either.

Has ANYBODY reported seeing a flyover? One person?

Can you direct me to the post?


They really think a plane didn't hit those lamps. Yet, have no possible exp for it..comedy gold!
Have never seen the bolded, any one? He sure makes a hell of a point there!

T.A.M.
10th October 2006, 04:24 PM
Question. Which one of us is the person who has everything and anything on the opinions of Uncle Fetzer? Is it brainster, or jamesB, or gravy? Anyone?

I am working on collecting all the "Stances" each of the public 9/11 figures take on various 9/11 issues, and was hoping to get permission to use that persons "sheet" that i saw floating around on Fetzer.


TAM

JamesB
10th October 2006, 06:25 PM
Question. Which one of us is the person who has everything and anything on the opinions of Uncle Fetzer? Is it brainster, or jamesB, or gravy? Anyone?

I am working on collecting all the "Stances" each of the public 9/11 figures take on various 9/11 issues, and was hoping to get permission to use that persons "sheet" that i saw floating around on Fetzer.


TAM

I have written a lot about Fetzer, but I don't recall anything fitting that description. It is actually kind of hard to say what he believes. I am not sure if he actually has any of his own believes, he mostly just repeats whatever people tell him. You could call up his radio show and claim to have evidence that the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man destroyed the WTC and he would reply "Excellent!". The guy simultaneously cites both Judy Wood and Steven Jones as experts for God's sake, even though Wood says Jones is a fraud.

T.A.M.
10th October 2006, 06:36 PM
It was a jpeg or bmp file, and on it was a tonne of writing, in multiple colors. I assumed it was a collection of all the "points" he makes on 9/11, and hence would be a great thing to use, to add to my collection of "where they stand".

TAM

Dog Town
10th October 2006, 06:38 PM
It was a jpeg or bmp file, and on it was a tonne of writing, in multiple colors. I assumed it was a collection of all the "points" he makes on 9/11, and hence would be a great thing to use, to add to my collection of "where they stand".

TAM

That was Gravy, I believe.

Brainster
10th October 2006, 06:58 PM
Question. Which one of us is the person who has everything and anything on the opinions of Uncle Fetzer? Is it brainster, or jamesB, or gravy? Anyone?

I am working on collecting all the "Stances" each of the public 9/11 figures take on various 9/11 issues, and was hoping to get permission to use that persons "sheet" that i saw floating around on Fetzer.

I did a transcript with Gravy (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/partial-transcript-of-fetzer-on-colmes.html) of Fetzer's appearance on Alan Colmes' radio show.

I suggest that you try to complete a taxonomy of individual Deniers using this form (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/towards-taxonomy-of-ct-class.html).

If you compare Fetzer's comments on the Colmes program, you'll come up with something like this:

1. c
2. b
3. b
4. b & c (another plane and a missile)
5. b (apparently)
6. b
7. b
8. b

Jennie C.
11th October 2006, 01:42 PM
I wonder what the CTer's will make of this. "False Flag" again?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219921,00.html

Personally, I think they're dismissing the idea of terrorism a little quickly, but I suppose that could be a "don't panic the people" response. I've never been there, but it's my impression that NYC'ers don't panic easily.

Off to check out the gang in the DUmping ground (democratic underground)

T.A.M.
11th October 2006, 01:54 PM
I did a transcript with Gravy (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/07/partial-transcript-of-fetzer-on-colmes.html) of Fetzer's appearance on Alan Colmes' radio show.

I suggest that you try to complete a taxonomy of individual Deniers using this form (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/towards-taxonomy-of-ct-class.html).

If you compare Fetzer's comments on the Colmes program, you'll come up with something like this:

1. c
2. b
3. b
4. b & c (another plane and a missile)
5. b (apparently)
6. b
7. b
8. b


That is a great link, and should be expanded to include all the possible theories. It is a great way to organize them.

TAM

Dog Town
12th October 2006, 10:44 AM
Seems they have blocked unipeak and ninjaprox from the LC boards. Anyone have a link via another proxy, ya could post here? I have alot of indoor downtime for the next ten days. Sucks not to have them, to laugh at!

Thanx, in advance for any help.

DT

DavidJames
12th October 2006, 10:52 AM
Seems they have blocked unipeak and ninjaprox from the LC boards. Anyone have a link via another proxy, ya could post here? I have alot of indoor downtime for the next ten days. Sucks not to have them, to laugh at!

Thanx, in advance for any help.

DTplenty to be found here: http://proxy.org/

Arkan_Wolfshade
12th October 2006, 10:56 AM
Seems they have blocked unipeak and ninjaprox from the LC boards. Anyone have a link via another proxy, ya could post here? I have alot of indoor downtime for the next ten days. Sucks not to have them, to laugh at!

Thanx, in advance for any help.

DT

They keep this up and that forum is going to form a singularity of hypocracy.

Gravy
12th October 2006, 11:09 AM
Question. Which one of us is the person who has everything and anything on the opinions of Uncle Fetzer? Is it brainster, or jamesB, or gravy? Anyone?

I am working on collecting all the "Stances" each of the public 9/11 figures take on various 9/11 issues, and was hoping to get permission to use that persons "sheet" that i saw floating around on Fetzer.

TAM
JamesB is the expert. I took the transcript of the interview he mentioned and highlighted false, misleading, unprovable, insulting, etc. statements in different colors. What you saw here was a screenshot of all the pages reduced, as a visual aid. PM me if you want a copy of the file as Word or PDF. Fetzer touches on several topics in the interview.

Dog Town
12th October 2006, 11:24 AM
plenty to be found here: http://proxy.org/

Thanks, I can now start killing this hangover, with some stupid humor.

Gravy
12th October 2006, 11:36 AM
Thanks, I can now start killing this hangover, with some stupid humor.The LC forum cures your hangover? You have a stronger stomach than me, sir!

Dog Town
12th October 2006, 11:44 AM
The LC forum cures your hangover? You have a stronger stomach than me, sir!


Laughter is the greatest cure of all. They don't anger me as much these days, for some reason. I just find them to pathetic, perhaps.
Besides, I just finished a double bowl of matza ball soup. Stomach is on the road to recovery, It's my freaken head, time for some Vicodin!

Jennie C.
12th October 2006, 01:39 PM
I started reading this thread (please, if you value your sanity, don't go there, but I have to say which one I mean):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49273

It's my own fault. Gravy warned me. But I started it anyway. I was at page 9 of 20 when I finally said forget it. If thesyntaxera had typed the words inductive or deductive one more time, I would've gone totally mad (some people think that's not going very far).

Grief what was it with (i assume) her? That's rhetorical. I wouldn't want anyone to go look to try and answer. You'd come around later and shoot out my porch light.

Still, the thread did provide the posting where "love" said that his/her theory was that explosives were mixed in the concrete when the towers were built. That was one of the funniest things I've read in years.

By the way, Manny, your posts were superb. Have Belz... return a few of your socks.

money
12th October 2006, 01:44 PM
I started reading this thread (please, if you value your sanity, don't go there, but I have to say which one I mean):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49273

It's my own fault. Gravy warned me. But I started it anyway. I was at page 9 of 20 when I finally said forget it. If thesyntaxera had typed the words inductive or deductive one more time, I would've gone totally mad (some people think that's not going very far).

Grief what was it with (i assume) her? That's rhetorical. I wouldn't want anyone to go look to try and answer. You'd come around later and shoot out my porch light.

Still, the thread did provide the posting where "love" said that his/her theory was that explosives were mixed in the concrete when the towers were built. That was one of the funniest things I've read in years.

By the way, Manny, your posts were superb. Have Belz... return a few of your socks.

That's kind of a trip down memory lane. I remember thinking "no one can be this dumb" at that love comment about mixed-in explosives.

The beginning of this was a quiet, peaceful, and mostly sane time in comparion...

All thanks to one short post by Delphi Ote....

Jennie C.
12th October 2006, 05:49 PM
That's kind of a trip down memory lane. I remember thinking "no one can be this dumb" at that love comment about mixed-in explosives.

The beginning of this was a quiet, peaceful, and mostly sane time in comparion...

All thanks to one short post by Delphi Ote....

One of the things that amused/struck me about the thread-that-must-not-be-named was that it carried over the evening of January 1 (this yr). Including the afternoon and evening hours.

syn-whatshername and ''love'' aside, weren't any of you people watching FOOTBALL ?!?!? :)

ihaunter
12th October 2006, 10:29 PM
Ugh...:boggled:
Flipping through channels, and someone put Loose Change on the local access cable here. Lately there has been a number of CT shows/movies getting shown, including several re-runnings of the c-span conference, but I was really hoping that this particular piece of dreck wouldn't appear.
Maybe I should look into burning a copy of Screw Loose Change to a DVD and see if I can get that to air.

Jennie C.
14th October 2006, 04:46 PM
Good !!

At least *this* weekend, everyone is off watching football :)

(including me, the next game doesn't start until 8pm.

eeyore1954
14th October 2006, 07:58 PM
Good !!

At least *this* weekend, everyone is off watching football :)

(including me, the next game doesn't start until 8pm.



I should have been watching baseball but alas the Yankees are out. I was listening to the mets , st louis game but since i don't really know who I want to win I lost interest.

delphi_ote
14th October 2006, 08:38 PM
I should have been watching baseball but alas the Yankees are out. I was listening to the mets , st louis game but since i don't really know who I want to win I lost interest.
I think this (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4754596) was a great game.

T.A.M.
15th October 2006, 08:41 AM
I noticed alot of the CTers have been harping about this latest poll.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

one thing I noticed, though is this quote:


"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks, down five points since May 2002."

So when BUSH was at the height, or near height of his popularity, only 21% thought he was telling the truth, and now it is "way down" to 16%.

Funny things, these polls.

TAM

Edit: margin of error in poll was 4% so the 16% could be anywhere from 20% down to 12%, just the facts.

T.A.M.
15th October 2006, 08:58 AM
It seems also, that the number of people who feel he is hiding something has gone down from 65% to 53%, yet at the same time the amount of people who feel he is "mostly Lying" has gone from 8% to 28%, so I am not sure you can take anything away from this poll except anger and mistrust of the Republicans, which I suspect is not unjustified overall.

TAM

Shrinker
15th October 2006, 09:06 AM
I noticed alot of the CTers have been harping about this latest poll.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469

one thing I noticed, though is this quote:



So when BUSH was at the height, or near height of his popularity, only 21% thought he was telling the truth, and now it is "way down" to 16%.

Funny things, these polls.

TAM

Edit: margin of error in poll was 4% so the 16% could be anywhere from 20% down to 12%, just the facts.

Well, many of the people who thought he was hiding something actually voted for him in the election, so I guess they don't think he's hiding much.

Isn't it about time these people got the courage to ask the real question:

Do you think George Bush is the evil genius behind a massive and intricate plot to use fake hijacked planes to disguise the intentional demolition of three buildings, the bombing of a fourth, and the burning of a field? Yes/No

T.A.M.
15th October 2006, 09:24 AM
ya, if I had the money to spare, I would have angus-reid poll 1000 american households the following:

Do you think the United States Government secretly planned 9/11 and then had the attacks carried out on their behalf, while using Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as an exuse to cover up the murders of 3000 people?

I wonder how that vote would turn out....hmmmmm

TAM

delphi_ote
15th October 2006, 12:14 PM
... anger and mistrust of the Republicans, which I suspect is not unjustified overall.
Anger and mistrust of politicians is always justified. :D

T.A.M.
15th October 2006, 12:32 PM
If you wanna see someone speak honestly, from the heart, but with a lot of common sense about Alex Jones, go to this post by Perry Logan (scroll down on page) over at the SLC Forum...

http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=77&st=0&gopid=4840&#entry4840

TAM

tsig
15th October 2006, 12:56 PM
They keep this up and that forum is going to form a singularity of hypocracy.


A public forum without a pubic.

Dylan should watch his neck.

CptColumbo
15th October 2006, 01:08 PM
In Jon Ronson's mini-series Secret Rulers of the Worldhttp://imdb.com/title/tt0433314/, they follow Alex Jones on his infiltration of "Burning Man," where he shot some of his Moloch video. AJ's immediate response to the event is interesting, and a good example of how CTists think. It is a behind the scenes look at the CT community, but not a CT film. It provides the opposite side a chance to respond, if they wish to (the only witness to "Burning Man" who would speak on camera was Harry Shearer from This is Spinal Tap). Also Ronson tries to play Devil's Advocate, but is usually shouted down by Jones. David Icke is also featured.

Here's an example of Jon Ronson:

S0gzu-bBAMU

Here's part one of the David Icke Episode

beo3d2m05bA
I'll try to find a copy of the relevant parts of the series, which only aired on the Trio network in the US, on YouTube.

SRW
15th October 2006, 02:49 PM
Loosers don't think.

Steve S.

I just wanted to clean up and make this post more concise. The pic is a good find and all that but do you really need more than the above?

T.A.M.
15th October 2006, 03:57 PM
This David Icke guy...I never heard of him until I got involved in the 9/11 stuff. Was he quite famous over in England?

I would love to see the rest of the videos. Hee seems like a complete loony toon.

TAM

W6102LA
15th October 2006, 04:40 PM
Many adults in the United States believe the current federal government has not been completely forthcoming on the issue of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News.

I can't find anything info relating to this poll at the New York Times website, am i missing something here ?

CptColumbo
15th October 2006, 05:47 PM
I can't find anything info relating to this poll at the New York Times website, am i missing something here ?

Check over here, where there is a discussion going on about it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66123

W6102LA
15th October 2006, 05:59 PM
Check over here, where there is a discussion going on about it.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66123

Thanks

CptColumbo
15th October 2006, 06:13 PM
This David Icke guy...I never heard of him until I got involved in the 9/11 stuff. Was he quite famous over in England?

I would love to see the rest of the videos. Hee seems like a complete loony toon.

TAM

Sorry it took so long, youtube was down for a while. Probably the NWO.

Here's part two of the Icke Episode:

z-qv7K3rJBs

Here's part three:

FaHjOxvXOD8


Four (where we find out who the Lizards are):

aUJAYo94maI

Five:

I3ZY_jeNch4


Six:

K1wxSC0zG7U

Seven:

HRZ-3bOOrEU

This is the entire episode about the Bilderberg Group w/Alex Jones:
ywcx1KMCFko

T.A.M.
15th October 2006, 07:11 PM
In a way, I feel sad for Icke, but in a "he needs psychiatric help" kind of way...sad, really sad.

TAM

CptColumbo
15th October 2006, 10:04 PM
In a way, I feel sad for Icke, but in a "he needs psychiatric help" kind of way...sad, really sad.

TAM

It's always funny to see people who think that yelling louder than the person who disagrees with them makes them right.

I find most CTers fall into that category.

delphi_ote
15th October 2006, 10:18 PM
It's always funny to see people who think that yelling louder than the person who disagrees with them makes them right.

I find most CTers fall into that category.
NO, THEY DON'T!

CptColumbo
15th October 2006, 10:20 PM
NO, THEY DON'T!

Yes, they do.

T.A.M.
16th October 2006, 03:28 PM
Guys;

Over at the SLC Forum, a poster with UN=SeeOtter has brought up a point that I do not have clarification, on but I think needs some.

NIST, in their FAQ, state that the NIST findings do not support the "pancake" theory of collapse.

Yet, the PM book on debunking 9/11 Myths, on page 44, says that the buildings collapsed in what engineers describe as pancaking.


[... snip ...]
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system--that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns--consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
[... snip ...]

Popular Mechanics 'Debunking 9/11 Myths', p. 44:
[... snip ...]
"Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, the floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking
[... snip ...]

Any clarification would be helpful.

TAM

Arkan_Wolfshade
16th October 2006, 03:32 PM
Guys;

Over at the SLC Forum, a poster with UN=SeeOtter has brought up a point that I do not have clarification, on but I think needs some.

NIST, in their FAQ, state that the NIST findings do not support the "pancake" theory of collapse.

Yet, the PM book on debunking 9/11 Myths, on page 44, says that the buildings collapsed in what engineers describe as pancaking.



Any clarification would be helpful.

TAM

I think it is the difference between the initiation of the collapse, and what occurred after the collapse was underway.

Muckar-duva
16th October 2006, 03:33 PM
The commission report mentions pancaking as well (p308 in the PDF, and only in a sentence like "they ran, as the tower began its pancake collapse").

Muckar-duva
16th October 2006, 03:36 PM
I think it is the difference between the initiation of the collapse, and what occurred after the collapse was underway.


So initially, it was pancaking, and turned into the floors failing inwards(sorry if my details, or even interpretation, are shoddy, but I haven't read up on my WTC that much)?

Arkan_Wolfshade
16th October 2006, 03:42 PM
So initially, it was pancaking, and turned into the floors failing inwards(sorry if my details, or even interpretation, are shoddy, but I haven't read up on my WTC that much)?

Other way around iirc.

Muckar-duva
16th October 2006, 04:03 PM
The FAQ:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

T.A.M.
16th October 2006, 04:13 PM
Arkan:

My memory is the same as yours, and I stated this to him, but it is from memory of discussion here only. I cannot remember the source for this...any ideas?

CptColumbo
16th October 2006, 09:48 PM
I noticed that on the LC forum lately, we have become a kind of boogey man to them. Some are using the "JREF" name like Joe McCarthy used "communist" in the 50's, to ruin a persons credibility.

"He has the JREFers support."

R.Mackey
16th October 2006, 09:54 PM
Guys;

Over at the SLC Forum, a poster with UN=SeeOtter has brought up a point that I do not have clarification, on but I think needs some.

NIST, in their FAQ, state that the NIST findings do not support the "pancake" theory of collapse.

Yet, the PM book on debunking 9/11 Myths, on page 44, says that the buildings collapsed in what engineers describe as pancaking.

Any clarification would be helpful.

TAM
Hmm, I just saw a similar question in another thread. I guess you guys read the same things elsewhere in the 'net. My answer is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2007731#post2007731).

As for why the Popular Mechanics book uses the slighly incorrect pancaking term, I can only assume it's a basic error. Perhaps they went to press before NIST made their clarification, or they didn't appreciate the difference. It's a subtle distinction.

Arkan_Wolfshade
16th October 2006, 10:07 PM
Arkan:

My memory is the same as yours, and I stated this to him, but it is from memory of discussion here only. I cannot remember the source for this...any ideas?

Home now, here is the full quote from the PM book

Several studies, most notably those by FEMA and NIST, determined that the towers fell as a result of fires that weakened the supporting steel columns near the point of the plane impacts. The fires themselves likely would not have brought down the towers, but in combination with the damage from the crashes they proved fatal. Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest impact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor failed, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process pancaking, and it does not require an explosion to being, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Troy, New York-based Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report

The only mention of "pancake" from the FEMA report says As the temperature of floor slabs and support framing increases, these elements can lose rigidity and sag into catenary action. As catenary action progresses, horizontal framing elements and floor slabs become tensile elements, which can cause failure of end connections (Figure 2-21) and allow supported floors to collapse onto the floors below. The presence of large amounts of debris on some floors of WTC 1 would have made them even more susceptible to this behavior. In addition to overloading the floors below, and potentially resulting in a pancake-type collapse of successive floors, local floor collapse would also immediately increase the laterally unsupported length of columns,
permitting buckling to begin. As indicated in Appendix B, the propensity of exterior columns to buckle would have been governed by the relatively weak bolted column splices between the vertically stacked prefabricated exterior wall units. This effect would be even more likely to occur in a fire that
involves several adjacent floor levels simultaneously, because the columns could effectively lose lateral support over several stories (Figure 2-22).

The 9/11 Commission report returns not hits for "pancak" (used to catch both pancake and pancaking")

Now, keep in mind, the FEMA report was released early '02 iirc, whereas the NIST FAQ the person is quoting is from '06 which states Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Muckar-duva
17th October 2006, 12:18 AM
Not to be nitpicking, but still- the commission report does mention pankcaking- at least my paperback version and the pdf version I looked at yesterday (where it was at page 308- that's the printed number on the page, not the actual pdf page, which is 325).

LashL
17th October 2006, 12:25 AM
I think that the confusion (if that's what it is) stems from an unfortunate overlap in terminology - the "engineering" use of the term "pancaking" and the "layman" use of the word "pancaking" - combined with the distinction between the initiation of the collapse and the collapse itself.

CptColumbo
17th October 2006, 12:41 AM
I think that the confusion (if that's what it is) stems from an unfortunate overlap in terminology - the "engineering" use of the term "pancaking" and the "layman" use of the word "pancaking" - combined with the distinction between the initiation of the collapse and the collapse itself.

So they weren't a stack of fried batter patties covered in syrup and butter? Well that explains some of my confusion.
:)

LashL
17th October 2006, 12:47 AM
So they weren't a stack of fried batter patties covered in syrup and butter? Well that explains some of my confusion.
:)

Some of your confusion might also stem from ignoring the fact that there was also a bunny involved. :)

:bunpan

(It's true!)

CptColumbo
17th October 2006, 12:48 AM
Some of your confusion might also stem from ignoring the fact that there was also a bunny involved. :)

:bunpan

It's true!

LOL<---the absolute first time I've ever used that internet expression. Ever, ever.

Orphia Nay
17th October 2006, 01:02 AM
For the sake of posterity, this thread really should contain a link to this thread right about now, to fill in the happenings of the last 2 days or so:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66146


Oh, no, the bunny's been deployed... not long now before this thread dies. ;)


Alas, it will just mean Loose Change - Part V, I fear. :)

LashL
17th October 2006, 01:07 AM
LOL<---the absolute first time I've ever used that internet expression. Ever, ever.

Without putting too fine a point on it....

...

...

...

<carves a notch>

:p

CptColumbo
17th October 2006, 01:08 AM
Without putting too fine a point on it....

...

...

...

<carves a notch>

:p

LOL<--you get the first two, but that's it.

LashL
17th October 2006, 01:20 AM
LOL<--you get the first two, but that's it.

Two in a row ~ Ill take it. :)


...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

<ponders the quasi-gauntlet just the same, and will work on number 3 another day... when you least expect it :) >

LashL
17th October 2006, 01:28 AM
Oh, no, the bunny's been deployed... not long now before this thread dies. ;)

Oops, mea culpa. Who knew? :p

Alas, it will just mean Loose Change - Part V, I fear. :)

Ahh, well, that works then!

Muckar-duva
17th October 2006, 03:27 AM
So, those of you who aren't confused, how would you explain the collapse to someone who doesn't know a thing? (Practice on me, I'm almost completely uneducated WTC-wise.)

realitybites
17th October 2006, 08:52 AM
Or are the LC forums down for everyone else too?

Board Offline
Loose Change Forums down temporarily.
I'd say I smell a conspiracy, but right now I'm too stuffed up to tell if it's the Zionists or Bushco.

Hellbound
17th October 2006, 08:58 AM
Actually, it seems the difference may be in the number of floors failing at once. Least the way I'm reading it (and I'm sure our engineers will correct me if I'm mis-reading).

The way I read it is:

THe pancake theroy involved a floor failing. That floor fell on another, causing it to fail, which fell on another, and so on leading to full collapse.

The corrected theory seems to indicate that the perimeter columns failed first. This allowed the sagging floor trusses to pull the perimeter columns inward, causing multiple floors to fail at the same time, resulting in a large mass of degree falling (several floor at once from the damaged areas).

Another differnce: Pancaking implies some sort of stop/stark process and that the floors remain relatively intacta and level as they fall. I think it was more a mass of debris, generally at the same level, with floors failing at differing times in differing locations (differences measured in perhaps tenths of seconds). As to the CTer "then the squibs couldn't be air pressure!" claims, a plunger doesn't have to be level and even. You can get the same effect with cotton balls in a tube, or feathers in a blowgun.

Bell
17th October 2006, 01:31 PM
Or are the LC forums down for everyone else too?


I'd say I smell a conspiracy, but right now I'm too stuffed up to tell if it's the Zionists or Bushco.

You aren't trolling the internet in the NWO's time, are you? You know how much employers hate that. Back to work, you!

Jennie C.
17th October 2006, 01:51 PM
Originally Posted by delphi_ote http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2004322#post2004322)
NO, THEY DON'T!
Yes, they do.


Wow, I logged off to come home (from ummm, somewhere else, not work. CERTAINLY not work) and another half-page has generated.

The above message gave me an opportunity to mention something that occurred to me from another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1662246#post1662246).

The original post, which will sound familiar to you all was simply asking if anyone had explained why the towers fell at free-fall speeds. The person (Christophera) kept asserting that the towers fell "too fast."

Well, I was once taught in a Logic class that a gratuitous assertion can be gratuitously denied.

Which means that the typical playground argument of "Am not," "Are so!!", while incredibly tedious (not to mention childish) is, in fact a valid one.

I propose the next time someone asserts something for, say, the 5th time after having its incorrectness pointed out and explained, we simply revert to "No it doesn't." (or whatever variation applies).

It wouldn't work, of course, because then the Looser's would crow that they "won," but it certainly would be fun.

[/musing]


ETF: grammatical error.

Hellbound
17th October 2006, 01:53 PM
Jennie:

I've pretty much given up on the majority. Now I tend to go for the cheap laughs.

I didn't intend it that way, I just decided to provide the same levels of evidence in my rebuttals that the CTers provide in my post.

I don't think I've posted a link or a calculation since...

eddyk
17th October 2006, 02:41 PM
On the LC site....it says this film is 'intended for theatres'

Are they taking the pi55?

Jennie C.
17th October 2006, 02:42 PM
Yes, they do.

Jennie:

I've pretty much given up on the majority. Now I tend to go for the cheap laughs.

I didn't intend it that way, I just decided to provide the same levels of evidence in my rebuttals that the CTers provide in my post.

I don't think I've posted a link or a calculation since...

Which is a shame. Please don't stop sharing your expertise with explosives. Well, if the person sounds like they have at least 2/3 wit, that is.

Bell
17th October 2006, 02:48 PM
On the LC site....it says this film is 'intended for theatres'

Are they taking the pi55?

I've seen those claimes when Timothy Hines' "H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds" was being released. Never came to be.

http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html

Hines is a sort of conspiracy nutter as well. Thought the big movie studio's tried to stop him making his true adaption of the book.

Actually, it's a sad story. I had such high hopes for that movie, and it seemed Hines believed in this project all the time. :(

mrfreeze
17th October 2006, 03:29 PM
Is that the straight to dvd "War of the Worlds" that came out just as the Tom Cruise one hit theaters? I just figured it was some guys attempt to cash in on idiots thinking the big theater one had hit dvd that quickly.