Loose Change - Part IV

[Obviousman]

Roger, will do.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.


Interestingly your answer seems to conflict with that given to me by JayUtah over on BAUT. Basically, if I remember well, he said that one starts with a hypothesis which then must be checked for its validity, and that one cannot check several hypotheses at the same time.
My problem here is that if one truncates the timeline as NIST did, it may be that your evidence is compatible with more than one hypothesis. Or in other words, that the alternative hypothesis has not been excluded by the evidence considered. Whereas this is the impression that the relevant sentence in their report gives. Anyway, I should probably point you towards this discussion, on BAUT (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=699620&postcount=66). Lots of reading, but I doubt there's a point in repeating the discussion here.

BTW thank you all for being civil with me.

The collapse did not stop because the PKE of the building was immense:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1666768&highlight=joules#post1666768

[gumboot]

One thing I have observed...

Often things that are not addressed in the official reports are raised. For example, it is often asked "why didn't NIST address the issue of Controlled Demolition?"

Asking this is the equivelant of asking why they only put ONE suspect on trial in the local murder case. The purpose of the investigation is to determine what happened, based on evidence. The official reports are not a minute moment by moment account of the entire investigation. They are a summary of findings.

It is enough to say "we investigated this, and our findings were X". They are tasked with the job. There is no requirement for them to justify WHY their findings are X. They are experts in their field, and it is their job to determine what happened.

There is no physical evidence of controlled demoltion. I don't use the world "no" lightly. There is none. At all. nothing. not a scrap. Not a single thing suggests anything like controlled demolition. The only evidence on the planet of controlled demolition exists in the heads of CTers.

This is why they think the NIST report is lacking, because they believe it has missed key evidence. But it does not. That evidence is a fabrication. It is something the CTers have created in their own minds.

It is not the duty of NIST to investigate every fantastical explanation that anyone can think of. It is their job to deal with the physical reality of the event.

And this is why I do not understand 9/11 conspiracy. The moon landing happened 30 years ago. Our only "evidence" is a few photos and some bad quality photo. The events themselves happened over 200,000 miles away, far from the earth and any witnesses. The only testimonies we have that it happened are from government employees.

Even the JFK assassination leaves unanswered questions, because the accused was never put to trial. Official investigations have disputed their findings. Again, the only evidence is a single poor quality piece of video and a reasonable crowd of witnesses (everyone nearby was a government employee).

Not so for 9/11. There are no unanswered questions. Everything makes perfect logical sense. Literally thousands upon thousands of people witnessed the events first hand in one of the largest cities in the world. The events themselves involved thousands of people, government employees and civilians. The photographic, video, audio, siesmic, and other data of the events numbers in the thousands. Millions of people across the globe witnessed said events on live television.

I just can't understand what twist of logic is needed to accept this Conspiracy Theory.

-Andrew

[WildCat]

Come on. You know that the complexity of the latter is not comparable to the former. This is just plain silly.
brumsen, have you ever consulted w/ actual structural enhineers on this subject? If you're working at or studying at a university, or even have one nearby, why not talk to one and get his thoughts on the matter?

Would anything change your mind on this? Or would you, given a satisfactory explanation for the above, move on to some other perceived fatal flaw in the NIST reports?

[T.A.M.]

Why didn't the NIST report address the possibility that a superior alien race invisibly cloaked, shot invisible laser beams at the trade centers, bringing them down. It is plausible isn't it. I mean 40% of the population, according to the same poll they are all quoting at LC now, believe the US govt is hiding info on races from other planets. Maybe Molach of the Bohemian grove is George Dubyah's allie in the federation of planets...

Sorry, but sometimes it gets so rediculous, you just have to giggle.

[Hutch]

...but I'm going to have to say something nice about Dylan Avery here.

You know about my thread with him a couple of pages back (less than 24 hours ago) where I challenged him on his "proof" and he published my IP.

We, he did pull that and I told him by PM (with concurrence from the JREF poster) that his IP posting had been reported-I felt that since he had pulled it (pun intended) that I owed him at least that much notification.

So I get a PM back from him Firday (read it this morning), whch says in part:

Sir,
Thank you for the heads up. Again, I apologize for how things happened, but a lot of people come in here with fists swinging and it's hard to differentiate sometimes.

I'm glad that, although you disagree with our premise, we can have a rational conversation. On that note, all I say to you, sir, is that you are obviously an intelligent and honorable person. By implying that the United States Government might have had a hand in the attacks, I am not implicating the entire government......and the fact of the matter is that government employees are, for the most part, good people who just want to come home from work to their families after a long day.

And then a bit of a shocker:

P.S. Quest banned your home IP? I'll take care of those ASAP. again, thanks for engaging in intelligent debate.

And so it is; I am back on from home on LC, which will decrease my need for workplace posting.

It appears young Mr. Avery can put hubris aside now and then and act relatively reasonable; his ideas are still high-grade bovine fecal matter, IMHO, but it does appear that maybe he isn't the mindless idealogue that some of his more rabid followers over there are.

Of course, we'll see the next time I cross him on an argument...

[Belz...]

As if that's going to impress me. The usual suggestion that I'm ignorant if I question this.

First, I did not demand a simulation of the collapse. I asked for a proof that the assumption that once the onset of collapse started (NISTs words) it was inevitable that it continue, is true. That need not be done by means of a simulation.

Did you READ the reports ? I do believe they answer those questions quite nicely.

Second: if that was so obvious, then why all the discussion on Ross' and Greening's papers? It is not obvious, which is a good reason why NIST should have investigated beyond the onset and not truncated the timeline.

I never said it was obvious. This is why we have experts. Otherwise any layman could solve any problem and do any investigation, which is exactly what the LC and CT crowd think they can do.

[Belz...]

Thats easy: I call it the "Broken Toy" syndrom. It works basically like this:

[...]

Person A, whom probably still have pimples

HEY! Some people carry those pimples their entire lives. It's not their fault!!!

[Joytown]

Do you mean to say that they studied it, but for some reason didn't include that in the report; or are you making a finer distinction here which I am failing to grasp?

It's a valid question, Brumsen but I think I can shed a little light light on this aspect of it. A good friend of mine is a Fire Captiain in Nevada. He and I talked quite a bit after 9/11 (when he was up to his necks in study materials trying to pass the tests) - and also recently now that he's a captain.

The point he makes is that progessive collapse is a known phenomenon to fire fighters and fire safety engineers. They plan for it, study about it, and work with structiral engineers on ways to prevent it. This is very hard-earned knowledge that has come at the cost of many lives. Certainly the WTC collapses were unique in many ways, but once the collapse had initiated, they will still a progressive collapse - which pretty much followed every aspect about what they already know about progressive collapses. And that the main focus of fire safety people is to stop the collapse from starting in the first place - because they know from experience that once they start, there's no stopping it.

The day after 9-11 I talked to my friend and asked him about the tower. His comment was that this was a textbook case of a progressive collapse - this coming from someone who had had his head buried in fire-related textbooks the entire summer of 01.

Add to that the fact that the focus of the NIST is on building safety, so-as to make reccomendations into the future contruction of buildings.

If we are to beleive that the towers were brought down by controlled demo, then the NIST report reccommendations would be pretty brief: don't let controlled demolition teams in your building.

Regards,

-Joytown

[WildCat]

...but I'm going to have to say something nice about Dylan Avery here.
The cynic in me says that Avery may simply realize he has an image problem, no small thanks to MarkyX.

[T.A.M.]

Well JohnDoeX is at least being honest now...

The latest is his admission that the LC forum is "not a democracy"...no, it is a fascist state.

It is funny, I don't recall killtown or nesync, or bogglehead ever being banned or close to it, over in the SLC forum, regardless of the content or voraciousness of their remarks.

Certainly, noone has EVER been banned over there (SLC) for stating a view in opposition to the SLC POV, regardless of whether it bores those who are regulars over there. I mean we have listened to Killtown argue the same points with the same evidence at least 100 times, yet has he gotten banned for "repetitiveness"...No. Or for making mean or crude remarks...No.

JohnDoeX, go ahead, enjoy your power, because all you are with your little mocking smilies, and your intellectually biggoted remarks, your condecending attitude, is a big street bully. Live it up you pathetic moron.

It would be nice to see you come over here, or the SLC forum and debate in a place where you are out numbered, and where you can't censor or make decisions on who can and cannot be a member. I think you'd find yourself running back to Dylans "house" pretty quickly.

[Joytown]

He'll be back as soon as anyone posts anything about any 9/11 topic that doesn't support his obnoxious view.

He has a view? I can never seem to get JohnDoe to actually posit ANYTHING. It seems to me his mode of operation is to just lob ****-bombs over the fence and to obfuscate. If you ask him, he'll say he HAS no theory on any of it.

I've asked this about 15 times in about 10 different ways over there when someone tries to bring up an "official theory lie". FOr example, ok .. so you say that there's no evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - I believe you! - Now, help me .. please describe your theory of what did happen there without a 757? Please include known facts like that AA Flight 77, a 757, did exist and is no longer around, and something did crash at the Pentagon.

Same thing with Hani Hanjour, the proported Flt 77 hijacker/pilot. In the infamous 26 page thread on LC, JohnDoeX's harruphing and blathering amounted to this: He thinks it's unlikely that Hani could have performed the manouver. (of course this was a great opportunity for him to toss out all his official airplane knowledge and sound like an authority on everything aerocautical). So I asked him .. if Hani flying the plane is "unlikely" please tell what is the LIKELY scenario. What I got was the standard issue "I'm just asking questions" and the "we the people deserve to know the truth" BS.

This is the biggest flaw of all in the 9-11 deniers case for inside job. They can find inconsistencies, but since they have no reasonable alternative narrative to the events, there's no place for those inconsistencies fit into an overall picture.

So yeah .. good luck on getting JohnDoeX to say *anything* substantial.

-Joytown

[chran]

Well JohnDoeX is at least being honest now...

The latest is his admission that the LC forum is "not a democracy"...no, it is a fascist state. Well, to be fair - this forum isn't a democracy either. It's moderated by Darat et. al. and what they say goes.

So yeah.

[T.A.M.]

Like I said, he is like the street bully. We have all run into the type. He has his gang of henchmen around him, and then when someone he doesnt like shows up, he stands in front of them, with his goons by his side, and he belittles, taunts, and degrades the person, knowing he has his boys behind him to back him up. Why would he ever leave the comfort of Loose Change Street, with his gang there to stnad behind him.

Like most bullies, if you get him alone, and stand up to him, they usually fall away pretty quick.

[T.A.M.]

Yes Chran, that is true. The USA has a president, and Canada a priminister. But they do not rule with an iron hand. They are responsible to the people they represent.

I am sure if DARAT were to act anywhere close to the way JDX does, the group here, on mass, would contact the board officials for his removal.

Over there, they support his tactics, encourage them, and have not said so much as boo too him, so far as I can tell...that is fascism.

[The_Fire]

HEY! Some people carry those pimples their entire lives. It's not their fault!!!

*Raises an eyebrow*
Well, I doubt that the dermatological challenged "Some People" you are talking about are still living in their mothers basement. Or is there a catch 22 thing in this entire "Lord of Darkness" gig I haven't heard about?

[60hzxtl]

henchmen


Please

Henchpersons, or Persons-of-hench!

[T.A.M.]

how about "Henchills" or "Hencheoples"...

:)

[DavidJames]

He has a view? I can never seem to get JohnDoe to actually posit ANYTHING. A month or so back JDX was more coy about his "beliefs". He made comments like, he has his ideas but hasn't posted them on the forum, but has made them known privately. He also claimed at one point to be 95% sure the towers were a CD. When pushed he falls back on demanding "proof" of the NIST findings, pointing out the NIST report never claims 100% certainty. Of course, his 95% belief in a CD has 0% facts supporting it. He fails to see the irony.

I pushed him mercilessly about his lack of backbone failing to commit to any ideas, leading ultimately to my banishment. Much of his arguments fall into the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Now he's got the "power of mod" and he wields it like he's never had responsibility before. To me, that points me away from the idea that he's held any meaningful job. His maturity level hardly suggests he was ever a pilot., But I don't know. But it's pretty clear he's not working now. If I had to guess I'd say he's on some form of government assistance, either unemployment or disability. He's a sad joke for sure.

[brumsen]

One thing I have observed...

Often things that are not addressed in the official reports are raised. For example, it is often asked "why didn't NIST address the issue of Controlled Demolition?"
Well, no. My question is: they address it - they say that they have found no evidence for it - so where can I read about how exactly they did exclude the CD hypothesis? Given that they did address it with a conclusion - where is their reasoning justifying that conclusion?

Asking this is the equivelant of asking why they only put ONE suspect on trial in the local murder case. The purpose of the investigation is to determine what happened, based on evidence. The official reports are not a minute moment by moment account of the entire investigation. They are a summary of findings.

It is enough to say "we investigated this, and our findings were X". They are tasked with the job. There is no requirement for them to justify WHY their findings are X. They are experts in their field, and it is their job to determine what happened.
No, I don't buy this view of what expertise is. What they did, and how they reached their conclusions, should be reconstructible (?) from the report. Not by any layman perhaps, but by other knowledgeable people, yes.

What NIST did in its conclusions is the equivalent of saying: this suspect has been found guilty by us, and by the way that other suspect cannot be guilty since there is no evidence against him. But of course they could both be guilty, or have co-operated in some way.

This is why they think the NIST report is lacking, because they believe it has missed key evidence. But it does not. That evidence is a fabrication. It is something the CTers have created in their own minds.
It simply has not, to my knowledge, considered key evidence, evidence to do with the events after onset of collapse. Hence all the debate about what those events are evidence for.

It is not the duty of NIST to investigate every fantastical explanation that anyone can think of. It is their job to deal with the physical reality of the event.
Another typical response. No, I am not asking that NIST investigate whether aliens may have demolished the Twin Towers with their death rays. I am only asking that they do justify a conclusion that they did draw, namely that there was no controlled demolition.

I referred earlier to the BAUT thread where this was discussed as length, and I'll do it once more since I am just repeating what I said there (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=699620&postcount=66).

[kevin]

Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.

They looked at the construction of the world trade center in detail. What did they miss in the construction that would cause the collapse to stop once started?

The timelines I see in the reports go up until the evidence they have is obscured in the dust. Should they create evidence for what happened after this?

[brumsen]

Certainly the WTC collapses were unique in many ways, but once the collapse had initiated, they will still a progressive collapse - which pretty much followed every aspect about what they already know about progressive collapses. And that the main focus of fire safety people is to stop the collapse from starting in the first place - because they know from experience that once they start, there's no stopping it.
Thanks Joytown. However, this would only work if there were no high-rise buildings that have partially collapsed in the past. I believe that is not true.
If some have completely collapsed and others partially, the question is: why would WTC 1, 2 & 7 fall in the former rather than the latter category?

[brumsen]

Did you READ the reports ? I do believe they answer those questions quite nicely.
I must have missed it. Could you give me a precise reference?

[brumsen]

brumsen, have you ever consulted w/ actual structural enhineers on this subject? If you're working at or studying at a university, or even have one nearby, why not talk to one and get his thoughts on the matter?
I have talked to one, yes. He told me the conspiracist stuff was all nonsense. When I asked him for references he said that he got his knowledge from a documentary on Discovery Channel. Pressing him further gave no reply.

Would anything change your mind on this? Or would you, given a satisfactory explanation for the above, move on to some other perceived fatal flaw in the NIST reports?
Yet another typical response to a perceived CT'er. This is starting to be fun, I think I'll keep scores.

Based on what evidence do you ask me this? And do you intend it to be anything other than a rhetorical question?

[brumsen]

....but once you have that figure and you can see that the force being applied against it is far greater, then you know that figuring out the rest is pointless.
You claim to have that figure?

[WildCat]

Well, no. My question is: they address it - they say that they have found no evidence for it - so where can I read about how exactly they did exclude the CD hypothesis? Given that they did address it with a conclusion - where is their reasoning justifying that conclusion?
And this is the crux of the problem for you - there is no CD hypothesis in the scientific sense. Before you have a hypothesis, you must have evidence leading to that hypothesis. And the evidence for CD is what, exactly?

[DavidJames]

I must have missed it. Could you give me a precise reference?
Dear brumsen...

Can you point us to specific issues you have with the NIST report. Reference the page number, articulate your concern and support it with logic, reason and analysis. Analysis meaning, math, physics, that kind of thing.

Wildcat asked something similar a couple of days ago but I don't believe he ever got a reply. That wouldn't be surprising, as CTers get asked this on a regular basis but, to my knowledge, have never responded. Why is that? My theory is that they don't have a clue how to perform such an analysis. But you can prove us wrong by accepting this challenge.

The facts have been clearly documented and laid out for everyone's analysis. Why don't you challenge that analysis, refute it with equivalent levels of research and details. Or you could keep employing arguments from ignorance. Which will it be?

[WildCat]

Yet another typical response to a perceived CT'er. This is starting to be fun, I think I'll keep scores.

Based on what evidence do you ask me this? And do you intend it to be anything other than a rhetorical question?
It is not a rhetorical question. There are mountains of evidence contained in the NIST reports that support their theory of collapse, there is absolutely none to support a CD. Yet you cling to the possibility that it may have been a CD, why?

[WildCat]

brumsen, instead of this dancing around the subject, why don't you just tell us what you think is the single best piece of evidence supporting CD?

[brumsen]

Dear brumsen...

Can you point us to specific issues you have with the NIST report. Reference the page number, articulate your concern and support it with logic, reason and analysis. Analysis meaning, math, physics, that kind of thing.

Wildcat asked something similar a couple of days ago but I don't believe he ever got a reply. That wouldn't be surprising, as CTers get asked this on a regular basis but, to my knowledge, have never responded.
I have responded here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818776&postcount=351). I have also referred to a thread elsewhere in which I have set out clearly what I find the problem is. So don't tell me I haven't taken up that challenge.

[WildCat]

Oh well, I'm off to Lollapalooza. Have fun guys!

[Woody-]

Thanks Joytown. However, this would only work if there were no high-rise buildings that have partially collapsed in the past. I believe that is not true.
If some have completely collapsed and others partially, the question is: why would WTC 1, 2 & 7 fall in the former rather than the latter category?



For your question of why some buildings completely collapse and others only partially collapse it is simply because they had different designs. The design of the WTC towers was such that once you lost the internal bracing of the floors the columns could not stay standing by themselves. And the floors could not support the load of the upper parts of the towers falling on them so they failed.

I think the best analogy of this I have heard is the one about the hammer. Get a 10 pound sledge hammer and set it on your toe, you will feel the pressure of the weight but it wont do any real damage to your foot. Now take that same hammer and let it drop on your toe from ten feet up, you will most likely end up with several broken bones in your foot. What this demonstrates is the difference between a dead load and a live load. The floors of the WTC were designed to carry X amount of dead weight (and they probably had a 2 or 3 time safety margin built in), but when the top of the towers fell they suddenly had X mulitplied by dozens of floors of live load hitting them. This live load was at least an order of magnitude higher than the dead load the floors were designed for so they failed nearly instantly.

It was then the floors that failed in a progressive manner leaving the interior and exterior columns unsupported. Thats why you can see the core and/or wall sections standing for a few seconds in many of the videos of the collapse.

[DavidJames]

I have responded here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818776&postcount=351). I have also referred to a thread elsewhere in which I have set out clearly what I find the problem is. So don't tell me I haven't taken up that challenge.1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)

Will you need page numbers or will this do?Thanks, but I hardly consider that a response. Here is what I asked for Reference the page number, articulate your concern and support it with logic, reason and analysis. Analysis meaning, math, physicsYes, I want page numbers which correspond to your claims. Further, you provide no analysis, no refutation, nothing but more unsubstantiated claims. Back them up my friend.

[T.A.M.]

What Brumsen finds wrong with the NIST report:

"1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)

Will you need page numbers or will this do?"


--------
(1.a) they did study the collapses themselves, they used witness testimony, photographic and videographic evidence. How else would they study the collapse, unless the members were there themselves?
(1.b) So you would like them to create a model? would a computer one be sufficient? Certainly a real world model would be unrealistic, so I am assuming a computer generated model would do.

(2) So what you would like is a subsection in the report indicating that based on analysis of the debris of WTC 7, and based on photographic, videographic, and witness evidence, there were or were not findings of explosive materials, or Controlled Demolition. I assume if they said that there were not, the quote of the "10 signs of CD in WTC 7" would be held to them to contest their conclusions.

I am simply asking, does my grasp of your suggested "faults" with the NIST report of WTC 7 sound correct, because if not, I would like you to expand or clarify.

[Ramooone]

wanna know why the towers collapsed??

take a 40 story and 20 story skyscraper respectively and drop them about 3-4 stories on top of another building. that momentum has got to go somewhere.

[juryjone]

I have responded here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1818776&postcount=351). I have also referred to a thread elsewhere in which I have set out clearly what I find the problem is. So don't tell me I haven't taken up that challenge.

I do not see where you have responded to the question here. Here is your quote:

1) They have not studied / modeled the collapses themselves, but truncated the timeline at the onset of collapse, assuming that total collapse was then inevitable; hence the discussion in eg Gordon Ross's paper;
2) They say that they have not found any evidence corroborating alternative hypotheses such as planted explosives, without actually having researched those hypotheses (well, at least they haven't written up such research)

Will you need page numbers or will this do?

You were asked what specific evidence leads you to believe that CD was a possibility. You respond that NIST didn't cover the possiblility to your satisfaction in the reports. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. NIST doesn't cover the possibility of aliens, but that doesn't seem to be proof that they were involved. What am I missing?

(And by the way, I have a hard enough time keeping up with threads here - if your answer is elsewhere on the internet it would be nice if you could at least summarize here.)

[T.A.M.]

MERCs Claims noone can debbunk his Pentagon argument (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4223)

Is this true. Is this there smoking gun. he states NOONE can debunk his claims. I am far from an expert, and I am still in the early days of my research, but I woul dlove Gravy or Brainster to take a look. I will too, of course.

[MarkyX]

If he didn't ban everyone, someone would've replied

[T.A.M.]

ok, fair enough, but yourself or Gravy or Brainster could break it down piece by piece and then put it together as your own paper...A big challenge I know, but if noone does it, than his argument stands...

[MarkyX]

Now THIS is interesting.

A small site of a pentagon eye witness, with his own eyes and photos he took. His AIM contact is on the site.

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

[Woody-]

ok, fair enough, but yourself or Gravy or Brainster could break it down piece by piece and then put it together as your own paper...A big challenge I know, but if noone does it, than his argument stands...

Just ask him if it wasn't a 757 then what was it?

Let him try and explain how a cruise missile or a global hawk could account for all the evidence at the pentagon. ie light poles, plane parts, dead bodies, eyewitnesses, etc etc.

[T.A.M.]

Oh, I am sure he cannot prove either of those, but, if noone can refute his claims, then what.

I say if not, then the "most likely" scenario is the correct one, which probably means that we still go with a 757, but to them it is a victory.

[Ramooone]

Now THIS is interesting.

A small site of a pentagon eye witness, with his own eyes and photos he took. His AIM contact is on the site.

http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

i sent him an e-mail about it a while back and he said that he saw with his own eyes an american airlines jet hit the pentagon.

[Brainster]

...but I'm going to have to say something nice about Dylan Avery here.

I'll give him credit for not biting on that Sam Danner story even though it confirmed his biases. He says (and I believe him on this one) that Danner seemed like he was making stuff up on the fly.

[T.A.M.]

Riskus story (http://perso.orange.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/npp-lagas.html)

[Belz...]

One thing I have observed...

Another excellent post.

Boy, you just keep doing that, don't you ?

[Belz...]

*Raises an eyebrow*
Well, I doubt that the dermatological challenged "Some People" you are talking about are still living in their mothers basement. Or is there a catch 22 thing in this entire "Lord of Darkness" gig I haven't heard about?

<<< TELEPORTS >>>

[Belz...]

Well, no. My question is: they address it - they say that they have found no evidence for it - so where can I read about how exactly they did exclude the CD hypothesis? Given that they did address it with a conclusion - where is their reasoning justifying that conclusion?

Gumboot was very clear: there was NO evidence of CD, therefore it wasn't even considered. You won't read about anywhere, because only loonies or people with no knowledge of physics, engineering or building fires come up with this CD crap.

[Belz...]

I must have missed it. Could you give me a precise reference?

I couldn't help noticing you didn't answer my question: did you read it ?

And this is the crux of the problem for you - there is no CD hypothesis in the scientific sense. Before you have a hypothesis, you must have evidence leading to that hypothesis. And the evidence for CD is what, exactly?

Evidence ? Hypothesis ? No, no, WildCat. You START with a conclusion, then retrofit everything accordingly. Why the hell would you bother with all that "thinking" nonsense ?

[brumsen]

I couldn't help noticing you didn't answer my question: did you read it ?
I cannot have missed it without reading it, can I? That's conversational implication. So could you now give me the reference to where my question is answered according to you?



Evidence ? Hypothesis ? No, no, WildCat. You START with a conclusion, then retrofit everything accordingly. Why the hell would you bother with all that "thinking" nonsense ?
That is patronizing bull* and I don't need it.

[R.Mackey]

Again, it need not be a simulation. And if you want to know why the collapse occurred, you also need to know why it did not stop. Limited money: sure, but of course I'd be arguing that more resources should have been made free for this study.
No. You do not need to know why it did not stop.

This is elementary. Any structural engineer, even any basic carpenter, can tell you that a static load is easier to control than a dynamic load. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, would expect the WTC towers to only partially collapse once it was underway. If it couldn't support itself statically, it wouldn't have a chance once momentum and secondary impact damage was added to the equation, even if it failed in a completely symmetric manner.

I'm curious about how you would approach this problem if not through simulation? The mathematics involved are too complex to solve directly, even if you simplify the dynamics tremendously (and beyond the point of accuracy).

Interestingly your answer seems to conflict with that given to me by JayUtah over on BAUT. Basically, if I remember well, he said that one starts with a hypothesis which then must be checked for its validity, and that one cannot check several hypotheses at the same time.
Rubbish. Investigation reveals a number of facts. Facts are not biased towards any theory, and are not used up. You can compare a set of facts to any number of theories. Again, this is fundamental scientific thought.

My problem here is that if one truncates the timeline as NIST did, it may be that your evidence is compatible with more than one hypothesis. Or in other words, that the alternative hypothesis has not been excluded by the evidence considered.
I suppose this is possible, but asserting that it "may be" incompatible is not enough. You need to show that it is incompatible before it makes any difference.

If you can show that some facts (e.g. evidence) doesn't agree with the official theory, facts from the "truncated" timeline or outside it, any facts at all, then we have something interesting to talk about. But unfortunately you're speculating about facts that you don't have, and until shown otherwise we may correctly assume they don't exist. This speculation isn't enough to invalidate the official theory.

[brumsen]

Gumboot was very clear: there was NO evidence of CD, therefore it wasn't even considered. You won't read about anywhere, because only loonies or people with no knowledge of physics, engineering or building fires come up with this CD crap.
On p. xxxviii of NCSTAR1 it is clearly stated that "NIST found no corroborating evidence suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition". This means that it was considered, but no corroborating evidence found. Now where do we found what they have exactly considered as potential evidence?
And again, I don't need the b*t.

[brumsen]

You were asked what specific evidence leads you to believe that CD was a possibility. You respond that NIST didn't cover the possiblility to your satisfaction in the reports. Seems like a non-sequitur to me.
No, that was not the question that I was asked, and to which I responded. It was this:
So I'll ask you - what exactly do you think is wrong w/ the official NIST reports?

[brumsen]

No. You do not need to know why it did not stop.

This is elementary. Any structural engineer, even any basic carpenter, can tell you that a static load is easier to control than a dynamic load. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, would expect the WTC towers to only partially collapse once it was underway. If it couldn't support itself statically, it wouldn't have a chance once momentum and secondary impact damage was added to the equation, even if it failed in a completely symmetric manner.
I hope to find time to respond more fully to your post, but for now I'll just react to this:
The building could not support itself statically where it was damaged by impact and fires. However, the question about whether it could have supported the dynamic load is a question about the undamaged parts of the building.

[brumsen]

The timelines I see in the reports go up until the evidence they have is obscured in the dust. Should they create evidence for what happened after this?
Footnote 2 on p.xxxvii states that “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”

[R.Mackey]

The building could not support itself statically where it was damaged by impact and fires. However, the question about whether it could have supported the dynamic load is a question about the undamaged parts of the building.
Here, I'll make this real simple --

Suppose a single floor collapses, symmetrically, with the load of 20-odd floors above it. (The symmetric case is the easiest to deal with and isn't what happened; in the real system the upper floors rotated slightly and it came down on one corner first.) You now have the same static load you had before, with the additional energy of 20 floors falling about three meters.

We know the design strength of the "undamaged" parts of the building, which were built with a safety factor of roughly 2.5, dictated by expected wind loads in case of hurricane conditions.

Can you agree that the additional energy is plausibly enough to overcome the design strength of the building? I know I haven't put up any hard numbers yet, just tell me if you think this is "possible" or "impossible."

Can you also accept that the building, by virtue of being clocked by a jetliner, had some deformation and fracture damage even away from the "single" burning floor? Can you accept that the fire damage was not restricted to a single floor, and caused further deformation and loading a few floors away from our hypothetical collapse? Can you accept that the actual collapse was likely to be concentrated on one corner, and thus the building was further stressed asymmetrically?

I'm really having trouble with this idea, partly because you are the first I've encountered who's suspected a partial collapse was likely.

[brumsen]

Here, I'll make this real simple --

I understand your reasoning, and to all your questions my answer is affirmative. But it needs to be checked by means of math and "hard numbers". This is what Gordon Ross attempts to do, and what NIST should have done.
It is altogether intuitively possible that there would be a total collapse, but it's not clear-cut and beyond verification by means of some math.

[Blackadder_no]

Is this true. Is this there smoking gun. he states NOONE can debunk his claims. I am far from an expert, and I am still in the early days of my research, but I woul dlove Gravy or Brainster to take a look. I will too, of course.

I can help you with one point already:

Now note the burn/impact mark from the supposed left wing...

IT IS PERFECTLY LEVEL!!! Completely contradicts the tilting of the right wing!

The keyword here, ladies and gentlemen, is "dihedral".

[R.Mackey]

I understand your reasoning, and to all your questions my answer is affirmative. But it needs to be checked by means of math and "hard numbers". This is what Gordon Ross attempts to do, and what NIST should have done.
It is altogether intuitively possible that there would be a total collapse, but it's not clear-cut and beyond verification by means of some math.
That's completely fair. I too find it intuitively possible or even likely, but digging deeper into the numbers is good science and encouraged.

For an attempt at hard numbers, I suggest you take a look at Greening's (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) paper (one I quote frequently), especially the work he references on pp. 9-10. If you want to work up your own estimate, these are the numbers to refute.

I've done some back-of-envelope calculations of my own, relying on my training (I am not a structural engineer but have studied solid mechanics), and found these results to be reasonable. I also have not seen any credible challenge to these numbers. But I'm always willing to consider any, should it appear.

[T.A.M.]

So on another note, they are once again all over the Albany Museum stuff again over at loose change forum.

They seem all hyped about it again, but I can't seem to fathom why since a poster at the museum says that the "Pcitures" of recorders are infact "pictures of what the 'black boxes' COULD look like if they survived."

Now if a poster in the museum tells you the pictures are used to show you what the recorders "could" look like "if" they survived, I don't see how there can be any more debate. Obviously the pictures are not the those of the actual Flight 11 and 175 recorders.

Anyway, they are going back to ask the curator some questions about it later this week.

[brumsen]

That's completely fair. I too find it intuitively possible or even likely, but digging deeper into the numbers is good science and encouraged.

For an attempt at hard numbers, I suggest you take a look at Greening's (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) paper (one I quote frequently), especially the work he references on pp. 9-10. If you want to work up your own estimate, these are the numbers to refute.

I've done some back-of-envelope calculations of my own, relying on my training (I am not a structural engineer but have studied solid mechanics), and found these results to be reasonable. I also have not seen any credible challenge to these numbers. But I'm always willing to consider any, should it appear.
I have worked through Greening's paper, and it does seem reasonable. However, I would encourage you to look at Gordon Ross's paper (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf), if you have not done so already.

ETA: what I found interesting about Greenings work is that according to his analysis the energy absorbed by the impact of the airliners was in itself enough to make the towers fall. No need for fires then, contrary to what NIST says.

[JamesB]

Nancy Jo Sales is a "Truther", this explains the Vanity Fair article.

http://nancyjosales.com/blog/

[T.A.M.]

She is there "Chertoff" except, the connection is real, and proven.

[DrCron]

Man, and here i was thinking that most satellites orbited outside the atmosphere. Oh, and that they didn't shoot with an f5.6 aperture.

tp://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-231700.html
Sorry you have to add the ht to the URL, I cant post links yet

[60hzxtl]

Nancy Jo Sales is a "Truther", this explains the Vanity Fair article.


And a New Yorker, so there is absolutely no excuse for her failure to ask Popular Mechanics if the Chertoff's were related.

Nancy is no reporter - she takes dictation.

Vanity Fair's editors are lazy.

Man, and here i was thinking that most satellites orbited outside the atmosphere. Oh, and that they didn't shoot with an f5.6 aperture.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-231700.html
Sorry you have to add the ht to the URL, I cant post links yet


Welcome Dr.Cron,

Further proof that the towers did not fall "in their own footprint", as seen by the damamge to The World Financial center, Deutsche Bank, etc.

"Own Footprint?"

Maybe if the WTC was wearing snowshoes.

[R.Mackey]

I have worked through Greening's paper, and it does seem reasonable. However, I would encourage you to look at Gordon Ross's paper (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf), if you have not done so already.

ETA: what I found interesting about Greenings work is that according to his analysis the energy absorbed by the impact of the airliners was in itself enough to make the towers fall. No need for fires then, contrary to what NIST says.
I'll take another look at Gordon Ross's paper and get back to you.

You are correct about Greening's conclusion that, strictly in terms of energy budget, the jetliner impact itself had enough energy to destroy all the supports on a single floor completely. He treats this in his paper:

In Section 4.2 we showed that the energy needed to destroy the structural supports of a WTC tower by an aircraft impact was about 0.6 x 109 J. We must therefore look for additional impact energy sinks to account for the dissipation of the remaining 2.4 x 109 J of supplied kinetic energy. Two important energy sinks are the elastic strain energy dissipated by the sway of the recoiling building and the energy dissipated by the destruction of the impacting aircraft.(From Greening (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf), pg. 11).

Other important factors to consider are that the jetliner kinetic energy was not entirely directed at the supports. A considerable fraction of it was ablated by the building's exterior, passed through completely, or was absorbed by nonstructural internal materials such as sheetrock and office furniture. It also was not captured by a single floor, but spread over a few floors. This was also an extremely rapid process, and therefore inefficient, according to the principles of thermodynamics.

In contrast, the energy of collapse was all directed downward into the heart of the structure, and occurred on a much slower timetable. There were some losses from pieces that fell away from the building, but this is sure to have been a more efficient process.

I was pretty impressed that the structures stood up to the impacts, personally.

[Obviousman]

Please

Henchpersons, or Persons-of-hench!

No, no, No!

We are lackeys or lickspittles.:D

[60hzxtl]

"guys, if we wanted to be signed by the big boys, we would have by now. we've turned down 7 figure contracts.

we are NOT compromising ourselves or our film. period. "


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9599

See? A man of principles if not principals.

Without distribution, LC Final, will remain a give-away. Worth what you pay for it; maybe that's the real meaning of "Loose Change" !

[MarkyX]

Oh ********...

7 Digit contracts? And he DENIES it?!

He could've been set for life and could have made a name himself. I smell BS.

[60hzxtl]

Oh ********...

7 Digit contracts? And he DENIES it?!

He could've been set for life and could have made a name himself. I smell BS.


I think he counted the 'dollar sign" the commas, and the decimal point.

[T.A.M.]

I guarantee he wasn't offered a 7 figure contract. Are you kidding me, a wanna be filmaker who stumbled onto a tragedy that has made him an internet legend, and he turns down 7 figures....that has to go down as one of the lamest lies I have ever heard, which from the source, is saying something.

[Brainster]

Oh ********...

7 Digit contracts? And he DENIES it?!

He could've been set for life and could have made a name himself. I smell BS.

He made the same claim in the Hufschmid phone call. I don't get it exactly, unless the offerer wanted them to blame it on the Jews.

[T.A.M.]

wait. Before I go to the link and read, let me guess...

some of them think it is a conspiracy. A studio head, who secretly works for the BUSH govt is going to offer them a tonne of money, buy the film, than bury it so noone can see it...

Now I am really laughing. The film is not even good let alone dangerous. Fouk it, I'll buy it and guarantee it is released, just so the public can see it for what it is....a pile of shait.

[The_Fire]

I think he counted the 'dollar sign" the commas, and the decimal point.

Something like that, I'm sure. Or he misunderstood the "You owe us ******* USD for unlawfull copying of our materials" for a "We pay you ******* USD for copying our material.
7 Digits for that piece of crap? In his dreams maybe. In reality? Not unless the US networks are Really, really, REALLY desperate. In the area of "Loose Change is the last piece of video left in the Universe" desperate and even then......
I call Bovine Excrements on this one.

[T.A.M.]

All the film is, is a collection of data, that has been presented in at least 50 other internet documentaries. the could cpoyright almost none of it, with the exception of the music (oh yeah). Why would someone offer them 5 figures, let alone 7 figures, to produce what they can do a much better job of, for much less.

[R.Mackey]

For brumsen, there is a difference between Greening's paper (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) and Ross's paper (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf) about whether or not the initial collapse of the WTC towers had enough energy to initiate a progressive collapse. Greening shows that the kinetic energy of a single floor collapse is more than sufficient to break all of the support columns on a single floor, therefore the collapse can proceed just like we saw on TV (twice). Ross concludes differently, that Greening has neglected linear strain in the columns below, sufficient to provide a "shock absorber" effect as the standing columns compress like springs, and that the recalculated energy is insufficient.

There's a couple of problems I see with Ross's paper. Page numbers start from 1, not the number printed at the bottom of each page.

Bazant/Zhou [1] show in their analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three distinct phases. These can be
shown on a load against vertical deflection graph and consist of an initial elastic phase, a shortening phase and a rapid plastic deformation phase.
Ross is trying to bring out material properties of individual structural elements, more detailed than Greening's analysis. However, it's important to point out that Ross is trying to treat this problem one dimensionally. In reality, the columns will be subjected to a side force. The floor trusses are either failed or intact -- if failed, the top of the column is no longer constrained, and is free to deflect to the sides; if intact, the stronger core columns will experience less strain and the outer columns will be pulled inwards, balanced by an outward pull on the core. We also know from video evidence that both towers did not collapse, nor were hit, symmetrically.

I point this out because the yield strength of a column that is free on one end is considerably less than the yield strength where both ends are pinned.

Because these columns suffer a vertical deflection, the attached floors move downwards and they will therefore have a velocity and momentum.

Energy Losses:

A simple conservation of momentum calculation, ignoring these movements, would have, 16 falling storeys moving at 8.5 m/sec before impact, changing to 17 storeys moving at (8.5 * (16/17)) = 8 m/sec after impact. This does not reflect the fact that a minimum of 24 further storeys will be caused to move downwards at varying speeds.
I don't understand why he is considering momentum. He claims to be doing an energy balance equation. The energy loss due to plastic deformation of the columns (assuming we accept his model) can be found simply by multiplying the applied force on the columns (== yield strength) times the distance of motion (== plastic deformation limit, assumed to be 3% x column height).

Ross has made an error claiming that the intial impact would lose energy because it takes some energy to accelerate the floors below impact, that are not in contact with the falling upper floors but are pulled along by the compressing columns. If Ross wants to bring this into the equation, he has to account for the downside, too -- this acceleration applied to the lower floors, by virtue of their inertia, will have the effect of further twisting the columns where the floors are attached. Far from being "dissipated" harmlessly (Gordon is claiming this accounts for a loss of 66% of the energy), this energy is being pumped into deforming the support pillars.

Finally, if that mass is accelerated, it must be stopped as well. That energy didn't disappear. It was briefly converted into kinetic energy, but then it must be converted back. I reject Ross's assumption that you can neglect all of this energy. I will grant that it spreads the energy over several floors, but it still contributes to structural damage and weakening of the columns.

The strain energy consumed by the impacted storey columns in the elastic phase and plastic shortening phase can be calculated using the failure load. The failure load used throughout this analysis is derived using the mass above the impact, 58 000 tonnes, and a safety factor of 4.
I question this assumption, uncited. You can bury nearly anything in a fudge factor of 4, which seems high. There are more detailed descriptions of the WTC design available, so there's no need to guess.

Energy Summary:
The energy balance can be summarised as
Energy available;
Kinetic energy 2105MJ
Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
Compression of impacting section 32MJ
Compression of impacted section 24MJ
Total Energy available 2256MJ

Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ

Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ
(emphasis added)

I'd call this a smoking gun. Ross in his energy balance equation has double-counted the floor collapse energy. He's assuming not only the floor getting hit has to collapse, but also the lowest floor of the falling block collapses as well (bolded items). Well, that could be, but if both of them collapse, you're not dropping that weight one floor -- you're dropping it two floors. Energy available DOUBLES.

I also note that the calculated loss due to "momentum losses," e.g. the allegedly harmless acceleration of lower floors due to plastic deformation, is greater than half of the energy budget. That is a heck of a big correction. As noted above, I disagree that you can simply throw this energy away, because it is still contained in the structure.

As noted before, all of the other real-world conditions that are hard to simulate -- asymmetric damage before collapse, asymmetric impact, anisotropic deformation caused by fires -- are not included in this paper. Far from being a "conservative" estimate as is claimed, this model, even if taken at face value, would not be entirely conclusive.

A final point that Ross has not addressed is that the floor that the upper stories fell upon was not in blueprint condition! It was immediately below the raging fire that collapsed the impact floor, suffered deformation from proximity to the impact floor, and was heated enough to weaken its yield strength. Again, even if we take Ross's numbers as correct, but add another floor's worth of gravitational energy, we still get collapse initiation.

To conclude, this is way better than the usual CT fodder but would still fail peer review. He's shown his math and assumptions, and I credit him for that. But I reject several of his assumptions, I don't understand why he complicates the energy balance equation, and even if true his "energy deficit" is too small to be a definitive disproof of collapse. And that's for the tower that was hit more gently.

ETA: Missed that Ross also double-counted the concrete-crunching energy. In fact, neither floor would have to be pulverized before collapse could initiate -- the floors are not holding up the structure. They can be crushed later.

Bottom line, Ross is way off, even with his own numbers.

[Brainster]

MERCs Claims noone can debbunk his Pentagon argument (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4223)

Is this true. Is this there smoking gun. he states NOONE can debunk his claims. I am far from an expert, and I am still in the early days of my research, but I woul dlove Gravy or Brainster to take a look. I will too, of course.

Actually some of the best Pentagon debunking has come from the 9-11 Denial Movement. Let's see...

Catherder's post at Above Top Secret (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html).

Jim Hoffman's post over at 911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html).

These pics which somebody pointed out here a little earlier are good evidence (http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html). Look at the third and fourth pictures especially; they show a lot more damage than the Deniers claim.

This Pentagon animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) does a terrific job of showing how the damage came from a 757.

Speaking for myself only, I've always thought the Pentagon missile/C-130, etc., stuff is nuttiness topped only by the no-planers. It's almost better not to debunk them, because they're so obviously wrong that they discredit the other Deniers.

[Brainster]

Nancy Jo Sales is a "Truther", this explains the Vanity Fair article.

http://nancyjosales.com/blog/

Yeah, Dylan made some comments on the forum about how she'd been pitching 9-11 stories for months to the editors. I wonder who looked up SLC and added us to the article; I suspect it wasn't her.

I guess we see from Rosebud #4 why Korey's the quiet one of the group most of the time.

[60hzxtl]

Yeah, Dylan made some comments on the forum about how she'd been pitching 9-11 stories for months to the editors. I wonder who looked up SLC and added us to the article; I suspect it wasn't her.

I guess we see from Rosebud #4 why Korey's the quiet one of the group most of the time.


Is Rosebud #4, a code word for Four Roses? That might explain a lot.

As for Korey, this is what he was like before Dylan:

http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2002/07/23/afghan.html

Also known as "what do you want me to say this time?"

Poor Korey, they didn't tell him things in the army - they didn't let him do things his way. Don't complain kid, you can always use those veterans points to get a job at the post office.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I realize that R. Mackey has address a lot of this already but I fear my previous post had been lost in the shuffle:
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/
in part
...
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below." ...

ETA: Oh, and Obviousman, the term you want is "minions"

[Class]

"guys, if we wanted to be signed by the big boys, we would have by now. we've turned down 7 figure contracts.

we are NOT compromising ourselves or our film. period. "


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9599

See? A man of principles if not principals.

Without distribution, LC Final, will remain a give-away. Worth what you pay for it; maybe that's the real meaning of "Loose Change" !
A seven figure contract?

I'm going to call my boss tonight and tell him he can take my job and shove it. I'm going to become a conspiracy film maker.

[defaultdotxbe]

im actually inclined to believe a 7 figure contract, and that he turned it down

remember, dylan and co think 13 figures worth of gold was stolen from the WTC, they probably figure a million is chump change and they can get more

plus, it probably was more like a retainer contract, just to keep him from signing with someone else, not necessarily a film or distribution contract (or spokesman deal, i wouldnt put that past him)

[Brainster]

As I mentioned on the radio last night, I did some poking around into the much-bruited poll that claims 36% of the public believes MIHOP or LIHOP. The information is here (http://www.newspolls.org/survey.php?survey_id=23); I couldn't seem to locate the crosstabs.

First thing that pops out is that the poll seems to move back and forward between silly questions and serious ones. They spend a long time asking about past presidential matchups, then throw a couple of oddball ones into the mix, like Hillary Clinton versus Bill Clinton and Poppy Bush versus George W. Could it be that this indicated to the person being polled that this was just for grins? Unmentioned in the press releases was that 38% of the respondents thought it somewhat or very likely that the government was covering up evidence of intelligent life on other planets.

People are also much less likely to believe specific elements of the 9-11 conspiracy theories. Only 12% thought it (http://www.newspolls.org/question.php?question_id=717) somewhat or very likely that a missile hit the Pentagon; 80% thought unlikely. Controlled demolition at the WTC got 16%. I do wish they'd asked about Flight 93 being shot down; I suspect that's higher. And of course it would have been great if they'd asked about the "no-planes" theory.

[kookbreaker]

7 figures...in Yen, or Lira.

7 figures...if you count zeros in front of the first number.

[T.A.M.]

Man the best films in Cannes don't get that. Really. I mean, for starters, it has already been distributed on the net to as they quote "Tens of Millions".

Second, there are three of them. If each was offered 7 figure contracts, that is a minimum of 3 Million Dollars, for a 77 minute patched together mache of other peoples footage, interviews, and evidence. the cost to get all that stuff cleared, to avoid law suits, etc, why not get someone with REAL talent to edit it, to direct it, to narrate it, and pay them the same...they can't copyright anything in there except the interviews they conducted, their narration, and any animation they may have had created...oh ya, and the fantastic :) music.

Oh, and if this contract was offered and turned down, then name names. If it was legit, it isn't gonna hurt anyone to tell your group of followers who made you the offer....it stinks of BS.

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Quick explanation of collapse that should require only a high school understanding of physics:

If all the floors are of similar strength, once two collapse, pancaking inevitable. Te first one to collapse falls one story and collapses the floor below it. By the time that mass is another storey down, it has all the mass that collapsed the first level, plus additional mass from the floor below it. It also will be travelling faster as the first time it started from a stop and this time it has some initial velocity. Repeat for each floor in the building. If both mass and velocity increase, momentum increases. Unless one of the lower floors is stronger than the ones above, which wasn't the case in the WTC construction, the entire structure will come down.

[SRW]

Actually some of the best Pentagon debunking has come from the 9-11 Denial Movement. Let's see...

Catherder's post at Above Top Secret (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html).

Jim Hoffman's post over at 911 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html).

These pics which somebody pointed out here a little earlier are good evidence (http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html). Look at the third and fourth pictures especially; they show a lot more damage than the Deniers claim.

This Pentagon animation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8) does a terrific job of showing how the damage came from a 757.

Speaking for myself only, I've always thought the Pentagon missile/C-130, etc., stuff is nuttiness topped only by the no-planers. It's almost better not to debunk them, because they're so obviously wrong that they discredit the other Deniers.

I can still post over there, would you like me to post this for you In Merc's thread?

Steve

[steve s]

Oh, and if this contract was offered and turned down, then name names. If it was legit, it isn't gonna hurt anyone to tell your group of followers who made you the offer....it stinks of BS.

Someone named Class raised that question over at LC. Naturally JDX tried to clamp down on him.
I agree. It reeks of BS that's been left out to stew in this heat wave.

Steve S.

[Class]

Someone named Class raised that question over at LC. Naturally JDX tried to clamp down on him.
I agree. It reeks of BS that's been left out to stew in this heat wave.

Steve S.
That was me and I cannot believe how they all accept his claim without asking for any form of proof.

[T.A.M.]

I can believe it. If Dylan Avery said The Lord himself came to him and told him that the jews were to blame for everything, they would all believe.

Oh wait...that couldn't happen, because over there, D.A. is the lord, right??

[defaultdotxbe]

i think i fianlly got myself banned over there, although i had to poke at jdx (relatively) pretty hard, lol, basically called him out on whether he was cherry pickign or not

[apathoid]

i think i fianlly got myself banned over there, although i had to poke at jdx (relatively) pretty hard, lol, basically called him out on whether he was cherry pickign or not

MODS:

This person should be suspended for bad language, and the post deleted.

He's on our side.. if he wants to come in here and play with you guys in your pig pen.. slam you around a bit.. he's welcome to do so.. thats why we set up this section for you kids to play and trash...

But we will not accept insults from "outsiders". Dont like the bias? Go to your own house

He has got to be the worst moderator in the history of the internet. He doesnt even know what "moderating" is, let alone have the ability to practice it.
Someone else mentioned that this is sure-fire proof that he's never been in a position of responsibility and I agree 100%. If he is a airline pilot, I'm Orville Wright.

He suspended me yesterday for asking him what his theory is and not reading the thread....and I'm not kidding.

[defaultdotxbe]

Its just sort of a shame that people are going to see that article and not even look at the actual facts.
funny i feel the same way about people who watch loose change

apparently that was the nail in the coffin for me, lol

[Obviousman]

He has got to be the worst moderator in the history of the internet. He doesnt even know what "moderating" is, let alone have the ability to practice it.
Someone else mentioned that this is sure-fire proof that he's never been in a position of responsibility and I agree 100%. If he is a airline pilot, I'm Orville Wright.

He suspended me yesterday for asking him what his theory is and not reading the thread....and I'm not kidding.

if you also felt offended at the use of that word, you can report it here:

http: // invisionfree . com / report.php

Rather than have Invision shut down the board for a ToS violation, you might want to report which "moderator" supported - nay, encouraged - that sort of post because the poster was 'on their side', as it were.

[defaultdotxbe]

its funny, now they are going on about how JDX shoudl be banning us faster because they wouldnt last 5 seconds on our boards, someone should ask how long it took killtown to get banned from SLC (he wont be able to answer, he was never banned)

or if i banned chucksheen from xbox-scene for disagreeing with me there (im a head mod over there)

[Obviousman]

Oh, BTW....

Yes John DOH! I do realise you read this thread on JREF in your somewhat strange 'internet stalking'-like behaviour.

[apathoid]

Rather than have Invision shut down the board for a ToS violation, you might want to report which "moderator" supported - nay, encouraged - that sort of post because the poster was 'on their side', as it were.

Done :)

And I dont know what was more offensive, JAStewrats(?) remark, or the fact the lil Johnny deemed it to be within the forum rules.

[Obviousman]

And I've now been suspended.

Don't forget to keep those cards and letters coming, folks!

[Obviousman]

Done :)

And I dont know what was more offensive, JAStewrats(?) remark, or the fact the lil Johnny deemed it to be within the forum rules.

Quite correct - a clear case of bias to the extent that it's quite okay to break the rules - if you are on my side.

If anyone knows some psychologists, they should use JDX as a learning tool. There has to be a thesis in this, at least.

[T.A.M.]

I think that the report to the board host is appropriate, as if the board has a list of rules, and the mods are allowing some to break them without comment, and banning others for the same violations, then they are misusing the board.

But beyond that, why give them the opportunity.

I say noone else go there. They will get bored, JDX will go completely insane with noone to boss around. When they get so bored that they come around here, we wont have to worry about them banning any of us, and then the games can begin.

On a side note, I now know why you cannot win a sane argument with these guys. nesnyc showed me the way...you see, he does not believe that the "experts" in the field are the people we should be listening to when it comes to various aspects of 9/11. Now he wouldnt allude to who he thinks we should listen to, but he was clear that "STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS" are not the ones we should be getting expert advise from wrt the WTC colapses...

[defaultdotxbe]

On a side note, I now know why you cannot win a sane argument with these guys. nesnyc showed me the way...you see, he does not believe that the "experts" in the field are the people we should be listening to when it comes to various aspects of 9/11. Now he wouldnt allude to who he thinks we should listen to, but he was clear that "STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS" are not the ones we should be getting expert advise from wrt the WTC colapses...
of course, when schools are really "indoctrination centers" how is someone supposed to get an education so they are capable to "filter the BS?" as nessie put it

i still say he gets educated by magic feel-good candy

[T.A.M.]

Agreed...

On the reporting of JohnDoeX, we may want to report him to Dylan et al first, as per this link to their reporting violations:

http://invisionfree.com/report.php

Then if Dylan fails to reign him in or get him to make an apology and change, then I suggest a petition of all those who have been banned, along with links to the pages where he was abusive etc...(a long list of page links I know).

A petition usually results in a more severe repremand, and possible expulsion.

[T.A.M.]

The violations he seems to be most frequently committing include excessive profanity, and defamatory and abusive remarks

dictionary definition of defamatory (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defamatory)

Dictionary definition of abusive (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abusive)

Invision's ToS say the above are valid incidents for reporting.

[defaultdotxbe]

i just need to stop reading the boards over there, so many things i want to respond to right now, but it wont do any good

ill just leave them to themselves, maybe killtown will get bored and come back to SLC

[brumsen]

(Copied from http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies)

The National 9/11 Debate seeks people willing to defend government account of 9/11 in a public debate forum


As of August 1, 2006, the 9/11 Commissioners, NIST scientists, and other key personnel responsible for the government’s non-sustainable account of what happened in the United States on September 11, 2001 all refuse to participate in the National 9/11 Debate that was originally scheduled for September 16, 2006 in Charleston, SC. Consequently, the National 9/11 Debate date has been moved forward to March 10, 2007.

While the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists remain invited to participate in the National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report has expanded the potential government debate team members to any qualified persons that are willing to publicly defend the government’s account of 9/11 against the civilian debate team already assembled... If you’re an outspoken critic of people that disagree with the “official government theory” of 9/11, here’s a golden opportunity for you to attempt to silence the critics. If you think you have the right stuff, contact Ed Haas today.


Press Release – August 4, 2006
Contact: Ed Haas

Office: (843) 278-5021
Mobile: (843) 327-7598
efhaas@comcast.net
http://www.teamliberty.net

[defaultdotxbe]

i wonder, would any of the "scholars" attend a govt sponsered debate?

i suspect the answer is similar to why Cters tend to avoid JREF and SLC forums (with a few exceptions)

[Obviousman]

Another sceptic gets banned. No ad homenims, no abuse, just questioning what was going on:

DOH!: You're banned!

[Obviousman]

And what was it - what was it - 4 or 5 posts?

If you have an account over there... complain!

[60hzxtl]

From the Blog:
http://nancyjosales.com/blog/2006/08/rosebud-4.html


comes a quote from Korey Rowe:


“'There is no Private Rowe anymore. That character is way, way in the past. And if they drag me back kicking and screaming I’m gonna give ‘em hell every minute.'

He could be called back at any time."

So if there was a big conspiracy, Ol' Korey would be recalled, and disappeared, or killed off, but instead, he's picking caterpillars in Oneonta.

OK. Got it.

(pssst - Korey, Dylan's using you - and the uniform. It's ok not to like the war, or war in general. It's ok to gripe, but don't get yourself used. Did the army teach you the phrase "talking above your pay grade? Keep it in mind.)

[Belz...]

That is patronizing bull* and I don't need it.

I wasn't talking to you.

[Belz...]

On p. xxxviii of NCSTAR1 it is clearly stated that "NIST found no corroborating evidence suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition". This means that it was considered, but no corroborating evidence found. Now where do we found what they have exactly considered as potential evidence?
And again, I don't need the b*t.

Well, you've answered your question right there. They found no evidence. So why do you keep asking what was considered as evidence if no evidence was found ?

[WildCat]

(Copied from http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies)

The National 9/11 Debate seeks people willing to defend government account of 9/11 in a public debate forum




Press Release – August 4, 2006
Contact: Ed Haas

Office: (843) 278-5021
Mobile: (843) 327-7598
efhaas@comcast.net
http://www.teamliberty.net
You realize that such a debate is a poor way of getting to the truth, don't you? The CT'ers will pull out their standard dog-and-pony show full of witty stories, mocking jokes, etc. coupled w/ about 100 outright false statements. It is impossible to refute them all in the time frame allowed, and the CT'ers "win" the debate. Not unlike when a real scientist debates a young-earth creationist (http://www.kent-hovind.com/links/debates.htm). just because Hovind "wins" all those debates (from the average onlookers POV) doesn't mean that the earth is really 10,000 years old and dinosaurs resided on an ark built by Noah at the behest of god...

The scholars seem to avoid discussions like those on this forum like Superman avoids kryptonite. The reason, of course, is that in a written format such as this their lies, mischaracterizations, quotes taken out of context, bad science, etc. can be refuted w/ documentation and hard science. For the same reasons, they also don't submit their papers to respectable engineering journals for real peer review.

Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Fetzer and the rest of the "scholars" are a joke. Embarassments to their respective educational institutions. They don't really seek anything resembling the truth, what they seek are publicity, speaking engagements at TRUTH™ conferences and the satisfaction they get from having legions of admiring suckers who buy what they're selling.

[Stellafane]

Oh, BTW....

Yes John DOH! I do realise you read this thread on JREF in your somewhat strange 'internet stalking'-like behaviour.

JohnDoeX reads this thread? Oh good...

Hi JohnDoeX. What follows is my opinion. And in my opinion, you are an utter fake. I don't believe you're a pilot. In fact, if you're employed in the airline industry at all, I find it hard to imagine it's anything more technical than baggage handler. I base that on the obvious lack of knowledge you display when a bona fide pilot shows up. You do realize billzilla totally kicked your humiliated ass, don't you? Everyone knows it except the most die-hard Loose Change fanatics, and I suspect even a good number of them lost a lot of faith in you, although they can't admit it because, let's face it, pathetic as you are you're all they've got. Billzilla bashed you around so badly, it was like me arguing quantum mechanics with nuclear physicists, trying to get by on my knowledge that atoms are really, really small.

But here's something else that's not my opinion, because you've proved it for all to see: you are a coward. Oh, others have called you a bully, and in your little world you probably like being called that. But don't forget, most bullies are cowards, because they use some advantage they have to pick on the defenseless. And when they come upon someone their own size, they run. That's what you do. Look at billzilla -- you ended up threatening to shoot him, hiding behind the anonymity of the Intenet like it was mommy's dress. And now you're a mod, banning anyone you can't keep up with in an argument, which is just about everyone on this planet equipped with a normal brain. Pure cowardice.

Of course, your response to this is probably something like "If you're so brave, why don't you come to the Loose Change forum and take me on?" I would, but of course this single post alone would be enough to get me banned. Then you could make another 10 posts (of the 100+ you make each day, don't you have any outside life at all?) claiming you owned me, knowing I can't respond. Again, that's what cowards do.

So tell you what -- why don't you come here and teach us all a lesson? Dazzle us with your aviation expertise and make me eat crow. Show us all how mistaken we are about 9/11, and about you. Don't chicken out and say we'll just ban you; you know perfectly well that the few CT'ers who ever got banned here wanted to be banned, so they did things like spam the board after being warned not to do so, and thus committed suicide by mod. Cowardly actions, something you are intimately acquainted with.

But you won't come here, will you? Because you know there are adults in this forum, and adults are people you're just not comfortable dealing with. You remind me of this character we called Peanuts that lived in the town where I grew up. He was something like 30, yet he hung around with us kids because no one else wanted to be with him. He wasn't a pedophile exactly (at least I don't think so, although there was the rumor or two, especially around his supposed proclivity to "date" a local flock of sheep), he just never figured out how to deal with people older than 15 or so. That's who you remind me of, sitting there lording over your domain of pimply faced, socially arrested, dim-witted teens -- Peanuts with mod privileges.

[DavidJames]

You do realize billzilla totally kicked your humiliated ass, don't you? I was out of town for a week or so, Can someone link the billzilla/JDX thread(s)

[Stellafane]

I was out of town for a week or so, Can someone link the billzilla/JDX thread(s)

Here you go:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7660&st=120&#entry6360149

[DavidJames]

Here you go:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7660&st=120&#entry6360149Thanks - Man that thread just exploded.

Watching JDX get "the power of mod" and implode was not unlike watching the evolution of Darth Vader in the episode 3.

[T.A.M.]

here is my new, favorite LC quote...from Chuck Sheen:

wrt the film Loose Change:

"...a revolutionary eye-opening film."

ROFLMAO

[gumboot]

For everyone's info...

I have completed my summary of Alex Jones' "Terrorstorm" in the thread marked as such. It is one hideous piece of work. I feel ill.

-Andrew

[Johnny Pixels]

From the British 911 truth campaign:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15660#15660

This poster highlights that the is a discrepancy between the seismic data impact times for the two aircraft, and the FAA flight path data impact times.

The spike occurs on the seismic record 14 seconds before the first impact occurs on the official time line derived from the NTSB report data, and then 17 seconds for the second impact.

Any ideas why the difference?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

From the British 911 truth campaign:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15660#15660

This poster highlights that the is a discrepancy between the seismic data impact times for the two aircraft, and the FAA flight path data impact times.

The spike occurs on the seismic record 14 seconds before the first impact occurs on the official time line derived from the NTSB report data, and then 17 seconds for the second impact.

Any ideas why the difference?

Without knowing that the seismic timestamps were in sync with, say, the Naval center time in Maryland, and that the times in the NIST report are also in sync with the atomic clock, we have no way of nowing that the two can be directly corrolated.

[Johnny Pixels]

I've just read this footnote in the official report with regard to the Flight 93 impact:

We also reviewed a report regarding seismic observations on September 11, 2001, whose authors conclude that the impact time of United 93 was “10:06:05±5 (EDT).”Won-Young Kim and G. R. Baum, “Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001,Terrorist Attack,” spring 2002 (report to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources). But the seismic data on which they based this estimate are far too weak in signal-to noise
ratio and far too speculative in terms of signal source to be used as a means of contradicting the impact time established by the very accurate combination of FDR, CVR,ATC, radar, and impact site data sets.These data sets constrain United 93’s impact time to within 1 second, are airplane- and crash-site specific, and are based on time codes automatically recorded in the ATC audiotapes for the FAA centers and correlated with each data set in a process internationally accepted within the aviation accident investigation community. Furthermore, one of the study’s principal authors now concedes that “seismic data is not definitive for the impact of UA 93.” Email from Won-Young Kim to the Commission,“Re:UA Flight 93,” July 7, 2004; see also Won-Young Kim,“Seismic Observations for UA Flight 93 Crash near Shanksville, Pennsylvania during September 11, 2001,” July 5, 2004.

The signal to noise ratio is too high to be accurate, although I'm guessing it's not as high as 3:97 ;)

[sleahead]

From the British 911 truth campaign:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15660#15660

This poster highlights that the is a discrepancy between the seismic data impact times for the two aircraft, and the FAA flight path data impact times.

The spike occurs on the seismic record 14 seconds before the first impact occurs on the official time line derived from the NTSB report data, and then 17 seconds for the second impact.

Any ideas why the difference?

I can't enlighten you about the time discrepancy, but I see the claim is that the first set of seismic data arises from explosions in the WTC basement. If that was the case, do we not then we need three sets of seismic data?; one for the explosions, one for the plane impact and one for the towers collapsing.

As far as I'm aware, we only have two and I would ascribe them to impact and collapse because the fact that these events occurred cannot be disputed, except by hologram nuts.

[DavidJames]

I for one found the photographs of the museum displays quite interesting. Thanks for all of them. I stopped and lingered long on the one of the computer circuit board imbedded inside that portion of steel beam -- the beam must have been pretty soft / soggy and just at the right cooling-down temperatures for it to trap that flimsy circuit board like that without destroying the board in the process. But if the steel melted and became pliable enough to do that (which it obviously did -- we can see evidence of it in the photol) -- then what could cause that? Jet fuel? -- no, don't think so based upon what the experts tell us. Something like thermate? - yes, think so.This is a perfect example of the deadly combination of ignorance and arrogance which pervade the CT mindset.

Everything the CTer knows, he got from interpreting a picture on the Internet. Who needs chemical or structural analysis by experts in the field when people like Jerry can reach conclusions just by looking at pictures.

[gumboot]

Everything the CTer knows, he got from interpreting a picture on the Internet. Who needs chemical or structural analysis by experts in the field when people like Jerry can reach conclusions just by looking at pictures.


The funny thing being, someone like myself who actually has some experience and training in photographic and videographic interpretation would be quick to tell anyone just how incredibly difficult it is.

I know I certainly won't be making any conclusions based entirely on looking at a single low resolution pit of amateur video!

I don't believe I have ever seen a single CT photographic/videographic interpretation that I even remotely agreed with. I think my favourite phrase in Loose Change is "clearly see". In my opinion, every time Dylan Avery says "clearly see" in LC it should be counted as an error of fact.

-Andrew

[T.A.M.]

This is fascinating, and I am not sure what to make of it, but I think it is proof that many of the hijackers not only knew each other, but were using each others names on IDs they had forged.

Alleged Drivers licence and Visa for Ziad Jarrah (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00196.html)

Notice, though that while the Visa is Ziad Jarrah's face, the driver's licence, with his name on it, is actually the picture of Wail Al-Shehri.

Interesting indeed

[T.A.M.]

It certainly looks alot like Wail Al-Shehri, but the two guys have similar faces...any comments...

[Class]

This is fascinating, and I am not sure what to make of it, but I think it is proof that many of the hijackers not only knew each other, but were using each others names on IDs they had forged.

Alleged Drivers licence and Visa for Ziad Jarrah (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM00196.html)

Notice, though that while the Visa is Ziad Jarrah's face, the driver's licence, with his name on it, is actually the picture of Wail Al-Shehri.

Interesting indeed
Don't tell the CTers. They'll consider it the biggest 'smoking gun' of 9/11.

[T.A.M.]

ANother nice little tidbit. This one on the Waleed Al-Shehri. CTs claim the Morroco Waleed Al-Shehri is the one the police IDed. Yet that Al-Shehri says he left the USA in September 2000. So why is it, an official court document in the Moussaoui Trial shows a florida Drivers Licence Issued to Waleed Al-Shehri, matching the FBI Photo, with a date of 05/04/2001. The man was photographed for the licence, and so obviously was in the USA in 2001, but the Morroco Al-Shehri was not.

Waleed Al-Shehri Florida Drivers Licence 2001 (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/MM01015.pdf)

[T.A.M.]

Well this blows the Waleed is still alive out of the water. The next day (may 5th, 2001) the guy takes a drivers licence and passes. There is the ID of the person who gave him the test. Now I am sure that if the picture on the ID card didnt match the guy taking the licence, the Examiner might have a problem with that....so

The man named Waleed Al-Shehri, with a photo matching the FBi one of the Hijacker by that name, was examined in Florida, for a drivers licence, in may 2001, long after the Alleged "Still Alive" Al-Shehri had left teh USA.

[SRW]

MERCs Claims noone can debbunk his Pentagon argument (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4223)

Is this true. Is this there smoking gun. he states NOONE can debunk his claims. I am far from an expert, and I am still in the early days of my research, but I woul dlove Gravy or Brainster to take a look. I will too, of course.

I just start looking at this last night to take a stab at debunking, first thing I run across is this.
--------------------------------------------------------------
MERC:
Meanwhile, the surveillance video, faked or not, contradicts the entire investigative body's assertions about the entire plane entering...

IN THIS SURVEILLANCE VIDEO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TAIL IS *EJECTED OVER THE FIRST RING*:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/tailandbody.jpg
End Merc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
These pics are pretty poor so I went to goggle vidieo and looked at cleaner ones and yes the thing shows up but how can a Black whatever it is be the Tail section of a Silver or white plane?

and the statement "faked or not" really leaves an escape route for him. I'm just not sure it's worth the effort.

[defaultdotxbe]

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/tailandbody.jpg

that doesnt even seem to be shaped very much like a tail, looks more like the mother ship from ID4

http://www.angeltowns.com/town/blackwolf/gaea/art/2000mppid4mothership.gif

[sleahead]

Another CT runs away crying:

from the British 9/11 forum

Sorry, Johnny Boy, I won’t respond to your nonsense anymore. I am working hard at exposing this coverup that people like you are attempting to continue. If someone else wants to deal with you and your ring-around-the-rosey tactics, that is their right. Personally, I am not going to waste any more precious time with you.

Well done, Johnny Pixels!

[kookbreaker]

I'm not sure how relevant this will be to the discussion, but I mentioned this before and now I have some pics. This is the Comcast Tower presently being built in Philadelphia. When it is is finished it will be the tallest building in Philadelphia, beating out 2 decade champ Liberty Place.

Why is this relevant? Well, the design of this building is such that it will be Airplane-proof. Not 'hit at low speed by accident'-proof, but 'rammed by psycho-terrorists at high speed'-proof. This involves a LOT of concrete to make that core, so much in fact that contractors away from the job are having a hard time getting concrete for other projects. (Note to a certain kook: Rebar does not seem to be in use.)

Why do I bring it up? Well it seems like a lot of effort for something that CTers claim cannot happen without explosives.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower3.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower2.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower1.jpg

[Johnny Pixels]

Another CT runs away crying:

from the British 9/11 forum



Well done, Johnny Pixels!

Cheers! I have no idea what he was going on about though.

[sleahead]

Cheers! I have no idea what he was going on about though.
Today 05:10 PM

That's just him crying because you broke his smoking gun.

[Hutch]

Interesting new thread. A new pilot checks in..with a rather familiar sounding name..and begins posting in support of the CT...this after Bizilla's thread has apparently been removed from the Board and you cannot find him listed in the Membership section...

Methinks I smell a rat...

Link: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9814

[Pardalis]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower3.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower2.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower1.jpg

So this is what a "concrete core" looks like...

[Class]

Interesting new thread. A new pilot checks in..with a rather familiar sounding name..and begins posting in support of the CT...this after Bizilla's thread has apparently been removed from the Board and you cannot find him listed in the Membership section...

Methinks I smell a rat...

Link: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9814
It is not a real account. It's just some guy mocking johndoeX.

[mrfreeze]

I thought the same but didn't want to mention it here and blow his cover. You know, in case anyone actually didn't see through it after he gets a few posts in.

[WildCat]

It is not a real account. It's just some guy mocking johndoeX.
Yep, should be interesting!

[rwguinn]

I can't enlighten you about the time discrepancy, but I see the claim is that the first set of seismic data arises from explosions in the WTC basement. If that was the case, do we not then we need three sets of seismic data?; one for the explosions, one for the plane impact and one for the towers collapsing.

As far as I'm aware, we only have two and I would ascribe them to impact and collapse because the fact that these events occurred cannot be disputed, except by hologram nuts.

this was actually discussed elsewhere in this marathon (ok, multi-marathon) series of threads.
Just like any wave traveling through a medium, siesmic waves take TIME to travel from point A to point B.
Somebody pointed out that the discrepancy is exactly that time a seismic wave take to travel the distances from the towers to the nearest seismograph sensor.
No, I'm not going to do your research for you. This is typical of the "Ok, they refuted that evidence thouroghly. We'll leave it alone till they've forgotten about it, and bring it back again..and again..and again" BS that the CT'er use instead of valid arguments. Wear 'em down by asking the same thing over and over and over...

[WildCat]

Interesting new thread. A new pilot checks in..with a rather familiar sounding name..and begins posting in support of the CT...this after Bizilla's thread has apparently been removed from the Board and you cannot find him listed in the Membership section...

Methinks I smell a rat...

Link: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9814
Billzillas thread is still there: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7660&st=0

Unless you're thinking of a different one.

[Class]

I thought the same but didn't want to mention it here and blow his cover. You know, in case anyone actually didn't see through it after he gets a few posts in.
Quite amazing how only one person (excluding johndoex) noticed that his name was similar to johndoeX. Bonez' reply was the best:
Welcome to the forums. We have a few pilots here and one of our admins, johndoex, also happens to be a pilot.

Did he even check the name of the person he was replying to? Jondox and johndoex, I noticed it the first second I saw it.

[mrfreeze]

I thought he might be for real until the butter knives post.

[Hutch]

Billzillas thread is still there: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7660&st=0

Unless you're thinking of a different one.

Nope, just didn't realize that it had dropped of the first page..I imagine JDX would like to bump as many threads as possible to push it even farther back..but that's just me...

[T.A.M.]

Chronical article on the CT movement (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4098055.html)

[apathoid]

"How come it is so easy to turn off a transponder from the cockpit when they have to be used all the time?"

I dont know how they did that. Maybe they just switched it off.
Either way its clear that the government are lying through their teeth about what really happened to that transponder and it makes my blood boil.
Did anyone else hear a very loud "woooooosh" sound just then?
I think something just went right over their heads...

[Pardalis]

Chronical article on the CT movement (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4098055.html)

From that link:

The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

I believe they are wrong. I think at some point the international scientific community should step up and confront these theorists once and for all, and let people know what a parodie of science these CTers idiots are. I think the science world is being too kind to them. Let's stop being politically correct for once and let's beat the crap out of them. They certainly deserve the humiliation.

[Class]

From that link:



I believe they are wrong. I think at some point the international scientific community should step up and confront these theorists once and for all, and let people know what a parodie of science these CTers idiots are. I think the science world is being too kind to them. Let's stop being politically correct for once and let's beat the crap out of them. They certainly deserve the humiliation.
It won't do a bit of good. The CTists would just shrug it off and call them shills.

[Pardalis]

It won't do a bit of good. The CTists would just shrug it off and call them shills.

But they can't all call them shills. I mean, there's an entire international scientific world that agrees with the official reports on 9/11.

[Johnny Pixels]

But they can't all call them shills. I mean, there's an entire international scientific world that agrees with the official reports on 9/11.
See what you've done there is assumed that CTs obey laws of logic, when this is clearly not the case. They'll call them all shills, unless they're French, in which case they'll call them cheese easting surrender shills.

[T.A.M.]

sometimes I think maybe your right. I mean if CNN and the big media networks ignore Fetzer much longer, I swear his head will just explode (have you seen the guy get mad, he looks like his blood pressure is about 280/180).

[Brainster]

I'm not sure how relevant this will be to the discussion, but I mentioned this before and now I have some pics. This is the Comcast Tower presently being built in Philadelphia. When it is is finished it will be the tallest building in Philadelphia, beating out 2 decade champ Liberty Place.

Why is this relevant? Well, the design of this building is such that it will be Airplane-proof. Not 'hit at low speed by accident'-proof, but 'rammed by psycho-terrorists at high speed'-proof. This involves a LOT of concrete to make that core, so much in fact that contractors away from the job are having a hard time getting concrete for other projects. (Note to a certain kook: Rebar does not seem to be in use.)

Why do I bring it up? Well it seems like a lot of effort for something that CTers claim cannot happen without explosives.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower3.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower2.jpg

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/ComcastTower1.jpg

Excellent point. I have noted at SLC that there are numerous code changes that have come out of the investigation into the collapses of the WTC Towers.

[Brainster]

sometimes I think maybe your right. I mean if CNN and the big media networks ignore Fetzer much longer, I swear his head will just explode (have you seen the guy get mad, he looks like his blood pressure is about 280/180).

It's amusing and revealing that these guys get covered mostly on conservative outlets--Fox News instead of CNN, Laura Ingraham and not Al Franken, etc. I think sane liberals are all petrified that this will catch on with their base and just discredit them, while of course the conservative outlets are hoping for just that result.

[kevin]

Excellent point. I have noted at SLC that there are numerous code changes that have come out of the investigation into the collapses of the WTC Towers.

The NIST released a whole report on suggested changes to building codes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm

[delphi_ote]

In case you guys haven't seen this AP article:
Five years after the terrorist attacks, a community that believes widely discredited ideas about what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, persists and even thrives. Members trade their ideas on the Internet and in self-published papers and in books. About 500 of them attended a recent conference in Chicago.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060806/ap_on_re_us/sept_11_conspiracies;_ylt=AoTGrBDSUz67u_GYqjMh_0as 0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-

It's nice they didn't take a "balanced" approach, but it's unfortunate circumstances are such that the article had to be written in the first place.

ETA It also goes to show we've been fighting the right people all along. The story reads like a laundry list of our usual suspects.

[kevin]

Why is this relevant? Well, the design of this building is such that it will be Airplane-proof. Not 'hit at low speed by accident'-proof, but 'rammed by psycho-terrorists at high speed'-proof.

Not sure where this low speed claim keeps popping up but it doesn't appear to be true.

The NIST NCSTAR 1-1 (Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Structural and Life Safety Systems) report states:
A three-page document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ or Port Authority) indicates that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers in Februrary/March 1964.

600mph is not low speed for a 707. Also note that the report did no analysis on a fueled plane, nor the effects of the fuel. The NIST report did. You'll also note that the towers did indeed survive the impact.

(Note to a certain kook: Rebar does not seem to be in use.)
Some sort of reinforcement would be required. Rebar is probably being used, you just don't see it. Note that they are building the core before the building. This would be standard, and opposite of what a certain kook claims.


Why do I bring it up? Well it seems like a lot of effort for something that CTers claim cannot happen without explosives.

WTC was a combined conspiracy between the military and concrete companies. One to start a war in Iraq, the other to sell more concrete.

[defaultdotxbe]

Not sure where this low speed claim keeps popping up but it doesn't appear to be true.
im not sure either, if you watch the NOVA special Why The Towers Fell the head designer for the towers talks about how it was designed to withstand a 707 at full speed

he also goes on to talk about how they lacked the ability to model the jet fuel fires at the time, so they pretty much had to ignore it

[Gravy]

I'm having major computer problems, but let's see if I can get through this post.

Abby, realitybites and I had another successful confrontation with the Ground Zeros yesterday. A particularly virulent strain of truther was out in force. These people really have to be seen to be believed. (Speaking of which, we could really use help. It's tough to compete when they outnumber us 4 to 1.) Several of them are completely batcrap crazy. Abby has a funny story about being mistaken for a truther, although it doesn't involve firemen. A Finnish camera crew was there for a while, and a reporter for U.S. News and World Report spent several hours observing and interviewing for a story on the 5th anniversary of the attacks.

Some highlights:
A crazy old truther lady tore a handful of our flyers out of Reality's hand and tore them up.

While we weren't looking, someone (I'm guessing the above nutter, because she disappeared after that) pulled several of our signs off the wall and threw them into a construction area. (I recovered them.)

I was told that no one could take me seriously because of the shoes I was wearing. I was wearing sports sandals, which served me well on the 8-mile walk I took afterwards. My critic was wearing heavy boots, on a hot day, and did not appear capable of walking far.

A tiny shrill woman demanded that I answer her question about WTC 7, and when I started to speak and show her the relevant photos and quotes I had, she immediately said that if I continued she was going to get the police and file a harrassment complaint against me. Honest.

Two truthers, including Les, the leader, said they had conclusive proof of explosives in the towers, and demanded that I refute it. They fired up a laptop and showed me a CNN video of the south tower collapsing. They were flummoxed by my response: "That's just a video of the south tower collapsing. That's your proof?" Then they left the laptop in the sun, where it died of heat stroke.

Truther Tom Foti had an ingenious plan: wherever I went, he would stand in front of me. If that happened in any other situation I would stop it, but at Ground Zero, it's exactly what I want. The more attention I can get from the truthers, the less they can interact with the public. Tom's plan suffered from some other flaws:
- His own people thought it was stupid.
- He bumped and frightened others with his leaping and gyrating to stay in front of me. ( I was using people as "picks.")
- He is short. See pics below.

I asked Les why he hadn't brought the six-pack of beer that I had won from him on a bet. The bet was that he used a photo of WTC 7 in his former pamphlet that he claimed was the tiny rubble left by WTC 7. And the comment next to the photo was "Photos don't lie, governments do." In reality, the photo was of rubble from WTC 1 and 6, and WTC 7 is clearly standing right there next to it. Les swore that he knows what photos he uses and that wasn't one of them. Abby alertly noticed what I had not: that the photo also appears in the current pamphlet, the ones Les was handing out! Beer is promised for next week. It should be two six-packs, since he was wrong twice.

I kept trying to introduce myself to the most verbose of the troof preachers, who I hadn't seen before, but he would'nt even look at me, much less shake my hand. But at the end of the day he came up to me and snarled, "I know exactly who you are! I know who you work for! I can see into your soul, and you are in trouble! You are in deep trouble!"

If anyone knows of people who might be wlling to hand out pamphlets at Ground Zero on Saturday afternoons, let me know. We can definitely use the help, and it's a fascinating experience.

Photo of realitybites would appear here, but I don't have his permission yet.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d68c1ad1f0a.jpg


Ma-ma-ma-myyyy Remora! Note the "7 Hijackers Still Alive" poster.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d68c1b473f6.jpg

edit: photo

[Kent1]

Great stuff gravy.

Boy I'm gone on vacation for a week and It seems like there are hundreds of new posts to read. Hopefully I'll be catching up in the next day or so.

[Gravy]

Not sure where this low speed claim keeps popping up but it doesn't appear to be true.

I don't know where it comes from, but I'm guilty of perpetuating it. I assumed that the calculation was made based on a plane traveling at approach speed. I've seen Leslie Robertson talk about the 707 issue, but never that a 600 mph strike was calculated.

[gumboot]

im not sure either, if you watch the NOVA special Why The Towers Fell the head designer for the towers talks about how it was designed to withstand a 707 at full speed


This has to be one of the most misleading CT claims...

According to the actual NIST report:

An additional load, stated by The Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600 mph.


However, buildings were not (and still are not) required by the building codes or designed to withstand the impact of a fuel-laden jetliner. Although the impact of a Boeing 707 was stated by the Port Authority to have been considered in the original design of the towers, only one three-page document, in a format typically used for talking points was found that addressed the issue. This document stated that such a collision would result in only local damage and could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building. NIST was unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.


A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that “…such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such an analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited.

Funnily enough I have actually read quotes by people claiming that they ran a computer simulation in the design stage to determine the building's survivability in the event of a 707 impact.

A computer simulation of an aircraft collision? In the 1960's? Sure.

The above sections of the NIST report indicate to me that the assertations about survival of a 707 impact are a hypothesis at best, and at worst a PR-motivated guess.

-Andrew

[defaultdotxbe]

If anyone knows of people who might be wlling to hand out pamphlets at Ground Zero on Saturday afternoons, let me know. We can definitely use the help, and it's a fascinating experience.
im with you in spirit since my body is in chicago, lol

Funnily enough I have actually read quotes by people claiming that they ran a computer simulation in the design stage to determine the building's survivability in the event of a 707 impact.

A computer simulation of an aircraft collision? In the 1960's? Sure.
yeah, thats pretty much the reason they couldnt model the fuel fire

BTW has anyone noticed a shift in the 707 argument? lately ive been seeing more and more truthers stating they were designed to withstand MULTIPLE hits from 707s

[Pardalis]

"I know exactly who you are! I know who you work for! I can see into your soul, and you are in trouble! You are in deep trouble!"


:eek: Man, they are really out of arguments!

[Gravy]

This has to be one of the most misleading CT claims...

According to the actual NIST report:
Funnily enough I have actually read quotes by people claiming that they ran a computer simulation in the design stage to determine the building's survivability in the event of a 707 impact.

A computer simulation of an aircraft collision? In the 1960's? Sure.

The above sections of the NIST report indicate to me that the assertations about survival of a 707 impact are a hypothesis at best, and at worst a PR-motivated guess.

-Andrew
In the Ric Burns documentary "New York," Les Robertson says that they did design the towers to withstand the physical impact of one 707, but that they did not make any calculations about the effects of the jet fuel.

[Gravy]

BTW has anyone noticed a shift in the 707 argument? lately ive been seeing more and more truthers stating they were designed to withstand MULTIPLE hits from 707s
That idea comes from a quote by the WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. DeMartini, who died in the attacks:

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of airliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It realy does nothing to the screen netting."

He was obviously proud of the strength of the buildings, but he was wrong about the damage one airliner would do, much less several.

[kevin]

the sub-report also states:
In March 1964, a calculation was made by the Port Authority to determine the period of vibration of the tower due an aircraft impact at the 80th floor. Although no conclusion was stated on the calculation sheet, it clearly indicates that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact on the tower.

The calculations from that report are not included in the supporting material appendix.

I doubt the original 3 letter document on the initial analysis was faked for PR reasons. The structural engineers that worked on it would have to buy into it and I just don't see that happening. The reports usefulness is limited without the calculations to analyze how well done the analysis was.

I do think the towers remaining standing after the initial impact shows that the buildings were designed to take that sort of impact. If they knew it or not, doesn't matter. They did stand up. The actual NIST studies show it would've remained standing if not for the blown off fire protection and the fires.

[Senor_Pointy]

If anyone knows of people who might be wlling to hand out pamphlets at Ground Zero on Saturday afternoons, let me know. We can definitely use the help, and it's a fascinating experience.


Wow, if I'm ever in New York, I'd love to join you! (...But don't hold your breath:D )

[kookbreaker]

Truther Tom Foti had an ingenious plan: wherever I went, he would stand in front of me.

Reminds me of the write-ups of the Scientology protests where they'd send out people with 'pro-scientology' signs. They would then scamper about trying desperately to get their sign in front of the protester's signs. I saw the vids, they looked really stupid then.

[T.A.M.]

I remember reading an article where they said Les Robertson never actually designed the towers for such a hit, but rather, when it was borught up after the fact, he took his design, as it already was, and calculated that it could withstand such an impact...ie, it wasn't written into the design to withstand a 707 hit, but calculated that it could after the fact.

[gumboot]

In the Ric Burns documentary "New York," Les Robertson says that they did design the towers to withstand the physical impact of one 707, but that they did not make any calculations about the effects of the jet fuel.


Another thing to bear in mind, of course, is building occupancy.

Between 1970 and 2000 average occupancy in city office buildings across the western world have tripled as more people are squeezed into tighter spaces.

Now, consider what else has changed.

Every one of those 3x as many people means 3x as many desks, 3x as many chairs, 3x as many pen holders...etc... think how much of that stuff these days is synthetic, made of hydrocarbon based materials. Compare that to 1970.

Another major thing of course, everyone now has a PC, and all the additional furniture that comes along with that.

Heat output, by floor area, has multiplied by 6 times since 1970 - where before a given space would have one person releasing body heat, now you have three people in the same given space, each with a PC (the average PC has roughly the same heat output as a single person).

That means more air conditioning units.

As you can see, failing to factor in the affect of fuel on the aircraft is only one error, and that one error alone has many ramifications. I recall one of those involved in the building describing the impact of a 707 as like a pen pushed through a mosquito net. This implies they didn't think the wings would penetrate the building.

It may just be the extra mass provided by the jet fuel, but to me such an assertation seems ludicrous (as materially demonstrated on 9/11) and supports how limited any real analysis of such an impact was.

Another error in the "calculated impact" of a 707 is, as I mentioned above, the massive difference in available fuels in the building itself from 1970 to 2000.

A modern office building is a veritible fuel tank of hydrocarbon based materials. Everything is plastic or nylon.

Another error is in fire proofing. At the time WTC was built there was NO guideline for how much fire proofing to put on steel.

NIST concludes that ultimately the fires in the building weakened the steel, causing collapse.

The CT 707 claim argues this wouldn't happen. Yet lack of minimum standards for fire proofing in 1970 indicates, to me, that no one had even seriously looked at the threat of steel weakening from fire.

As the Kader Industrial toy factory fire (http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=0) (May 10, 1993) shows, unprotected steel structural buildings will suffer total collapse. In the example of Kader a small localised fire was discovered at 4pm in Building One (4 floors). It was not until 4.20pm that the fire was considered a significant enough threat to call the fire brigade. When they arrived at 4.40pm:

Arriving fire-fighters found Building One heavily involved in flames and already beginning to collapse, with people jumping from the third and fourth floors.

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

The building suffered total collapse at about 5.15pm.

The fire then spread to Building Two (4 floors) which suffered total collapse at about 5.30pm (15 minutes later), and Building Three (4 floors) which in turn totally collapsed at 6.05pm (35 minutes after Bldg 2).

The later investigation found that none of the steel in the structures was insulated against fire. Thus we can see just how important insulation is in a fire scenario.

It would be likely that those sections of steel in the WTC that were stripped of insulation in the impact were experiencing total structural failure within 20 minutes.

-Andrew

[Class]

Hahaha oh wow. In the 'Hi, Im a pilot" thread, johndoeX kept saying that a pilot could fight off an attacker with the crashaxe located in the cockpit, meaning that the 9/11 story is a lie. Tranquillado asked johndoeX several times where the location of the crashaxe is and johndoeX avoided the question each time. Finally, a member named 767doctor responds with "the crashaxe is 6 feet behind the pilot. A hijacker would have a better chance of using it than a strapped in pilot".

JohndoeX then edits his post with "Cockpit equipment location is need to know basis only. Please do not violate FAR's on this site or they will be reported."

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9814&st=60

[defaultdotxbe]

should ask him to cite the specific FAR that states that

[WildCat]

It's amusing and revealing that these guys get covered mostly on conservative outlets--Fox News instead of CNN, Laura Ingraham and not Al Franken, etc. I think sane liberals are all petrified that this will catch on with their base and just discredit them, while of course the conservative outlets are hoping for just that result.
Which is a pity, because this stuff shouldn't break along partisan lines. It sure doesn't here, I've never seen a topic here at the JREF that unites us all across the spectrum like this topic does. Yay JREF!

[WildCat]

im with you in spirit since my body is in chicago, lol
A fellow Chicagoan! What part of town you living in? Do you like to drink? ;)

[apathoid]

Hahaha oh wow. In the 'Hi, Im a pilot" thread, johndoeX kept saying that a pilot could fight off an attacker with the crashaxe located in the cockpit, meaning that the 9/11 story is a lie. Tranquillado asked johndoeX several times where the location of the crashaxe is and johndoeX avoided the question each time. Finally, a member named 767doctor responds with "the crashaxe is 6 feet behind the pilot. A hijacker would have a better chance of using it than a strapped in pilot".

JohndoeX then edits his post with "Cockpit equipment location is need to know basis only. Please do not violate FAR's on this site or they will be reported."

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9814&st=60

Hehe, 767doctor here :)
As you might suspect, I've been perma-banned for that little stunt.

[defaultdotxbe]

south suburbs actually, but close enough :)

im guessing your on the south side as well, based on your apparent baseball preferences ;)

and naturally im always up for a beer, lol

[WildCat]

south suburbs actually, but close enough :)

im guessing your on the south side as well, based on your apparent baseball preferences ;)

and naturally im always up for a beer, lol
Born in Mt. Greenwood, grew up (age 7+) in the southwest suburbs, thus my baseball preference. Now living in Albany Park (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Albany%20Park,%20Chicago) in the northwest side of Chicago. If you're ever in the city let me know, first round is on me!

[Brainster]

Ma-ma-ma-myyyy Remora! Note the "7 Hijackers Still Alive" poster.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d68c1b473f6.jpg[/CENTER]

edit: photo

Hah! Is that you with the Fair Play for Al Qaeda Committee bit? That's terrific! I'll see if I can get over to NYC during Christmas week.

[Class]

Suspended for 3 days for telling johndoe he should not be complaining about being suppressed.

[defaultdotxbe]

Born in Mt. Greenwood, grew up (age 7+) in the southwest suburbs, thus my baseball preference. Now living in Albany Park (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Albany%20Park,%20Chicago) in the northwest side of Chicago. If you're ever in the city let me know, first round is on me!
i used to go to concerts at the aragon all the time, thats right up by you, isnt it?

[delphi_ote]

Which is a pity, because this stuff shouldn't break along partisan lines. It sure doesn't here, I've never seen a topic here at the JREF that unites us all across the spectrum like this topic does. Yay JREF!
Seconded from the other side of the political spectrum. We all duke it out in the politics section, but this is one thing that should not be about politics. What happened that day was one of the most important, if not the most important, historical events of our generation. We can't let the truth about it get blurred by delusion over political grudges.

In my experience, 9/11 also been a uniter in the CT realm as well. A lot of these guys are left wing nuts, but there are a fair number of right wing nuts on their side, too.

[delphi_ote]

From that link:



I believe they are wrong. I think at some point the international scientific community should step up and confront these theorists once and for all, and let people know what a parodie of science these CTers idiots are. I think the science world is being too kind to them. Let's stop being politically correct for once and let's beat the crap out of them. They certainly deserve the humiliation.
This is the same tactic the scientific community has taken with evolution deniers. To some degree, it is the right approach. Debates don't work when the opposition doesn't care about facts.

Instead, you have to engage them the way Gravy and others in this thread have. You research their arguments and get the facts out there in a readable format.

[realitybites]

Photo of realitybites would appear here, but I don't have his permission yet.
Gravy, sorry.... Just got your PM about the photo. Go for it. And yes... I will second the rallying call for any and all willing JREFers in the five boroughs. If you can make it down to Ground Zero, we could use the help.

.... The CIA's got a damned good hourly wage.

[delphi_ote]

Suspended for 3 days for telling johndoe he should not be complaining about being suppressed.
:i:

[defaultdotxbe]

Gravy, sorry.... Just got your PM about the photo. Go for it. And yes... I will second the rallying call for any and all willing JREFers in the five boroughs. If you can make it down to Ground Zero, we could use the help.

.... The CIA's got a damned good hourly wage.
yay more pictures! lol

you guys should being a video camera, id liek to see some goings on there

also, might have to get some video footage for a project we are cooking up over at the SLC boards

[Senor_Pointy]

In my experience, 9/11 also been a uniter in the CT realm as well. A lot of these guys are left wing nuts, but there are a fair number of right wing nuts on their side, too.

Well obviously. No matter what side a CT nutter is on, TEH JOOZ are always responsible.

[Ramooone]

Gravy, sorry.... Just got your PM about the photo. Go for it. And yes... I will second the rallying call for any and all willing JREFers in the five boroughs. If you can make it down to Ground Zero, we could use the help.

.... The CIA's got a damned good hourly wage.

i live out in brooklyn, i'd love to come out and kick some CTer ass!
let me know when!!

[defaultdotxbe]

i live out in brooklyn, i'd love to come out and kick some CTer ass!
let me know when!!
i think they are at GZ every saturday, and theyre gonan be there on 9/11 too

[apathoid]

Suspended for 3 days for telling johndoe he should not be complaining about being suppressed.

http://invisionfree.com/report.php

I think we need to start reporting him. Most of the people that are being banned havent broken any of the forum rules, and I'm sure invision might find that interesting.

If anyone still has access, perhaps it might be a good idea to list some of lil Johnnys abuse and all his recent bannings. You wont have to look very hard, as he's banning 2-3 people every page of every thread just about. I've never seen anything quite like it and its one of the most pathetic displays I've ever witnessed on the internet, even more pathetic than a poseur pretending to be someone he is not. Oh, nevermind, he does that too...

[chacal]

A Finnish camera crew was there for a while, and a reporter for U.S. News and World Report spent several hours observing and interviewing for a story on the 5th anniversary of the attacks.


hi

Do you remember which channel was this camera crew from? Did they have any logo's or were they perhaps Finnish truthers? I'm just asking because it would be interesting to know whether some channel is making something related to 9/11 "truth".

You see I live in Helsinki and we have our own crazy truth movement here. Infact the nuclear bomb in the WTC basement theory stems from an anynomous Finnish "military expert" affiliated with the local truth movement.

.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm

[gumboot]

You see I live in Helsinki and we have our own crazy truth movement here. Infact the nuclear bomb in the WTC basement theory stems from an anynomous Finnish "military expert" affiliated with the local truth movement.


I'm sorry.

Did you say "nuclear" bomb?

:hb:

[sophia8]

In my experience, 9/11 also been a uniter in the CT realm as well. A lot of these guys are left wing nuts, but there are a fair number of right wing nuts on their side, too.Yup - the left-wingnuts see it as a capitalist/neocon/Haliburton conspiracy, the right-wingnuts see it as a Jooowish conspiracy, the other-wingnuts see it as an Illuminati/lizards conspiracy. 9/11 has something for everyone!

[gumboot]

Yup - the left-wingnuts see it as a capitalist/neocon/Haliburton conspiracy, the right-wingnuts see it as a Jooowish conspiracy, the other-wingnuts see it as an Illuminati/lizards conspiracy. 9/11 has something for everyone!


You know, the way I originally got into 9/11 was a bit of a circular situation. I was writing the incredibly complex back story for an animated TV series about a bunch of Genetically Engineered super children commandos (don't ask).

Anyway... the arch villain of this piece is a former Nazi scientist who experimented on Jews before joining the US and doing experiments. He ultimately runs off to set up a world wide terrorist organisation and attains long life by fusing his body with crocodile DNA (crocodiles cannot die of old age, and he is convinced the Aryan Reptillians split into a human thread - the Aryians - and an animal thread - crocodiles).

So I was a little shocked and surprised when I discovered, to my horror, that real people actually believe in this crazy reptillian stuff. I mean I took it with a grain of salt that even the Nazis believed any of it (we embellished things for our back story).

Madness.

-Andrew

[chacal]

I'm sorry.

Did you say "nuclear" bomb?

:hb:


Yup

Is it in the CT film "everybody's gotta learn sometime" or which piece it is, where they say something like the "nuclear detonation was confirmed by a military expext..." and they refer to the anynomous expert in the link I posted above.

funny stuff:)

[Cuddles]

This is the same tactic the scientific community has taken with evolution deniers. To some degree, it is the right approach. Debates don't work when the opposition doesn't care about facts.

Instead, you have to engage them the way Gravy and others in this thread have. You research their arguments and get the facts out there in a readable format.

The trouble isn't just that they don't care about facts, it's that every time the facts prove them wrong they just come up with a new, slightly different theory. This effectively means you need to prove that everything they ever say is untrue, which is impossible (even they must get their names right occasionally). Most scientists see this as a waste of time and just get on with whatever they were doing, leaving the public to fend for itself. Until people are paid specifically to debunk things I can't see the scientific community ever rising up to overthrow the CTers.

[chacal]

Yeah but if someone is paid to debunk something doesn't that make him automaticly part of the conspiracy. You can't disprove a conspiracy theory for any proof against it only ads another layer to it.

[Cuddles]

Well someone should pay me to read this forum. :p

Maybe if we add enough layers to the conspiracy their brains will overheat. No that there is a conspiracy. And I wouldn't be part of it if there was. Ahhh, my brain.

[Johnny Pixels]

Yeah but if someone is paid to debunk something doesn't that make him automaticly part of the conspiracy. You can't disprove a conspiracy theory for any proof against it only ads another layer to it.

I get the feeling this is true. The moderator on the British 9/11 Truth forum seems to have decided that I'm a piece of software, so he emailed some guy he knows to analyse my posts, and then it came back that he was 90% certain I was human, but there could be some top secret AI in use, but everyone would deny that existed anyway.

I pointed out that it amounted to little more than a personal attack on me, which is against their forum rules, but it doesn't seem to matter because a) he's a CTer so it doesn't count, and b) he's a mod, so it doesn't count

[chacal]

Maybe if we add enough layers to the conspiracy their brains will overheat.

No no, more complex the better. It gives more options for development. And you can reach higher and higher levels of CT nuttery.

[chacal]

I get the feeling this is true. The moderator on the British 9/11 Truth forum seems to have decided that I'm a piece of software, so he emailed some guy he knows to analyse my posts, and then it came back that he was 90% certain I was human, but there could be some top secret AI in use, but everyone would deny that existed anyway.




Are you sure you are not synthetic? Your memories could have been planted. It's all in the documentary film Bladerunner.

"90% certain":D

[Johnny Pixels]

Are you sure you are not synthetic? Your memories could have been planted. It's all in the documentary film Bladerunner.

"90% certain":D

Well I do dream of electric sheep...bzzt...

[brodski]

Well I do dream of electric sheep...bzzt...
I didn't know you where from Yorkshire… ;)

[Belz...]

Thanks - Man that thread just exploded.

Watching JDX get "the power of mod" and implode was not unlike watching the evolution of Darth Vader in the episode 3.

Not unlike at all:

By the way... its quite possible you may get banned anyway for the way you have been. Another mod may come along that isnt as tolerant as me.

"The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am"

[Belz...]

So this is what a "concrete core" looks like...

Yeah, christophera never actually managed to show us one.

[WildCat]

i used to go to concerts at the aragon all the time, thats right up by you, isnt it?
Yep, right down Lawrence. It's still a dump.

[Belz...]

I get the feeling this is true. The moderator on the British 9/11 Truth forum seems to have decided that I'm a piece of software, so he emailed some guy he knows to analyse my posts, and then it came back that he was 90% certain I was human, but there could be some top secret AI in use, but everyone would deny that existed anyway.

:jaw-dropp

[Gravy]

realitybites! And there's no vaccine for his realityrabies!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d68c1b10925.jpg


Got this in my email from an anti-CTer. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d72d1d3e2cc.jpg

Ramoooooooooooone, definiitely come out on Sat. if you can. We'll be there from about 1 to 4:30.

[Johnny Pixels]

:jaw-dropp

Here's the two posts, although he posted the same thing in every thread I was posting in:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15751#15751

[Gravy]

hi

Do you remember which channel was this camera crew from? Did they have any logo's or were they perhaps Finnish truthers? I'm just asking because it would be interesting to know whether some channel is making something related to 9/11 "truth".

You see I live in Helsinki and we have our own crazy truth movement here. Infact the nuclear bomb in the WTC basement theory stems from an anynomous Finnish "military expert" affiliated with the local truth movement.

.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm
Welcome to the forum, chacal. I don't know who that camera crew was. There were no identifying signs, but they were there to film the CTs, and they got a good dose of us when we arrived. They left before I could talk to them.

I get a fair amount of CT email from Suomi. None from the "mini-nuke" guy, though. He would be fun to play with.

[Johnny Pixels]

realitybites! And there's no vaccine for his realityrabies!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d68c1b10925.jpg


Got this in my email from an anti-CTer. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d72d1d3e2cc.jpg

Ramoooooooooooone, definiitely come out on Sat. if you can. We'll be there from about 1 to 4:30.

Woo! If ever an "I'm with stupid T-shirt" was appropriate, this is that time.

[Gravy]

Here's the two posts, although he posted the same thing in every thread I was posting in:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15751#15751
I was hoping you were kidding. Then I remembered that forum bots never kid.

[kevin]

Heat output, by floor area, has multiplied by 6 times since 1970 - where before a given space would have one person releasing body heat, now you have three people in the same given space, each with a PC (the average PC has roughly the same heat output as a single person).

That means more air conditioning units.

This is not a given. More efficient units could also be used. A/C design has not remained static since the 70's. I'm also not sure what affect you think this might have had on the building falling.

As you can see, failing to factor in the affect of fuel on the aircraft is only one error, and that one error alone has many ramifications. I recall one of those involved in the building describing the impact of a 707 as like a pen pushed through a mosquito net. This implies they didn't think the wings would penetrate the building.

Actually it means they didn't think of the affects on the internal structure of the building. the wings just make the pencil bigger. This was also an off the cuff analogy made by the site manager. Not un-knowledgeable but not a detailed analysis either.

It may just be the extra mass provided by the jet fuel, but to me such an assertation seems ludicrous (as materially demonstrated on 9/11) and supports how limited any real analysis of such an impact was.

The extra mass of the fuel could be taken into account easily (without having the calculations available this may have actually been done), but they could not calculate where the fuel would go, or what it would do to the contents of the building. Additionally the fuel for a transcontinental flight in the 767 is distributed in the wings (not sure this is true in a 707). This means the fuel was distributed over a much larger area.

Another error in the "calculated impact" of a 707 is, as I mentioned above, the massive difference in available fuels in the building itself from 1970 to 2000.

Since no calculations were done on fuel at all the difference in fuels between 1970 and 2000 would have no change on the calculations (on the results between a crash then and now -- yes, but that wasn't calculated).

Another error is in fire proofing. At the time WTC was built there was NO guideline for how much fire proofing to put on steel.

BTW, no one in the CT movement has caught onto this yet, but according to the NIST report, the fireproofing was changed during the construction of the WTC. The lower levels used a hard board like material, but it contained asbestos. Fears about asbestos started to come to light during construction so they changed to the spray on fireproofing and went through the lower levels and encapsulated all the asbestos fireproofing. If they had used the stiffer harder fireproofing all the way up would it have stood up to a crash?

Also several inspection photos (prior to 9-11) in the NIST report show the spray on proofing had fallen off on it's own (they have pictures where sections of the trusses are bare).

[gumboot]

Also several inspection photos (prior to 9-11) in the NIST report show the spray on proofing had fallen off on it's own (they have pictures where sections of the trusses are bare).


A similar picture can be drawn for WTC7. IIRC some time prior to 9/11 a fire safety assessment of WTC7 found that the floor with the large diesel tank on it (which FDNY had been strongly opposed to having in the building at all) was totally lacking in any fire-protection or fire-suppression systems at all.

CTers assume the WTC was state of the art, with the best fire protection money could buy. It's a false assumption - just like it's a laughably false assumption to claim that the Pentagon is "the most heavily protected building in the world".

Want to know how you produce the most protected building in the world? you BURY IT UNDER A MOUNTAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain).

-Andrew

[kookbreaker]

Some sort of reinforcement would be required. Rebar is probably being used, you just don't see it. Note that they are building the core before the building. This would be standard, and opposite of what a certain kook claims.


Are you sure? I was under the impression that rebar was primarily used for roads and surfaces since it adds strength in tension (wheras concrete has strength in compression.. I may have these backwards.) This two form strenght may not be needed in a skyscraper, where the weight is mostly compressive.

I could be way wrong, however.

[realitybites]

realitybites! And there's no vaccine for his realityrabies!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d68c1b10925.jpg


Got this in my email from an anti-CTer. :D

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/879044d72d1d3e2cc.jpg

Ramoooooooooooone, definiitely come out on Sat. if you can. We'll be there from about 1 to 4:30.
Okay, obviously you can tell by the look on my face that the CTers rarely (if ever) shower.

Realitybites has learned two things today:
1. Always, always, always screen the photo BEFORE you agree to have it publicly posted.
2. Keep cameras the hell away from Gravy.

[60hzxtl]

A similar picture can be drawn for WTC7. IIRC some time prior to 9/11 a fire safety assessment of WTC7 found that the floor with the large diesel tank on it (which FDNY had been strongly opposed to having in the building at all) was totally lacking in any fire-protection or fire-suppression systems at all.

CTers assume the WTC was state of the art, with the best fire protection money could buy. It's a false assumption -


the WTC was not subject to NYC Firecode

see pg 115 of - Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center
by Angus K. Gillespie written before 9/11

It is also extensively in City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center by James Glanz, Eric Lipton

Port Authority in an effort to save money claimed in effect that they were exempt from the rules as a two state agency. Corners were cut.

My argument is that if you are exempt from the fire rules, (rules written in blood - someone died, then the rule was written) then don't expect the FDNY to fight your fire (from inside - in small places like oh say, Oneonta the FD fights fires from outside.)- FDNY is not made of that kind of stuff - they went in to fight it.

[60hzxtl]

Okay, obviously you can tell by the look on my face that the CTers rarely (if ever) shower.




(you do kind of have that 'I smell sheep' look on your face.)

Soap and deodorant are a plot - ask roysinister over at the nutbar forum.

(roy is my favorite jailbird over there.)

[Hutch]

I'm sorry.

Did you say "nuclear" bomb?

:hb:

Yep. http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5495

Be warned....death of brain cells is a real possibility in reading this particular LC thread...

[kevin]

Port Authority in an effort to save money claimed in effect that they were exempt from the rules as a two state agency. Corners were cut.

Not according to the NIST report. They were technically exempt but said they would follow the codes at that time (as they did on all the Port Authority buildings). The NIST report agrees that the building met or beat all the codes.

I'll find the actual cite later, i'm supposed to be at work in a few minutes.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Born in Mt. Greenwood, grew up (age 7+) in the southwest suburbs, thus my baseball preference. Now living in Albany Park (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Albany%20Park,%20Chicago) in the northwest side of Chicago. If you're ever in the city let me know, first round is on me!

Good grief, how many of us on this forum are in the Windy City? I'm up in Mundelein (http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=mundelein,+il&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1)

[kevin]

Are you sure? I was under the impression that rebar was primarily used for roads and surfaces since it adds strength in tension (wheras concrete has strength in compression.. I may have these backwards.) This two form strenght may not be needed in a skyscraper, where the weight is mostly compressive.

I could be way wrong, however.

Vertical constructions don't take strictly vertical loads. Although the WTC was designed to reduce things like wind loads on the central core it still took some. Same for other buildings, there will be side to side loads. Because the vertical structure is tied at one end, and sways at the other end you can need more reinforcement than a flat surface.

The wikipedia article cites a typical reinforcement is 1% steel by cross-sectional area steel for a horizontal structure and 6% for a vertical structure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforced_concrete

It is possible they're using plastic reinforcement or fiber reinforcement instead of rebar, but that isn't very common except in special cases.

[kevin]

Want to know how you produce the most protected building in the world? you BURY IT UNDER A MOUNTAIN IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheyenne_Mountain).


That was totally invaded by those kids in War Games. pffft. not secure at all.

[chacal]

Welcome to the forum, chacal. I don't know who that camera crew was. There were no identifying signs, but they were there to film the CTs, and they got a good dose of us when we arrived. They left before I could talk to them.

I get a fair amount of CT email from Suomi. None from the "mini-nuke" guy, though. He would be fun to play with.


Well i hope the film crew doesn't do something too pro conspiracy theory.

you get mail from Suomi... (do you watch late night with Conan O'Brian?) ... I guess there are a fair amount of truthers here. They have some activity like they rent a movie theater and show LC and in plane site and so on. And they have speaking guests like Andreas Von Buellow.

I would like to know who the mini-nuke military expert is. As far as I know Finnland doesnt have nuclear weapons.:)

[Belz...]

Here's the two posts, although he posted the same thing in every thread I was posting in:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=15751#15751

Damn. Even DeFecToR thinks he goes too far.

[chipmunk stew]

There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810

[DavidJames]

There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810
well Duh... how are they going to find the truth when all those facts keep getting in the way..

jdx also wants to ban anonymous IP's.

[Belz...]

There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810

But [CTer mode] That's against the constitution!! Freedom of speech!! LC is TEH ENEMAY!! [/CTer mode]

[Belz...]

Yeah that was my question...

Possibly demo charges and very small WMDs...? It would explain the EMP burst just before collapse and the explosion and ejection of the debris.

Seems like a bigger and bigger project each time we get into this though...


Yeah, that's why CTs are nutjobs.

[SRW]

There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810

I posted last night and this morning my post is gone no explanation, nothing just gone.

[Johnny Pixels]

Does anyone know what the flight data recorder sub forum in the LC Pentagon subforum is all about? It's password protected, and I'm in some bizzarre limbo ban there.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yeah, that's why CTs are nutjobs.
What EMP burst?

[Johnny Pixels]

What EMP burst?
The one that knocked out all the digital still and video cameras that filmed the collapse. Oh, hang on that's not right...Er, The one Morpheus used to kill the squiddies.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The one that knocked out all the digital still and video cameras that filmed the collapse. Oh, hang on that's not right...Er, The one Morpheus used to kill the squiddies.
Copy.

[jhunter1163]

It's interesting to me how in one breath the CTs rant on about how the gubmint is evil, turning the USA into a police state, concocting this massive conspiracy to hide the twoof about 9/11, and in the next breath ban opposing points of view, remove posts that contradict the party line, and generally act like the very Gestapo that they rant on about. I'd type more but I've already got irony dripping onto my carpet and it's hell to get out.

P. S. I live in Bridgeport, Connecticut and would love to make it down to GZ sometime to debate with the twoofers. I'll check with Mrs. Jhunter and see if it would be officially sanctioned.

[NDBoston]

I'm heading down to Ground Zero this Saturday.

I can't wait for the "fun"

[TjW]

The extra mass of the fuel could be taken into account easily (without having the calculations available this may have actually been done), but they could not calculate where the fuel would go, or what it would do to the contents of the building. Additionally the fuel for a transcontinental flight in the 767 is distributed in the wings (not sure this is true in a 707). This means the fuel was distributed over a much larger area.

(some snippage by TjW)
Large aircraft always carry fuel in the wings. They may have tanks in the fuselage as well, but the majority will be in the wings. A load distributed along the wing does not contribute to the bending moment of the wing spar when flying.

[sleahead]

There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810

I think this will definitley happen. I see it as preparation for the eventual release of the "100% accurate" 'Final Cut'. Of course, it won't be 100% accurate and people will be slamming it in the skeptics forum and elsewhere. Can't have skeptics negating the sales drive, can we?

[MarkyX]

I wonder if anyone will have any objections of me slapping all famous truth movement members slapped onto some good old nazi group photos using the poorest photoshop techniques now.

It seems so...suitable now.

[Brainster]

I'm sorry.

Did you say "nuclear" bomb?

:hb:

Yeah, there's a lot of nuke talk. I think Siegel makes a claim of mini-nukes at the WTC in one of the versions of 9-11 Eyewitness. And there's a very weird lady in the Smorgasbord video from the Loosers who says there were elevated radiation levels at the Pentagon. See, she called a friend, who just happens to have a geiger counter in her purse and...

Let's remember, these people have the attention span of a cow, so the only way to keep them interested in the CT is to regularly raise the "woo" level in your new video. I joke about it, at times, but I fully expect somebody to start pushing the "no-buildings" theory in the next round.

[kookbreaker]

There's movement afoot to shut down the LC skeptics forum, ban all opposing views on sight, disallow any direct links to opposing views, and refer people to Google if they're interested in opposing views.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9443&view=findpost&p=6555810

At what point of circling the wagons does the circle become so tight that it cuts off air?

[jhunter1163]

It may already be happening, wouldn't lack of oxygen to the brain explain delusional thinking?

[Twilek]

This morning I'm greeted on the front page of the Montreal Gazette by this headline:

"Scholars Lend Credentials, Legitimacy to Thriving 9/11 Conspiracy Theories."

Ugh, ugh, oy.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=6d559c3b-f023-4d4d-b47e-710e26e699ec

[60hzxtl]

This morning I'm greeted on the front page of the Montreal Gazette by this headline:

"Scholars Lend Credentials, Legitimacy to Thriving 9/11 Conspiracy Theories."

Ugh, ugh, oy.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=6d559c3b-f023-4d4d-b47e-710e26e699ec


Ahhhhh "Scholars!

Too bad they didn't call themselves geniuses Jones could have cards made up that say Super-Genius!

[Hutch]

Well, it appears that Mr. O'Reilly will have his shots at the 9-11 conspiracy tonight..

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

[60hzxtl]

Well, it appears that Mr. O'Reilly will have his shots at the 9-11 conspiracy tonight..

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/


You mean Professor "part-timer" $8,000. per year Barrett?

Oh goody.

[Twilek]

Boo... we don't get Fox News. Normally I don't mind, but that looks like fun.

[Belz...]

What EMP burst?

Most of the time I simply have no idea what they're talking about. I mean, there are litterally thousands of different tidbits that compose the various CT "claims", so it's virtually impossible to keep track of them.

As Johnny said, such an EMP burst would've caused problems that everyone would've been able to see. I don't where the hell they took that one from.

[chipmunk stew]

Well, it appears that Mr. O'Reilly will have his shots at the 9-11 conspiracy tonight..

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/
Of course, this will only be viewed by the Inside Jobbers as confirmation that they're on the right track and that the sooper seekrit cabal is getting scared. This will only energize them. *sigh*

[60hzxtl]

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=506008&category=REGIONOTHER&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=8/6/2006

"The audience members were generally a graying crowd, older than the college groups the Oneonta-based filmmakers usually address -- and resemble. Dylan Avery, the film's 22-year-old director, writer and narrator, and 23-year-old producer Korey Rowe wore flip-flops. Jason Bermas, all of 26, never removed his backward-slung Yankees cap."


Darn hat! Didn't come with directions!


Yeah, seven figures. Dylan.


Somebody clue the author of this piece in to Gravy's links, or better yet, his editor. I've got a plane to catch.

Mark McGuire can be reached at 454-5467 or by e-mail at mmcguire@timesunion.com.