Producers of Loose Change to Appear on The View This Thursday

[MaryMacElveen]

Dear Folks,

As you will see this week’s schedule of ABC’s The View, Rosie O’Donnell will have on as her guests, Korey Rowe, Dylan Avery and William Rodriguez who are the makers of that movie, “Loose Change” on Thursday. It is my hope that the other host, Elisabeth Hasselbeck is allowed to have on experts in my opinion with an opposing point of view. The show airs at 11AM ET.

Below is the contact information for ABC to ask that an opposing point of view be aired if one is not lined up.

ABC News
77 W. 66 St.
New York, NY 10023
Phone: 212-456-7777
General e-mail: netaudr@abc.com

Please circulate to all who believe that 9/11 was not a government conspiracy.

Sincerely,
Mary!

[Tbone]

The board knows. And many have already done so. But I'm sure its heartening to see the same message from someone not of this little community come in and post this.

[Unsecured Coins]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82471

repost!

[ref]

Welcome on board, Mary :)

I recently read your article on OpEd about Loose Change. It was a good piece, and the truther reaction to it was not pretty, as always.

[Orphia Nay]

Glad you could join us here, Mary. Welcome. :)

I remember reading and commenting on your blog a few weeks ago. Great stuff.

[Travis]

Always room for one more debunker.

[Architect]

I'm heartbroken it's not available in the UK.






Okay, I'm not really. You got me.

[Brainster]

The Loose Change boys indicated last week that their appearance has been pushed back from Thursday to some future date.

[jhunter1163]

That could be disinfo. Are they still on the schedule?

[chipmunk stew]

The Loose Change boys indicated last week that their appearance has been pushed back from Thursday to some future date.
Well they're still on the broadcast schedule, so until I hear something definitive, I'm going to assume that they'll appear this Thursday.

Kathy Griffin will be the guest host on Thursday, so a message to her couldn't hurt:
http://www.kathygriffin.net/

Also, in looking for information, I came across this blog that seems to be up to date on schedule changes and stuff:
http://www.watchingtheview.com/

[Blackwell]

tvguide.com lists the 5/24 show details as "The 'Dancing With the Stars' winners; Sherri Shepherd (guest cohost). Also: segments on indigestion and heartburn [maybe this refers to Loose Change?], and foster care."

the 5/28 show's details are apparently "Avril Lavigne; bathing-suit do's and dont's."

Dylan, Korey and William in bikinis? That's definitely a "don't".


ETA: welcome to the forums, Mary

[boloboffin]

The official View website (http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/) has Sherri Shepherd as cohost (although Kathy Griffin's website (http://www.kathygriffin.net/) says she will be on that day) and Dylan, Korey, and William still onboard.

So who knows?

UPDATE: Kathy Griffin's website isn't definite. She doesn't know if she's live or filming Friday's taped episode. Also, if she's on, she's going to ask every guest if they get prison fan mail. THAT should be interesting.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The official View website (http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/) has Sherri Shepherd as cohost (although Kathy Griffin's website (http://www.kathygriffin.net/) says she will be on that day) and Dylan, Korey, and William still onboard.

So who knows?

What were we looking for on The View's site again? I got distracted by that "Click here to see what happened at Jennifer Love Hewwits photo shoot" sidebar.

[EugeneAxeman]

This show will probably never air.

It is a sweeps grandstanding gone bad.

Regardless of whether it goes on or not, the LC boys are the worst reps for 9/11 truth and will probably do more harm for their cause if they are given the chance to speak.

Corey Rowe is probably the worst presenter and can rarley stay on topic. This guy is almost as much of a loose cannon as Webster Tarpley.

Rodriguez can be convincing if he only reads very brief copy. He will shoot himself in the foot if he has to answer spontaneous questions.

Avery and Rowe cling to far too many issues, and have very little understanding of most of them. They are a couple of young kids with little life experience, and will play badly to a TV audience. If they try to make the case for no-plane theories, I would expect them to be booed off the stage, unless the audience was packed with their supporters.

It is likely that they had some early rehearsals in front of sample audiences, and the episode probably came off looking like a bad Springer show.

Rosie has an axe to grind with BushCo and was probably very easily swayed by many of the issues brought up by the truthers.

Loose change is very popular among the Gen X/Y crowds, but really falls short due to the number of radical theories that compose it.

The core issue of the building collapses is not bad. Even the NIST report stayed away from the puzzling issues regarding collapse speeds, flaming steel, and the high velocities at which steel beams were ejected from the towers. In the case of the North Tower, the videos clearly show steel being ejected horizontally from the area of the 70th floor and travelling the distance to building 7 in the vicinity of three seconds. The huge smoke trails flowing from the steel as it flew adds to the plausibility for the claims that thermite derivatives were used to cut the steel.

Exact details as to just how all of this was accomplished can only be speculated. So unless a credible whistleblower steps up, it's all guesswork.

Both sides have trouble explaining the specific mechanisms, so until a comprehensive explanation can be presented, that issue will remain unresolved.

The major hole in the conspiracy argument comes from the notion that somehow the Bush Administration planned or orchestrated the attacks.

It has been shown that the brainthrust of this band of thieves is very good at planning an initial assault, but very poor at following through to complete the victory.

On the other hand, those buildings were financial money pits, threatening to block the expansion plans of the Port Authority of NY/NJ. Since the attacks, they have been divested of the liability, their range of eminent domain has been greatly expanded, and there was a tidy settlement received which has more than compensated for the expenses incurred in rebuilding.

The Bush Administration's efforts in the investigative process have been primarily supressive and obstructive. The fact that neither the President nor Vice President would testify feeds the government conspiracy argument.

It could be that they simply do not wish to have their incompetence documented for posterity. It could also be that they played a role in the attacks which would be unbecoming of the Executive Branch, or any other representative entity for that matter. I see no need to protect them, since their subsequent erosion of the Constitution seems to be adequately fending off any opposition to the regime.

So there is really no harm in letting the LC boys have their air time. I think they only help the other side when they speak.

The bottom line is that the truth movement has no real proof, and as long as the attacks and aftermath are not independently investigated, that fact will probably not change.

[boloboffin]

How I think it will play out: Unless there are multiple segments (which they may do), having all three on for a six-eight minute segment simply won't be enough time for anything. For one, if all three are on at the same time, there won't be enough seats for seven people on that set, so a couple of the hosts will be cut from that segment. My guess would be the guest cohost and Elisabeth. That leaves Joy to mother hen over the cute boys, and Rosie to pitch softballs. I have seen segments where only one host interviews people, and so it might just be Rosie and the Disinfo Trio alone. Gag.

However, they might possibly do two segments with all the hosts. If I were running it, I would bring Willie out first, and then swap him with D&K. That way, they could have all the hosts out there. I don't know which way Kathy swings on the 9/11 CT fence. She could fall for it hook, line, and sinker, but then again, she's rather ascerbic - she might be a ringer.

[Blackwell]

This show will probably never air.

It is a sweeps grandstanding gone bad.

Regardless of whether it goes on or not, the LC boys are the worst reps for 9/11 truth and will probably do more harm for their cause if they are given the chance to speak.

Corey Rowe is probably the worst presenter and can rarley stay on topic. This guy is almost as much of a loose cannon as Webster Tarpley.

Rodriguez can be convincing if he only reads very brief copy. He will shoot himself in the foot if he has to answer spontaneous questions.

Avery and Rowe cling to far too many issues, and have very little understanding of most of them. They are a couple of young kids with little life experience, and will play badly to a TV audience. If they try to make the case for no-plane theories, I would expect them to be booed off the stage, unless the audience was packed with their supporters.

It is likely that they had some early rehearsals in front of sample audiences, and the episode probably came off looking like a bad Springer show.

Rosie has an axe to grind with BushCo and was probably very easily swayed by many of the issues brought up by the truthers.

Loose change is very popular among the Gen X/Y crowds, but really falls short due to the number of radical theories that compose it.

The core issue of the building collapses is not bad. Even the NIST report stayed away from the puzzling issues regarding collapse speeds, flaming steel, and the high velocities at which steel beams were ejected from the towers. In the case of the North Tower, the videos clearly show steel being ejected horizontally from the area of the 70th floor and travelling the distance to building 7 in the vicinity of three seconds. The huge smoke trails flowing from the steel as it flew adds to the plausibility for the claims that thermite derivatives were used to cut the steel.
Hi, Eugene.
Do you have a cite for "flaming steel"?
How do you tell "smoke trails" from "dust trails"? By what mechanism would thermite propel steel beams?

Exact details as to just how all of this was accomplished can only be speculated. So unless a credible whistleblower steps up, it's all guesswork.

Both sides have trouble explaining the specific mechanisms, so until a comprehensive explanation can be presented, that issue will remain unresolved.
NIST has no trouble explaining the specific mechanisms.

The major hole in the conspiracy argument comes from the notion that somehow the Bush Administration planned or orchestrated the attacks.

It has been shown that the brainthrust of this band of thieves is very good at planning an initial assault, but very poor at following through to complete the victory.
could you give an example of this?

On the other hand, those buildings were financial money pits, threatening to block the expansion plans of the Port Authority of NY/NJ. Since the attacks, they have been divested of the liability, their range of eminent domain has been greatly expanded, and there was a tidy settlement received which has more than compensated for the expenses incurred in rebuilding.
cite, please. There is a recent thread here that details the financials of the WTC complex; there is no indication that it was a "money pit."

The Bush Administration's efforts in the investigative process have been primarily supressive and obstructive. The fact that neither the President nor Vice President would testify feeds the government conspiracy argument.
This does not mean that they were involved in the planning, or that they allowed it to happen.

It could be that they simply do not wish to have their incompetence documented for posterity. It could also be that they played a role in the attacks which would be unbecoming of the Executive Branch, or any other representative entity for that matter. I see no need to protect them, since their subsequent erosion of the Constitution seems to be adequately fending off any opposition to the regime.

So there is really no harm in letting the LC boys have their air time. I think they only help the other side when they speak.
I believe there is a harm in letting crackpots with no proof expose their theories to an audience that may lack the critical thinking skills necessary for judging their claims.
The bottom line is that the truth movement has no real proof, and as long as the attacks and aftermath are not independently investigated, that fact will probably not change.
Even with an independent investigation, this is unlikely to change.

[PhantomWolf]

The core issue of the building collapses is not bad. Even the NIST report stayed away from the puzzling issues regarding collapse speeds...

What was the speed of the collapse? How long did each tower take to fall, and what did NIST say about the timing?

[T.A.M.]

Mary:

Welcome to the forums. Take some time to look around at the various threads. For information purposes, to add to your debunking armamentarium (spelling), please see the "Gravysites" sticky at the top of the subforum. There are also many other great posters here who are a wealth of knowledge on almost any subject related to 9/11.

Ref has also collected all the top JREF debunking threads on various topics, if someone could kindly post the links here for Mary, it would be appreciated.

TAM:)

[EugeneAxeman]

Hi, Eugene.
Do you have a cite for "flaming steel"?

This comes from statements made by FDNY crews at Vesey Street. According to their accounts, flaming steel from the north tower rained down on building seven.

The interesting part is that this steel can be seen flying outwards as the collapse reaches the 70th floor. It takes a mere three seconds to reach Building seven, almost 400 feet away. There is no explanation as to how this steel could be burning, but it is seen to be trailing smoke as it flies.

The NY Times ran a story on November 29, 2001. The forum will not allow me to post links yet, but it's at:
nytimes.com 2001 11 29 nyregion 29TOWE.html?ex=1179979200&en=add1a833cba9952d&ei-5070

How do you tell "smoke trails" from "dust trails"? By what mechanism would thermite propel steel beams?

Glad you asked.

As an experiment coat a piece of steel in dust – as much as you like. Then throw it as hard as you like. See if you can get it going 100 feet per second or more. The dust will remain hanging close to you as the steel flies away.

If you can get a permit from your local fire department, try the same thing with a piece of burning steel.


Now watch a video of the tower collapses. Compare your results.


As for your thermite question – it is not a propellant. It would be used as an accelerating cutting agent. Propulsion would be a side effect of secondary explosive materials used to sever the steel in the core columns and pulverize the floor pans.


NIST has no trouble explaining the specific mechanisms.


Then please enlighten me. I did not see where they even attempted to explain them.

could you give an example of this?

Case in point: The Iraq invasion

Very good assault planning. Successful overthrow.

Very poor follow-up planning. Miserable failure securing the peace and preventing insurgent groups from gaining footholds.


cite, please. There is a recent thread here that details the financials of the WTC complex; there is no indication that it was a "money pit."


It had not reached the point of becoming a financial catastrophe, but the asbestos abatement required shutting down entire floors during the removal process.

Prior to beginning that project, the Port Authority of NY-NJ had sought demolition permits for the complex.


Tenancy had been steadily dropping, with entire floors being vacant.

City records for the WTC have been steadily disappearing since the 9/11 attacks took place. If I can locate any, I will post them. I had some links a couple of years back, but they are dead now.



This does not mean that they were involved in the planning, or that they allowed it to happen.


You made that leap. I was merely pointing out the coincidence.

I believe there is a harm in letting crackpots with no proof expose their theories to an audience that may lack the critical thinking skills necessary for judging their claims.

I tend to believe that people should be able to examine all the information and make their own judgments.

It’s not my job to protect people from disinformation.

If that were the case, I would be campaigning to remove people like Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Michael Weiner “Savage”, Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy and other pundits from the air waves.

They have done far more damage to the general public’s ability to discern information from pure propaganda than a few random elements on the Internet.



Even with an independent investigation, this is unlikely to change.


That is an unknown quantity, and is an assumption on your part, based on your opinion that the government’s versions of the events are entirely factual.

I personally do not see any statistical history to support that belief.

We will certainly not uncover proof in either direction without one.

I did not want this to be a lengthy post, but you managed to raise a lot of questions.

[EugeneAxeman]

What was the speed of the collapse? How long did each tower take to fall, and what did NIST say about the timing?


6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.


That’s what NIST says about the fall times. I'm not sure what you were referring to about timing.

For reference, the freefall time for an object dropped from 1360 feet is about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum.

Their capsulated analysis sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface, except that in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR they do not bother to quantify the resistance provided by the supporting structure.

In effect, they hand wave to reach the conclusion that each falling section received minimal resistance. This is where my critical thought process departs from their review.

I have read their analysis of the available structural steel and it determines that it was subjected to temperatures of around 250 degrees C. According to their own strength modulus charts, this temperature has barely any effect on the steel. The average kitchen oven can get hotter.

Now maybe I'm reading it wrong, but they were fairly specific.

If you like, we can discuss the nature of the floor structures and how improbable it is for the trusses to actually sag as they claim.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

There is no explanation as to how this steel could be burning. . .

You really need an explanation for that? Yeesh... alright... The steel itself wasn't flaming, but the at least some of the accompanying debris was.

[T.A.M.]

1. You are calculating Theoretical FREE FALL TIME based on the TOP of the WTC. The question is, what distance is d...

I think d should be the bottom of the top segment. When you drop a ball to the ground, the distance "d" is the distance from the bottom of the ball to the ground is it not?

Now for the south tower, I do believe, the bottom of the top section was...

81st floor = about 308m above the ground

so therefore the free fall time would be 7.9 seconds...not 9.2

[PhantomWolf]

Now maybe I'm reading it wrong, but they were fairly specific

Yes they are fairly specific. Read it again.

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.


NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

For the first exterior panels to strike the ground, not for the entire building to collapse. The first exterior panels hit at near freefall speed because they WERE freefalling! The buildings themselves took 16-18 and 18-20sec to fully collapse, nearly twice freefall speed.

[Mr. Skinny]

deleted, sorry.

[Blackwell]

This comes from statements made by FDNY crews at Vesey Street. According to their accounts, flaming steel from the north tower rained down on building seven.

The interesting part is that this steel can be seen flying outwards as the collapse reaches the 70th floor. It takes a mere three seconds to reach Building seven, almost 400 feet away. There is no explanation as to how this steel could be burning, but it is seen to be trailing smoke as it flies.
Are you referring to a particular video? How do you know that what you are seeing is burning steel, as opposed to burning debris?
ETA: I don't think I've seen video of the debris actually hitting WTC7. If anyone has a link to a good vid, I'd appreciate it.
The NY Times ran a story on November 29, 2001. The forum will not allow me to post links yet, but it's at:
nytimes.com 2001 11 29 nyregion 29TOWE.html?ex=1179979200&en=add1a833cba9952d&ei-5070
I couldn't get the link to work, but a Google search for "'flaming steel' vesey" returns 4 results; looks like they are either reposts of that NYT story, or references to it. Do you not think that "flaming steel" was just a bit of hyperbole from the author?

Glad you asked.

As an experiment coat a piece of steel in dust – as much as you like. Then throw it as hard as you like. See if you can get it going 100 feet per second or more. The dust will remain hanging close to you as the steel flies away.

If you can get a permit from your local fire department, try the same thing with a piece of burning steel.


Now watch a video of the tower collapses. Compare your results.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to steel to do this test; also, I really have no means in which to ignite the steel. Sounds like you've done this test yourself, though; feel free to post videos of your trials.


As for your thermite question – it is not a propellant. It would be used as an accelerating cutting agent. Propulsion would be a side effect of secondary explosive materials used to sever the steel in the core columns and pulverize the floor pans.
So thermite, plus an explosive. Neither of which there is any evidence for. Got it.



Then please enlighten me. I did not see where they even attempted to explain them.
What in particular do you see as problematic in the NIST report?



Case in point: The Iraq invasion

Very good assault planning. Successful overthrow.

Very poor follow-up planning. Miserable failure securing the peace and preventing insurgent groups from gaining footholds.
I figured this is what you were referring to - just wanted to clear it up. Thanks. And I agree with most of what you write here.



It had not reached the point of becoming a financial catastrophe, but the asbestos abatement required shutting down entire floors during the removal process.

Prior to beginning that project, the Port Authority of NY-NJ had sought demolition permits for the complex.


Tenancy had been steadily dropping, with entire floors being vacant.

City records for the WTC have been steadily disappearing since the 9/11 attacks took place. If I can locate any, I will post them. I had some links a couple of years back, but they are dead now.
Again, a cite for this would be good. How would destroying this particular office complex help anyone, when the insured were required to rebuild with.....a replacement office complex?




You made that leap. I was merely pointing out the coincidence.
So we're in agreement.


I tend to believe that people should be able to examine all the information and make their own judgments.

It’s not my job to protect people from disinformation.

If that were the case, I would be campaigning to remove people like Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Michael Weiner “Savage”, Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck, Oliver North, G. Gordon Liddy and other pundits from the air waves.

They have done far more damage to the general public’s ability to discern information from pure propaganda than a few random elements on the Internet.
Then I recommend writing a letter to the networks that carry these shows, and express your displeasure.



That is an unknown quantity, and is an assumption on your part, based on your opinion that the government’s versions of the events are entirely factual.
Yes, that is my opinion.

[EugeneAxeman]

1. You are calculating Theoretical FREE FALL TIME based on the TOP of the WTC. The question is, what distance is d...

I think d should be the bottom of the top segment. When you drop a ball to the ground, the distance "d" is the distance from the bottom of the ball to the ground is it not?

Now for the south tower, I do believe, the bottom of the top section was...

81st floor = about 308m above the ground

so therefore the free fall time would be 7.9 seconds...not 9.2


How long for the roof of the south tower to hit the ground?

I do believe it was falling as well.

[beachnut]

That’s what NIST says about the fall times. I'm not sure what you were referring to about timing.

For reference, the freefall time for an object dropped from 1360 feet is about 9.2 seconds in a vacuum.

Their capsulated analysis sounds perfectly reasonable on the surface, except that in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR they do not bother to quantify the resistance provided by the supporting structure.

In effect, they hand wave to reach the conclusion that each falling section received minimal resistance. This is where my critical thought process departs from their review.

But you left out your numbers on the momentum, and the energy required to destroy the building as you go.

This is where my critical thought process departs from their review.

It appears you have left out critical thought and skipped right to misinformation. If you applied any critical thought to WTC tower falling you would see the resistance to the mass destroying the WTC is negligible to the KE of the mass. Sorry but you should run the numbers first. You should have read where this is stated over and over again. Research is the weak suit of the entire truth movement; you can add physics too. You see the mass continues to grow and accelerate due to gravity. You did not do you homework on collisions. Try again, use some numbers and show me.

[EugeneAxeman]

Yes they are fairly specific. Read it again.









For the first exterior panels to strike the ground, not for the entire building to collapse. The first exterior panels hit at near freefall speed because they WERE freefalling! The buildings themselves took 16-18 and 18-20sec to fully collapse, nearly twice freefall speed.

Yeah, that is correct. I took the FAQ for brevity sake.

Not the best choice.

You prefer to relate the differential as a ratio, while I prefer to look at it as only 9 or 10 seconds slower.

It's still pretty fast considering all the structural steel involved.

And the flaming steel flying out in all directions was rather spectacular.

I doubt that burning debris or dust could tag along at that speed.

Come on now.

Has anyone actually watched the tower collapses?

How can you miss that kind of a detail?

The incredible dissolving spire is another issue, but most people on the government's side of the debate like to look at it as just a lot of dust.

That may be, but why does that dust behave differently from the dust that travelled horizontally for hundreds of feet?

[beachnut]

I doubt that burning debris or dust could tag along at that speed.

Come on now.

The incredible dissolving spire is another issue, but most people on the government's side of the debate like to look at it as just a lot of dust.

You are joking, right? Take a course in video, digital video, resolution, frame rate, etc. You are joking?

Pieces of the building were above the temperature need to auto ignite many of the things they came to rest next to. Try it, you can light up paper, and gasoline at a certain temperature, no flame required. The steel and objects from the WTC were at a temperature that many items would start burning at. You know this and are kidding, right?

[PhantomWolf]

You prefer to relate the differential as a ratio, while I prefer to look at it as only 9 or 10 seconds slower.

Why not 9,000 ms slower, or is 9,000 just too big a number? If you were stopped by a cop for going 120 mph in a 70mph zone would you tell him that you were nearly doing the speed limit? I mean, 34 yps, 58 yps, pretty close aren't they so why should he get all uppity and write you out a $300 ticket. Just being pedantic with figures isn't it? Why can't he just look at it as 24 yards per second over the speed limit and ignore it?

The difference is a ratio, whether you like it or not. When we are talking a under 30 seconds, the difference between 10 seconds and 18 seconds is huge. If you don't think so, try getting off that traffic ticket and see how well it works.

[PhantomWolf]

You are joking, right? Take a course in video, digital video, resolution, frame rate, etc. You are joking?

Even with those things it's blantently obvious to anyone that doesn't wear a tin-foil beanie that the steel of the "Spire" simply falls out of the frame leaving the dust that had been covering it behind to float off in the air.

[T.A.M.]

How long for the roof of the south tower to hit the ground?

I do believe it was falling as well.

I agree, that in the case of an object such as the "top section", one has to realize that the object itself is collapsing, but that proves the point I was TRYING to make...namely that the "FREE FALL TIME" arguement is too subjective to be seriously looked at...and here is why.

1. When you watch all the videos, you cannot determine how long after collapse intitiation, before the top section, either the bottom of it, or the top, reaches the ground...the area is completely blocked out with dust.

2. When coming up with a theoretical "FREE FALL in a vacuum" time to compare the collapse time to, you need to know which height (full height of building, height of plane impact, halfway between top and impact height, etc...) you are going to use for the calculation. Then based on this, and subsequent calculated time, you have to measure the time of the collapse from initiation, to the time where that section actually hits the ground).

This is why the times were APPROXIMATE. I can tell you, that if you take the maximum and minimum allowable times for the fall, there is atleast a 20-25% margin of error. As a result, the CTer arguement that the buildings could not have fallen as fast as they did without explosives helping, is just....silly.

TAM:)

[Corsair 115]

Has anyone actually watched the tower collapses?Many times, and lots of different camera angles. The collapses look just like what I would expect a large scale uncontrolled collapse of some very large structures to look like. I see nothing odd about them at all.

Perhaps you ought to explain what you think the collapses should have looked like if they were "natural" events and not related to some nefarious government action.

[PhantomWolf]

Probably thinks they should have toppled over like a tree. Seems to be the latest CT idea.

[T.A.M.]

Is that you Judy???

TAM;)

[R.Mackey]

And the flaming steel flying out in all directions was rather spectacular.

I doubt that burning debris or dust could tag along at that speed.

Come on now.

Has anyone actually watched the tower collapses?

How can you miss that kind of a detail?

The incredible dissolving spire is another issue, but most people on the government's side of the debate like to look at it as just a lot of dust.

That may be, but why does that dust behave differently from the dust that travelled horizontally for hundreds of feet?

Easy answers.

First of all, no steel was burning. It's quite difficult to get steel to burn in ordinary atmosphere, at least at temperatures we're used to. Burning steel would be... bright. It's not.

Second, the key word in the "dissolving" and "dust tagging along" is entrainment. We've all seen the collapses literally hundreds of times, thanks to the Idiot Movement shoving them in our faces every chance they get. What's going on is that the pieces of falling debris are in fact so enormous that they create a substantial wake in the air behind them. This wake drags along, or "entrains," dust, smoke, and other particulate debris. Because these are such large structures we're talking about, it doesn't take much density for the cloud behind to appear solid.

The dust doesn't behave differently at all. Nor were samples of the dust found to be remarkable in any chemical sense. That pretty much eliminates any alternate theory about its behavior.

[EugeneAxeman]

Easy answers.

First of all, no steel was burning. It's quite difficult to get steel to burn in ordinary atmosphere, at least at temperatures we're used to. Burning steel would be... bright. It's not.

And if one was close enough to the steel to be able to look into it, one might see evidence of a thermal reaction taking place. Unfortunately, if you have ever seen a metal fire, what you first notice is that it produces a lot of very thick smoke, which obscures most, if not all of the flame produced. Not seeing the flame is not evidence that it is not burning.

I have a cousin who is a captain of a local fire department. He occassionally deals with metal fires in some factory environments. Sometimes the fire is taking place in a relatively small section of the metal, but the smoke generation is a big clue.

I guess one can discount that sort of thing to the presence of dust, but then you would need to account for the huge volume of dust.

Did Silverstein try to save a few bucks by firing the cleaning service?

Second, the key word in the "dissolving" and "dust tagging along" is entrainment. We've all seen the collapses literally hundreds of times, thanks to the Idiot Movement shoving them in our faces every chance they get. What's going on is that the pieces of falling debris are in fact so enormous that they create a substantial wake in the air behind them. This wake drags along, or "entrains," dust, smoke, and other particulate debris. Because these are such large structures we're talking about, it doesn't take much density for the cloud behind to appear solid.

So we have huge pieces of steel flying around at speeds over 100 feet per second, and somehow this was caused by a building crumbling apart?

In all of the footage I've seen, the building falls apart - ejecting huge volumes of material outward and in a very smooth fashion. Each tower collapsed at very near the same rate, even though the south tower was being acted upon by three times the mass. The physics just does not work out when you plug in values for the variables.

Now if you had both buildings rigged with the same type of demolition material, on the same timed sequence, then you could get different masses to fall at the same rate. But we do not wish to make that leap in assumption. So we just accept the NIST report, and assume that they modelled the buildings accurately.

After all, they have absolutely no motive to manipulate the data. They're not even remotely connected to the Bush Administration, so they must have been an impartial investigative body. Just like the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Come on now, can't anyone even begin to quantify the energy created by each falling section of the towers?

The dust doesn't behave differently at all. Nor were samples of the dust found to be remarkable in any chemical sense. That pretty much eliminates any alternate theory about its behavior.

That was a nice bit of hand waving in order to support your opinion.

So you are claiming some kind of low-pressure vortex formed behing the flying pieces of steel, thereby "towing" clouds of dust behind them as they flew?

We can drop the spire issue - about 700 feet by my account - although the fact that it seemed to fall down a 700 foot hole in the ground seems to have escaped your watchful eye.

Anyway, I still see validity in the hypothesis of demolition material being the cause of the collapses. There was just a little too much similarity considering the significant differences involved.

[twinstead]

It doesn't do any good for those who are unqualified to declare that the way the buildings fell is evidence of CD, as if that's all they need to make up their minds.

What is needed is some kind of corroborating evidence of CD. The problem is that there is NO compelling physical evidence of CD.

1. The vast majority of professionals find no major issue with the official story.
2. There is NO compelling evidence of CD.

In order for me personally to start asking questions, one of the above needs to swing in the opposite direction.

[scissorhands]

I have a cousin who is a captain of a local fire department. He occassionally deals with metal fires in some factory environments. Sometimes the fire is taking place in a relatively small section of the metal, but the smoke generation is a big clue.

Your cousin has dealt with with burning steel fires?
Large sections of structural steel?

[Furcifer]

In all of the footage I've seen, the building falls apart - ejecting huge volumes of material outward and in a very smooth fashion. Each tower collapsed at very near the same rate, even though the south tower was being acted upon by three times the mass. The physics just does not work out when you plug in values for the variables.


I hate when people say that. "The physics doesn't work out." It does work out if you account for the resistance the lower floors presented as the upper masses came crashing down. The effect of this resistance in my opinion would be a terminal velocity and a terminal mass. The terminal velocity would be very near free fall, as we are talking such large masses. The "terminal mass" would be the amount of mass that remained inside the foot print, contributing to the kinetic energy crushing the lower part of the building. Any mass in excess of the "terminal mass" would be ejected, violently, outward radially from the core of the building. "Terminal mass" would also be attained rather quickly in the collapse sequence. IMO.

[scissorhands]

Maybe he could explain how the physics doesnt work out, I presume hes done some calculations.:confused:

[Dog Town]

The physics just does not work out when you plug in values for the variables.


Would love to see, the values you assigned, and to what variables. That could be, a huge part, of your problem.

DT

[Cl1mh4224rd]

In all of the footage I've seen, the building falls apart - ejecting huge volumes of material outward and in a very smooth fashion.

What, exactly, is your definition of "smooth"?

[Mr.D]

Would love to see, the values you assigned, and to what variables. That could be, a huge part, of your problem.

Forget that, just show me the set of equations used and the justification for them.

[R.Mackey]

And if one was close enough to the steel to be able to look into it, one might see evidence of a thermal reaction taking place. Unfortunately, if you have ever seen a metal fire, what you first notice is that it produces a lot of very thick smoke, which obscures most, if not all of the flame produced. Not seeing the flame is not evidence that it is not burning.

Are you seriously proposing that the structural steel was oxidizing internally?

I know all about metal fires. Solid rocket motors routinely use metal-based compounds for fuel. It'd take more than the smoke we saw to obscure THAT kind of fire.

So we have huge pieces of steel flying around at speeds over 100 feet per second, and somehow this was caused by a building crumbling apart?
No, by gravity.

In all of the footage I've seen, the building falls apart - ejecting huge volumes of material outward and in a very smooth fashion. Each tower collapsed at very near the same rate, even though the south tower was being acted upon by three times the mass. The physics just does not work out when you plug in values for the variables.

Yes it does. Galileo proved quite conclusively that two objects with a difference of three in mass experience the same acceleration due to gravity. This is not even junior high-school physics.

Come on now, can't anyone even begin to quantify the energy created by each falling section of the towers?
Trivially. All you need is m g h.

That was a nice bit of hand waving in order to support your opinion.

So you are claiming some kind of low-pressure vortex formed behing the flying pieces of steel, thereby "towing" clouds of dust behind them as they flew?

That's right, except the speeds are low enough that static pressure can be assumed to be more or less constant. It's called "bluff body flow," and it's no mystery.

We can drop the spire issue - about 700 feet by my account - although the fact that it seemed to fall down a 700 foot hole in the ground seems to have escaped your watchful eye.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I trust that you understand the spire wouldn't retain its shape after falling?

Anyway, I still see validity in the hypothesis of demolition material being the cause of the collapses. There was just a little too much similarity considering the significant differences involved.
Respectfully, you only see that because you don't have a clue what you're talking about. The similarity in the collapses was due to the structures being nearly identical, the failure modes being similar, and the dominant energy source being gravitational rather than connected directly to the impacts. If you look closely there are some differences between WTC 1 and 2, but at the level you're considering, they are expected to be materially the same.

[Dave Rogers]

Each tower collapsed at very near the same rate, even though the south tower was being acted upon by three times the mass.

Galileo violation. That's got to be a Stundie.

Dave

[MaryMacElveen]

Dear Forum members,

Today as I was posting my Memorial Day column on OpEdNews.com, I came across a writer's column titled, 'Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?' and I was blistered beyond belief that he can assume that former Vice President Al Gore is a 'Truther'. In reading that column he cherry picks certain statements by Gore and interjects what he feels that Gore meant by it. Gore has never bought into these damn conspiracy theories from anything I have ever read written by him or of him. I am a great admirer of Al Gore and that writer had some nerve saying he was one that believed in these cacamamy conspiracy theories. Oh and by the way, Mr. Gore is just too damn intelligent to believe in their smoke and mirrors.

Best,
Mary!

[ref]

Dear Forum members,

Today as I was posting my Memorial Day column on OpEdNews.com, I came across a writer's column titled, 'Al Gore Doesn't Accept the 9/11 Cover Up, So Why Do You?' and I was blistered beyond belief that he can assume that former Vice President Al Gore is a 'Truther'. In reading that column he cherry picks certain statements by Gore and interjects what he feels that Gore meant by it. Gore has never bought into these damn conspiracy theories from anything I have ever read written by him or of him. I am a great admirer of Al Gore and that writer had some nerve saying he was one that believed in these cacamamy conspiracy theories. Oh and by the way, Mr. Gore is just too damn intelligent to believe in their smoke and mirrors.

Best,
Mary!

Welcome to the quote-mining and deceiving world of the truthers, Mary.

[jhunter1163]

Welcome to the forums, Mary.

Unfortunately, Ref is right; the so-called Truth movement has the habit of taking statements out of context to support their flimsy "theories". I may not agree with Mr. Gore politically, but that doesn't mean he's not smart. I doubt he's even aware of the Truthers; and if he is, like most people with a modicum of intelligence, he probably thinks they're loony.

Again, welcome to the forums. I think you'll like it here.

[Brainster]

Welcome to the forums, Mary.

Unfortunately, Ref is right; the so-called Truth movement has the habit of taking statements out of context to support their flimsy "theories". I may not agree with Mr. Gore politically, but that doesn't mean he's not smart. I doubt he's even aware of the Truthers; and if he is, like most people with a modicum of intelligence, he probably thinks they're loony.

I don't think many politicians on the liberal side of the aisle can be unaware of the 9-11 Deniers; indeed, I am beginning to think that even the conservatives have got to be aware of this kookiness. I think they all approach it warily because they know the "Truthers" know the issue better than they do. I would love to see somebody say "You're a tinfoil-hatter!" when confronted by the WTC-7 nonsense, but so far Barack Obama's been the only one to even voice some disagreement with these nutters when approached.

[jhunter1163]

Or maybe they think any acknowledgement of the Truthers will be twisted into a statement of belief, like they did with Gore. I could see that.

[T.A.M.]

Mary;

I know you cannot post links yet, but perhaps you could tell us the name of the site where you saw this article. Was it Opednews? Thanks.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Google is your friend.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dor_070526_al_gore_doesn_t_acce.htm
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x980179)

[Pardalis]

From Gravy's link, the original Gore statement was from here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2086737,00.html):

Most Americans have tended to give the Bush-Cheney administration the benefit of the doubt when it comes to its failure to take action in advance of 9/11 to guard against an attack. Hindsight casts a harsh light on mistakes that should have been visible at the time they were made. But now, years later, with the benefit of investigations that have been made public, it is no longer clear that the administration deserves this act of political grace from the American people. It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored - not to point the finger of blame, but to better determine how our country can avoid such mistakes in the future. When leaders are not held accountable for serious mistakes, they and their successors are more likely to repeat those mistakes.So Gore is a LIHOI, not a Twoofer.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Gore was on The Daily Show last week promoting his book, "The Assault on Reason". During the interview he commented on how the administration ended up pulling troops out of Afghanistan, where the real people behind 9/11 were (ObL, etc.), to go after Saddam...

There was absolutely no indication that he believed in the truther insanity at all.

[T.A.M.]

Google is your friend.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dor_070526_al_gore_doesn_t_acce.htm
(http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x980179)

Don't make me break out the big rubber hammer SMART ASS!!!

lol

TAM:)

[PhantomWolf]

Each tower collapsed at very near the same rate, even though the south tower was being acted upon by three times the mass.

You do understand that all objects fall at the same speed regardless of mass, don't you? You also realise that if a floors dynamic loading is passed it will fail in about the same amount of time regardless of if that loading is 10 times what it can handle, or 30 times? You also realise that that WTC 1 fell in 18-19 secs while WTC 2 was only 16-17 so up to 3 seconds (or 20%) slower.

[Corsair 115]

What, exactly, is your definition of "smooth"?I was wondering the same thing. The way the debris fell looked rather chaotic to me.

[Gravy]

You do understand that all objects fall at the same speed regardless of mass, don't you?:eye-poppi

[Darth Rotor]

You do understand that all objects fall at the same speed regardless of mass, don't you? You also realise that if a floors dynamic loading is passed it will fail in about the same amount of time regardless of if that loading is 10 times what it can handle, or 30 times? You also realise that that WTC 1 fell in 18-19 secs while WTC 2 was only 16-17 so up to 3 seconds (or 20%) slower.

Wait a minute. Wouldn't the point of failure (lower=closer to the ground) on WTC 2 mean that it takes less time for stuff to fall from a slightly lower starting point?

DR

[gumboot]

Wait a minute. Wouldn't the point of failure (lower=closer to the ground) on WTC 2 mean that it takes less time for stuff to fall from a slightly lower starting point?

DR


The top of WTC2 still had to reach the ground too. :)

-Gumboot

[negativ]

From Gravy's link, the original Gore statement was from here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2086737,00.html):

So Gore is a LIHOI, not a Twoofer.

Hmm. I wonder if Al's equally willing to point the Condescending Death-Ray of Not Necessarily Blame at the 8 years of the Clinton administration, and the many years before that when Jihadist ideology was taking root.

I'm no fan of the Bush administration, but if Gore really wants to do away with the "political grace of the American people" and start asking What Didn't You Know And When Didn't You Know It-type questions, a good couple of phone calls to start off with would be one to Madeline Albright and another to Bill Clinton.

[PhantomWolf]

Wait a minute. Wouldn't the point of failure (lower=closer to the ground) on WTC 2 mean that it takes less time for stuff to fall from a slightly lower starting point?

DR

It did. The first panels hit about 1 second faster for WTC 2, 9 seconds as opposed to 10, and the collapse was about 2-3 seconds faster than for WTC 1.

My point here was that if you take two objects of different mass, and drop them silmutaneously (even from different heights) that they will travel at exactly the same speed as each other as long as they both continue to fall (ignoring air resistance for the moment.) That's Newtonian Gravitational Physics 101.

[rwguinn]

It did. The first panels hit about 1 second faster for WTC 2, 9 seconds as opposed to 10, and the collapse was about 2-3 seconds faster than for WTC 1.

My point here was that if you take two objects of different mass, and drop them silmutaneously (even from different heights) that they will travel at exactly the same speed as each other as long as they both continue to fall (ignoring air resistance for the moment.) That's Newtonian Gravitational Physics 101.

Let's be a little more precise and state that at any given time after release, they will both have the same velocity (The instantaneous velocity of each will be the same) as long as they are falling , neglecting air resistance

[MaryMacElveen]

That Al Gore article appeared on the OpEdNews.com web site in which I am a contributing writer, T.A.M. In a private email, I will send you the link.

Best,
Mary!

[T.A.M.]

Thanks Mary...I got it.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I think Gore is not LIHOP, but more LIHOI. He is looking for who may have "dropped the ball" rather than looking for who "let the ball pass by to throw the game".

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

The article's author seems a little biased. Here is another by the same author.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dor_070227_contact_the_bbc_righ.htm

TAM:)

[Calcas]

I think Gore is not LIHOP, but more LIHOI. He is looking for who may have "dropped the ball" rather than looking for who "let the ball pass by to throw the game".

TAM:)

Well, "Who dropped the ball?" is a reasonable question for 9/11. After all, there WERE signs and warnings were given in the days prior. It doesn't necessarily mean anyone is culpable, just that there were indications that something big was afoot.

In fact, the film "United 93" was the first time I had seen the depth of some of those warnings in the days leading up to that day.

[T.A.M.]

absolutely.

with respect to the arguement of incompetence, one has to prove that the individuals KNEW something was a foot, but didnt know what to do about it, or should have known what to do, but didnt through inability or lack of training...even then the actual proof of INCOMPETENCE is a tricky one...even more tricky would be proving NEGLIGENCE.

TAM:)

Here is the link to the original Opednews article on Gore...

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_john_dor_070526_al_gore_doesn_t_acce.htm

[CptColumbo]

Not to dredge this topic up, but I wanted to point out that the ratings for "The View" have gone up since Rosie left.

http://imdb.com/news/sb/2007-06-11/