Thread: Loose Change
View Single Post
Old 7th April 2006, 02:36 PM   #1018
chipmunk stew
The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy
 
chipmunk stew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,464
Excellent post by Gravy over at Loose Change:
Quote:
Alek, for whatever reason, you and Zor completely missed my point about the Loiseaux letter. CDers, including Zor, and now Roxdog, have been using the Loiseaux name to support their claims. They like to mention that Controlled Demolition, Inc. is the best in the business. From what I read, that seems correct.
But the Loiseaux family and CDI categorically state that the controlled demolition conspiracy theory is "ludicrous," and whether or not the quote that was attributed to them is real, they categorically state that no one at CDi ever said anything like it. The best in the business say your theory is hogwash.
Should I not take that seriously? Should I, like Zor and Roxdog, now imply that CDI may be CONSPIRATORS? Here's what Zor said:
Quote:
The odd thing with CD though is the fact that they cleaned up the OKC bombing site.I find the fact that they cleaned up BOTH sites highly dubious.
WHAT? IN HIS PREVIOUS POST HE SAID THEY WERE THE BEST! HOW LOUD WOULD CDers BE SCREAMING IF THE BEST IN THE BUSINESS WAS NOT ASKED TO DO THIS WORK? Who would you prefer? Third best? How about the investigators? We can't have anyone who's investigated other major incidents: that would be highly dubious. This is wild, wild stuff.
Once you start down this road, there's potentially no end to it. There's a word for that way of thinking: paranoia.
The second Loiseaux reference in the last few posts comes from Roxdog. He linked to a Google search results page that implies that Mark Loiseaux said he saw molten steel in the basements at the WTC. Roxdog made a snide comment that I ask "Bobby Boy" (Sultanist) to forward the link to Mark Loiseaux. Once again, Roxdog proves to be ill-informed.
Here's what Mark Loiseaux actually said
Quote:
I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. –Mark Loiseaux
Now, Roxdog was responding to my comment to Zor that steel didn't have to melt in order for a damaged building to collapse: it had to weaken and expand, which steel does at a much lower temperature. Of course I wasn't talking about the basements, but about where the collapses began. Roxdog tried to change the subject and take it to the basement, literally.
Well, let's go there for a second. Yes, there was molten metal in the basements. Peter Tully, one of the other cleanup contractors,said "molten steel" Others said "molten metal." As far as I know, that metal was never tested. Does anyone know different? One thing I do know, from firsthand experience, is that there was lots of molten aluminum at the site. I've held great cooled blobs of it in my hand. The entire facades of 1 & 2 were aluminum, not to mention the aircraft and interior studwork. I don't know how much aluminum was in #7. Aluminum melts at about half the temperature that steel does. Satellite data indicate hotspots near the surface at around 700c – hot enough to melt aluminum. Could it have been molten aluminum in the basement, mixed with carbonized material? That seems perfectly possible to me. It's important to keep in mind that when we see "red hot" steel, that's not "molten," it's at about 650-800 c, and when it glows orange at around 980c. At around 1500-1600c most steel becomes molten (turns liquid) and appears white.
Originally Posted by Alek
I think you're like most people from JREF. You're interested in the "truth" as long as it proves your case, strokes your ego, and confirms your worldview. The same goes for Sultanist.
Evidence, please? This is the second time I've asked you for specifics.
I hate to break it to you Alek, but I don't give a fig what you think about me. It doesn't make me feel good that you're frustrated, but I'm here to discuss 9/11, not to hold your hand. I think it's silly to call people names, but if it floats your boat I can't stop you. But you're not going to go far with your claims if they can't stand up to criticism. And ad hominem attacks do not an argument make. I shouldn't have to remind you that you lost your cool at JREF and deliberately violated the rules twice and said "go ahead, ban me." If you didn't like how some people were dealing with you there, then be a man and ask them to stop so that you can continue the discussion in a civil manner.
If I haven't made it clear by now, when we're talking about 9/11, passionate opinions don't impress me. Evidence does. Facts do. Crirical thinking does. Again, for the umpteenth time: beliefs parading as facts don't cut it with me. And why you presume to know anything about my "worldview" is beyond me. You say I'm "interested in the truth as far as it proves my case." If that's true, then why am I here on this forum? I could be over at JREF where it's all cozy, right? Likewise, do you think I enjoyed my hours with the absurd Steven E. Jones? I did not. But a CDer passionately said that 15 minutes of Jones's video would change our minds, so I took that seriouslyAlek, in coming here I went out of my way to get opinions that do not agree with my beliefs. Here are the first two sentences of this thread:
Originally Posted by Gravy
Does anyone know of a good resource that attempts to explain in detail how CD at the WTC might have been carried out? CD isn't a theory I ascribe to, but I'd like to get more info. I've been searching the web but haven't found much that's relevant.
Quote:
(I should have written "subscribe," not "ascribe.")
I wasn't asking anyone to bust their brains, just to point me in the right direction. I assumed that someone would be able to do that. When the posts started to stray off topic I kept listing my questions so people knew exactly what I was looking for.
How was the CD work accomplished?
How did it go – and remain – unseen?
How did it survive?
It's over 800 views and 95 posts later, and no one has provided a theory or a link to a resource that might lead to a plausible explanation. Does that concern anyone here?
Imagine that you're prosecuting the biggest murder case in American history. You KNOW that the crime was committed by members of a certain group. You know it so bad it hurts. You've known it for 4 1/2 years.
There are just a few tiny details you don't know:
– Who anyone is who was involved in any way
– How the plan might have been carried out
– How the vast number of people involved remained unseen and not a word leaked out
– How no trace of equipment or explosives was ever found
– How the work could have survived direct impact from 500 mph airliners and subsequent fire that was hot enough to melt aluminum
– What the motive was
– Why the perps would have added a complicated airline hijack-crash scenario to a perfectly good building demolition.
– Why the buildings weren't blown while fully occupied
– What the explosives, wiring, and/or radio detonators looked like
– How every investigator, public and private, can be in on the coverup
– Why every expert report says you're wrong
– Why the world's leading controlled demolitons experts call your theory "ludicrous"
– Why your leading scientific expert is your worst enemy ("Entropy is, 'Things topple over'.")
– Why of all people, Charlie Sheen had to publicly champion your cause
– On what day Oliver Stone's movie will be released, and if Charlie Sheen or Kevin Costner will play you
I ask you, Mr. prosecutor, have you made your case to the jury?
p.s. Thank you to whomever removed those flapjack photos. Real classy, kids. Please keep in mind that real people died on 9/11, and real people struggle with that loss every day. It's not a video game.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...1765&p=3130547
__________________

chipmunk stew is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top