IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags part 2 , loose change , 911 conspiracy theory

Closed Thread
Old 27th May 2006, 02:28 PM   #481
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Quote:
I’m sorry I’m a blithering moron, (Many times more stupid than a mutton-head. I have the math, if anyone is interested.)

BM = MH * (PB + Mc)

Where BM = blithering moron
MH = mutton head
PB = poop for brains
Mc is the masturbation coefficient.
Sorry, this was a joke. Just some self deprecating humor.

Anyhow, I believe the math (for the extra energy to pulverize the concrete) is in my post
Mutton-Head 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
Old 27th May 2006, 02:30 PM   #482
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Sorry, this was a joke. Just some self deprecating humor.

Anyhow, I believe the math (for the extra energy to pulverize the concrete) is in my post
Sorry if I didn't get your humour.

Could you show us your own math?

ETA: and why would the alledged excess energy be attributed to explosives?

Last edited by Pardalis; 27th May 2006 at 02:34 PM.
Pardalis 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
Old 27th May 2006, 02:55 PM   #483
Landru
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5
LC II taken down?

First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Landru 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:02 PM   #484
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Welcome Landru!

Wow, this is major. The first of many lawsuits to come...
Pardalis 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:06 PM   #485
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
Quote:
Show your math
Well, see, I thought that the math was shown in my last large post. Also, I’ve given similar math before. But I will try to write it in another form

As Macky said

1. The potential energy (gravity) of the standing structure is the only officially accepted source of destructive energy for the bulk of materials in WTC 1 and 2, since each aircraft itself affected a relatively small number of floors.
2. The amount of energy appears insufficient to comprehensively pulverize the materials.
3. Therefore, a new and secret source of energy must have been present.
4. It is suggested that this additional energy was in the form of high explosives.

Now, my previous equation, (simplified)

E = P + A + Bb + Ba

Where:
E = Gravitational energy of tower
P = The energy required to pulverize the concrete, (Not to mention, everything else.)
A = The amount that the top floors accelerated to the ground. (True, this was not “free-fall” speed, but in my opinion, close. The actual energy used in acceleration to be determined later. As of now, I believe that the equation is way out of balance, even if A = 0)
Bb = The energy needed to break apart and/or bend all of the structural steel. (Also yet to be determined.)
Ba = The energy needed to accelerate steel beams outward in a circle around the tower. (Also, yet to be determined.)

Now, take Mr. Hoffman’s paper, plug in known numbers, we get:

111,000 KWH = 135,000 KWH + A + Bb + Ba

I think you will all agree, A and Ba and Bb cannot be negative numbers. Something else was supplying extra energy. My estimate, (This is just a gut estimate, is that it had to be at least twice the 111,000 KWH.)

Now, take the knowledge that something was supplying extra energy, and add that to the fact that firemen say it appeared to be a controlled demotion, and add that to the fact that the only time we have ever seen a building collapse symmetrically is with controlled demolition, (i.e., explosives placed inside a building) and it would seem to point to explosives. It does not prove explosives, it points to it. Explosives fit all of the observed points:
1. Too much energy in collapse
2. Appearance by many of controlled demolition
3. Description by many of appearance of explosives, (i.e. flashes, squibs, sequential…)

But, of course, I am not an explosives expert. Neither is Steven Jones. When he talks about explosives and cutter charges and thermite, he does say,

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

Notice please Huntsman, that he does not claim to be an expert, only that all of the observed conditions point to some kind of charge. He merely points to charges he is aware of. Is it possible there are other high-tech types of charges that you’re not aware of?

Does anybody else have any better idea as to where the extra energy came from?

And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?
Mutton-Head 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:10 PM   #486
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,069
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Nice debut Landru.

Please mods can I do one tiny little hotlink...?

http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif

Last edited by Darat; 27th May 2006 at 03:13 PM. Reason: Breach of Rule 4
Shrinker 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:15 PM   #487
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,069
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post

And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?
Well, you're somewhat overshadowed by landru's revelation. But two things are missing I think. The estimate of the towers' PE is said to be imprecise. Dare to put a figure on the imprecision? 20% is enough to make the problem mostly go away.

Also does this depend on all the concrete turning to 60 micron dust? Is that and average, a guess or what? Presumably particles get larger closer to ground zero.
Shrinker 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:16 PM   #488
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
 
Shrinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,069
Originally Posted by Shrinker View Post
Nice debut Landru.

Please mods can I do one tiny little hotlink...?

http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif
That's a no then. Boooo!
Shrinker 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:30 PM   #489
Landru
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Welcome Landru!

Wow, this is major. The first of many lawsuits to come...
Thanks, everyone. As they say in Vegas, it's great to be here.

Since I work for a major Canadian news outlet, I've alerted them to this story. I did a quick Google News search and turned up nothing. Considering how widespread LC has become, its imminent departure from the online world is definitely newsworthy.

CTs, of course, are currently weaving this into the lastest thread of the conspiracy.
Landru 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:31 PM   #490
Stellafane
Village Idiot.
 
Stellafane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,706
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Hi Landru. Welcome to this forum.

Now you'll have to excuse me for a moment...


A HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!

ETA: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!

Oops, still not done:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! !!!!

Last edited by Stellafane; 27th May 2006 at 03:33 PM.
Stellafane 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:32 PM   #491
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?
What is that supposed to mean?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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
Old 27th May 2006, 03:45 PM   #492
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Back up a minute. Claim from post 470 said FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules of energy in the building.
-----------------------

4x10^11 joules = 400000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 400000000000 J / 1055 J = 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu / 3413 Btu = 111089.04759193660148053928178154 kWh


Okay, fun equations aside now (what can I say, I like double-checking math)

Quote:
...Robert Fowler, senior engineer at the structural engineering firm of McNamara and Salvia...
"Though the WTC towers stood over 1,360 feet above the street level, the structures' bases were actually set 70 feet into the ground, and one had a 100-foot-tall antenna atop it, so with 205-foot widths, they had a lot of [exterior] area facing the wind," the engineer stated. He calculated that the approximate maximum wind shear force that a single face needed to withstand to be somewhere around 11,000,000 pounds. The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said.
...
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."
from
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/


What this would imply is
10^12 joules = 1000000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 1000000000000 J / 1055 J = 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu / 3413 Btu =
277722.61897984150370134820445384 kWh which is greater than Jim Hoffman's estimated 135,000 kWh needed to pulverize the concrete.

Okay, so why the big difference from the FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules and Kausel's 10^12 J?
My guess, the FEMA estimate deals with the potential energy stored during construction of the towers and does not necessarily include all the stuff inside the towers. Whereas, Kausel is using Fowler's estimate of 500,000 tons of gravity load produced by the towers.

ETA: Site I used for the conversion formulas http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
ETA^2: Formatting
Arkan_Wolfshade 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:05 PM   #493
Landru
New Blood
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091

Some nuggets...

"Well apparently Paramount are the ones behind this. Also I believe paramount is releasing the upcoming Oliver Stone film."

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

"It's really sad and unfortunate that they are doing this.
I guess they became bitter after seeing the success of LC."

"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...
If you ask me, its got nothing to do with copyright...the man wants it off the air but doesnt want to toss the red flag of guilt too high, so this is a good alternative..."

And their appreciation of copyright law is just about as solid as their handle on structural engineering, political organization and international history.

Who needs SNL when you've got this?

Last edited by Darat; 27th May 2006 at 04:06 PM. Reason: Edited to activate link
Landru 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:09 PM   #494
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Nice! Now wait for the first complaint about Dylan's first amendment rights violated, or how he's being censored--5,4,3....

Remember, everything that happens is either evidence of the conspiracy or evidence of the coverup.
Brainster 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:16 PM   #495
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
A Big AHA! I think

Quote:
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)
But,
How much of that 500,000 tons was in the bases, below ground, below the final point of impact?

In order for the building to with-stand wind, didn’t a big part of that 500,000 tons have to be below ground? If I want a pole to withstand the wind, I bury it in the ground. If I wanted a building to withstand wind, or a plane impact, I would put allot of its mass at the bottom, or below ground. So, a good amount of that energy was never released.

Also remember, the building more massive at the bottom. The steel core pieces were more massive in the foundation, and at the base. You can’t say that 500,000 tons was accelerated from 1,350 meters. That’s the problem with that statement

Quote:
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).
Thanks Wolfshade, you just made me realize the problem with that 500,000.

Most of that mass was not 1,350 meters high! Some was 1,000 meters high. Some was 500 meters high. Some was already at ground level.

278 MWH assumes that you took a 500,000 tom weight, and dropped it from 1,350 meters!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a major erroneous assumption!
Mutton-Head 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:19 PM   #496
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091

Some nuggets...

"Well apparently Paramount are the ones behind this. Also I believe paramount is releasing the upcoming Oliver Stone film."

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

"It's really sad and unfortunate that they are doing this.
I guess they became bitter after seeing the success of LC."

"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...
If you ask me, its got nothing to do with copyright...the man wants it off the air but doesnt want to toss the red flag of guilt too high, so this is a good alternative..."

And their appreciation of copyright law is just about as solid as their handle on structural engineering, political organization and international history.

Who needs SNL when you've got this?
These guys are funny! They even posted a picture of the laywer, calling her names. I find her quite cute actually.
Pardalis 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:26 PM   #497
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

http://www.s15.invisionfree.com/Loos...showtopic=5091...
As I opined somewhere earlier in these threads, someone ought to find the school systems that handed diplomas to such "scholars" and bring them up on charges for being accessories to dumb.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:41 PM   #498
XXX
Thinker
 
XXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
Just as I thought.. they're going nuts over at the LC Forum about the legal action:

Some nuggets...

"This has nothing to do with copyright - its all about cover-up. The Naudets was probably involved in the whole scheme from the very beginning...they were really lucky with those shots on 9/11 - don´t you think?"

"Totally mindblowing point Warmonger..."Look a jet in the sky---film it, quick"---ya right....i wonder if they have the power to pull it off the web totally...

Who needs SNL when you've got this?
Speaking of that, have any of you ever read this paranoid ranting about the Naudets film?

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/naudet/raphael.htm

This guy has way too much time on his hands. Funny thing is, in another part of this site he talks about how the footage of the 1st plane they shot is what will bring down Bush since he didn't intend for it to be captured, but it was. But then later comes this piece of work.
XXX 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
Old 27th May 2006, 04:47 PM   #499
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
But,
How much of that 500,000 tons was in the bases, below ground, below the final point of impact?

In order for the building to with-stand wind, didn’t a big part of that 500,000 tons have to be below ground? If I want a pole to withstand the wind, I bury it in the ground. If I wanted a building to withstand wind, or a plane impact, I would put allot of its mass at the bottom, or below ground. So, a good amount of that energy was never released.

Also remember, the building more massive at the bottom. The steel core pieces were more massive in the foundation, and at the base. You can’t say that 500,000 tons was accelerated from 1,350 meters. That’s the problem with that statement



Thanks Wolfshade, you just made me realize the problem with that 500,000.

Most of that mass was not 1,350 meters high! Some was 1,000 meters high. Some was 500 meters high. Some was already at ground level.

278 MWH assumes that you took a 500,000 tom weight, and dropped it from 1,350 meters!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is a major erroneous assumption!

If he had done 500,000 tons from 1350 ft he would have gotten the following:
1.8304270462633455 x 10^12 J, not 10^12 J, per http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

Which would result in:
1830427046263.3455 J / 1055 J = 1735001939.5861094786729857819905 Btu
1735001939.5861094786729857819905 Btu / 3413 Btu = 508350.99313979181912481271080883 kWh which is 83% greater than the figure he provided. So, I think your assumption as to his work is in error.

One would hope an MIT professor on a panel investigating this would have his ducks in a row and quacking in key. It is far more likely he simplified what he was doing in his explanation to the article's author.
Arkan_Wolfshade 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:00 PM   #500
XXX
Thinker
 
XXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 151
Some of my favorite nuggets from that thread...

"Makes me mad. This is about the Truth not a huge payout."

"Hopefully someone with money will bail them out and buy the rights then release it into theatres to recover the cash."

Or...

"Find out who this firm represents...find out its largest clients and you will probably be led to the same people who are trying to cover up 9/11. Lisa is a front so you might say..."that mean bitch" or worse."

Notice in that one he has both made the accusation AND come to the conclusion by the end of the 2 sentances...before doing the "finding out" that he says he's going to do.

They seem to have no concept of copyright laws. The Naudets own that footage, they shot it they own it. They can let some people use it, and others not, just like any other copyrighted work. And don't ever SELL anything that has copyrighted footage on it, that's a big no-no, and that's why they are getting sued.

On that subject, I wounder how it is that another film "Everybody' gotta learn sometime" is able to get away with having a large piece of "Star Wars Episode 3" in it without lawsuit happy Lucas demanding that they remove it or sueing them, especially since they DID charge to attend the premeire of the film. I sent the Lucasfilm publicity department an email bringing this to their attention a few days back, but have not recieved a response.
XXX 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:02 PM   #501
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
OK Wolfshade, I understand that. However, it seems that the exact figure of how much energy was released depends upon how the mass was distributed inside the building. It was more massive at the bottom, (Steel thicker, etc.) and less at the top. To my thinking, it needs to be a dynamic model. For instance, what would the equation be for the first three seconds of collapse? How much energy was released then? Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos. Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized. The model of “this amount of energy released by 500,000 tons,” to me, does not explain how the tower completely destroyed itself. Do you get my meaning? I would expect to see an uneven amount of destruction, with certain levels of the tower not pulverized. The damage is to homogenous for me.
Mutton-Head 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:07 PM   #502
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head
...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?
Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:25 PM   #503
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
...And to me, most importantly, do any of you care?

Quote:
Again, I'm asking you to clarify what you mean by this.
I guess what I mean by that is this:

I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized. To me, these are very important points. (The rest of you seem to not agree.) You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously. We have seen:
1. High-rise tower fires
2. planes hit skyscrapers (Empire State building)
3. Buildings collapse symmetrically
(Yes, I know, the specifics of these events have different details.)

But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to? I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down. Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?

So, back to “Does anybody care?”

To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within. How exactly? I don’t know. Using known explosives is my best guess. Maybe somebody has a better guess.

This is something I am currently researching. I’ve gotten allot of info off of the internet, but that’s because it’s my only real source as of now.

If anybody else wants to discuss the physical properties of how the buildings came down, for the purpose of exploring whether or not it was a controlled demolition, jump up and say “me.”
Mutton-Head 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:29 PM   #504
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,077
Hi Mutton-Head.

Not being good with numbers, I tend to look more at words. Jim Hoffman's calculations are based on the energy required to do this:

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
[Jim Hoffman quote] It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder.
I have never seen any such documentation. Have you?

Then, he says this:
Quote:
Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”
Okay, if true. (I'll need to see this "diverse evidence" he refers to). But how much of the mass of the building is accounted for by the dust? Again, I'm not aware of any studies done at the time that attempt to answer this. Are you?

It's a huge question. If he's starting with the wrong premise, Hoffman's calculations may be off by orders of magnitude.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:35 PM   #505
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,077
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
...I do not believe that the NIST report is an accurate assessment of how the towers collapsed. In particular, they do not at all address the topics of how the towers managed to collapse symmetrically, and how all of the contents were pulverized.
You provided photos of buildings that toppled from their bases due to the ground moving in earthquakes. You need to provide evidence of why the WTC buildings should have fallen like that.

Sorry, but I doubt if anyone here gives a fig what your beliefs about the WTC are.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy 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
Old 27th May 2006, 05:57 PM   #506
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 270
I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.

Quote:
You need to provide evidence of why the WTC buildings should have fallen like that.
No, I’m saying that I believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did.
My basis for this is the experience of demolition experts. As I said

Quote:
But let me ask the demolition experts amongst you. Wouldn’t you agree that the way WTC1 and WTC2 towers fell, would be considered a text-book example of how to bring down a high-rise, if you needed to? I mean if it was a condemned building, and needed to be demolished. It did come straight down. Demolition firms get paid allot of money to pull that off. According to the NIST, all that you need to do to implode a building is:
1. Cut away several steel supports in a few top floors (Simulating the plane hit)
2. Set a big fire, and keep it burning until the building falls.
Does this sound right to you?
It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition. None of them implode buildings using the above method. I believe they don’t because it wouldn’t work.

Again, I ask, any of you who know explosives/demolition, would you implode a building using the above method? Why do you automatically believe the NIST, that such a procedure would work?
Mutton-Head 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:07 PM   #507
XXX
Thinker
 
XXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 151
"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html
XXX 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:07 PM   #508
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."


Loose Change...


PWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:11 PM   #509
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
OK Wolfshade, I understand that. However, it seems that the exact figure of how much energy was released depends upon how the mass was distributed inside the building. It was more massive at the bottom, (Steel thicker, etc.) and less at the top. To my thinking, it needs to be a dynamic model.
Again, Kausel (iirc) is an MIT professor that was taking part in a panel investigation that would, assumably, be reviewed by peers. It is not unreasonable to believe he used _the right model_.

Quote:
... Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly. We see it in the videos.
We see a dust cloud in the videos, it is not appropriate to assume the makeup of that cloud.

Quote:
Also remember, all of the concrete pulverized.
Evidence?

Quote:
The model of “this amount of energy released by 500,000 tons,” to me, does not explain how the tower completely destroyed itself. Do you get my meaning? I would expect to see an uneven amount of destruction, with certain levels of the tower not pulverized. The damage is to homogenous for me.
Argument to personal incredulity. Just because you don't believe/can't understand it, doesn't mean it is wrong.
Arkan_Wolfshade 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:17 PM   #510
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,077
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.
You're developing a habit of quoting people's anecdotes that "they've never seen anything like this" as evidence of something. Why do you do that, when you know this was a unique event to everyone in the world?

Again, I asked if you had seen the documentation Hoffman refers to about how much of the building's mass was pulverized. Have you? I strongly suspect it doesn't exist.

This is vitally important to his argument and yours.

Quote:
No, I’m saying that I believe the towers should not have fallen the way they did.
My basis for this is the experience of demolition experts. As I said
It’s not my opinion, it is, in my mind, the opinion of those who do controlled demolition. None of them implode buildings using the above method. I believe they don’t because it wouldn’t work.
Stacey Loiseaux of the Loiseaux family, owners of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the world's premier experts in the field, calls WTC CD theories "ludicrous."

Which demolitions expert opinions are you using to back up your belief? I'm not aware of a single one stating that they see evidence of CD work at the WTC, and NONE was found during the exhaustive clean up work.

Again, are you just stating a belief, or do you actually have experts who back you up?

edited for spelling
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

Last edited by Gravy; 27th May 2006 at 06:27 PM.
Gravy 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:23 PM   #511
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Landru, this is great news! If only you could see the smile on my face right now... I'm busting open a Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale I have saved for special occasions only!
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:28 PM   #512
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
I have more info on my other computer at work. Will send later. Some guys from the EPA, who are/were investigating the dust for health reasons, said that they had never seen anything like it before. It was a homogenous fine powdered mixture of everything that makes up an office building. Minus the steel of course.

“I’ve never seen anything like it before.” To me, this is a detail which needs explanation. The NIST report does not even mention it.
Mutton-Head, I'm assuming you're implying that it was explosives that turned so much (you'll need to provide evidence that it was all turned to dust, pics from ground zero show quite a bit of large chunks) concrete to dust?

That would be quite an amount of explosives, don't you think? How much TNT, for example, do you think would be necessary to turn 3.3 million square feet of 4 inch thick concrete to dust? Then think about how all of that would make it into the building undetected and unnoticed... really, the mind boggles.

In a controlled demo it is gravity, not explosives, that turns the building into little pieces so it can be carted away.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:31 PM   #513
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,077
Yes, Thaks, Landru. I'm off to buy some beer myself!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:33 PM   #514
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,077
Originally Posted by XXX View Post
"Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.”

911 myths actually has a section regarding this claim with some info

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html
Thanks, XXX. I should have read your post first!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:36 PM   #515
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,271
Originally Posted by Landru View Post
First time posting, gang, so forgive me if I missed this posted somewhere else:

Check out loosechange911.com.

As of May 26, it looks like the Naudet brothers lawyered up and have forced Dylan et al to take down the content on that lamentable site. Click on the text to read a most excellent legal bitch-slap.

All the tweeners could say is "Happy Memorial Day from the Naudet Brothers."
Well, I've just visited loosechange911.com, and it seems the site is running just fine. Also, what text is one to click on to read the legal "b-slap?"
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:36 PM   #516
XXX
Thinker
 
XXX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 151
No prob Gravy...

This may help some too, it's also linked from the 9/11 myths sites, and it's a PDF file...a part of Dr. Frank Greening's paper that deals with some of Jim Hoffmans claims about the dust cloud and the concrete.

http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
XXX 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:42 PM   #517
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
Because remember, the concrete started to pulverize instantly
I totally disagree. It begun to pulverize a few seconds AFTER the initial collapse of the top section. See any video of both collapses.
Pardalis 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:43 PM   #518
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post
Well, I've just visited loosechange911.com, and it seems the site is running just fine. Also, what text is one to click on to read the legal "b-slap?"
Try refreshing the page, you must be reading a cached version.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:46 PM   #519
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,077
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
I totally disagree. It begun to pulverize a few seconds AFTER the initial collapse of the top section. See any video of both collapses.
Some CTs see smoke being pushed out of the collapse zone at the start and claim "Aha! It's gray and billowing...must be concrete dust!" Not accusing Mutton-Head of that, but I've had many CT encounters like that.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard
Gravy 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
Old 27th May 2006, 06:50 PM   #520
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
You seem to think it is normal that the towers collapsed the way they did, because, as you say, “We’ve never seen those events happen before.” I agree partially that we’ve never seen it before. But only because we’ve never seen all of these things happen simultaneously.
This is an error in logic. These events appear to happen simultaneously because both towers received the same damage at about the same moment. When the first tower fell, it was the first time in history such a thing occured. When the second tower collapsed (different event), it became the second time such an event occured. Thus, it is logical to assume that such damage afflicted to these structures can lead to collapses in this fashion. It is your confirmation bias that compells you to see these two events as an orchestrated conspiracy.

Same type of event, because of same type of damage. End of story.

Originally Posted by Mutton-Head View Post
To me the inescapable conclusion that all of this keeps leading me, is that the buildings were demolished from within.
It is inescapable because you are trapped inside your confirmation bias. Can't you see that???

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

Besides, how can you even make a conclusion when you say yourself that you haven't finished your research. Usually one waits until all evidence is gathered before ever making any definite conclusions.
Pardalis 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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.