Somebody help me on Loose Change
- Thread starter 15357
- Start date
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Try "Screw Loose Change" it goes step-by-step into their shoddy "research".
>>FrEnZy<<
Spy
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 581
- Reaction score
- 0
lol, no the actual thing is called screw loose change. try searching that.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
clarky003
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 6,123
- Reaction score
- 1
Loose change makes some solid points about the physical aspects but it also goes off on a tangent with respect to the details of events that are not fully known, which is why its so easy to critique, but kudos to those guys for not going into any detail whatsover about the critical issues.
The main points in summary that are in strong dispute of the origional 'conspiracey theory' are mostly physics related and omission related.
For instance to label a few glaring omissions, the comission report did not feel it nessersary to mention the collapse of building 7 atall, why?
They do not address the rapid destruction of physical evidence at ground zero.
With Fema , they found and state that they found unusually high levels of sulphur deposit within steel samples.
They also admit that the fires in building 7 had a very low probability of creating a global collapse let alone in the manor that is witnessed.
To this day NIST's reasearch is still ongoing as they have yet to come to any conclusion on the determinate mechanisim that collapsed building 7 in such a fashion.
The pancake theory still remains a 'theory' only computer models in the most realisitic 'extreme' circumstance pancaked the floor. There is no determinate physical evidence for how this would behave as they have not even constructed a collapse model despite being called to do so.
The NIST report clearly plays down the internal structure of the building giving the impression that the internal structure was hollow, when it was actually packed with 47 steel load bearing collums with hundreds of interconnceting beams with shaft like spacings that provided the areas for the elevators. http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif <from this to this > http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
Nice accurate representation for public viewing : /
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03.jpg
If certain support collumns failed for the floors as in the pancake theory, how did they pull apart the core area that they where attached to in order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity.
None of these 'debunking' sites accurately address these issues, and often admit they have no phD qualification in assessing these phsyical omissions and issues.. or just simply ignore them.
The main reasons that give people cause to be skeptical:
These buildings came down at near free fall speeds, there is no slow down whatsoever from the intact untouched intergrity of the floors below. There is no significant resistance observed in the collapses from the rest of the structure, what makes this more amazing is the upper floors disintigrate and fall apart (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) as it falls, as if the interior support columns all simultaniously failed giving no intergrity to the outer wall area.
If certain support collumns failed for the floors as in the pancake theory, how did they pull apart the core area that they where attached to equal enough order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity in the time that it did? NIST? FEMA? they just seem to neglect the core and its total bearing in these scenarios. The pancaking floors would have to break away from the core properly to fall in the given time observed. If the core columns snapped or where pulled down by the floor areas, where is the hard evidence? why instead are there images at ground zero of core columns with slanting cuts and what appears to be a composit iron residue dripping down and clinging to the edges?
In the models they assume the fire covered the entire floor and was hot enough (even though samples never exceeded exposures of 600 C) that they were weakened enough to sag and bring down the core collumns with them, is there any evidence for it? only in a worst case scenario computer model it would seem.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2724976424725060242&q=911+collapse
96% of the concrete within the structure was pulverised (starting whilst in mid air), try dropping a bunch slabs of concrete even with a large weight ontop of it from 1000 feet. You'll find it will crack and break into smaller segments but good luck getting it to pulverise into fine dust like this just from gravity.
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
It is also completely illogical that WTC 1, which was evidentally hit first, hit hardest, hit most centrally, and burnt worst, would fall last if it was a fire related collapse. you'd think they would give an explaination for that, but NIST and FEMA leave it all out.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=911
You can go on obviously, but these are the main issues, not that Hijackers didnt hijack planes, but that fire wasnt the only mechanisim for those 3 total collapses in one day.
There is growing credibility for addressing these issues clearly and it's all in fairness for determining your own opinion.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
The main points in summary that are in strong dispute of the origional 'conspiracey theory' are mostly physics related and omission related.
For instance to label a few glaring omissions, the comission report did not feel it nessersary to mention the collapse of building 7 atall, why?
They do not address the rapid destruction of physical evidence at ground zero.
With Fema , they found and state that they found unusually high levels of sulphur deposit within steel samples.
They also admit that the fires in building 7 had a very low probability of creating a global collapse let alone in the manor that is witnessed.
To this day NIST's reasearch is still ongoing as they have yet to come to any conclusion on the determinate mechanisim that collapsed building 7 in such a fashion.
The pancake theory still remains a 'theory' only computer models in the most realisitic 'extreme' circumstance pancaked the floor. There is no determinate physical evidence for how this would behave as they have not even constructed a collapse model despite being called to do so.
The NIST report clearly plays down the internal structure of the building giving the impression that the internal structure was hollow, when it was actually packed with 47 steel load bearing collums with hundreds of interconnceting beams with shaft like spacings that provided the areas for the elevators. http://algoxy.com/psych/psyimages/femacore.gif <from this to this > http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif
Nice accurate representation for public viewing : /
http://homepage.mac.com/dansound/.Public/Pix/SteelOnFire/WTC_Core_03.jpg
If certain support collumns failed for the floors as in the pancake theory, how did they pull apart the core area that they where attached to in order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity.
None of these 'debunking' sites accurately address these issues, and often admit they have no phD qualification in assessing these phsyical omissions and issues.. or just simply ignore them.
The main reasons that give people cause to be skeptical:
These buildings came down at near free fall speeds, there is no slow down whatsoever from the intact untouched intergrity of the floors below. There is no significant resistance observed in the collapses from the rest of the structure, what makes this more amazing is the upper floors disintigrate and fall apart (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/wtc2coreonto3.gif) as it falls, as if the interior support columns all simultaniously failed giving no intergrity to the outer wall area.
If certain support collumns failed for the floors as in the pancake theory, how did they pull apart the core area that they where attached to equal enough order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity in the time that it did? NIST? FEMA? they just seem to neglect the core and its total bearing in these scenarios. The pancaking floors would have to break away from the core properly to fall in the given time observed. If the core columns snapped or where pulled down by the floor areas, where is the hard evidence? why instead are there images at ground zero of core columns with slanting cuts and what appears to be a composit iron residue dripping down and clinging to the edges?
In the models they assume the fire covered the entire floor and was hot enough (even though samples never exceeded exposures of 600 C) that they were weakened enough to sag and bring down the core collumns with them, is there any evidence for it? only in a worst case scenario computer model it would seem.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2724976424725060242&q=911+collapse
96% of the concrete within the structure was pulverised (starting whilst in mid air), try dropping a bunch slabs of concrete even with a large weight ontop of it from 1000 feet. You'll find it will crack and break into smaller segments but good luck getting it to pulverise into fine dust like this just from gravity.
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg
It is also completely illogical that WTC 1, which was evidentally hit first, hit hardest, hit most centrally, and burnt worst, would fall last if it was a fire related collapse. you'd think they would give an explaination for that, but NIST and FEMA leave it all out.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=911
You can go on obviously, but these are the main issues, not that Hijackers didnt hijack planes, but that fire wasnt the only mechanisim for those 3 total collapses in one day.
There is growing credibility for addressing these issues clearly and it's all in fairness for determining your own opinion.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2003
- Messages
- 9,356
- Reaction score
- 165
You are part of a covert, goverment-sponsored team. Your job, along with your equally covert colleagues, is to install a complex system of thermite detonators around the WTC buildings in order to trigger their collapse - a controlled demolition. Building security has been stepped down a few notches, there's no dogs, and several of the alarm systems are offline. As a group of highly-trained professionals, it's easy for you and your colleagues to position and wire the intricate network explosives in such a way that no-one will ever notice them. Mission accomplished. The complex computer models you used to map out the precise locations and amounts of explosive to use show that everything went according to plan. A precision controlled demolition has to be near-perfect in its execution, but that's what you're trained for. When that button is pushed, each building is going to drop like prunes through a dysentry sufferer.
You return home to your wife and kids, and spend the next few days sharing some quality time.
September 11th comes around. You get up in the morning, grab a coffee and flick the TV on to catch the news. What the hell? Someone flew a plane into one of the WTC buildings? All that time, all that effort - installing the explosives, wiring them up, obscuring it all afterwards - several floors worth of work have all just gone up in a ball of flame, not to mention how much of the explosive has been dislodged on the other floors. This is just one big clusterfu....WHAT THE HELL? ANOTHER PLANE?
Both buildings, both precision-planned controlled demolitions, ruined! There's no way anyone could risk detonating now - there's no saying what damage has been caused to the explosives, the wiring. It could fail to go off at all, or it could detonate incorrectly. Stupid stupid stupid.
You return home to your wife and kids, and spend the next few days sharing some quality time.
September 11th comes around. You get up in the morning, grab a coffee and flick the TV on to catch the news. What the hell? Someone flew a plane into one of the WTC buildings? All that time, all that effort - installing the explosives, wiring them up, obscuring it all afterwards - several floors worth of work have all just gone up in a ball of flame, not to mention how much of the explosive has been dislodged on the other floors. This is just one big clusterfu....WHAT THE HELL? ANOTHER PLANE?
Both buildings, both precision-planned controlled demolitions, ruined! There's no way anyone could risk detonating now - there's no saying what damage has been caused to the explosives, the wiring. It could fail to go off at all, or it could detonate incorrectly. Stupid stupid stupid.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
"...kudos to those guys [who?] for not going into any detail whatsover about the critical issues."
Which are...?
"The main points[,] in summary[,] that are in strong dispute [concerning] the [original] '[conspiracy] theory' are mostly physics related and omission related."
List all of the main points. Not just a few. If they're "main", why are you leaving them out?
"For instance[,] to label a few glaring omissions, the com[m]ission report did not feel it ne[c]e[ss]ary to mention the collapse of building 7 [at all.] [W]hy?"
Probably because no-one died in building 7, the building was not directly involved in the terrorist attacks and the NIST investigation is still ongoing.
Why would they mention it?
The only reason to mention it would be if you assume in advance that it was all a giant alien(?) conspiracy.
"They do not address the rapid destruction of physical evidence at ground zero."
No evidence was destroyed at ground zero.
That's untrue.
According to who?
"With F[EMA], they [...] state that they found unusually high levels of sulphur deposit within [some] steel samples."
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
Also, why do you suddenly trust FEMA?
"They also admit that the fires in building 7 had a very low probability of creating a global collapse[,] let alone in the manor that [wa]s witnessed."
Where did they "admit" this?
What was the exact quote, and in what context?
Does "low probability" mean "impossible"?
How do you know this when the investigation isn't done?
"To this day NIST's reasearch is still ongoing [and] they have yet to come to any conclusion [concerning the] mechan[ism] that collapsed building 7 in such a fashion."
That's not an omission. You can't omit a conclusion that doesn't exist yet.
Obviously they have no conclusion if the investigation is ongoing.
"The pancake theory still remains a 'theory' [as] only computer models in the most realisitic 'extreme' circumstance pancaked the floor. There is no determinate physical evidence for how this would behave as they have not even constructed a collapse model[,] despite being called to do so."
Evolution is "only a theory" too, I hear.
Show us a stronger scientific theory, plz.
Like one that says it is impossible.
Called to do so by who? When?
Also, you just called the pancake collapse simulation "realistic."
"The NIST report clearly plays down the internal structure of the building[,] giving the impression that the internal structure was hollow[.]"
You're basing this on one of their visual aid gifs?
What about what the report actually says?
Only an idiot would think that the internal structure is 100% hollow all the way down the 100 floors.
"If certain support [columns] failed for the floors[,] as in the pancake theory, how did they pull apart the core area that they where attached to[,] in order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity."
What is a "symmetrical entirity"?
Weren't there "certain support columns" in the core too?
Why is their gradual weakening impossible?
What is the source of your data here?
All you're saying is "strong core hole is STRONG" where are your exact figures for yeild strength compared to physical stresses?
"None of these 'debunking' sites accurately address these issues, and often admit they have no phD qualification in assessing these phsyical omissions and issues.. or just simply ignore them."
You haven't really made any strong points worth refuting.
Real scientific proof is typically longer than a paragraph.
In any case, here are actual experts dismissing most of your claims.
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
Dr. F. Greening's papers are excellent.
Where is your PhD is a relevant field?
"The main reasons that give people cause to be skeptical:"
I thought all those last points were the "main" points?
"These buildings came down at near free fall speeds..."
That entire paragraph is a horrible lie.
So is the next one, also:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
^ The above link explains the real science behind almost all your following claims.
"[...]they where attached to equal enough order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity in the time that it did?"
What is "symmetrical entirity"???
That entire sentence didn't make any grammatical sense.
"...what appears to be a composit[e] iron residue dripping down and clinging to the edges?"
How do you know what melted "composit iron" looks like when you can't spell it?
How do you know that that isn't rubber or aluminium?
You are asking us to justify your random guesses.
"96% of the concrete within the structure was pulverised (starting whilst in mid air)..."
That is also a lie:
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
"It is also completely illogical that WTC 1, which was evidentally hit first, hit hardest, hit most centrally, and burnt worst, would fall last if it was a fire related collapse. you'd think they would give an explaination for that, but NIST and FEMA leave it all out."
Being hit centrally is not as bad as being hit on a corner.
As a junior science cadet, you should know that.
Also, what are your calculations here?
Where are the figures?
What is your data?
Is it logical to just guess that two [admittedly] dissimilar crashes should have identical effects?
"..that fire was[n't] the only mechan[ism] for those 3 total collapses in one day."
You're right! Maybe the plane was also a factor?!
Put it in The Clarky Challenge thread, clarky.
You'll get $100 000 if you list all your points there without making any more of the above mistakes (and others).
Even if you skip all this, the three links in LARGE TEXT refute essentially everything you've said.
If you want any credibity, you cannot just nitpick NIST and FEMA.
You need to present an alternate scientific scenario of equal or greater validity.
What is your full explanation for events?
Without one, we are left to assume that every single other aspect of the reports that you don't mention is probably accurate, in which case any discrepancies (of which you have proven none) are tacitly irrelevant.
Which are...?
"The main points[,] in summary[,] that are in strong dispute [concerning] the [original] '[conspiracy] theory' are mostly physics related and omission related."
List all of the main points. Not just a few. If they're "main", why are you leaving them out?
"For instance[,] to label a few glaring omissions, the com[m]ission report did not feel it ne[c]e[ss]ary to mention the collapse of building 7 [at all.] [W]hy?"
Probably because no-one died in building 7, the building was not directly involved in the terrorist attacks and the NIST investigation is still ongoing.
Why would they mention it?
The only reason to mention it would be if you assume in advance that it was all a giant alien(?) conspiracy.
"They do not address the rapid destruction of physical evidence at ground zero."
No evidence was destroyed at ground zero.
That's untrue.
According to who?
"With F[EMA], they [...] state that they found unusually high levels of sulphur deposit
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
Also, why do you suddenly trust FEMA?
"They also admit that the fires in building 7 had a very low probability of creating a global collapse[,] let alone in the manor that [wa]s witnessed."
Where did they "admit" this?
What was the exact quote, and in what context?
Does "low probability" mean "impossible"?
How do you know this when the investigation isn't done?
"To this day NIST's reasearch is still ongoing [and] they have yet to come to any conclusion [concerning the] mechan[ism] that collapsed building 7 in such a fashion."
That's not an omission. You can't omit a conclusion that doesn't exist yet.
Obviously they have no conclusion if the investigation is ongoing.
"The pancake theory still remains a 'theory' [as] only computer models in the most realisitic 'extreme' circumstance pancaked the floor. There is no determinate physical evidence for how this would behave as they have not even constructed a collapse model[,] despite being called to do so."
Evolution is "only a theory" too, I hear.
Show us a stronger scientific theory, plz.
Like one that says it is impossible.
Called to do so by who? When?
Also, you just called the pancake collapse simulation "realistic."
"The NIST report clearly plays down the internal structure of the building[,] giving the impression that the internal structure was hollow[.]"
You're basing this on one of their visual aid gifs?
What about what the report actually says?
Only an idiot would think that the internal structure is 100% hollow all the way down the 100 floors.
"If certain support [columns] failed for the floors[,] as in the pancake theory, how did they pull apart the core area that they where attached to[,] in order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity."
What is a "symmetrical entirity"?
Weren't there "certain support columns" in the core too?
Why is their gradual weakening impossible?
What is the source of your data here?
All you're saying is "strong core hole is STRONG" where are your exact figures for yeild strength compared to physical stresses?
"None of these 'debunking' sites accurately address these issues, and often admit they have no phD qualification in assessing these phsyical omissions and issues.. or just simply ignore them."
You haven't really made any strong points worth refuting.
Real scientific proof is typically longer than a paragraph.
In any case, here are actual experts dismissing most of your claims.
http://www.911myths.com/html/other_contributions.html
Dr. F. Greening's papers are excellent.
Where is your PhD is a relevant field?
"The main reasons that give people cause to be skeptical:"
I thought all those last points were the "main" points?
"These buildings came down at near free fall speeds..."
That entire paragraph is a horrible lie.
So is the next one, also:
http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
^ The above link explains the real science behind almost all your following claims.
"[...]they where attached to equal enough order to bring it down in its symmetrical entirity in the time that it did?"
What is "symmetrical entirity"???
That entire sentence didn't make any grammatical sense.
"...what appears to be a composit[e] iron residue dripping down and clinging to the edges?"
How do you know what melted "composit iron" looks like when you can't spell it?
How do you know that that isn't rubber or aluminium?
You are asking us to justify your random guesses.
"96% of the concrete within the structure was pulverised (starting whilst in mid air)..."
That is also a lie:
http://www.911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
"It is also completely illogical that WTC 1, which was evidentally hit first, hit hardest, hit most centrally, and burnt worst, would fall last if it was a fire related collapse. you'd think they would give an explaination for that, but NIST and FEMA leave it all out."
Being hit centrally is not as bad as being hit on a corner.
As a junior science cadet, you should know that.
Also, what are your calculations here?
Where are the figures?
What is your data?
Is it logical to just guess that two [admittedly] dissimilar crashes should have identical effects?
"..that fire was[n't] the only mechan[ism] for those 3 total collapses in one day."
You're right! Maybe the plane was also a factor?!
Put it in The Clarky Challenge thread, clarky.
You'll get $100 000 if you list all your points there without making any more of the above mistakes (and others).
Even if you skip all this, the three links in LARGE TEXT refute essentially everything you've said.
If you want any credibity, you cannot just nitpick NIST and FEMA.
You need to present an alternate scientific scenario of equal or greater validity.
What is your full explanation for events?
Without one, we are left to assume that every single other aspect of the reports that you don't mention is probably accurate, in which case any discrepancies (of which you have proven none) are tacitly irrelevant.
