View Full Version: Loose Change Debunked.

Loose Change Forum > Under the Bridge > Loose Change Debunked.

Pages: [1] 2

Title: Loose Change Debunked.
Description: Youre production is false.


Snipezz - September 12, 2006 03:01 AM (GMT)
Ok so explain away all of the points made in this video.. Explain to me and others that don't agree with your production, how you can rebut all of the points made against your "evidence" and other points.
Watch the video below, and then tell me that you're right...

Loose change debunked

DemolitionCrew - September 12, 2006 03:03 AM (GMT)
I am moving this to the appropriate forum....

Under the Bridge...

You are welcome to discuss this thread there.


Sanders - September 12, 2006 03:06 AM (GMT)
My comments on Screw Loose Change the movie are
here

Feel free to dispute my arguments here under the bridge.

Snipezz - September 12, 2006 03:12 AM (GMT)
Well sanders, thats just ridiculous, but thanks for proving that only the uneducated believe in this preposterous theory of loose change.... My father is a civil engineer, and has 30 years of experience in the field, im currently studying civil and structural engineering at university in the UK, and I'm sorry but the creators of loose change obviously have no idea about anything to do with engineering, as do many of the sources they quote....
This theory is ridiculous.
Of course I'm sure ill be banned for expressing my opinion or be called one of them or something. OH NO HE DOESNT AGREE! He must be a governemnt agent!
Rigghhhttt, cause the government would employ people to come to a forum full of uneducated net nerds who spout ideas of an idiotic conspiracy theory... yeahhh....

DemolitionCrew - September 12, 2006 03:18 AM (GMT)
You will not get banned for expressing your opinion. Only if you insult people and troll your points without evidence and backup.

Snipezz - September 12, 2006 03:27 AM (GMT)
Ok well;
From my course studying engineering, your whole uneducated idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition are moronic at best, due to the amount of charges needed, and due to the fact that to bring down the WTC towers, detonations would have been in completely different places to where you show on the video the pops coming out of the building, those are infact releases of pressurized air from the fact that the floors were collapsing on top of them. This pressure would in turn be enough to vaporise much of the concrete, and also the crash after the extreme height would also contribute to turning the concrete into dust.
Secondly, many of you overestimate the durability and reliability of steel, any amount of heat begins to weaken it, just because the melting point of steel is higher than that of the burning point of jet fuel, doesn't mean that the steel would be in perfect working order.
Once steel begins to be heated it progressively becomes more weak, so for example say the steel was 50% effective due to the heat induced by the burning jet fuel, this would mean that the support beams for 20 floors could only hold 10.. hence the steel could not support the weight, which led to a collapse.
The pancake theory which many of you say is not visible in the case of the wtc collapses, with images etc, is realistic.
THe amazing kinetic energy of falling concrete and the weight of the building would mean that any evidence of a pancake collapse would be destoryed due to the extreme conversion of kinetic energy once the floors and debris hit the floor. That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.

THE DECIDER - September 12, 2006 03:56 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 03:27 AM)
Ok well;
From my course studying engineering, your whole uneducated idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition are moronic at best, due to the amount of charges needed, and due to the fact that to bring down the WTC towers, detonations would have been in completely different places to where you show on the video the pops coming out of the building, those are infact releases of pressurized air from the fact that the floors were collapsing on top of them. This pressure would in turn be enough to vaporise much of the concrete, and also the crash after the extreme height would also contribute to turning the concrete into dust.
Secondly, many of you overestimate the durability and reliability of steel, any amount of heat begins to weaken it, just because the melting point of steel is higher than that of the burning point of jet fuel, doesn't mean that the steel would be in perfect working order.
Once steel begins to be heated it progressively becomes more weak, so for example say the steel was 50% effective due to the heat induced by the burning jet fuel, this would mean that the support beams for 20 floors could only hold 10.. hence the steel could not support the weight, which led to a collapse.
The pancake theory which many of you say is not visible in the case of the wtc collapses, with images etc, is realistic.
THe amazing kinetic energy of falling concrete and the weight of the building would mean that any evidence of a pancake collapse would be destoryed due to the extreme conversion of kinetic energy once the floors and debris hit the floor. That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.

user posted image

Sanders - September 12, 2006 04:07 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 12:27 PM)
Ok well;
From my course studying ....

.... That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.

You're entitled to your opinion. In all honesty, I beg to differ with some of your assertions, but you know, everyone has to find the "truth" that's right for them. Cheers -

AE4 - September 12, 2006 07:55 AM (GMT)
I wonder what this board would look like if people would look for the actual truth instead of whatever's right for them which they subsequently label "truth".

Sanders - September 12, 2006 08:11 AM (GMT)
Just to be clear, I meant nothing sarcastic in my remark, "everyone has to find the "truth" that's right for them." No one is privy to the "truth", no one really knows the truth, all of us have to scratch and dig for it, particularly in this propoganda world. If my dad absolutely cannot believe that 9/11 could be an inside job (which he cannot), then he has to find some explanation for things that appear to suggest otherwise. The bin Laden/US relationship is a great example - is he friend or foe? What is the truth? There so much contradictory evidence it's very difficult to put your finger on it. Finding the a reasonable "truth" or explanation in each of our minds that accounts for all the evidence we can get our hands on is all anyone can do.

That's what I was trying to say...

Geoff - September 12, 2006 09:00 AM (GMT)
As another engineer, I have to agree with what Snipez says: the engineering facts are consistent with the official story, and trying to dispute them just makes you look uninformed.

However, I need to pick him up on a point of definition: "pancake theory" actually refers to a now-discredited mechanism for initiating the collapse, not the subsequent collapse sequence. It postulated an initial failure of the joints of the outside ends of the floor beams, so that the whole floor fell like a pancake. Further investigation showed that the joints held, but the floor beams sagged, pulling in the walls to the point where they failed in Euler-load compression.

Oskzzo - September 12, 2006 09:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 03:27 AM)
Ok well;
From my course studying engineering, your whole uneducated idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition are moronic at best, due to the amount of charges needed, and due to the fact that to bring down the WTC towers, detonations would have been in completely different places to where you show on the video the pops coming out of the building, those are infact releases of pressurized air from the fact that the floors were collapsing on top of them. This pressure would in turn be enough to vaporise much of the concrete, and also the crash after the extreme height would also contribute to turning the concrete into dust.
Secondly, many of you overestimate the durability and reliability of steel, any amount of heat begins to weaken it, just because the melting point of steel is higher than that of the burning point of jet fuel, doesn't mean that the steel would be in perfect working order.
Once steel begins to be heated it progressively becomes more weak, so for example say the steel was 50% effective due to the heat induced by the burning jet fuel, this would mean that the support beams for 20 floors could only hold 10.. hence the steel could not support the weight, which led to a collapse.
The pancake theory which many of you say is not visible in the case of the wtc collapses, with images etc, is realistic.
THe amazing kinetic energy of falling concrete and the weight of the building would mean that any evidence of a pancake collapse would be destoryed due to the extreme conversion of kinetic energy once the floors and debris hit the floor. That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.

well you are intitled to your opion but here is my counter claim for you to think about. if the pancake effect was the reason for the towers to collapse and which was caused by jet fuel burning then explain these facts.

1) why was the jet fuel fire smoke black as in oxygen starved?

with this the fire could of nevered reach it's full potiental of 2000*c (this was stated by firefighters)

2) seeing the pancake effect would of started from the damaged floor why was no kinetic resistence in the theory added in?

if kinetic restence was added for floors that was not damaged the speed of the fall would of slowed down at a point.

3) how did it go straight down?

if you look at the damage evident where the planes impacted the towers the first tower would of only lost the top 20-30 floor due to the damage being on one side which would of caused the falling floors and wall to take the path of least resisance. and the first tower to fall before the implosion of the floors the damage top which was topling over towrds the path of least resistence before the lwer floors all of a sudden dropped from under neither it.

watch the videos they don't lie.

he are my credentials: US Army infantry, tank-killer 11BC2 also trained in demolishions.

MichaelMR - September 12, 2006 09:51 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (THE DECIDER @ Sep 12 2006, 03:56 AM)

user posted image


[laughing][laughing][laughing]

"Uneducated"?

http://www.st911.org/

I guess they're pretty "uneducated" too, huh?

It is better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, Snipez.

Do your research before you attack anyone here. As far as I'm concerned, you're uneducated about 9/11 and common sense in general. Come back here when you’re better informed.

georgie101 - September 12, 2006 10:06 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (THE DECIDER @ Sep 12 2006, 03:56 AM)

user posted image

that picture is bloody hilarious.


snipez, you haven't mentioned anything else about that day,

dick cheneys war games,
collapse of wtc7,
pentagon mysteries,
financial situtions of people involved,
mr bush,

i wont go on, but you catch my drift.

barcode770 - September 12, 2006 02:43 PM (GMT)
I want to add a point that fire mainly burns upwards, IE: heat rises.

I would figure the top 20 or 30 so floors would have burned and eventually "slid" off the main structure. SO how is it the floors beneath the so called raging inferno gave away.
Take a house on fire lets say a 2 story home...fire starts upstairs..the fire would collaspe the roof before collasping down onto the first floor..Ask any firefighter how a fire burns..They will all agree that it will burn upwards

And you want to tell me that this is the first building to suffer a total collaspe due to fire? Please the physics do not add up and I know you all can see that.

There has been numerous skyscraper fires and not one in history was destroyed and collasped by fire...Damaged yes but not totally brought down...there not designed to do that for safety reasons.

Geoff - September 12, 2006 03:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (barcode770 @ Sep 12 2006, 02:43 PM)
There has been numerous skyscraper fires and not one in history was destroyed and collasped by fire...Damaged yes but not totally brought down...there not designed to do that for safety reasons.

How about a combination of major structural damage and subsequent fire, fed by a lot of jet fuel? You can't compare other fires, this was unprecedented. This is probably the nearest previous case:

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

QUOTE
...the heavily loaded plane crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of apartments.


What makes you think the collapse started below the damaged part?

barcode770 - September 12, 2006 04:55 PM (GMT)
Once again...That was a 747 loaded with hazardous materials but amazing the whole of the apartments remain what? S-t-a-n-d-i-n-g....


Naturally those apartments are not as tall as the WTC and given the weight of a heavilly loaded 747 at speed running into the said apartment building Yes it would fall in due to force and aircraft size but only collasping in the hit area. It looks to me for the most part the building is still intact.

But i forgot that nothing bad is supposed to happen to the USA...Because were a policing country who thrives to have our hands in everyone elses bullsh*&.

Snipezz - September 12, 2006 05:16 PM (GMT)
All i know is that, if you guys are saying that there was no fire, what about the poor people that jumped, they leapt from something and if you say it wasnt an inferno you disgust me. Those people died trying to escape. You also discredit the fact that there were heroes on the plane that was brought down in the woods.
I think that your supposition that there were no people killed and there was no fire is disgusting to the memory of those that died.
Trying showing some respect to the dead, and those that gave, and lost their lives.

Roxdog - September 12, 2006 05:21 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Snipez @ Sep 11 2006, 09:12 PM)
Well sanders, thats just ridiculous, but thanks for proving that only the uneducated believe in this preposterous theory of loose change.... My father is a civil engineer, and has 30 years of experience in the field, im currently studying civil and structural engineering at university in the UK, and I'm sorry but the creators of loose change obviously have no idea about anything to do with engineering, as do many of the sources they quote....
This theory is ridiculous.
Of course I'm sure ill be banned for expressing my opinion or be called one of them or something. OH NO HE DOESNT AGREE! He must be a governemnt agent!
Rigghhhttt, cause the government would employ people to come to a forum full of uneducated net nerds who spout ideas of an idiotic conspiracy theory... yeahhh....

georgie101 - September 12, 2006 06:13 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 05:16 PM)
All i know is that, if you guys are saying that there was no fire, what about the poor people that jumped, they leapt from something and if you say it wasnt an inferno you disgust me. Those people died trying to escape. You also discredit the fact that there were heroes on the plane that was brought down in the woods.
I think that your supposition that there were no people killed and there was no fire is disgusting to the memory of those that died.
Trying showing some respect to the dead, and those that gave, and lost their lives.

who exactly said there was no fire, and belive me, nobody is trying to disrespect anyone who lost their lives that day. MORON

johndoeX - September 12, 2006 07:24 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Geoff @ Sep 12 2006, 11:15 AM)

How about a combination of major structural damage and subsequent fire, fed by a lot of jet fuel? You can't compare other fires, this was unprecedented. This is probably the nearest previous case:


You may be an expert with engineering.. but im an expert with jet fuel burn rates. You may want to double check your figures.

And one last item..

WTC 7. Prove it beyond theory (WTC 1 and 2 for that matter..) thanks!

[cheers]

Guussie - September 12, 2006 07:46 PM (GMT)
SCL (Screw Loose Change) has only 1 goal, to debunk LC (loose Change), it made no investigation at all if the statements in LC are true or not, it just says they are not. They did not provide any evidence that really says LC is wrong. Besides that, Sanders did a great job in debunking SCL. Getting owned by the movie they tried to debunk, that must hurt.

What made you watch SCL anyway?
Did you believe CL first, but then SCL?
Do you switch sides that easily?
Are you the average I-know-what-I-have-been-told-so-it-must-be-true type of person?

I searched a lot on the internet, some parts of the official story I do believe, but a lot of it I don't. Does this mean my opinion is right, no, but till I have no significant evidence provided by the US government my statement is...

if it was not (partly) an inside job they at least knew exactly what happened and when this would be.

Oskzzo - September 12, 2006 07:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Snipezz @ Sep 12 2006, 05:16 PM)
All i know is that, if you guys are saying that there was no fire, what about the poor people that jumped, they leapt from something and if you say it wasnt an inferno you disgust me. Those people died trying to escape. You also discredit the fact that there were heroes on the plane that was brought down in the woods.
I think that your supposition that there were no people killed and there was no fire is disgusting to the memory of those that died.
Trying showing some respect to the dead, and those that gave, and lost their lives.

well for one no one ever said there was no fire. but everyone agrees that the fire did not reach the intensity to cause steel to snap or weaken as much as the government claims. as for disgracing the memory fo ppl who did it is more of a disgrace dying for a lie.

i have respect for the dead and the heroes of 9/11 but i have my questions on why they died and our goverment will either no answer or are hiding the answers with deception.

Geoff - September 13, 2006 07:23 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (barcode770 @ Sep 12 2006, 04:55 PM)
Once again...That was a 747 loaded with hazardous materials but amazing the whole of the apartments remain what? S-t-a-n-d-i-n-g....


Naturally those apartments are not as tall as the WTC and given the weight of a heavilly loaded 747 at speed running into the said apartment building Yes it would fall in due to force and aircraft size but only collasping in the hit area. It looks to me for the most part the building is still intact.

But i forgot that nothing bad is supposed to happen to the USA...Because were a policing country who thrives to have our hands in everyone elses bullsh*&.

That's why I said it was near, not an exact precedent. The bit where the aircraft hit collapsed completely. The rest stayed up because it was a much wider building. A 747 that's just taken off carries a lot less kinetic energy than a 767 at cruise speed.

Can't see what your last paragraph has to do with how a buiding collapses.

Geoff - September 13, 2006 07:29 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Oskzzo @ Sep 12 2006, 07:46 PM)
well for one no one ever said there was no fire. but everyone agrees that the fire did not reach the intensity to cause steel to snap or weaken as much as the government claims.

You have of course the numbers to back this up?

How much of the building's reserve strength was lost due to impact damage? How much would the steel have to weaken? What temperature would the fire have to reach? You can't form an opinion on this without doing detailed calculations.

How many structural engineers are included in your "everyone"?

Sanders - September 13, 2006 08:42 AM (GMT)
These are approximate numbers (numbers vary slightly depending on the grade of structural steel), from a chart I have laying around in my computer (anyone can check them, steel is steel):

Loses 50% of it's strength @ 1150 F
Loses 80% of it's strength @ 1320 F
(Melting temperature is 2750 F)

The buildings were rated at a 6:1 load ratio, that is, the structural components were nominally supporting no more than one sixth of the load they were capable of. To be conservative, I'll say that the steel had to lose 4/5ths of it's strength to collapse. That translates to structural steel losing 80% of it's strength, so 1320 F is the temperature we are aiming for.

Now it's not enough for just the fires to get that hot, the STEEL has to get that hot. The big problem is, there was 200,000 tons of it all bolted and welded together in each building, and the heat would have been dispersed away from the hot spots.

To give an idea how unlikely it was for the steel to get that hot, these are numbers from some full-scale fire tests done in parking garages in a number of countries (there was no fire-proofing on the steel columns and beams, the fires were essentially hydrocarbon based), (source - Corus Construction):

Fire test
UK / beam - 275 C (527 F) / column - 360 C (680 F)
Japan / beam - 245 C (473 F) / column - 242 C (467 F)
USA / beam - 226 C (438 F)
Australia / beam - 340 C (644 F) / column - 320 C (608 F)

The highest any steel got in any of these tests was 680 F. That's only half the temperature we are trying to reach.

I also had this: Maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fueled fire burning in open air = 1517 F
(That is under ideal conditions with plenty of oxygen. To get (hydrocarbon based) fires to burn hotter than that you need bottled oxygen or pre-mixed fuel/air, etc.)

However, I'm not so sure about that number, specifically because of the following examples:

There have been actual fires where temperatures of the fires were estimated to have gotten very hot. Namely, the One Meridian Plaza fire in Philidelphia and the Broadgate developement fire in London.

QUOTE
Broadgate (1990); This was a very hot fire that was thought to have reached temperatures of up to 1800 F (1000 C), yet an investigation concluded that “the temperature of the unprotected steelwork was unlikely to have exceeded 600 C” (1100 F).  While some buckling of beams was observed, the structure showed no signs of collapse.  (The Steel Construction Institute  “New Approach to Multi Storey Steel Framed Buildings/Fire and Steel Construction”)

QUOTE
The Meridian Plaza fire reportedly became so unwieldy that fire fighters finally gave up and let the fire “free-burn” , which it did for 18 hours until the building’s only sprinkler system that a tenant had installed on the 30th floor finally checked the blaze. (8)  To settle a dispute between the owner and the insurance company a consulting firm was asked to evaluate the extent of the damage to the granite facade.  According to their examination, the window openings experienced the most widespread damage:  “some of the aluminum framing and glass melt[ing], indicating temperatures in the range of 1000 to 1300 degrees Fahrenheit .... temperatures were substantially lower in areas away from the window openings.  The exterior granitetogranite joint sealant, which melts at less than 500 F ... was not severely charred or melted”.    Even though the fire raged for 18 hours and with the exception of the area around the windows where oxygen was plentiful, temperatures apparently did not exceed 500 degrees F (260 C). <http://www.sgh.com/expertise/hazardsconsulting/meridian/meridian.htm>


So is it possible that the fires got hot enough to soften the steel enough to allow the building to collapse? In an hours time?

You decide. I don't think so. (and the photo of Edna Cintron leaning in the gaping hole of the WTC confirms it in my opinion). Furthermore, even if the building did begin to collapse, the floors below the fire surely hadn't been adversely affected structurally (after all, heat rises) so, why did the 47 box columns that made up the core just give up the ghost?

Add to all that Orio Palmer's radio call from the 78th floor (just below the crash site) of the South Tower, and all the accounts from firemen of hearing explosions going off, for me it is clear cut. No way.

Oskzzo - September 13, 2006 09:32 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Geoff @ Sep 13 2006, 07:29 AM)
QUOTE (Oskzzo @ Sep 12 2006, 07:46 PM)
well for one no one ever said there was no fire. but everyone agrees that the fire did not reach the intensity to cause steel to snap or weaken as much as the government claims.

You have of course the numbers to back this up?

How much of the building's reserve strength was lost due to impact damage? How much would the steel have to weaken? What temperature would the fire have to reach? You can't form an opinion on this without doing detailed calculations.

How many structural engineers are included in your "everyone"?

thank you sander for the numbers.

my experience from steel comes from using the dragon anti-tank missle launcher. which can melt a tank from the inside out. the heat from this missle reaches about 2500-3500*c. seeing it has been 9 yrs since i last fired one i forgot the compound used in it. there are engineers postings about thermite that i beleave this guy needs to read for more numbers about steel and the steel used in the WTC towers and buildings.

Wiktor - September 13, 2006 10:54 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (johndoeX @ Sep 12 2006, 03:24 PM)
You may be an expert with engineering.. but im an expert with jet fuel burn rates.


What kind of background do you have in jet fuel burn rates?

QUOTE
WTC 7. Prove it beyond theory (WTC 1 and 2 for that matter..) thanks!

[cheers]


Before you pop the cork, you might want to find physical evidence of your theory before you start negating the opinions of worldwide experts on building demolition (you know, those people who actually make their livings by studying this stuff.)

So far, I have yet to find physical evidence that explosives, bombs, missiles, etc were used on 9/11. You "truthers" have failed to provide it. The only things you've provided are video photage coupled with voice overs which describe things, "...that appear to be." Witnesses from the ground saw a lot of different things and a handful out of the large pool have given statements that can be taken out of context (something that conspiracy theorists love to do). That appearance of a bomb going off doesn't necessarily mean that a bomb actually went off.

Why can't you guys at least admit that this is only a theory that has no physical evidence to support it?

number3 - September 13, 2006 11:37 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wiktor @ Sep 13 2006, 10:54 AM)


Why can't you guys at least admit that this is only a theory that has no physical evidence to support it?

That is what I am thinking!

Surely to bring down two hundred and twenty stories of office building, and then a few other buildings there MUST have been SOME evidence left behind of the detonation material, where is it?

They found a credit card from a victim above one of the crashed plane sites from a WTC tower victim who died.

Why dont we see ANY evidence of any of what was likely thousands of devices used to take the buildings down? (and no: saying the government hid it is not proof)

number3 - September 13, 2006 11:43 AM (GMT)
To me, the biggest debunk of loose change is the lack of physical evidence to prove the theories.

Dont need to watch or read any debunk of the unofficial 'truth' to know that the truth movement has provided not one single photograph or document showing explosives were involved in any way.

In a photograph I do not mean something that LOOKs like a puff of smoke coming out of a window, that can be debated (and is)

nobody could refute a photo of a pile of 20 different pieces of blasting material and shape charges, or photos of beams showing the characteristic marks left by shape charges.. (or the cuts in the beams used to weaken them, allowing for an easier detonation)

where is the evidence? stuff I could hold in my hand..

Wiktor - September 13, 2006 11:46 AM (GMT)
Also, hundreds of people noticed Flight 77 on its way towards the Pentagon. Hundreds saw it at least in a low flight going in that direction. Why didn't ANYONE say that they saw a plane leaving that area? Has any witness been recorded as saying that they saw a plane flying low to the ground away from the Pentagon?

number3 - September 13, 2006 12:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wiktor @ Sep 13 2006, 11:46 AM)
Also, hundreds of people noticed Flight 77 on its way towards the Pentagon. Hundreds saw it at least in a low flight going in that direction. Why didn't ANYONE say that they saw a plane leaving that area? Has any witness been recorded as saying that they saw a plane flying low to the ground away from the Pentagon?

I dont believe the theory that it wasnt a plane, but as we can see in much of the unofficial story eyewitness reports (and in history as a whole) are unreliable.


I'd prefer to see evidence of the plane still existing.

Evidence from RADAR loops

and then, also, eyewitness reports

(and of course, for me, this stuff above is not needed since they recovered DNA from nearly all occupants on the plane.. as well as a lot of the plane itself)

Geoff - September 13, 2006 12:04 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Sanders @ Sep 13 2006, 08:42 AM)
These are approximate numbers (numbers vary slightly depending on the grade of structural steel), from a chart I have laying around in my computer (anyone can check them, steel is steel):

Loses 50% of it's strength @ 1150 F
Loses 80% of it's strength @ 1320 F
(Melting temperature is 2750 F)

The buildings were rated at a 6:1 load ratio, that is, the structural components were nominally supporting no more than one sixth of the load they were capable of. To be conservative, I'll say that the steel had to lose 4/5ths of it's strength to collapse. That translates to structural steel losing 80% of it's strength, so 1320 F is the temperature we are aiming for.

All very well, but the key question is: in view of the damage, how much of its strength did the steel have to lose to start a collapse? For all you have shown, it could have been only a few percent. A factor of 6 can rapidly reduce once you start removing structural components.

Wiktor - September 13, 2006 12:09 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Geoff @ Sep 13 2006, 08:04 AM)
A factor of 6 can rapidly reduce once you start removing structural components.

Not only removing them, but also possibly adding them to the other members' loads.

number3 - September 13, 2006 01:58 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Geoff @ Sep 13 2006, 12:04 PM)
..(anyone can check them, steel is steel)......


To be conservative, I'll say that the steel had to lose 4/5ths of it's strength to collapse.

I am no expert, but 'steel is steel' is not entirely accurate, as an example the weak steal used in the hull of the titanic.. (granted, this was cold) it was much weaker than steel from the time due to contaminates..

Ill say it was 1/5th, where do you get your number of 4/5ths? I just made mine up.

(4/5ths is conservative? what would being unconservative be? 5/5ths? pools of metal?)

georgie101 - September 13, 2006 02:03 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (number3 @ Sep 13 2006, 11:43 AM)


where is the evidence? stuff I could hold in my hand..

thats the whole point, where is the evidence? the reason for all these different theries is that nobody here has the answers, and thats what people are looking for, the evidence. maybe there were detonators etc in the buildings, but all evidence was removed so quickly and sometimes shrouded in mystery, that its all gone. what we do agree on is that something else happened that day and there are people out there researching hard and finding out new stuff all the time, the truth is out there.

number3 - September 13, 2006 02:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (georgie101 @ Sep 13 2006, 02:03 PM)
maybe there were detonators etc in the buildings, but all evidence was removed so quickly and sometimes shrouded in mystery, that its all gone.

if I recall correctly all of the debris was searched.

for personal effects and remains


if they can find pieces of bone that were the size of your pinky they could probably find evidence of an explosion if it was there



'the government is hiding it' or 'shrouded in mystery' are not likely going to convince anyone who doesnt already believe the towers were taken down via planned explosions..




you can all agree that something else happened that day but beyond gut feeling and opinions mostly gained from untrained observations of video footage/photographs, or eyewitness reports (which are notoriously innacurate no matter the event) there is nothing to back that agreement up..

the burden of proof is on the people who do not believe the official story as there is plenty of physical evidence that someone can touch to prove the official theory.. it is just that the people who have an unofficial theory dont believe/agree/accept it as valid.. all of these websites and videos the truth movement loves are not reputable. people only tend to believe stuff from .gov .edu websites in matters like this, a 20 something splicing together some scenes and making declarations doesnt cut it for many people..

the folks who dont believe the unofficial conspiracy have mostly websites/videos made by lamen to believe.. there is no real evidence to back up any story, people can consider and debate that wtc7 was controlled demolition but there is no proof.... official story people need not debate, 220 stories of office building landed right next to it/inside of it breaking parts of the structure, also started a fire.. broken structure + fire = fall down.... you can do a 'back and to the left' a thousand times with the wtc7 but there will never be anything in the video that can refute the fact a building fell on it and started a fire... until there is physical evidence that the building came down by controlled demolition the only probable and possible explanation is that when a building fell on top of it the structure was grievously damaged.. why keep looking?


the official story people have evidence upon evidence which is ignored, really for no reason other than some gut feeling it was fake.. an opinion that Osama 'doesnt look like' Osama when they clearly do... confessions by people who took part in the planning of the event, video tapes of known terrorists on overstayed visas, records of these people learning to fly planes, recorded sound of hijacker speaking to the cabin, planes flying into buildings, fires, collapses etc..etc.. there is really nothing to search for or any truth to look for in the evidence the official people have, it is pretty much known what happened... the official story does not need large portions of evidence which has not yet been found in order to prove its theory because it has been proven by thousands upon thousands of evidences already, physical, documents, video, testimony, confessions, eyewitness reports..etc..


I am not saying that you cant believe what you do... It just seems like there is some 99% of the truth movement investigation yet to do (in terms of providing physical evidence of the conspiracy in terms of documents and physical objects) and 0% for the official story believers.. (all their simulations are being done to understand the minutea of the event, we already know what happened and why.. hell, people still do simulations of Titanic and we KNOW what happened there!)

Loose Change doesnt need to be debunked, it poses no threat to the official stories mountain of physical/verbal/video evidence.

Wiktor - September 13, 2006 02:53 PM (GMT)
[cheers] [thumbsup] TO NUMBER 3

mysharona - September 13, 2006 05:39 PM (GMT)
The conspiracy movement is led by a bunch of KIDS. And, amazingly, child-like adults follow. Historically, a paranoid fringe always develops around important events. The "truth" movement are just the most recent example of a long and cliched tradition. What makes them look that much dumber is that we now live in an age where everyone can see all the evidence immediately. So, when anyone who's not a kid with piercings or an otherwise ineffectual adult looks at the actual evidence the conspiracy argument evaporates. I mean, did you see the display put on by the loose change guys in their "debate" with popular mechanics? It was a temper tantrum, plain and simple. No facts or analysis, just raw infantile rage.

georgie101 - September 13, 2006 08:52 PM (GMT)
number3 = you ask why keep looking, there are nearly 2,800 reasons to keep looking, and for the families who DO want to know the truth, and also, for all of our futures




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree