Moron Loose Change Forum
Well, that didn't last long. One of the fruitiest of the fruitcakes over at the Loose Change forum banned me for not answering his question about a 1989 Washington Times article that claims... I don't know, something about a sex with boys ring in the Reagan White House. It's of course moderately tangential to 9/11 unless you're a moonbat like TheGuest, in which case it's crucial to checking out one's bona fides. If I could just accept that Poppy Bush was into underage boys, why the 9/11 conspiracy movement would all make glorious sense. But if not... well, I'm just not enlightened enough to reach "Veteran" Status on the Loose Change nutboard like TheGuest.
posted by Pat @ 10:37 PM
8 comments
8 Comments:
Don't feel bad, I got banned too. I guess I shouldn't have asked what the poster was smoking when he said the collapse of the World Trade Center wasn't caused by it being hit by an airplane.
Mr. Fault, the government is not really allowed to release the tapes because they do not own them. They confiscated them, yes, and they can use them as evidence in a trial or investigation. But they are still the property of the gas station and releasing them is a violation of property rights.
In any case, I would not expect much from a gas station video. The cameras there are focused on local events, not the Pentagon.
Hundreds of photos and videos? I have only seen 2-3 photos of WTC7 after the collapse of the towers, and they were all from far away on the side away from the collapse, for obvious reasons.
"Perhaps someone can explain to me how the top part of this building defied Newtons 3 laws and magically straightened its self out and landed almost on it's own footprint rather than continuing it's fall to the side and landing onto buildings near by and onto the streets below?
Please enlighten me how PHYSICS can be disregarded? This is roughly 20 stories that are at a 30 degree angle. It would take hundreds of tons worth of force to bring it back in line with the footprint.
Please explain this and show your math or science that supports it."
I dunno, what's the CT answer for that one? Is there a way to use controlled demolition to generate hundreds of tons of force? We know that despite the claims of the nuts, the buildings did not collapse neatly into their own footprints.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Now the 9/11 Commission claimed that the inner part of the towers were hollow tubes for elevators and electrical ducts. They never state that there were 47 steel cores that were the main load bearing part, and the uniqueness, of the building."
Steel cores? What on earth is a steel core, and what are 47 of them doing in the building?
Let me guess, you're not a building construction expert?
Just the facts, the Marvin Bush thing is really lame. You do know what a director of a company does, right? He goes to board meetings once a month. He has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the company. The movie even acknowledges that he left the company after fiscal 2000. You do understand that fiscal 2000 must have ended at least 8 months and change before 9-11?
Info missing from the NIST report
This is the NIST report on the World Trade Center collapse.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
I have done searches and listed all of the pages with the words steel, concrete, C (celsius), F (fahrenheit), tons, degrees, kip and ksi. I have already found things I consider oddly interesting.
On PDF page 117 they say the towers had "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" and mention this again on page 137. That doesn't seem a very precise specification to me. That could mean anywhere from 175,000 to 225,000. I would have thought they would want to be much more precise than that. In addition to that I can't find any mention of the weight of steel and/or concrete on the floors where the planes hit. How can you analyze the overall effect of the impact without having some idea of the distribution of mass within the building? There should be a table specifying the tons of steel and concrete on every floor. The mass and distribution of mass within the building is going to influence the effects of the impact.
But when you search on the word "degree" you find plenty of details about orientation of the building and angles of the plane and it being banked at 25 +/- 2 degrees. And yet the word [b]"tons"[/b] only appears in the report 8 times and nowhere is there a specification of the tons or cubic yards of concrete. They use the word concrete a great deal. See if you can find a specification of the quantity of concrete in each or both towers.
How do you accurately analyze and explain the effect of an airliner colliding with a steel and concrete structure without being exact about the amount and distribution of steel and concrete?
psikeyhackr
Post a Comment
<< Home