Monday, November 13, 2006

Silly Screw Loose Change Poll O' the Day

Who would you rather have design your skyscraper?















Elle Woods from "Legally Blonde"?

Or













Judy Wood, formerly of Clemson University and the "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth"?

Discuss among yourselves.

85 Comments:

At 13 November, 2006 10:41, Blogger Eugenio Mastroviti said...

Do I get the option of moving to a mud hut instead?

 
At 13 November, 2006 10:48, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

Why do I get the distinct impression that the kind of skyscraper either of them builds would be fully capable of tipping over sideways?

 
At 13 November, 2006 11:12, Blogger Yatesey said...

I sort of want to see an "If They Mated" from Conan. It'd be like a train wreck.

 
At 13 November, 2006 11:55, Blogger Jujigatami said...

That one is SOOOOOO easy. Elle Woods wins hands down. Her character is vacuous, but not crazy or even stupid. JW on the other hand is a complete moron while also being a lunatic.

Keebler Elves and Star Wars Beam Weapon for gods sake.

 
At 13 November, 2006 12:42, Blogger Manny said...

Do I get the option of moving to a mud hut instead?

You'll at least want a tin foil overlay to protect the structure from the sooper-sekrit space-based energy beam.

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:18, Blogger HidariMak said...

No idea how Elle Woods would design it, but it's bound to be the better one. Poor 'ol Judy is under the impression that buildings have solid centers. Would you really want a penthouse 61st story location to be a small knowhole on top of a whole lot of stairs? And would the door frames have incisors at the edges?

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wise Ones (who are so wise that they don't debate the issues. For you, it's only a matter of making fun of those you intend to discredit),

What exactly is NIST's explanation of this? What is your explanation?

Unexplainable Filing Cabinet Damage
Figure 94. This file cabinet "probably survived because it was in the
basement."

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:45, Blogger troy said...

Here is some more information on Clemson's website in regards to ASSISTATNCE PROFESSOR Judy Wood.

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html

http://www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:46, Blogger troy said...

Oop: ASSISTANT

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:46, Blogger default.xbe said...

What exactly is NIST's explanation of this? What is your explanation?

Unexplainable Filing Cabinet Damage
Figure 94. This file cabinet "probably survived because it was in the
basement."


whats to explain? how is it inconsistant with a building collapsing?

how do YOU explain it? and remember the fact that no office furniture survived is apparently evidence of demolition, so what does that make this evidence of?

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:49, Blogger troy said...

www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/pdfs/Wood1.pdf

www.ces.clemson.edu/me/mefaculty/Wood.html

 
At 13 November, 2006 13:49, Blogger troy said...

oh, nevermind. It cuts the address short.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

xbe,

I don't mean to assume. You have seen this:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm

Haven't you?

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The heat of the "fires" (the NIST explaination of what caused the structural failure) were so incredibly hot..... Look what this did here:

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/briefcase.htm

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:21, Blogger ScottSl said...

Uh, so? What's the big deal about a bag that didn't burn? A lot of things didn't burn.
I believe we covered the filing cabinet before, it was from one of the lower levels. A Ben and Jerrys ice cream shop. So what?

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:_i5Hg8jTDYIJ:screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/06/google-notes-loose-change-searches.html+cabinet+ben+and+jerrys+9/11+ice+cream+shop+twin+towers&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of hot fires, the kind of heat that can "fuse" metal, isn't an incredible surprise that it wasn't "hot" enough to burn the carpet?

http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/fused.swf

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:26, Blogger CHF said...

bg,

You seem to think that ALL of one item must suffer the same damage or else something is wrong.

Why?

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

Great video!! I'll use this. A lot of CT'ers were saying why was all the carpet wiped out? Thanks. There wasn't fires on every floor or every subasement.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok,

Ladies and Gents,

Name a household product that can cook food by raising the temperature to hundreds of degrees, yet not even faze a paper towel.

Yes, it's a microwave, invented in 1945.

Is the light bulb going off yet?

For further study:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060111_e-weapons.html

E-Weapons: Directed Energy Warfare In The 21st Century

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:30, Blogger James B. said...

CTs have this weird idea that in a huge catastrophic event everything involved must undergo the exact same conditions and damage. Because one part was really hot, some other part must be equally so. Someone needs to explain the concept of entropy to them.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

thx for that link BG, anyone know where that video outtake came from? And no i dont mean the site where it came from, cause they believe in flying pigs...

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, I do disagree with Prof. Wood on one thing: I think that it is possible that thermate and super-thermate, or other explosives may have been used along with the beam weapon.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,

I'll find the link.... it doesn't come up in a google search, but I think it's in my old blog.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "shiveled filing cabinet" can be found here:

http://www.sites.si.edu/images/exhibits/September%2011/

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:44, Blogger ScottSl said...

Here's a better one

http://americanhistory.si.edu/September11/collection/search_record.asp?search=1&location=1&mode=&record=18

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:45, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Gosh BG...thanks sooooooo much!

Can I come and visit you?
Please send me a list of what they allow you to have!

:)

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:49, Blogger tym said...

In the months after 9/11, I handled hundreds of stock certificates recovered from the world trade center.....some from brokerage firms that were pretty much on the impact floors...

They were singed from the heat and clearly burned around the edges but not destroyed.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems we have a CT here with better links then us ;)

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,

Can't find the WTC short vid clips like the one webfairy has copied on her web site. I believe it was from the history channel, or Nova, or maybe the PBS special.

I know that they were posted online at a mainstream web site at one time.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:53, Blogger CHF said...

Wow BG....no wonder you aren't around much these days.

Beam weapons?

You've really lost it, dude.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:53, Blogger shawn said...

Bg, you seem to be under the moronic impression that all objects must be consistently burned by a fire in the same building.

And try not being the pot calling the kettle black with your "not debating the issues" nonsense. We're WAY past trashing all your (as in the collective nuthouse known as the Truth Movement) points, and are having fun at your expense.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:54, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

bg posted:
...other explosives may have been used along with the beam weapon.

Now everyone reading this knows without a doubt that you're either ignorant of physics beyond any hope, or completely batshit insane.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:55, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 13 November, 2006 14:57, Blogger ScottSl said...

What's sad, is that he's still posting some of the same links.... and still not reading the replys.
He posted some of that same info months ago.

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well that video was new to me :)

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:02, Blogger ScottSl said...

The video was new to me also.

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Video I just ran across: 911 Commission: Lee Hamilton admits the Truth

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your attempts to defame Judy Wood and your attempts to defame me only show the poverty of your arguments.

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well i dont see no video on that site bg.

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

and i tried it with firefox an IE

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:31, Blogger James B. said...

Name a household product that can cook food by raising the temperature to hundreds of degrees, yet not even faze a paper towel.

Yes, it's a microwave, invented in 1945.

Is the light bulb going off yet?


Hey genius, what happens when you stick a fork in the microwave?

Run to the kitchen, try it, then come back and tell us.

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:39, Blogger Duke of DeLand said...

How "left-leaning" a building do you want.....but really...

Why would I hire an architect to give me political commentary? and why would that commentary be better than an actress?

HUM...Just wonderin

Duke

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:48, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Judy wood looks like a transexual.
I wonder what his name was?

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:50, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

BG:
Do they have viaiting hours on Friday's?

 
At 13 November, 2006 15:52, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Sorry but BG and Judy Woods inspire this:

Remember when you ran away
And I got on my knees
And begged you not to leave
Because I'd go berserk?
Well. . .

You left me anyhow
And then the days got worse and worse
And now you see I've gone
Completely out of my mind
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I had said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right. . .

You know you laughed, I heard you laugh
You laughed, you laughed and laughed
And then you left
But now you know I'm utterly mad!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

I cooked your food
I cleaned your house
And this is how you pay me back
For all my kind, unselfish loving deeds?!!
Hah. . .

Well you just wait
They'll find you yet
And when they do they'll
Put you in the ASPCA, you mangy mutt!
And. . .

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the happy home
With trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile
And twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

 
At 13 November, 2006 18:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James and Pat,

When you post something like this post, you set the tone and encourage follow up such as Lying_Daylan.


I fully support criticism of Loose Change. However, you orginal plan, if it was an earnest effort of simply countering the specious claims of that video, has turned into an sick crusade, where you are on the wrong side.

 
At 13 November, 2006 19:31, Blogger telescopemerc said...

I fully support criticism of Loose Change. However, you orginal plan, if it was an earnest effort of simply countering the specious claims of that video, has turned into an sick crusade, where you are on the wrong side.

*sigh*.

We've trashed, retrashed, and ultra-trashed the so called claims of of the 'troothers'. They are nonsense, idiotic, and more often than not outright disobey the laws of physics.

Give us something new. Not just a 'file cabinet', noit just some poor guys briefcase. We'll discuss it. Meanwhile, all you guys deserve right now is mockery.

Why? Because in a million years the most inept, Ed Wood aspiring Hollywood screenwriter would laugh at the tales that Judy Wood comes up with. Wood's junk doesn't even pass the sniff test that the stuff that fails the regualr sniff test uses on stuff worse than it.

As to the original question: I'd trust Elle. She'd charm an Architect into doing the real work. The building might be all pastels, but it would stand.

 
At 13 November, 2006 19:35, Blogger pomeroo said...

Hey, bg, the other conspiracy liars run like hell whenever anyone asks this question. Let's see how you do: What errors have you discovered in the Popular Mechanics book, the NIST report, the Protec paper, the technical papers by Dr. Frank Greening presented on 911myths.com, the other material on 911myths.com, the... Well, you get the idea.

Take your time. We're not expecting much of a response.

 
At 13 November, 2006 20:51, Blogger James B. said...

BG, if you haven't noticed we moved beyond just Loose Change a long time ago. They are not an anomaly in the 9/11 denial movement, in fact they are typical. You guys will keep us busy pointing out what idiots you all are for years.

 
At 14 November, 2006 09:44, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I pose this question not as an arguement or something I support or believe in, but an explanation. I'm trying to figure out the location and cause of the following photographs from either an OS side or CT side.
The pics are of a particular parking lot.

http://nomoregames.net
/index.php?page=911&subpage1=
trouble_with_jones

Thanks for any info!

 
At 14 November, 2006 09:53, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Hold on BG, I'm on the way! ;)

Pomeroo Crtique of NIST report
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/
nist/index.html

Critique and destruction of Dr. Greening's work: http://www.journalof911studies.com/
See Reply to Dr. Greening at the site

9/11 Myths- Examine the definition and example of arguement fallacies and you will find this site littered with them.

Enjoy and post back when you want to offer a critique to the critque!

 
At 14 November, 2006 10:30, Blogger Alex said...

The reply to Dr Greening is...beyond idiotic. I mean, as far as I can tell, all the actual calculations are correct, but the guy makes so many false or untested base-assumptions that his work is next to useless. For instance, he assumes that all of the concrete on each floor was pulverized immediately upon the impact of upper stories. This is simply not true. Much of the concrete survived - anyone not aware of that has simply not examined the evidence. Moreover, even had it not, there'd be absolutely zero reason to assume that all of it was pulverized immediately on impact. Making such assumptions without any evidence for them is EXTREMELY poor science. I'm assuming the author is aware of this, and only makes these assumptions because it's the only way his model can possibly work. Why? Well, he gives it away right at the end:

"By adopting Dr. Greening's own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage. "


Except there's absolutely no way the fall could have stopped once it began. I'm not going to get into details on that because I'm not really qualified to talk about the load bearing capability of the floors of the WTC, but I am quite aware that the falling mass was much greater than anything an individual floor may have been rated for. Talk to a structural engineer if you're confused about that point.

 
At 14 November, 2006 10:52, Blogger The Reverend Schmitt., FCD. said...

When a fire rages across several floors of a building then every single thing in every part of the building must be burned to a cinder in addition to any damage suffered during the collapse.

I am learning physics.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Swing, I think he was asking you for things "YOU" find in err with the reports, not what someone else finds.

As for The keebler lady, and her beam weapon, microwave crap...

Occam is rolling over in his grave.

1. Angry jihadists - Plane crashs + fires + removed fireproofing = collapse.

2. microwave technology, mininukes, starwars beams, thermite, secretive controlled demolition crews, patsy arabs, CIA fronts, missing gold.

which sounds like the more simple conclusion?

I think the entire "truth" movement needs an injection of haldol.

TAM

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:24, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Mac 1. Angry jihadists - Plane crashs + fires + removed fireproofing = collapse= Conspiracy Theory

After reading the retorts, that is what I find in error as well.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:27, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Except there's absolutely no way the fall could have stopped once it began. Really? Why not? It seems like in other non-CD events, say Madrid the collapse stopped. So what does explain the total collapse?

all the actual calculations are correct, Which proves Greening wrong which is why I posted the info. Os'er therefore should stop postulating his theory and seek to have it removed from 9/11debunking sites.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:31, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

This is simply not true. Much of the concrete survived You got some pics and/or eyewitnesses discussing the survival of much of the concrete?
If that was the case, what did the flows consist of? Millions of cigarettes being lit at once? Naww
that ain't it. Ummm, it wasn't concrete it was dust from all of the floors not cleaned? Naww that it either. Uhh the steel turned to white dust when it fell! Naww that ain't it.
I think you get the point.

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:35, Blogger CHF said...

swing,

you moron.

Were the WTC towers designed the same way as the Madrid tower?

 
At 14 November, 2006 11:36, Blogger pomeroo said...

However Greening is not wrong. His new paper disposes of more bogus science.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:06, Blogger Alex said...

Really? Why not? It seems like in other non-CD events, say Madrid the collapse stopped.

This is why you're not a structural engineer.

"Gee ma, my tweehouse fell down totaly different den da WTC towas! Mus' be a conpiwacy!"

all the actual calculations are correct, Which proves Greening wrong which is why I posted the info.

No, you idiot. You can have all the correct calculations you want, but if you're working with bad data your conclusions will be absolutely meaningless. For instance if I have 4 apples and I want to divide them between two people, I could do so through a mathematical calculation: 4/2=2. But if I instead assume that I have 400 apples, it doesn't matter that 400/2=200, I'm still not going to be able to distribute the apples evenly. Similarily, if you assume that all of the dust was pulverized as soon as one floor hit another, you're going to get the wrong result as to how much energy was expended at each floor. So no, that "paper" doesn't prove anyone wrong, except it's own author.

you got some pics and/or eyewitnesses discussing the survival of much of the concrete?

Yes, I do, and I've posted them before. And you've seen them. Yet once again you pretend that you haven't seen the evidence, simply because it doesn't mesh with your theories. Well, here it is again:

1 2 3 4

If that was the case, what did the flows consist of?

All sorts of shit, including concrete, ash, asbestos, carbon, etc, but mainly? Drywall dust. Go buy yourself a sheet of drywall and beat it with a hammer for a while. Or better yet, take a power-sander to your interior house walls. See what you end up with.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:28, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

No, you idiot. You can have all the correct calculations you want, but if you're working with bad data your conclusions will be absolutely meaningless.
Which goes on to prove Greening is wrong either way. Have you read both papers?Who is the idiot again?

1. I have never seen the pics you just linked to.

2. ROFLMAO-you just posted 4 pics of chunks of shit to support your "much of the concrete survived" Brilliant. No wonder you attack the character so much because your 'evidence' and 'facts' are simply ridiculous and should be ignored completely and totally! Compare those 4 pics with the videos and I think you will go slap the shit out of yourself for embarrassing yourself and the rest of the OS'ers on this blog. That also explains why none of your 'buds' turn to you for assistance in debates as well. Based upon your view, there should have been numerous stories of concrete flooring that survived, but I don't recall seeing anything like that at ground zero. You position is flawed. Admit defeat and go back to your cartoons.
I love your examples. I may just have a few elementary schoolers go out and prove the OS correct with some Home Improvement tools.

Anyway to the rest of you, back to Flight 77, http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
pentagon.html
go read what some pilots have to say about the issue including the analysis and errors in the OS, that and get Alex some Keebler cookies while he watches his cartoons.

 
At 14 November, 2006 12:43, Blogger Alex said...

*sigh*

The concrete on the WTC floors was 3 inches thick. That means even if ALL of the concrete had survived, the resulting pile would be a maximum of 27.5 feet tall. And that's ASSUMING it stopped at ground level, when, in fact much of it sank into the basement levels. Examine the ground zero pictures all you want dumbass, but realize that you're not seeing the complete picture. The "4 chunks of shit" are evidence gathered from the site. They're a representative sample.

I've tried explaining these things to you logically, but you refuse to listen. It doesn't matter. My rebuttals are aimed more at casual readers who may be taken in by your nonsense than they are at you. I've posted enough on the subject to show anyone with half a brain that the paper you've linked to is wrong. Anyone who still believes in your nonsense is a lost cause anyway. So enough's enough.

 
At 14 November, 2006 16:13, Blogger ScottSl said...

No nothing specific about 9/11 myths?

 
At 14 November, 2006 18:37, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

When you post something like this post, you set the tone and encourage follow up such as Lying_Daylan.

Thank you BG I take that as a badge of honor.

I wont apologize because the lyrics I posted say it all about douchebags like you.

With that being said James and Pat are free to edit/delete what they find to be innappropriate.

Your movement belittles and mocks the vicitms of 911 yet you claim to be "searching for the truth".
The truth most of you are just exreeme US haters.

You furhter mock the victims and legitimate researchers by coming up with complete bullshit like a giant space energy beam.

I am not the most well spoken on this board and I sit back and admire many of the posters here.
I am proud however to be the one who call douchebags like you a douchebag.
I would do it here as well as to your face, no problem.

I was a proud member of the Green Party and was very saddened when they touted their douchebag candidate who completely sided with you douchebags.

I was proud though that the magazine The Progressive bascially told you fuckheads to go stick it.

 
At 14 November, 2006 18:49, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I seem to recall Gravy has several GZ pics that showed huge chunks of concrete, and other "non-dust" components of the WTCs.

TAM

 
At 14 November, 2006 19:00, Blogger shawn said...

1. Angry jihadists - Plane crashs + fires + removed fireproofing = collapse= Conspiracy Theory

No, it's a conspiracy.

And the fireproofing wasn't "removed" - it was blown off. That tends to happen when things explode.

 
At 14 November, 2006 19:29, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

well if i said removed, i meant in the generic sense of the word, ie it was seperated from that which it was applied to. I did not mean that someone went in there and picked it off...lol

NIST, I believe, actually uses the word "removed" in this context.

TAM

 
At 14 November, 2006 20:13, Blogger shawn said...

TAM, I thought he was using the term removed, not you. Ergo, I figured he meant in the dastardly government conspiracy sense.

 
At 14 November, 2006 22:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here u see pancaked floors SD.

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

 
At 14 November, 2006 22:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

U can see the rest of the pictures here.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/groundzero.html

 
At 15 November, 2006 01:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could someone point me to the best explanation for how the towers disappeared so quickly? I'm thinking at one of the debunker websites, but scholarly journals are fine, too.

I have read the NIST report and they do not explain what happened after "global collapse ensured." Their tautological reasoning leads me to believe they are hiding something.

What do I mean?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Question

"6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?"

Answer:

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

Translation: Why did the buildings fall so fast? Because they did.

Question begged: Why did the building below offer little resistance!

Begged question restated: Why did the buildings fall so fast!

I also recently read the report by Brent Blanchard, who works for a company called Protec.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

He explains the "giant 'mushroom' effect" (his words) as resulting from the outer perimeter walls falling out. This is not persuasive to me, because the mushroom is going up and out, and i s not just falling walls, but pulverized building. He also does not discuss the core columns at all, other than talking about how much cutting and explosive would be necessary in a controlled demolition, and saying there is no way that could have been done. He says the floors pancaked down, and the outer perimeter walls "fell" away in a giant mushroom, but never explains what happened to the core columns.

He also seems not to have read the
NIST FAQ above, which says:

"NIST’s findings do not support the 'pancake theory' of collapse . . .
Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards."

So the perimeter columns are going in, not out. Which is it?

Not that NIST makes sense either -- they don't explain what happens after the "initiation of collapse."
Do the floors start pancaking, leaving the perimeter columns to fall away into a giant mushroom cloud?

Is there any reasonable explanation for what I see in pictures and videos of the collapse? I mean that sincerely.

As soon as I get a reasonable explanation for this phenomenon, I will eat humble pie and admit I was wrong in my assessment of the evidence.

I will never apologize, however, for asking these questions.

Until I get a reasonable explanation that goes beyond "NIST" and "MIT professor" and "no structural engineers," I will assume that the crime has not been solved.

I went to a website called Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories and plan to read it all, but the author Mike King calls the Blanchard paper "crucial" so I am already skeptical. I will read with an open mind though.

Is there anyone else?

 
At 15 November, 2006 02:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should they investigate any further?

If someone is shot in the head and falls down, i doubt they will investigate how he fell down...

 
At 15 November, 2006 02:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As they already stated Global Collapse was ensured so all their findings led to the conclusion, the building would fall down on itself. Couldnt have gone any different.

 
At 15 November, 2006 02:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/research/wtc/

http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/research/wtc/media/bazantwtcstory.pdf

The above paper still stands after 5 years and hasn't been rebutted by anyone to date in a peer reviewed paper.

 
At 15 November, 2006 02:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The perimeter columns first bent inwards, as u can see in many photo's and videos. then the top block disconnected from the bottom part and slammed into the lower part like a pile driver. The upper part then drove all the perimeter columns outward, also clearly seen in many photos and video's

 
At 15 November, 2006 03:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The mushroom only looks to go upwards btw, if u look at videos more carefully u will just see the walls fall outward en downwards. Because of the fast downward movement of the building it just looks like it going upwards.

 
At 15 November, 2006 08:27, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 15 November, 2006 08:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

Ningen some floors did pancake down. There are various photos of compressed floors. NIST is talking about the initation of the collapse. Not afterward. If you believe the site has other problems. E-mail the site PLEASE! Perimeter columns bowed outward, collapsed then many columns peeled outward during the collapse. You can see this on the various videos.

 
At 15 November, 2006 10:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jay,thank you for the responses. I can't agree with your shot in the head analogy, nor that global collapse necessarily ensued.

I think you are right about the mushroom cloud -- it looks more sideways and down than up then down. Mike King's article says that is due to pneumatic pressure -- the problem is I don't see the upper part of the building providing that pressure because it is gone pretty early in the disintegration.

I have seen the Northwestern paper -- thank you for the link -- I had to get it from the engineering library at my local university. I had trouble understanding it, but it seemed to be saying that a stress wave propagated downward and that multi-story sections down below buckled.

I don't see that happening, and I don't see what you see, Jay, the upper part of the building slamming down as a piledriver and then continuing down, pushing out perimeter columns. I see some sections of perimeter columns in the debris being expelled in the mushroom. I see the upper portion of the building already gone early on.

This may sound unreasonable, and in normal situations I would agree, but the fact that Bazant and Zhou has not been rebutted in a peer-reviewed article does not surprise me. I think this issue is so politically charged that no one in the field wants to touch it. Crazy, convenient? Maybe, but I honestly believe that science has taken a back seat to politics on this one, and that we are on our own. If NIST had done its job, we would not be in this situation. I know, we disagree on whether NIST did its job.

Actually, I think NIST did its job -- just the wrong job. Why, I don't know. Maybe there is some legitimate national security reason that the actual mechanism of destruction is being covered up. I wish I could trust the government, but will not apologize for not trusting it.

I will look again at Bazant and Zhou.

Scottl, I think I see what you mean -- NIST's study does not preclude pancaking after they stopped their model. Since they didn't model after "global collapse ensued," I don't see how they can presume the buildings behavior.

Thanks again for your input.

 
At 15 November, 2006 10:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bazant and Zhou keep saying "must have" and "supported by observation." We have to be right because we saw it. Sounds like a predetermined conclusion to me. They also talk about the floors pancaking down like a piston through an empty tube, which doesn't explain the core columns. They also talk about a high speed collapse of the initial floor, as if instantaneously one floor was removed and the entire mass of the upper floors fell uniformly and instantaneously down.

I don't believe that airline impacts and fires caused an initial collapse to begin with, and that is assumed by all scientists looking at the problem. Hypotheses are kept within politically correct parameters. This is not real science.

 
At 15 November, 2006 11:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No problem Ingen. But why would NIST really test the Collapse any further. I think they even refer to the paper from Bazant and Zhou

Anyway, the NIST wasnt the only ones having investigated btw.

here are some more reports

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.scifidimensions.com/Oct01/Collapse_of_WTC.pdf
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf

And u cant see the upper part, because the view is obstructed by smoke. That doent mean it vaporized.

Maybe u can see it more clear in this video.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778&q=wtc+collapse


And just to leave you of with a funny video :)

really off topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f_7ZSQ3or4&eurl=

 
At 15 November, 2006 13:18, Blogger ScottSl said...

" I don't see how they can presume the buildings behavior. "

I don't think they need to model the collapse in order to understand this.

 
At 15 November, 2006 13:19, Blogger ScottSl said...

The core column collapse was quite different. A large part of the core was standing after each collapse.

 
At 15 November, 2006 14:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yup, thats where all the survivors were, in the core, on the stairwells.

 
At 15 November, 2006 14:26, Blogger Alex said...

Bazant and Zhou keep saying "must have" and "supported by observation." We have to be right because we saw it. Sounds like a predetermined conclusion to me.

And you keep saying "I don't believe", "I think" and "I honestly believe". Sure sounds like a predetermined conclusion to me.

You're more than welcome to have whatever theories you want, as long as you're honest enough to admit that you have absolutely no evidence for them. Thousands of scientists, engineers, and collapse specialist all agree on the cause of the collapse as explained by the 9/11 commission and NIST. Even the least bit of (honest) research will show you that it is quite possible, and in fact quite probable, for the buildings to collapse in the exact manner described. Yet you persist in believing in the Conspiracy Theory simply because you've "got a hunch" that "it couldn't be". Well, sure, fine. Many things in life are counter-intuitive, but when analyzed in depth they make perfect sense. If you're happier going through life judging everything on hunches and first glances, fine, have at 'er. Just don't expect anyone here to take you seriously.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home