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.
posted by James B. @ 10:29 AM
60 comments
60 Comments:
Do I get the option of moving to a mud hut instead?
Why do I get the distinct impression that the kind of skyscraper either of them builds would be fully capable of tipping over sideways?
I sort of want to see an "If They Mated" from Conan. It'd be like a train wreck.
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.
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.
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."
xbe,
I don't mean to assume. You have seen this:
http://thewebfairy.com/911/h-effect/filingcabinet.htm
Haven't you?
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
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
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
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.
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...
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.
Jay,
I'll find the link.... it doesn't come up in a google search, but I think it's in my old blog.
The "shiveled filing cabinet" can be found here:
http://www.sites.si.edu/images/exhibits/September%2011/
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.
Seems we have a CT here with better links then us ;)
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.
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.
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.
Well that video was new to me :)
Video I just ran across: 911 Commission: Lee Hamilton admits the Truth
Your attempts to defame Judy Wood and your attempts to defame me only show the poverty of your arguments.
Well i dont see no video on that site bg.
and i tried it with firefox an IE
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
However Greening is not wrong. His new paper disposes of more bogus science.
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.
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.
*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.
I seem to recall Gravy has several GZ pics that showed huge chunks of concrete, and other "non-dust" components of the WTCs.
TAM
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.
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
TAM, I thought he was using the term removed, not you. Ergo, I figured he meant in the dastardly government conspiracy sense.
Here u see pancaked floors SD.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html
U can see the rest of the pictures here.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/groundzero.html
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?
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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=
Yup, thats where all the survivors were, in the core, on the stairwells.
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
<< Home