Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
"Loose Change" and Global Warming consensus - the similarities
Posted by: McQ on Monday, February 12, 2007

Apparently, among many others, the "Loose Change" phenomenon has claimed another convert at the Evening Standard in the UK:
Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.

A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.

The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.
Of course Loose Change cobbles together a string of "facts" which, on first blush, seems to paint a plausible picture. Of course, the problems arise when you get under the surface of the story. For instance the charge that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolitions as the "how it happened" never explores the "how it would have to have been done" aspect of actually wiring those towers up. I mean think about it. Literally miles of wiring and tons of explosives have to be placed clandestinely in huge buildings with 24 hour security. A snap, no?

And this:
The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"
Uh, DNA? Note as they deny it was a plane that hit the Pentagon they also have to ignore phone calls from passengers of that plane to loved ones describing what was going on. Another question never answered (or considered) is how did those passengers end up in the Pentagon if it wasn't their plane which hit the place?

You also have to ignore video evidence of Osama bin Laden bragging about the operation and its success. Lastly, given the vast size of the operation, you have to buy into the ability of a government which can't even keep a phone tapping scheme secret, has somehow managing to keep everyone involved totally silent 6 years on. Yeah, that's likely.

Yet here we are with a collection of "facts" being touted as "truth" and a good portion of the population agreeing with the "consensus" being offered.

It should be surprising. But given the tendency of many to accept consensus on Global Warming TM vs. real scientific evidence, it just isn't anymore.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
God imagining that a growing number of people are actually believing this stuff is frightening. But based on the provocative title, I was really expecting more of a compare/contrast than the two sentences at the end offered.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Remember the clown who ’proved’ the WTC couldn’t have collapsed from plane impact and fire by putting a chicken wire frame between two patio blocks and burning some gasoline inside? Yeah, that’s a REAL good model for a steel & concrete building hit by a bloody airplane... And people believed it. Still do.

For that matter, even if you somehow paid off all the building security, it takes weeks to set up a controlled implosion, so you’re telling me none of the thousands of people working in the buildings A: saw anything and B: NONE of them would have noticed something bad going on?

I really despair at times.
 
Written By: Firehand
URL: http://elmtreeforge.blogspot.com
I think what you have here is a lot of people desperately grasping at straws to avoid acknowledging that any human being is capable of doing what those terrorist pilots did, because of the terribly corrosive effects that acknowledgement has on the capacity their view of human nature has for optimism. Denial is easier than scrapping the worldview you grew up with, especially when the denial is of terrible things.

Present most of these people with another worldview that still contains grounds for optimism, and many of them will come around, if slowly. Of course, hysterical reinforcement of the inadequate but established way of looking at things tends to damp such movement... hearts and minds, and all.
 
Written By: Piercello
URL: http://
Gee, scientists engage in massive research and study, and then their conclusions, well defined and researched are dismissed as unscientific because someone doesn’t like them politically. Wow, that’s post-modern nihilism to the extreme! Talk about willfill ignorance! At least it gives me something to have fun mocking — as long as these ideology-driven fantasies that science is not science when it doesn’t fit ones’ political biases remains on the margins, it’s just an amusing aside. And on the margins it must be kept!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Talk about willfill ignorance!
Already a given, since it was you posting.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Scott, you need to be clear here. Do you agree or do you not agree with those who claim 9/11 was perpetrated by the federal government of the United States? No waffling, now.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Hey Scott, have you got your round red nose and floppy shoes yet?

You and Al Gore would make quite a pair.
"At least it gives me something to have fun mocking — as long as these ideology-driven fantasies that science is not science when it doesn’t fit ones’ political biases remains on the margins, it’s just an amusing aside."
Science isn’t science when it is politically driven. If there were a climate model that showed human activities were responsible for the increase of global temp averages over the last hundred years—and that same model could take the data for the years 1800 through 1900 and reproduce the recorded temperature average for 1901 to any good degree of accuracy, then Al Gore and Scott Erb would have a case.

Given the level of responsibility and achievement some of the people involved in the Global Warming (TM) hoax have, I would rather ascribe their pressing of it to willful malice in the pursuit of power—and in service to their ideology—than that we are all being held captive by a "ruling" class that is in the grip of a Salem witchhunt style of mania.

I state with no qualms at all that Global Warming (TM) is a hoax.

And if it is a mania, when does Rev. Francis Dane show up?

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Jeez, Billy, even I understand that he was mocking those who oppose the Global Warming stuff. Of course, now that I think about it, that does not preclude your understandable question.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Is the extinction of all the mega flora and fauna a hoax?
Is the pollution of water supplies around the world a hoax?
Is the melting of glaciers around the world a hoax?
Is the loss of biodiversity around the world a hoax?
Is environmental pollution from industrial farming techniques (both plant and animal) a hoax?

The current administration professes a doctrine of accountability yet failed on 9/11 and fails when it comes to the environment and

Go study evolutionary biology, chemistry and ecosystems. If that requires too much effort, then anser a simple question: would you pump the exhaust fumes of an automobile or the waste of an industrial factory into your home?

If not, why not and how do you expect the planet to cope?

I believe in personal freedom yet when public policy is dictated by corporations and their lobbyists we will never have true freedom. Our choices have been limited and constrained by the never-ending need to sell more and more products.
 
Written By: JoshB
URL: http://
"Gee, scientists engage in massive research and study, and then their conclusions, well defined and researched are dismissed as unscientific because someone doesn’t like them politically."
You mean like you dismiss the research on the sun being the source of the global warming? Yeah, I see what you mean.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Gee, scientists engage in massive research and study, and then their conclusions, well defined and researched are dismissed as unscientific because someone doesn’t like them politically.
Dear Scott-

Please tell us which scientists, and which research/studies. Please explain the science involved. Be specific.

It should be easy for you, afterall - the science is settled!





 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I believe in personal freedom yet when public policy is dictated by corporations and their lobbyists we will never have true freedom. Our choices have been limited and constrained by the never-ending need to sell more and more products.
ARISE, THE PROLETARIAT!
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Loose Change justs asks some questions that have never been answered. Most of the establishment react saying that the the people asking the questions are nuts, or that it is silly to ask such a question because the answer would have such impossible implications.

Lets just investigate the answers to the questions through and open and formal inquiry that is independent as possible from the vested interests. Let the answers, and the implication of those answers fall where they may.

Most of us that question the official 911 Conspiracy theory, see that current excuses just dont add up. We dont know what really happened but there are a number of other more plausable explinations than what we have been fed.

Who has benifited from all this?
 
Written By: Mike Alpha
URL: http://
The most important facet of Loose Change is not its speculations as to alternative explanations of how 9/11 went down, but rather how it shows all the holes and gaps in the official story, demonstrating, in effect, that the official story is hardly distinguishable from a two-bit conspiracy theory.
 
Written By: drami
URL: http://
Actually, there is a better video on Google videos called 9/11 Mysteries which just focuses on the controlled demolitions. Even that movie still has some issues - for example, citing Eric Hufschmid, who should be ignored as a racist. But the basic facts remain: the buildings came down at free-fall speed and vaporized into powder. The pile had molten metal weeks later due to the thermate used to cut the steel central columns. Building 7 is the most obvious controlled demolition, and now we even have rescue workers on the record saying they were told the building was going to be "brought down". These superficial hit pieces won’t work much longer, except to discredit the author as someone who either a) doesn’t do their research before mouthing off, or b) is intentionally trying to pawn off misinformation to get a paycheck or two.
 
Written By: Bianca
URL: http://
Oh, God...here come the nuts!
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Loose Change justs asks some questions that have never been answered.
No, it doesn’t. It brings up random information — some of it false — and pretends that there’s no explanation for it.

One case in point is the claim that the WTC towers fell "at free-fall speeds". It’s an absurd claim on the face of it: there are large chunks of debris fallling much faster than the rest of the building. And if you take the time to make some simple measurements and calculations, you’ll find the buildings didn’t fall anywhere close to "free-fall speeds".

But that’s the way Loose Change works: prop up some pseudo-science and hope that people watching it are too dumb to check things out for themselves.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Loose Change justs asks some questions that have never been answered.
Interesting to compare that description to this one:

"...massive research and study, and then their conclusions, well defined and researched..."
Here is our example of the massive research project with well-defined and researched conclusions:
The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"
Seems like the hype is getting ahead of the "research" already.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Oh, God...here come the nuts!
This reminds me of the time somebody here posted about Scientology, except that the Scientologists who came out of the woodwork seemed a little more grounded than Erb does in this thread.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
I don’t know why I bother...but here goes:
But the basic facts remain: the buildings came down at free-fall speed
No, that’s not true. See above.
and vaporized into powder.
Yeah, except for the huge chunks of steel and concrete that weren’t vaporized into powder.
The pile had molten metal weeks later due to the thermate used to cut the steel central columns.
No, the molten metal was due to the huge pressure of several tons of material sitting on top of it. There was no "thermate" involved.
Building 7 is the most obvious controlled demolition,
Did you see the huge gash in one corner of the building caused by debris from WTC 2? I thought not.
and now we even have rescue workers on the record saying they were told the building was going to be "brought down".
Another lie. There was a discussion between the fire marshall and the owner of the building to "pull" the building — that is, to remove the firefighters from the obviously lost cause and let them do some good elsewhere. But it’s just ludicrous to claim that the decision to "bring down" WTC 7 was made on 9/11: it would have taken weeks to prepare the building for controlled demoltion.
someone who either a) doesn’t do their research before mouthing off
That would be you, Bianca.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Um... You — and apparently your readers haven’t actually SEEN this or you’d have know exactly how your first rhetorical question was answered.

Why don’t you actually WATCH it from start to finish and then get back to us, hm?

KTHXBY
 
Written By: MikieNes
URL: http://
Wow, every argument or piece of "evidence" offered easily destroyed and shown to be false. And it’s the same arguments I see over and over again, meaning people are just refusing to understand or believe the reasons why there was no conspiracy. This kind of denial and willful ignorance is not the sign of a healthy mind.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
We dont know what really happened but there are a number of other more plausable explinations than what we have been fed.
For my response to you 9/11 truthers.....I’ll just recommend you to watch the South Park episode that dealt with the likes of you. My sentiments exactly
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
And yes, there most definitely WAS thermate involved.

At least if you believe Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones who detected it in Ground Zero steel samples.

But then who am I to take the word of a tenured physics professor over that of some blowhard a*shol* blogger?
 
Written By: MikieNes
URL: http://
At least if you believe Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones who detected it in Ground Zero steel samples.
Jones has been thoroughly discredited.

Here’s something for the regulars: Professor Jones says that there’s no way that descending floors from the WTC collapse could have taken out the floors below. He says that would be like a car hitting the rear car in a line of stopped vehicles, and having all the vehicles hit the one in front without slowing down.

Anyone want to tell us what’s wrong with his analogy?
But then who am I to take the word of a tenured physics professor over that of some blowhard a*shol* blogger?
You know, if you want to engage in real, logical debate, I’m ready any time. But if all you’re going to do is use Appeal To Authority and then call me names, you’ve pretty much conceded the debate.

By the way, thermate is an incendiary compound. It wouldn’t be used in demolishing buildings.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Let’s see here. Someone observes some very real issues with the veracity of parts of the movie LOOSE CHANGE. From this. we are led to two wholly unsuported conclusions. First, because there are problems with parts of LOOSE CHANGE, everything either stated or alleged in the movie is false. Secondly, because LOOSE CHANGE has problems, we are led to believe that AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is equally flawed.

The lack of both logic and critical thinking here is simply astounding!
 
Written By: Dan Smith
URL: http://
You mean the Steven Jones who was forced into an early retirement recently? But why should you believe a former BYU professor, when you have every other BYU professor saying he’s wrong.
The Brigham Young college of engineering issued an even stronger statement on its Web site. "The structural engineering faculty," it read, "do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
Or a Materials Engineer at MIT
Thomas W. Eagar is one scientist who has paid some attention to the demolition hypothesis — albeit grudgingly. A materials engineer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mr. Eagar wrote one of the early papers on the buildings’ collapses, which later became the basis for a documentary on PBS. That marked him for scrutiny and attack from conspiracy theorists. For a time, he says, he was receiving one or two angry e-mail messages each week, many accusing him of being a government shill. When Mr. Jones’s paper came out, the nasty messages increased to one or two per day.

So Mr. Eagar has become reluctantly familiar with Mr. Jones’s hypothesis, and he is not impressed. For example, he says, the cascade of yellow-hot particles coming out of the south tower could be any number of things: a butane can igniting, sparks from an electrical arc, molten aluminum and water forming a hydrogen reaction — or, perhaps most likely, a spontaneous, completely accidental thermite reaction.

Occasionally, he says, given enough mingled surface area, molten aluminum and rust can react violently, à la thermite. Given that there probably was plenty of molten aluminum from the plane wreckage in that building, Mr. Eagar says, it is entirely possible that this is what happened.
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm

Or a Civil Engineering professor at BYU
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones’ (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones’ thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Let’s see here. Someone observes some very real issues with the veracity of parts of the movie LOOSE CHANGE. From this. we are led to two wholly unsuported conclusions. First, because there are problems with parts of LOOSE CHANGE, everything either stated or alleged in the movie is false. Secondly, because LOOSE CHANGE has problems, we are led to believe that AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH is equally flawed.
Actually, we are not led to either conclusion.

Have you ever been a juror on a trial? One piece of admonishment all judges give jurors is thus: a person who is knowingly false in one part of his testimony may be assumed to be false in any other part.

Loose Change is comprised of a lot of sloppy work, and is wholly and deliberately negligent of physics in many parts. While it’s a stretch to say it gets everything wrong, it’s certainly a reasonable assumption that anything purported in that movie is automatically suspect and should be verified independently.

But no one here is saying, "Loose Change is wrong, so An Inconvenient Truth is wrong." McQ was just noting that both movies have rabid supporters who don’t always listen to reason.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"But then who am I to take the word of a ... professor over that of some blowhard a*shol* blogger?"
All right, you guys. I am getting tired of resetting the irony meter. Quit pegging it!

 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
I swear, these guys sound enough like Erb you can think they’re sockpuppets....and they’re all so very wrong.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Looks like Erb unleashed the rest of the liberal arts facutly upon us.
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
I dislike the leaps of logic that both sides make. And there is a difference between an observation and statement of opinion.

A couple observations, opinions and leaps of logic:

"Uh, DNA?"
Choicepoint was the company responsible for the identification of the victims, using DNA analysis. They were also the company that disenfranchised the black voters in Florida.

"I mean think about it. Literally miles of wiring and tons of explosives have to be placed clandestinely in huge buildings with 24 hour security."

Stratesec was the security firm employed to (duh) provide security to Dulles International, United Airlines and the WTC. They(Stratesec), had installed a new security system the previous year(Leap of logic, presuming that’s how they could wire up the building for demo). Their contract ended on 10 Sept 2001. Marvin Bush was on Stratesec’s board of directors.

"You also have to ignore video evidence of Osama bin Laden bragging about the operation and its success"

Everytime I watch that video, I don’t believe that it’s Usama Bin Laden. It doesn’t look a thing like him. That’s my opinion, therefore I take the authors statement as opinion.

"Lastly, given the vast size of the operation"

This statement is an opinion, and makes it sound like it would have to be a large operation. I’ve thought about it, and think that it could probably be pulled off with 100 people, some in significant positions, some foot soldiers. Once again, an opinion responding to an opinion.


Really, if a true investigation had taken place, stupid questions like the ones 9/11 truthers(I hate that term) would all be answered. If it wasn’t for the Jersey Girls, an investigation would have never taken place. The whole thing stinks to high hell.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Guys, I’m really not sure why you keep slandering Erb with these conspiracy proselytizers.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Looks like Erb unleashed the rest of the liberal arts facutly upon us.
There is one unanswered question here: Where is MK Ultra?
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Josh, Mike, Bianca, drami, Mikines, Dave
would you guys be willing to sign the petition to ban
Di Hydrogen Monoxide - This stuff is so invasive, I mean, it’s positively everywhere now, and the same people who engineered the WTC are either ignoring it or continue to encourage it’s use (well, they don’t discourage it) by the American public and industry! (interestingly enough there were quantities of it found in the WTC rubble and the Pentagon after the alleged ’attack’ on 9/11)

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And it is a big factor in the concerns about Global Warming as well!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This statement is an opinion, and makes it sound like it would have to be a large operation. I’ve thought about it, and think that it could probably be pulled off with 100 people, some in significant positions, some foot soldiers. Once again, an opinion responding to an opinion.
Well, given that we KNOW airliners hit the buildings . . .

And we have good engineering analysis that shows that what resulted was what would happen if those airlines hit . . .

Why would we need a larger conspiracy?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Di Hydrogen Monoxide

Ahh.. I’m ignorant of science? Or I believe a hoax? Or is it because I ask what I believe are valid questions? You’re an idiot. My stupidity is only trumped by a personal attack.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
"Stratesec was the security firm employed to (duh) provide security to Dulles International, United Airlines and the WTC. They(Stratesec), had installed a new security system the previous year(Leap of logic, presuming that’s how they could wire up the building for demo). Their contract ended on 10 Sept 2001. Marvin Bush was on Stratesec’s board of directors."

Cough. This is my favorite. So Clinton really was to blame!!!!!
 
Written By: Sebastian Holsclaw
URL: http://
"Well, given that we KNOW airliners hit the buildings . . .

And we have good engineering analysis that shows that what resulted was what would happen if those airlines hit . . .

Why would we need a larger conspiracy?"


I think the larger conspiracy comes from the surrounding issues that are unanswered, thereby including the actual event itself(the falling of the buildings). I don’t have a tendency to look at the buildings falling, even though I have opinions and thoughts about it.

As far as the NIST engineering analysis, they took a conclusion(pancake collapse) and structured their data around the conclusion, When they should have taken all data and formed their conclusion.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Choicepoint was the company responsible for the identification of the victims, using DNA analysis. They were also the company that disenfranchised the black voters in Florida.
And there is where I stopped reading. Just how many conspiracies do you believe in anyway?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Cough. This is my favorite. So Clinton really was to blame!!!!!"

It was an observation, and your well-informed, genuine reply makes me question my understanding of the topic. Well done. I am in awe of your ability to dialogue. I should be ashamed of myself for being so obtuse.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Marvin Bush was on Stratesec’s board of directors.
Marvin Bush left his board seat in June, 2000, 14 months before the attack. I can’t find any reference showing that Stratesec’s contract expired on 9/10/01. Please provide us with a link to an independent verification of your allegation. (Hint: I don’t mean a conspiracy site, show me something in the public records of either Stratesec or the WTC.)

If you’re going to make an inuendo, you’d better be able to show that Marvin Bush actually did something.
This statement is an opinion, and makes it sound like it would have to be a large operation.
No, it’s not an opinion. At worst, it’s an inference from a set of known facts. The fact is, it takes months of planning and weeks of actual installation to bring down a single 20-story building through controlled collapse. Extrapolating this to a pair of 110-story buildings and miles and miles of det wire this would take, among other things, is most certainly NOT an opinion.

What experience do you have in building demolotion that you can assert that a team of only 100 people could have pulled it off?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"And there is where I stopped reading. Just how many conspiracies do you believe in anyway?"

Ahhh.. I make a link between disenfranchised voters and DNA identification and it makes me a "conspiracy theorist"? . I left it up to you to interpret the information I gave, and you’ve done just that. The only conclusion you arrived at was that I wear tinfoil to bed.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
As far as the NIST engineering analysis, they took a conclusion(pancake collapse) and structured their data around the conclusion, When they should have taken all data and formed their conclusion.
Please show us your data that contradicts the conclusion.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
It is hard to believe that so many of you are blind! That is the difference between someone who is educated, and those who rely on faith.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
As far as the NIST engineering analysis, they took a conclusion(pancake collapse) and structured their data around the conclusion, When they should have taken all data and formed their conclusion.
Yeah, all that weight from upper intact stories suddenly compressing and warping heated steel from fractured stories and all that falling on intact stories still below them....
Yeah, that wouldn’t cause a collapse or anything.

And screw the eye witnesses (hm, that would be idiot me) that saw, and photos that captured the images of, planes hitting the WTC.

My stupidity is only trumped by a personal attack.
Sure, like the presumption that accusing the President of the United States of engineering an attack on his own country isn’t a ’personal attack’.

Instead, I’ll stick with the theory it’s more likely you and me are idiots.
But do play on, the entertainment is worth the price of admission.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Choicepoint was the company responsible for the identification of the victims, using DNA analysis. They were also the company that disenfranchised the black voters in Florida.
Therefore, what? For someone who eschews leaps of logic, this is a horribly bad use of logic. Are you implying that Choicepoint falsified data? If so, how and why? Or are you just trying to make us believe that because Choicepoint allegedly did something nefarious, it did something else nefarious?

If you’ve got any evidence, show it. Otherwise, concede this point as a red herring.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Ahhh.. I make a link between disenfranchised voters and DNA identification and it makes me a "conspiracy theorist"? . I left it up to you to interpret the information I gave, and you’ve done just that. The only conclusion you arrived at was that I wear tinfoil to bed
What else can I conclude when you link 2 things together that don’t go together except in some conspiracy theory?

Or was I supposed to see those 2 things and the veils would be lifted from my eyes?

If you have something to say, don’t sit there and "make links" for us to interpret and then snark when we conclude you’re a loon. Why don’t you say what you think is so significant between DNA collection and (alleged) disenfranchisement of black voters in FL that it merits mention.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"Marvin Bush left his board seat in June, 2000, 14 months before the attack. I can’t find any reference showing that Stratesec’s contract expired on 9/10/01. Please provide us with a link to an independent verification of your allegation. (Hint: I don’t mean a conspiracy site, show me something in the public records of either Stratesec or the WTC.)

If you’re going to make an inuendo, you’d better be able to show that Marvin Bush actually did something."


My statement remains the same: Marvin Bush was on Stratesecs BOD. I never made an allegation against him. The Authors post was full of innuendo, so I think I might be able to indulge in some myself. As far as the termination date, you busted me. I never verified that one for myself. I think it was in Barbara Bush’s memoir. Thanks, I will force myself to read that trash now.


"No, it’s not an opinion. At worst, it’s an inference from a set of known facts. The fact is, it takes months of planning and weeks of actual installation to bring down a single 20-story building through controlled collapse."

I don’t disagree with this statement at all. And yes, by inference, it would have to be a massive operation. I am of the thought that, a building could also be brought down with a smaller group if:

They don’t need to prep the building for demolition(removing windows, cement around columns that would turn into projectiles). They don’t really care if people are killed or not.

"Extrapolating this to a pair of 110-story buildings and miles and miles of det wire this would take, among other things, is most certainly NOT an opinion."

I’m not taking that as opinion. Just the inference that it had to be a massive operation.

"What experience do you have in building demolotion that you can assert that a team of only 100 people could have pulled it off?"

What experience do you have in building demolition that you can assert that a ONLY a massive team could’ve pulled it off?
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
"Please show us your data that contradicts the conclusion."

I don’t have it. NIST didn’t even build a scale model to verify the authenticity of their claims. To be honest, I’m not even disagreeing with their conclusions.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
"Yeah, all that weight from upper intact stories suddenly compressing and warping heated steel from fractured stories and all that falling on intact stories still below them....
Yeah, that wouldn’t cause a collapse or anything."


I never said it couldn’t happen that way. If it was a truly scientific analysis, they would’ve gone about it differently.

"And screw the eye witnesses (hm, that would be idiot me) that saw, and photos that captured the images of, planes hitting the WTC."

Oh, and that means that it was the planes that brought it down?

"Sure, like the presumption that accusing the President of the United States of engineering an attack on his own country isn’t a ’personal attack’."

I never accused the president of engineering it. It was probably Cheney.

"Instead, I’ll stick with the theory it’s more likely you and me are idiots.
But do play on, the entertainment is worth the price of admission."


I’m glad you think I’m entertaining
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
"Therefore, what? For someone who eschews leaps of logic, this is a horribly bad use of logic. Are you implying that Choicepoint falsified data? If so, how and why? Or are you just trying to make us believe that because Choicepoint allegedly did something nefarious, it did something else nefarious?

If you’ve got any evidence, show it. Otherwise, concede this point as a red herring."


It very well might be a Red Herring, but it does show a history of questionable conduct.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
It very well might be a Red Herring, but it does show a history of questionable conduct.
So does Teddy Kennedy. Why isn’t he a suspect?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
"So does Teddy Kennedy. Why isn’t he a suspect?"

Actually, I’m pointing my finger at you.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
What "Loose Change" and many other works have done is poke holes in the official story — that would be the official story that the Bush Admin. fought so hard to keep from being assembled by the 9/11 Commission. If the official story is so reliable, why has Pat Roberts of Kansas sat on the second part of the commission report for years now? At the very least, an airtight account would make the Bush Admin.’s massive incompetence irrefutable ("Nobody predicted that they would crash planes into buildings"? Um, except the CIA, SAC, NSA, etc.). Yer boy Bush would only testify to the 9/11 Commission with Cheney next to him, and neither under oath. Sure, they’ve got nothing to hide... .
 
Written By: NoOneYouKnow
URL: http://
What "Loose Change" and many other works have done is poke holes in the official story
And what we, and hundreds of scientists, engineers and other experts and people who have actually looked at the science of it all are saying is that, "No, it does not poke holes" into the official story, which is not "George Bush’s" but is the story of the hundreds of experts who have done the research.

No one here has even produced or mentioned one shred of evidence of the official story being false or having holes in it. Almost 60 posts of argument, and not even one singular hole has been poked, nor evidence has been offered.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Good lord, Dave. You make Rick Day’s narcotic induced rants look mildly sane. Put down the paint can and get a life. I know that you’ll respond about how I’m not addressing your points or some other nonsense. Well, you might try actually presenting some evidence instead of vague innuendo.

George Bush’s brother worked for a security company?! OH NOES!!1!!1111! That’s the best you nutjobs can come up with? You must be the type who keeps Miss Cleo in business, eh mon?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Hey there Science Dave - why did the demo experts wait over an hour after the impacts to press the plunger? I mean, they could have gotten so many more notches on their belts if they’d pushed it right after the second plane hit the South Tower don’t you think, and since the reports were already rigged, it wouldn’t have made any difference.

Why wait 23 minutes to drop the North Tower after the South Tower?

Kinda risky to wait that long, I mean, the det connections to the upper floors could have been severed! They’d have had no way to be certain they’d even be intact. Heh, wouldn’t they have had egg on their faces if the explosives had failed eh? Wow!

Think how much more panic they could have caused that day!
I guess they must have gone out to get a cup of coffee at Starbucks or maybe they had their watches set to Central Standard time.
Or maybe they were feeling guilty and violated orders or something and waited till more people could escape.
I don’t have a tendency to look at the buildings falling, even though I have opinions and thoughts about it.
I’ve gone back and reviewed something I swore I’d never watch again to satisfy myself that what I saw that day was not some conspiracy.
Spend some time watching GOOD video footage. All the while keep in mind how much a single story of a building weighs and imagine what happens when you drop that about 20 feet and then multiply that by the number of floors above the impact floors and then drop all of it 20 feet onto the floors below the impact point.

Buy a clue.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Let me get this straight: A conspiracy theorist (anti-Global Warming) attacking other conspiracy theorists (anti-9/11 Official Story) for being conspiracy theorists. Yeah, you’ve got a lot of credibility.
 
Written By: Observer
URL: http://
Well, you’ve all changed my mind. I must’ve inhaled too much Di Hydrogen Monoxide, or maybe the air the EPA said was safe. Your arguments are incredible. Don was the only one that wanted to have a discussion, and I give him props for that.

No one’s lying. I’m going back to sleep. Thanks for the insight!
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
And by the way, wingnut lovers of logic: Vince Foster/Travelgate/Whitewater/Clinton’s black love child/Clinton the rapist, etc. = Years of investigations, 0 convictions, nothing proved. 9/11/more than 3,000 dead/attack on undefended American soil = Months of investigations fought tooth and nail, 0 convictions, nothing proved. In fact, Osama’s never even been charged (but he’s so hard to find)! And the Bushies won’t tell us what country it was that was fingered in the 9/11 Report for supporting the terrorists! And Bushco told the firefighters and rescuers that the air was safe in lower Manhattan! And, whoops, how did all those Bin Ladens get flown out of the country when all non-military flights were grounded?That’s Republicans, folks!
 
Written By: NoOneYouKnow
URL: http://
This argument is gonna go on after we’re all dead and gone,and it could all be cleared up if our wonderful gov’t would actually allow an investigation.
there is too much selective thinking on both sides of the fence,but I know what i think when the government goes out of its way to make sure we’ll never know.And wasn’t 9-11 like the first day NORAD had been under the control of a non-military command since ummmm forever.
 
Written By: darryl hodges
URL: http://
I never accused the president of engineering it. It was probably Cheney.
Priceless.

Yes Dave, this sort of accusation against the Vice President of the United States isn’t a personal attack either.

To save you the time, in case you (and assorted others) haven’t done any serious investigation of the following - they’re all true -

The moon landings were staged.
The earth is flat.
There was no Holocaust.
Kennedy was killed by at least 2 snipers, hired by the CIA and the Mob.
His brother Joe was killed by the Mob.
His brother Robert was killed by the Mob.
Marilyn Monroe was killed by the Kennedys.
The Christ had a wife and kids.
There is a Holy Grail.
There is a Sacred Spear.
Elvis was abducted by aliens (not Capital A aliens, they would have used his DNA to create Elvis-Aliens that sang Love me tender as they ate you).
The Illuminati are in control of the world.
Hugo Chavez is not an idiot.
Kim Jong Il just wants some friends.
Everything you hear about people you don’t like (especially the President, or the Vice President, in particular THIS President and Vice President) is probably true.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Well Dave, you really haven’t given any thing to refute, simply threw out innuendo and then acted smug and self satisfied when people made inferences from that innuendo.

It’s nice that you’re trying keep an open mind about this, and haven’t said you believe anything one way or the other, that way you can act superior and righteous when people throw you in with the off the deep in conspiracy believers. However you acting innocent when people call you out on your claims adds nothing to the debate and shows you to be playing a game of rhetoric and sophistry.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Wow, that’s funny- the guy who wrote this hit piece couldn’t figure out the point being made by Loose Change here:

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"

Dopey answers:

"Uh, DNA?"

Yeah, fires that are alleged to be hot enough to vaporize an airliner ( no such fire exists, not made from jet fuel anyway )always leave usable DNA from 184 passengers behind... snicker
 
Written By: clocker bob
URL: http://
NoOneYouKnow,

No one has argued for Vince Foster conspiracy theories, so that makes it a bit of a Non-Sequitur, with some guilt by associations through strawmanning thrown in. Secondly, unless you can prove me wrong, BushCo (whoever that is) did not tell people the air was safe during 9/11. And the Bin Ladens were not flown out of the country while everyone else was grounded, that is completely false.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
So you don’t like Loose Change? That’s ok. But don’t say it’s impossible to wire the towers. 9/11 Mysteries investigates this aspect and find that a lot of suspicious activities happened in the towers (massive evacuations, complete shutdown, mysterious "technicians" bringing heavy equipment, etc, all of this described by people who worked in the towers) the week-end before 9/11. It’s not loose Change’s job to cover every aspect of 9/11. It’s the 9/11 Commission’s job, and they failed miserably at it. Why are some the 19 highjackers still alive? Why was there molten metal (like lava in a volcano says a witness, like a river or molten metal says another one) in the basement, when fuel does not burn hot enough to melt metal. Why did so many people hear, see and feel violent explosions? We have firefighters on tape saying that they were bombs in the building. If you want to discuss 9/11 in a intelligent manner, you need to educate yourself. Doing a botched hit job on Loose Change hardly qualifies as rational analysis.
 
Written By: YA
URL: http://
"Well Dave, you really haven’t given any thing to refute, simply threw out innuendo and then acted smug and self satisfied when people made inferences from that innuendo.

It’s nice that you’re trying keep an open mind about this, and haven’t said you believe anything one way or the other, that way you can act superior and righteous when people throw you in with the off the deep in conspiracy believers. However you acting innocent when people call you out on your claims adds nothing to the debate and shows you to be playing a game of rhetoric and sophistry."


I can see how it can come across smug. I was trying to play the role of devils advocate. I wasn’t acting innocent when people "called" me out, but they’re putting words in my mouth, which I don’t appreciate. And I addressed that.

"rhetoric and sophistry".. others on this board play this game far better than I. As far as righteous, I am. I don’t think of myself as superior though.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Why are some the 19 highjackers still alive?
huh? care to back that up with some proof?
Why was there molten metal (like lava in a volcano says a witness, like a river or molten metal says another one) in the basement, when fuel does not burn hot enough to melt metal.
What witness? Care to provide any proof?
We have firefighters on tape saying that they were bombs in the building.
because they didn’t. They heard sounds "like bombs", not literally.

So come on, can’t we get even something resembling proof, or is it just outlandish unverified claims?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
If you moonbats are right that BushCo pulled off the 9/11 attacks and framed OBL for them then this administration is a lot smarter and more competent then I thought.

Actually, they are smarter than you guys, since at least they have given us a credible story about what happened that day. The only thing you guys have offered is a grab-bag of unrelated innuendoes and McFactoids without a plot to tie them all together.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
"If you moonbats are right that BushCo pulled off the 9/11 attacks and framed OBL for them then this administration is a lot smarter and more competent then I thought.

Actually, they are smarter than you guys, since at least they have given us a credible story about what happened that day. The only thing you guys have offered is a grab-bag of unrelated innuendoes and McFactoids without a plot to tie them all together."


I thought this was a more "liberal" or "democrat" site. But this is the same behavior I’d expect from republicans or neo-cons. I guess there truly is no difference. Your God Noam Chomsky gets called a moonbat. If you’re right-wing, I’m sorry for these statements.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
I guess you didn’t get to the part of the ’conspiracy’ which tells us about a firm run by another BUsh brother having the security contract for the WTC buildings, (as well as for Dulles Airport) - and the lock down on the WTC 2 weeks before 9/11 for "emergency repairs". (as in planting demolition charges...)
You are so dishonest and defensive. Maybe deep down you DO know the truth.
 
Written By: tommy paine
URL: www.buzzflash.com
Yeah, fires that are alleged to be hot enough to vaporize an airliner ( no such fire exists, not made from jet fuel anyway )always leave usable DNA from 184 passengers behind... snicker
yeah, the wreckage from a crashed airliner that came off the end of a runway and caught fire without hitting a building, where the fire has burned through the cabin roof, and it’s gone....that never happens (more manipulated photos in the event they had to use Pentagon Crash Plan b-32-1e79). The fuselage on those planes are always intact, other than parts torn off during the crash.

Yep yep yep.

I guess you were looking for the bugs-bunny hole in the side of the Pentagon? where the wings cut through and the hole where the fuselage cut through?
And I’ll bet you’re a structural engineer, and the people you got your info from are credible structural engineers.

Yep yep yep.
Why was there molten metal (like lava in a volcano says a witness, like a river or molten metal says another one) in the basement, when fuel does not burn hot enough to melt metal.
Was that the basement they took MONTHS to get to through the rubble stacked on top of it?
or was that during the collapse?
Wow, a miracle that witness who saw molten metal in the basement got out alive!
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I never said it couldn’t happen that way. If it was a truly scientific analysis, they would’ve gone about it differently.
Why?

The proper analysis was to detrmine how the planes brought down the buildings. There is simply no reason for them to determine all possible means that could have brought down the buildings.

The planes were the known trigger. The only reason to look at other causes for the buildings’ failure would be if it was shown that the planes could not have brought the buildings down.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And by the way, wingnut lovers of logic: Vince Foster/Travelgate/Whitewater/Clinton’s black love child/Clinton the rapist, etc. = Years of investigations, 0 convictions, nothing proved.
IIRC, purgery was proved, when Clinton tried to deny a citizen their day in court.

9/11/more than 3,000 dead/attack on undefended American soil = Months of investigations fought tooth and nail, 0 convictions, nothing proved.
Uh, it’s a fact that 19 al Quada terrorists did it. It’s proven.
In fact, Osama’s never even been charged (but he’s so hard to find)!
Why would we charge him. Personally, if we caught him we should just off him, no reason to charge him with anything.
And Bushco told the firefighters and rescuers that the air was safe in lower Manhattan!
I don’t know about you, but I always rely upon Bush’s advice on air safety.
And, whoops, how did all those Bin Ladens get flown out of the country when all non-military flights were grounded?
You need to think up new lies.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
I don’t have it. NIST didn’t even build a scale model to verify the authenticity of their claims. To be honest, I’m not even disagreeing with their conclusions.
You don’t need to build a scale model to understand what happened. In fact, it would be very difficult to build a model that would replicate the thermal and torsional effects on the steel girders.

Einstein used to call this "gedanken physics", thought problems. A knowledge of physics, combined with visualization, is all you need to understand the pancaking.

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
"Why?

The proper analysis was to detrmine how the planes brought down the buildings. There is simply no reason for them to determine all possible means that could have brought down the buildings.

The planes were the known trigger. The only reason to look at other causes for the buildings’ failure would be if it was shown that the planes could not have brought the buildings down."

I think I was talking about the nature of the pancake collapse with that statement, not the structural damage from the impact of the planes.

While I agree that the impacts may have caused the initial failure of the structures in the impact region, I disagree with the methodology that followed regarding the pancaking floors theory.

For me, it comes down to the basics. They should have built a scale model and tested the theory. If it pancakes, I’ll believe it. There’s only so much weight we can give to a theory without proving the reality of it. That statement goes for both sides of this discussion.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Am I to understand there was still thermite melting I-beams in the basement days, weeks, months, after the collapse?
After all, it couldn’t have been jet-fuel, or anything else that could burn in the building because that can’t melt steel and certainly can’t make it molten, right, I mean, that was the reason it HAD to be thermite that caused the collapse in the first place, right?

So, why was the steel still molten again once they started digging things out?
Doesn’t that mean the thermite was keeping it molten?
Does Loose Cannons Change explain that, or is that left up to the viewer to figure out as an instructive exercise?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The evidence for the 9/11 "conspiracy" theories is so massive that any objective person would have to conclude that the 9/11 Commission was a coverup orchestrated by the government. Most of you who decry the alternative explanations fail to have credibility because you have not put in the time, objectively, to study the information at hand. I was highly skeptical, not wanting to believe such horrible things could have been allowed, if not facilitated, by elements in my government. I tried to find credible evidence to make light of the conspiracy notions. I could only come to one logical conclusion: the only "conspiracy theory" is the official story. Sorry, folks, it didn’t happen the way you’ve been told. It simply could not have, by the sheer weight of evidence. Write less, read more, allow for all possibilities instead of prejudging the evidence. Then your opinions have merit.
 
Written By: Hank
URL: http://
"You don’t need to build a scale model to understand what happened. In fact, it would be very difficult to build a model that would replicate the thermal and torsional effects on the steel girders.

We’re talking about pancaking buildings. We don’t need the thermal effects to test the pancaking theory. We remove that from the equation. We take the top portion(all that above and including the impact zone) and drop it on the remaining structure. Basically we assume that the thermal effects caused the initial portion of the collapse. We then view the results.

"Einstein used to call this "gedanken physics", thought problems. A knowledge of physics, combined with visualization, is all you need to understand the pancaking."

I can visualize pancaking, but my issue with it is the speed of collapse. Sort of putting your fist through some 1/4 plywood boards spaced a couple inches apart. Each impact, it removes some of the energy from the projectile, slowing it down.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
As to how the WTC buildings could’ve been wired for demolition, Ben Fountain and Scott Forbes, who both worked in the twin towers, are on the record as saying that there were numerous evacuations and power-downs of the twin towers in the weeks leading up to 9-11. as a matter of fact, WTC2 was recabled the weekend directly prior to 9-11...a fact which hasn’t been in the news or even in the 9-11 report. And what about the construction noises heard for weeks on the 34th floor of WTC1, a floor which was supposedly empty, and was off limits to everyone?

And why did Bush say, "For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out."

"That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high — a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."
7-15-06
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
We’re talking about pancaking buildings. We don’t need the thermal effects to test the pancaking theory.
Actually, you do need the thermal effects, because at least for some of the equation, you need to know how the supporting beams were weakened.
Each impact, it removes some of the energy from the projectile, slowing it down.
Yes, but there are two things you’re not considering:

1. The descending floors, once slowed, are accelerated again by gravity. They’d only come to a halt if there is sufficient mass to stop them.

2. The mass of the remaining floors decreases with each floor that pancakes, and the mass of the descending floors increases. Therefore, the resistence to the descending floors decreases, and the amount of slowdown decreases.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
My new name will be DaveR. I’m the one that’s been posting for the last while.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
I guess you didn’t get to the part of the ’conspiracy’ which tells us about a firm run by another BUsh brother having the security contract for the WTC buildings,
I think you need to actually read what people write and discuss. That particular conspiracy innuendo was disproven about 30-40 posts ago.
The evidence for the 9/11 "conspiracy" theories is so massive
Apparently it’s so massive that no one has produced a shred of it so far.

 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
"Actually, you do need the thermal effects, because at least for some of the equation, you need to know how the supporting beams were weakened."
No. To prove the pancake theory, we assume that thermal failure was the cause of the initial collapse. We’re then left with all the floors below the affected zone. Remember, just prove the pancake collapse, not the cause of collapse. We can separate the two events.

Each impact, it removes some of the energy from the projectile, slowing it down.
"Yes, but there are two things you’re not considering:

1. The descending floors, once slowed, are accelerated again by gravity. They’d only come to a halt if there is sufficient mass to stop them."
If a system continually loses energy(say, for 80 floors), the whole system is slowing down. Each impact reduces the overall inertia of the top(say) 50 floors(ever increasing). My issue is:
How much velocity, and how much energy. I understand gravity is always acting, but I also view the structure as an energy heat sink. Losing more and more, even with a constant force(gravity) being applied to it. I just need to know the magnitude of these loses and gains.
2. The mass of the remaining floors decreases with each floor that pancakes, and the mass of the descending floors increases. Therefore, the resistence to the descending floors decreases, and the amount of slowdown decreases.
I think the resistance is the same for a majority of the upper structure, until you get to the first 30 floors which were constructed differently. The structure appears to be more rigid at those levels. That’s beside the point. Your second statement is correct; if it’s a system that is not losing energy. The resistance doesn’t decrease though, the magnitude of the force increases. I’m a firm believer in prototypes and models. Seeing is believing for this clown.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
The science behind global climate change has never been better — and trotting out that old "political motivation" chestnut won’t make it go away. An enormous and diverse majority of the scientists who think carefully about such things for a living consider the evidence remarkably compelling. And make no mistake, if I had a piece of counterevidence that could take the whole edifice of theory down around our ears, it would be a career-making move for me. The trouble is, there isn’t merely one assumption in the climate change argument, which one might undermine and the whole game would collapse. There’s a whole matrix of perspectives, observations, and analysis that all points in the direction of human-caused warming.

If you weren’t so enamored of your imagined role of telling us all how silly we are, perhaps you would be less inclined to mistake ignorance for perspective. The current "consensus" is robust! There’s plenty of incentive for dissent — and there’s plenty of disagreement over details — but if you still think the sun is creating this trend alone, without human assistance, despite (for instance) the degree to which the composition of our atmosphere has changed *precisely in the direction we all know to produce the trend we’re observing,* and despite (related instance—there are scores of other examples) the way in which the trend tracks that change, then I have little hope for you intellectually. I can only humbly suggest an intervention on the part of your saner friends — one in which the caring souls in your acquaintance do their utmost to dislodge your oxygen deprived noggin from your beleaguered jacksie.

Your conflation of the few and marginal 9/11 conspiracy theorists with the serious science and scientists behind our growing awareness of GCC is startlingly fatuous and glib, and an insult to reasoned discourse. These two phenomena could not be more relevantly dissimilar to a thoughtful man or woman with a passing interest in the subjects. I hope the dopamine buzz you derive from that indignant "I told them but they wouldn’t listen" cant you deliver is satisfying; It just reads like rubbish to the careful eye.

Good luck with that...
 
Written By: Dayle
URL: http://
Yeah, fires that are alleged to be hot enough to vaporize an airliner ( no such fire exists, not made from jet fuel anyway )always leave usable DNA from 184 passengers behind... snicker
Huh.

Tell me, how do you suppose they identified the remains at the WTC on the floors where the planes hit and incinerated people at their desks?

Oh, DNA?

You don’t say?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I think the resistance is the same for a majority of the upper structure, until you get to the first 30 floors which were constructed differently. The structure appears to be more rigid at those levels. That’s beside the point. Your second statement is correct; if it’s a system that is not losing energy. The resistance doesn’t decrease though, the magnitude of the force increases. I’m a firm believer in prototypes and models. Seeing is believing for this clown.
If you look at the entire building as resisting the descending floors, then yes, the resistence decreases with each floor collapse. That’s because the inerita (mass) of what’s remaining is lessened.

If you look at just the top floor as resisting the descending floors, then it’s very easy to see how the pancaking can occur. If floor 89 can’t support the 21 floors above it, then floor 88 can’t support the 22 floors above it. The entire network of beams is weakend with each floor collapse, as well, making it less able to slow down the descending mass of floors above it.

You need only look at a house of cards for your model. If the top floor collapses and the next floor can’t support the increased force on it, then the whole thing comes down, one floor after the next.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Apparently it’s so massive that no one has produced a shred of it so far.
or stops dealing with questions it can’t handle unless the movie has already provided a pseudo answer.

Losing more and more, even with a constant force(gravity) being applied to it. I just need to know the magnitude of these loses and gains.
The energy is not lost - it’s potential, so it’s always there, and was there when the structure was not stressed beyond normal expected stress levels.
You can calculate the square foot lbs of the impact of the upper (x) floors on the peak of the stable floors and see for yourself you’d have to have God engineer it in order to withstand that kind of downward force. More like dropping an apple on a stack of saltine crackers than a projectile hitting 1/4 plywood boards spaced a couple inches apart. The plywood won’t unleash more potential energy as the projectile hits and penetrates it, whereas the more floors that start moving with the force of gravity, releasing their potential energy, the more energy is applied, so the force multiplies as it comes down, rather than diminishes. It’s an avalanche of steel/glass/concrete, etc.
Your conflation of the few and marginal 9/11 conspiracy theorists with the serious science and scientists behind our growing awareness of GCC is startlingly fatuous and glib, and an insult to reasoned discourse.
I’ll vote for that! And I probably don’t agree with you on Global Warming.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
DaveR - maybe I should ask - how do you think it should have collapsed, presuming that it was done just as a result of the planes, and not as a result of demolitions.

How would you have expected it to come down if we were right?
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
This entire thread is illustrative of a lifetime of watching too much tv and movies with a substandard education in logic and science. "Hey if it can be done in the movies surely they can do it in real life."

It wasn’t called the boob tube for nothing.
 
Written By: Toddk
URL: http://
DaveR - maybe I should ask - how do you think it should have collapsed, presuming that it was done just as a result of the planes, and not as a result of demolitions.

How would you have expected it to come down if we were right?
Listen, I’ve got a beef with how NIST carried out their investigation. I don’t know how it should have looked, but to say that the aspects of both(NIST 9/11 commission) were exhaustive would be a fraudulent claim.

As far as "losing" energy, I’m not talking about the potential or kinetic energy. I’m talking with where the energy will be lost in the system. Namely transferring the force to the ground through the structure upon impacts.
"You need only look at a house of cards for your model. If the top floor collapses and the next floor can’t support the increased force on it, then the whole thing comes down, one floor after the next."
I agree that it might actually look like this Steve. I just haven’t seen enough pancaking structures to take it at face value. I’ve seen plenty of controlled demo’s though. I have a tough time supporting a theory where only one occurrence proves it’s validity(As in NIST’s report). I will have no problems with it once I’ve seen a second pancaking building, scaled or otherwise. That should have been one of the first things done for the NIST report.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
This is hilarious.

Well, I had that question answered once and for all.

Thanks McQ.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
This is hilarious.

Well, I had that question answered once and for all.
It’s hilarious to see how quickly a person can be discounted based on a perceived state. It reinforces ones feelings of superiority over others.

I expected more from so-called democrats.

Thanks McQ. For showing me that even the "dems" are as ignorant as the repubs.
 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
Here are some facts:

- Building 7 was not hit by an airplane
- The video of Building 7 shows the complete collapse to appear just like a controlled demolition.
- Only three steel-framed high-rise buildings in recorded history have ever completely collapsed from a so-called "fire" - WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 - all in the same day.
 
Written By: Joe Blow
URL: http://
For me, it comes down to the basics. They should have built a scale model and tested the theory. If it pancakes, I’ll believe it. There’s only so much weight we can give to a theory without proving the reality of it. That statement goes for both sides of this discussion.
If they had built such a model, we would still be arguing about the initiation of the pancaking. Not to mention the accuracy of the model, even with respect to pancaking.

Realistically, we couldn’t exactly duplicate the WTC of 2001. The model would only approximate the actual result, at best.
I can visualize pancaking, but my issue with it is the speed of collapse. Sort of putting your fist through some 1/4 plywood boards spaced a couple inches apart. Each impact, it removes some of the energy from the projectile, slowing it down.
Steve puts that to rest:
If you look at just the top floor as resisting the descending floors, then it’s very easy to see how the pancaking can occur. If floor 89 can’t support the 21 floors above it, then floor 88 can’t support the 22 floors above it. The entire network of beams is weakend with each floor collapse, as well, making it less able to slow down the descending mass of floors above it.
Each floor will experience greater downward force than the one above it. The result should be an accelerated collapse.
As far as "losing" energy, I’m not talking about the potential or kinetic energy. I’m talking with where the energy will be lost in the system. Namely transferring the force to the ground through the structure upon impacts.
That depends on how the force is transferred. A rapid transfer tends to break things, while a slower transfer tends to push things.

The rapid collapse of the towers suggests a rapid transfer of force, which would tend to crush the next floor in line rather than transfer force to the ground.


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Building 7 was not hit by an airplane
It was hit with tons of debris and had at least 20 stories ripped out of the south side with a raging fire. But, hey...no biggie.
Only three steel-framed high-rise buildings in recorded history have ever completely collapsed from a so-called "fire"
How many steel-framed buildings have been hit with enormous airliners in recorded history?
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Thanks McQ.
Anytime capt. joe.

And you thought the Scientologists were fun.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Joe Blow wrote:
- Building 7 was not hit by an airplane
Building 7 got hit by flaming chunks of falling WTC building.
- The video of Building 7 shows the complete collapse to appear just like a controlled demolition.
Like one that wasn’t well planned, since it was in the process of slumping for several monutes, and then came down assymetrically—not simultaneously from a dead stop.
- Only three steel-framed high-rise buildings in recorded history have ever completely collapsed from a so-called "fire" - WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 - all in the same day.
I know of a one story steel framed building that burned, the heat permitting its steel frame to sag to pretty much ground level. It didn’t even have a high fuel loading, it was a supermarket.

You see, after a fireman died in it in the first twenty minutes, the Ronceverte and Lewisburg VFD’s just let it burn itself out.

’Course that pad was bulldozed flat in I think a week.

’Suppose we oughta have a conspiracy about that too.

As for low temps affecting steel, a steel rod you can’t bend a fraction of an inch will make like a fruit roll after you get it to just a bright red in a blacksmith’s forge.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
It’s hilarious to see how quickly a person can be discounted based on a perceived state. It reinforces ones feelings of superiority over others.

I expected more from so-called democrats.

Thanks McQ. For showing me that even the "dems" are as ignorant as the repubs.
Wow. Talk about missing by a mile.

For someone who’s so worried about "perceptions" I’m not sure where you got this one but it certainly doesn’t leave me or "us" looking ignorant.

Sometimes Dave, it’s a good idea to do a little homework before tapping on the keyboard.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
- The video of Building 7 shows the complete collapse to appear just like a controlled demolition.
It all depends on what angle you look at. A whole bunch of debris from WTC 2 fell onto WTC 7. Fires were raging in that building.

Just because one angle of the video "appears" like a controlled demolition, doesn’t mean squat. My shadow at times appears to be 8 feet long — that doesn’t mean I’m 8’ tall, thought.


You’re grasping at straws.
I just haven’t seen enough pancaking structures to take it at face value. I’ve seen plenty of controlled demo’s though. I have a tough time supporting a theory where only one occurrence proves it’s validity(As in NIST’s report). I will have no problems with it once I’ve seen a second pancaking building, scaled or otherwise.
Now you’re just being obstinate. We have visual evidence of how the buildings fell (which, by the way were nothing like controlled demolition). We have an explanation of what we saw that completely conforms to all the known laws of physics, civil engineering, and materials science. But you don’t want to believe it because you haven’t seen it before. Okay.

Here’s a picture showing a pancake collapse:
Link

That was from an earthquake. You don’t see the destruction like WTC 1 & 2 because the building in the earthqake wasn’t as tall, and didn’t fall as far. (And didn’t have a jet plane crash into it.) Pancaking just isn’t that common in this country because, frankly, we build our buildings better.


For my assertion that the way the buildings fell was nothing like controlled demolition, I offer the following:

1. Controlled demolition starts at the bottom, and uses specifically weakened joints of the building to pull it into itself.

2. You don’t see the upper floors of a controlled demolition lean to one side moments before falling into the undemolished lower floors

3. You don’t see huge chunks of debris flying out of controlled demos

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Is this stupidity still going on?
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
A conspiracy theorist (anti-Global Warming) attacking other conspiracy theorists (anti-9/11 Official Story) for being conspiracy theorists. Yeah, you’ve got a lot of credibility.
Uh, except that we’re not anti global warming. I think all of us recognize that global warming is occurring.

We merely skeptics of the accepted theory of causation, since it doesn’t fully explain either the paleogeological evidence, and alternate theories haven’t been examined with enough rigor.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
The house of cards analogy is flawed. There are no core columns in a house of cards. What happened to the core columns in the towers?? Don’t try to say you can see some standing in the CBS camera angle, it’s the exterior. I can understand concrete, lightweight steel and aluminum pulverizing, but those 40 something megalithic steel beams...come on! Hey Steverino, ya think maybe as every floor collapsed all of those beams simultaneously snapped? You should throw some armchair science at that one...
 
Written By: Kenz
URL: http://
What happened to the core columns in the towers??
Same as what happened to the exterior columns.

They fell down. And the part of the core which was solid the core was largely concrete and was pulverised. The core was still largely empty space.

Yours, TDP, ml, msl, & pfpp
 
Written By: Tom Perkins
URL: http://
Wow. I am speechless.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Humm.. On one hand we have a president that lies about everything, manufacturers evidence to take us into war with a country just to steal their oil, wants to invade iran and will manu. evidence again.. Why would you believe that this one time, he has told the truth on 9/11. He either knew it was going to happen, and covered it up or had something to do with it..A plane does not vaporize but bodies are still there. Common sense.. Wake up, you are being played..
 
Written By: bayside
URL: http://
Only a pinheaded snipe would deign conflate the reality of global warming with the myth of 9/11 conspiracy. You oil company shills are really getting desparate, aren’t you? Not to worry — no one is paying attention to you any more. You’re just engaged in one big circle jerk with an ever-diminishing number of flat earthers.
 
Written By: trippin
URL: http://
Really???????????

 
Written By: Jay Evans
URL: http://
no one is paying attention to you any more. You’re just engaged in one big circle jerk with an ever-diminishing number of flat earthers.
Ok, time to buy a new irony meter. This one just exploded.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Well I’ll give Dave this, he’s the only conspiracy theorist here so far not to include at least 3 logical fallacies in each of their posts. Flat earthers? Anti-global warming? Democrats? Oil company shrills? Why would you think anyone here would belong to any of those groups?

And yeah, still waiting on all that evidence that exists. Anyone? Just asking for 1 piece. Can you do it? Can anyone?

We only have Dave and the most he can come up with is that he didn’t like that all the scientists who investigated this based their model on the most obvious cause and had it make perfect sense.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Only a pinheaded snipe would deign conflate the reality of global warming with the myth of 9/11 conspiracy.
You are very confused.

None of the posters here have compared global warming to the 9/11 conspiracy, or even denied the reality of global warming.

The people who are comparing (not conflating, get a dictionary) global warming and 9/11 positions are comparing the global warming critics to the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

There might be a grain of truth to that in some cases, except on this blog the criticism of global warming has been:

1. The whole global warming "movement" has become politicized to such an extent that dissent on any level is no longer tolerated.

2. Dale did a post on a comprehensive, coherent, alternative theory that claims to be able to explain the phenomenon in terms of variations in solar activity. Of course the people who are asserting that the Bush administration perpetrated 9/11 have no such coherent alternative theory. In fact, they don’t even have a narrative. They have "questions and observations," which are really half-baked innuendoes, and they have what I call McFactoids: trivial fact-like things made out of processed truthiness that look like facts, but have half the calories.

 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
Dave: I just haven’t seen enough pancaking structures to take it at face value. I’ve seen plenty of controlled demo’s though. I have a tough time supporting a theory where only one occurrence proves it’s validity(As in NIST’s report). I will have no problems with it once I’ve seen a second pancaking building, scaled or otherwise. That should have been one of the first things done for the NIST report.
OK. Let’s start with the assumption that a plane hits the 89th floor, and as a result that floor collapses. Let’s also assume that as a result of that initial collapse, the 88th floor also collapses.

With the above assumptions, we know that floor 87 will then collapse, and all the other floors down the line. The only thing that could stop it would be:

1) A very strong floor that stops the chain.

2) Something that causes the top to topple instead of hammering down on the lower floors.

While lower floors may be stronger, they are also under much more weight to begin with. Once we get down to floor 30 or so, it would be almost impossible to stop the pancaking. To stop it would require stopping it early, up near the 88th floor. That doesn’t reflect the reality of how the building was made.

The natural tendency of the building will be to go strait down. No significant horizontal forces exist to alter that. The symmetry of the building and the initial collapse will continue downward.

We don’t need a model to prove the pancaking theory. It should be the standard assumption. The real questions are:

1) Would the airplane cause floor 89 to collapse?

2) Will the 89th floor’s collapse cause floor 88 to collapse?

If the answer to 1 & 2 is "yes!", then the result will be pancaking.
Kenz: The house of cards analogy is flawed. There are no core columns in a house of cards. What happened to the core columns in the towers??
No, the analogy is not flawed. It is a reasonable model to show that once initiated, the collapse will continue.

If the steel columns failed to prevent the collapse of the 89th and 88th floors, it will fail to stop each subsequent collapse.
On one hand we have a president that lies about everything,
Any proof he lied about anything?
manufacturers evidence to take us into war with a country
The only ’manufacturing’ of evidence I’ve seen were the Plame/Wilson lies.
just to steal their oil,
So, where is the oil we ’stole’? Isn’t it time to drop the ’war for oil’ lie?
wants to invade iran and will manu. evidence again..
Any evidence that the evidence that Iran is supporting terrorists in Iraq is manufactured?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
28 pages redacted for national security.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
Vince Foster/Travelgate/Whitewater/Clinton’s black love child/Clinton the rapist, etc. = Years of investigations, 0 convictions, nothing proved.
Webster Hubbell, the Mcdougals, Larry Kuca, Robert Palmer, Jim Gray Tucker, William Marks, John Haley, Eugene Fitzhugh, Charles Matthews, David Hale, Stephen Smith, Neal Ainley and Christopher Wade all say hi and point to their convictions (or guilty pleas) as evidence contradicting this statement.
 
Written By: h0mi
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider