911 Loose Change

A forum for serious discussion only - i.e. politics, religion, ethics etc.

Moderators: Shadow Reaper, theblessedsheridan, Casious, Phantom16

Just Anonymous
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:20 am

Post by Just Anonymous » Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:14 am

I hope you all won't be upset that I've posted another reply just after my previous one. I want to include a little bit more.

First off, a little bit about me. I am a true Christian. I voted for Bush twice (the second time was harder). Over the years, it appears that Bush is neather a true Christian nor a person commited to less government involvement. In the past, I tended to get upset that someone would even mention some kind of 9/11 conspiracy; after all, it implies something that is simply disturbing to even think about. But, after seeing a post by some people who were supposedly Christians, I thought I might at least give it a chance and take a look.


On another note, I also wanted to reply to previous posts. I'm not attacking anyone (at least I hope not), but I hope that it might clarify some things. So..., here goes.
I've seen it. very interesting altho I want more proof. I want to see his videos but not from him, ie from the original source to confirm they aren't doctored.
I know that two sources for some 9/11 videos include:
* a DVD by CNN called "America Remembers" (or something like that)
* the new "World Trade Center" movie may contain stuff (haven't seen it)
* Anyone know of others?
There are WAayyyyyy too many questions and outright falseries within the official report.
On another site, they gave the following link to various "lies" in "The 9/11 Commission Report"
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404
I've only scanned a few lines; didn't really read through it. Other people seem to think it's important, so there's the link.
Bill stop watching shit like this it is pure 100% bull it mixes fact with fiction then adds a lot of supposition .......and comes up with pure fiction.

Sophistry is what this is pure and simple.

Where to start picking this pile of garbage apart ..
You know what; although I haven't watched through the whole Loose Change movie, I think I might have to agree with you about this one "movie." There is an entire site dedicated to debunking this movie. The movie contains errors and focuses on stuff that appear to prove absolutely nothing. Some aspects appear so bad that this movie almost appears like it is a government plant to discredit the better done 9/11 studies. (Granted this guy was probably just trying his best and made some mistakes along the way.) I don't suppose, I could convince those of you who have seen and debunked Loose Change, to at least take a look at video #2 that I mentioned (and maybe video #4)?
2. wtf is he on about fire brought down the trade centers two large jets crashing into them brought them down, as the trade centers structure takes its strength from the skin of the building , even the architects in charge of it new they where coming down.
Actually, approximately 50% of the load is on the outer skin, while 50% of the load is on the massive internal core columns. Or, so I heard that's the approximate ratio. Anyways, the point is that they are some large internal core columns to hold the building up too. Also, one of the architects believed that the WTC towers could take 2 plane hits and stay up. If you've only seen the Loose Change video, then check out the first 2 videos for this info.
Fire did take down the World Trade center, there was an investigation into the engineering causes of the collapse which involved the original architect (The purpose being to make future structures more resistent to such attacks) and the conclusiong were that although the crash weakened the structure it is the combustion of the planes' fuels and the numerous combustible materials in both towers which finally caused the steel support beams to bend and then snap. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense since it took a while for the towers to collapse after being hit.

I can't link you to my original source since I learned this in a uni engineering class' video, but if you read this you'll see most recommendations following the investigation are fire realted.
Not sure what Loose Change says on this topic, but this issue is debunked in video #2. Basically, fire does not get hot enough to melt the steel. Not sure what the weakening effects are; would need to look that up. What is also intersting is that we now have evidence that all 3 WTC towers had thermate which is used to cut steel either slowly or explosively.

Also, there have been various studies into the collapse of the WTC building, by professional investigators. Tests on a mock WTC model failed to be able to make it collapse. Some investigators concluded that the WTC buildings could not have collapsed from fire, but were fired for their statements. But this is just all random info, all unconfirmed by myself. Best, I can suggest is to at least give the Lecture a view once.



------
I saw a link to the Loose Change forum. After I first looked up the 9/11 info, I tried to find some sites and/or forums on the topic. Loose Change's forum was one of the ones I went to. I'm not really sure of any good forums to go for talking more on 9/11. The scholarsfor911truth site (st911.org) might be worth getting in contact with the people there.

User avatar
Cleron
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2000 12:00 am
Location: The Great Land of Oz
Contact:

Post by Cleron » Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:33 pm

No one knows the truth for sure. You can debunk things like this till your eyes fall out but you can't rule out the possibility that 9/11 happened because people in power let it happen or aranged it to happen. There was motive enough for such a thing to come to pass. It would be more then easy enough to set such a plan into action with minimal government intervention... or a complet lack of it in the event it was going to happen in the first place.

As far as loose change is concerned well there's some things that never settled right with me & many others about some of the attacks. Too many lose ends & too much miss direction. You can ask the questions all you like, but there's no answers only opinions.

As for the fall/s. Fire did play a big role, while fire can't melt steel, but it can weaken it enough to cause failure under stress witch is one of the things that happened to the towers. Although fire was one of the reasions, but not "the" reasion. As with anything so complex there were a lot of factors.

User avatar
kojak
Posts: 563
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 12:00 pm
Location: DSOTM
Contact:

WTC 7, am like WTF?

Post by kojak » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:11 am

Right, just wait a minute here - World Trade Center 7, it wasnt touched by any plane - and it just collapsed, LOL, WTF, from internal fire - Nope, sorry, buildings do not collapse in that manner, in such a short timeframe???

Sorry, does not compute.

http://www.wtc7.net/index.html


My reckoning is it was meant to go with the two main towers, but the explosion failed, so it was left to burn, after which time the "unexploded explosives" by means well never know.

User avatar
CurseUppl
Posts: 2622
Joined: Wed Nov 06, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Denmark
Contact:

Post by CurseUppl » Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:15 am

Chudziak a.k.a. kojak wrote:Right, just wait a minute here - World Trade Center 7, it wasnt touched by any plane - and it just collapsed, LOL, WTF, from internal fire - Nope, sorry, buildings do not collapse in that manner, in such a short timeframe???

Sorry, does not compute.

http://www.wtc7.net/index.html


My reckoning is it was meant to go with the two main towers, but the explosion failed, so it was left to burn, after which time the "unexploded explosives" by means well never know.
It did collapse from fire...
The explosion from impact stripped away the coating from the steel that protected against heat. Thus, steel became heated and bent.

The World Trade Centers where supported in 3 places. The bottom floor, the middle and the top floor. At each point there were beams that held the structures together and as the middle and top ones failed, the structure collapsed in on itself.

So, beams overheat and can't keep it together (at either the middle or top points) and the whole thing comes rambling down.

Well, it's been over a year since I saw 9/11 on Discovery. Good program though, gave some insights on what actually happened.

Just Anonymous
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:20 am

Post by Just Anonymous » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:15 pm

CurseUppl wrote:It did collapse from fire...
The explosion from impact stripped away the coating from the steel that protected against heat. Thus, steel became heated and bent.
Note that Chudziak was referring to WTC 7 building, which was not hit by an airplane and was farther away from the two large WTC buildings than some other buildings that did not collapse (although WTC 7 did still get some damage).
I think WTC 7 is 47 stories (need to check that).
It fell at 5:30 pm.
WTC 7 had multiple internal columns inside the building for it's support.
If you watch videos of the fall, it falls exactly like a controlled demolition in that it crimps in the middle and falls nearly straight down very quickly. I have been told that it did lean a little towards the damaged area, but it's hardly noticeable if at all in the video.

However, if this same argument were made for WTC 1 & 2 (about the fireproofing).... Here's a quote regarding the steel and the fire. It should be noted that fires don't cause modern steel high rise structures to collapse, yet it occurred 3 times on 9/11.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
source: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Also, the heat would have tended to spread to other connected metal supports up and down the building, thus making it harder for fire to heat one specific area really hot.
CurseUppl wrote: The World Trade Centers where supported in 3 places. The bottom floor, the middle and the top floor. At each point there were beams that held the structures together and as the middle and top ones failed, the structure collapsed in on itself.

So, beams overheat and can't keep it together (at either the middle or top points) and the whole thing comes rambling down.

Well, it's been over a year since I saw 9/11 on Discovery. Good program though, gave some insights on what actually happened.
I probably saw the same video as you did; It's been probably longer since I've seen it though... and who knows, I may have missed parts of it; I no longer remember it all anyways.
I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding the 2 WTC buildings, but as noted earlier, WTC7 was a completely different design and did not fall in the same way as WTC 1 & 2 as evident by video footage.

Regarding WTC 1 & 2, I am not familiar with what you describe. However, the two towers actually had two methods of support. The first was a number of internal core columns running up through the center of the building around the elevator area. The second was the outer wall of the building. I have been told (though haven't confirmed) that each part took on 50% of the weight.


I wonder if you might be willing to take a look at videos 1 and 2 to look over some of this info. The first 15 minutes of video 1 contains various clips of video on the collapsing towers (if you want to skip it or watch it to see things you might have missed when watching it the first time).

Just Anonymous
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:20 am

Post by Just Anonymous » Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:22 pm

CurseUppl wrote:It did collapse from fire...
The explosion from impact stripped away the coating from the steel that protected against heat. Thus, steel became heated and bent.
Note that Chudziak was referring to WTC 7 building, which was not hit by an airplane and was farther away from the two large WTC buildings than some other buildings that did not collapse (although WTC 7 did still get some damage).
I think WTC 7 is 47 stories (need to check that).
It fell at 5:30 pm.
WTC 7 had multiple internal columns inside the building for it's support.
If you watch videos of the fall, it falls exactly like a controlled demolition in that it crimps in the middle and falls nearly straight down very quickly. I have been told that it did lean a little towards the damaged area, but it's hardly noticeable if at all in the video.

However, if this same argument were made for WTC 1 & 2 (about the fireproofing).... Here's a quote regarding the steel and the fire. It should be noted that fires don't cause modern steel high rise structures to collapse, yet it occurred 3 times on 9/11.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500 °C."

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
source: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Also, the heat would have tended to spread to other connected metal supports up and down the building, thus making it harder for fire to heat one specific area really hot.
CurseUppl wrote: The World Trade Centers where supported in 3 places. The bottom floor, the middle and the top floor. At each point there were beams that held the structures together and as the middle and top ones failed, the structure collapsed in on itself.

So, beams overheat and can't keep it together (at either the middle or top points) and the whole thing comes rambling down.

Well, it's been over a year since I saw 9/11 on Discovery. Good program though, gave some insights on what actually happened.
I probably saw the same video as you did; It's been probably longer since I've seen it though... and who knows, I may have missed parts of it; I no longer remember it all anyways.
I'm not sure what you are referring to regarding the 2 WTC buildings, but as noted earlier, WTC7 was a completely different design and did not fall in the same way as WTC 1 & 2 as evident by video footage.

Regarding WTC 1 & 2, I am not familiar with what you describe. However, the two towers actually had two methods of support. The first was a number of internal core columns running up through the center of the building around the elevator area. The second was the outer wall of the building. I have been told (though haven't confirmed) that each part took on 50% of the weight.


I wonder if you might be willing to take a look at videos 1 and 2 to look over some of this info. The first 15 minutes of video 1 contains various clips of video on the collapsing towers (if you want to skip it or watch it to see things you might have missed when watching it the first time).

User avatar
Gust0o
Posts: 8372
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 1:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gust0o » Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:46 pm

I think the opinion of the site chief engineer on the day of the accident, and with some time remaining prior to the actual collapse of both towers, that the situation was critical and collapse should be expected - as recorded in 102 Minutes, amongst other sources - slightly more telling than any lay explanations in structural engineering.

I'm all one for conspiracy theories - after all, they form another perverse strand of entertainment - but I would be looking for slightly more plausible ones; maybe about the Bush administration ignoring warnings of airborne attacks from, amongst others, the French intelligence services; or maybe why a van-ful of Israelis turns up specifically to cheer on the collapse whilst filming from the top of their van.

These ones I like; this one I don't. Next we'll be claiming we see faces in the smoke.

User avatar
Gust0o
Posts: 8372
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2000 1:00 am
Contact:

Post by Gust0o » Wed Sep 06, 2006 7:53 pm

Also, quoting Thom Eagar in such a manner causes confusion when, in his closing remarks from the above-quoted paper, he notes:
However, the building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.
Taken from - http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/01 ... -0112.html

There is more. There's always more. And the paragraph above my quoted one is equally telling.

User avatar
big.g
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

hmmmmmmm - lol

Post by big.g » Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:25 am

Hi guys. long, long time since ive been on here. had to jump in on this arguement tho. :D:D:D

for me, the main give away was the Larry Silverstein interview when he stated that he took the decision to "pull" wtc7!!!!!!!!!!!!!! what more proof do you need folks. the guy that owns (and funnilly enough insured agst terrorism 2 months before 9/11) the WTC complex quite clearly states that HE "thought the smartest thing to do was to PULL it(the building). then they (FDNY) took the decision to pull it, and we watched the building collapse" - his exact words. there simply must have been explosives planted inside the building. simple as that. theres NO arguement to that (although I'm sure SOL will come up with one!!!!!! :D:D:D )

the Larry Silverstein interview is widely available on the net for everyone to see.

Just Anon - ya make some good points m8, mostly I agree. your choice of video watchin is excellent including a couple i aint seen before. thx for that.

dont be fooled by the political spin folks. it's all about power, oil and cash. simple as that. dig a little deeper and see what you can find out about the bush family and their "friends". or even dig a little deeper and go further back and find out who owned the babnk that was one of the major funders for the Nazi party in the mid 1930's - go on, have a dig. i'll give you a kloo - his surname was Bush!!!!!! and us brits wonder why the USA didnt want to enter the 2nd world war???? because they bloody funded it.!!!! even back then it was all about money, power, oil and the american vision for the New World Order Im not saying that Bush alone was responsible, but he certainly knew it was coming. :D:D

Next you'll be telling us that L>H>Oswald killed JFK or that a brazillian student with a backpack was going to blow the London Tube!!!! - lmao
big.G
icq: 106370896
msn: big_g_uk@msn.com
yahoo: big_g_uk2001
skype: big_g_uk
homepage: <a href="http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth" target="_blank">http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth</a>

"Let's Phuqin Rock"!!!!!!!!!!

"AN INTERNATIONAL WAR ON TERRORISM THAT DOESNT TARGET GLOBAL POVERTY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" - think about it.!!!

Just Anonymous
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 4:20 am

Post by Just Anonymous » Fri Sep 08, 2006 1:31 am

Gust0o wrote:I'm all one for conspiracy theories - after all, they form another perverse strand of entertainment
I guess there's quite a bit of truth to that. However, for some reason when it comes to 9/11, most people, including myself in the past, were strongly opposed to the idea that there was any kind of conspiracy involved. I only decided to give a look after some other Christians brought it up, and I figured., well they were right on some other things, so I'd finally at least give it a chance and see if there's any real basis to it all.
Gust0o wrote:These ones I like]

I'll have to admit once again that the idea that there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 is very, very unsettling, which I suspect is why you and many other people really really dislike this idea (as I did in the past). Because of all the emotion involved, and all the unsettling things that such a conspiracy implies, it is simply very hard to even get some people to look at the evidence. Perhaps you've already taken a look, perhaps not, but you've never really taken a look at the stuff, may I suggest committing to at least watching video #2 (or if you want to, both video 1 & 2) and see if there really might be something more to it. If you've never given it a chance, I hope you would at least give it a chance one time -- I did.

big.g wrote: Just Anon - ya make some good points m8, mostly I agree. your choice of video watchin is excellent including a couple i aint seen before. thx for that.
...
and us brits wonder why the USA didnt want to enter the 2nd world war???? because they bloody funded it.!!!! even back then it was all about money, power, oil and the american vision for the New World Order
Thanks for the input. I also wanted to reply on a comment you made. I hope that this issue does not cause you to think Americans are wanting to start wars or something. As you noted, this issue goes rather deep; however, it is not the Americans who are instigating these wars, but people who have gotten into power by pretending to be something they are not, and then using that position for evil. I hope you will accept my apoligy as an American for not being more aware of what was going on. However, you must also understand that this is NOT anything close to what Americans stand for or want. We thought that Bush stood for less government (Republican) and some also though that he was a Christian. We were deceived on both counts. When Bush was elected, many people's guard went down thinking that we had someone good in a position to do something. The following trailer, mentions this at 5min into it:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/videoroom.html#grdec (it's the "a great and terrible deception" trailer video at 5min into it)
The problem is that it is going to be quite hard to get people to delve into the issue of 9/11 now; the issue opens up so many unpleaseant things as you dig deeper and deeper.
I also noticed that you mentioned the NWO and WWII. Again, let me emphasize that these are NOT at all the positions of Americans and they are especially not the positions of Christians. Again, it is the result of evil groups working to manipulate this country. Those of our founders who were Christians probably would have been adamately opposed to this stuff (if they had known of it) and probably would be appalled at the kind of government we have now.

It should also be noted that this problem is not just restricted to the United States, but currently includes elements in the British Government (as you seemed to hint at in your last post), and who knows where else.
How and what can we do to stop what's going on in our countries (and the world)?

Locked

Return to “Serious Discussion”