9/11 Loose Change Video

physicsninja · August 4, 2006, 6:23pm

Like most such discussions on 9-11 this one disintegrated into a familiar pattern of

Consipracy Theorist: Well what about Fact#3?
Team America: Fuck you. you’re dumb.

Ever read books on hypnosis? Under hypnosis patients are sometimes told to forget a particular number such as seven. Then when they are asked to count the number of fingers they have, they have no problem at all with having a number missing. In fact, they will construe elaborate rationalizations for why this is so and if pressed further simply ignore the questions.

harris447 · August 5, 2006, 10:58pm

Here’s the problem with all conspiracy theories, as Ben Franklin saw it:

“Three may keep a secret, if two are dead.”

haney · August 7, 2006, 2:30pm

This article answers all the questions

Superfly555 · August 7, 2006, 6:48pm

Just FYI check out this google video. 2nd tallest tower/building ever detonated. This was in Ft. Worth, Texas.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

Falls right in its footprint. Very intresting.

doogie · August 7, 2006, 7:18pm

[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Just FYI check out this google video. 2nd tallest tower/building ever detonated. This was in Ft. Worth, Texas.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

Falls right in its footprint. Very intresting.[/quote]

Are you blind or stupid? Did you see it fall starting at the BOTTOM? Find a single video of a building being detonated from the the upper quarter on down, and then come back.

Superfly555 · August 7, 2006, 7:37pm

[quote]doogie wrote:
Are you blind or stupid? Did you see it fall starting at the BOTTOM? Find a single video of a building being detonated from the the upper quarter on down, and then come back.[/quote]

Well a jet liner didn’t crash into this tower my friend. Hence no weakened upper quarter.

Sepukku · August 8, 2006, 12:09am

I don?t know if this question has been answered or not, but I?ve always been curious about the central support collumns. I can understand the floors collapsing on eachother in accordance to the pancaking theory. However, for that to occur in the manner that it did, the central support collumns would have had to have been damaged, sectionally, in many places.

I can understand the collumns being damaged to the point of severance in the upper quarter where the planes hit, but should they not have remained intact further down? Collapsing floors would not have caused the collumns to section at each level. This would mean that the central collumns would remain a great deal intact in comparison to the rest of the structure. Therefore would the central collumns not remain upright, or protrude from the rest of the collapsing building, or perhaps at least interfere with the symmetrical pancaking of the floors?

I?ve read many opinions concerning the high temperature fires causing the support structures, including the central collumns, to weaken. This does not explain the manner in which the building pancaked though. The central collumns would have to be completely melted to satisfy this opinion.

Please discuss.

Superfly555 · August 8, 2006, 12:32am

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
Please discuss.
[/quote]

Here is an interesting picture of some of the quarter mile high central support columns.

http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

Zap_Branigan · August 8, 2006, 12:49am

[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Just FYI check out this google video. 2nd tallest tower/building ever detonated. This was in Ft. Worth, Texas.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6979955002470780153

Falls right in its footprint. Very intresting.[/quote]

It is called gravity.

Zap_Branigan · August 8, 2006, 1:00am

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
… This does not explain the manner in which the building pancaked though. The central collumns would have to be completely melted to satisfy this opinion.

Please discuss.
[/quote]

They would not have to melt.

I don’t think you have any understaning whatsoever of the situation or you would not make a silly statement like this.

Nothing has to melt. Steel weakens at the temperatures the fire burned and does not need to melt in order to fail.

Sepukku · August 8, 2006, 1:16am

[quote]TurboSSR wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
Please discuss.

Here is an interesting picture of some of the quarter mile high central support columns.

http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

[/quote]

I have also heard that the support columns were cut with thermite. The claim was that a sample was taken from the solidified pools of liquidised metal and sulphur and manganese were found in conjuction with the iron which led Steven E. Jones, professor of Physics and Astronomy, to believe that thermite had in fact been used:

Superfly555 · August 8, 2006, 1:22am

"The upper floors of both towers, afer showing symptoms of high pressure smoke out through the windows, exploded into spectacular mushroom clouds. Debris and other ejecta were thrown at speeds of 200feet per second to distances up to 500 feet in all directions. The mushroom clouds had expanded to two or three times the diameter of the towers after five seconds, and had expanded to five times the diameter of the towers after 15 seconds. Blast waves broke windows in buildings over 400 feet away. In the thick mushroom clouds, solid objects were hurled out ahead of the dust, another telltale sign of explosive demolition.

One migh have expected the buildings to tip over at an angle starting at points where they had been hit like a tree which leaves a stump as if talls towards the side where it has been most chipped, but they did not topple and there were no stumps; apart from some inital asymmetry in the top of the South Tower, the two towers collapsed down on themselves in a perfectly symmetrical way-a suspicious sign and one of the prime goals and hallmarks of controlled demolition.

The fall of the twin towers took place at breathtaking speed. The tops of the buildings reached the ground as rubble no more than 16 seconds after the collapse process had begun. A weight in the vacuum would have taken 9.2 seconds to cover the same distance. This meant air resistance and little else had slowed the fall of the upper stories. This indicates that the lower floors must have been demolished and pulverized before the upper stories fell on them. The building, in other words had been pulverized, and in many areas vaporized, in mid-air. No gravity collapse could have crated this phenomenon.

The non-metallic elements of the twin towers, especially the cement slabs which formed the horizonal surface of each floor, were pulverized into a fine dust, with particles of less than 100 microns in diameter."

“All the steel in the building superstructures was simply shredded. THE EXCEPTIONALLY STRONG CENTRAL CORE COLUMNS WERE NEATLY DICED INTO 10 OR 20 FLOOR SEGMENTS, SOMETHING WHICH THE MYTHOGRAPHS HAVE NEVER EXPLAINED-EXCEPT ACCIDENTALLY, IN THE MARKETING LITERATURE OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.,WHICH BOASTS OF THEIR ABILITY TO DICE DEBRIS TO FIT THE LENGTHS OF THERIR CLIENT’S DUMPTRUCKS.”

Zap_Branigan · August 8, 2006, 1:54am

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
TurboSSR wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
Please discuss.

Here is an interesting picture of some of the quarter mile high central support columns.

http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm

I have also heard that the support columns were cut with thermite. The claim was that a sample was taken from the solidified pools of liquidised metal and sulphur and manganese were found in conjuction with the iron which led Steven E. Jones, professor of Physics and Astronomy, to believe that thermite had in fact been used:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html[/quote]

Don’t you read any of the links that debunk this nonsense?

Sepukku · August 8, 2006, 12:43pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
… This does not explain the manner in which the building pancaked though. The central collumns would have to be completely melted to satisfy this opinion.

Please discuss.

They would not have to melt.

I don’t think you have any understaning whatsoever of the situation or you would not make a silly statement like this.

Nothing has to melt. Steel weakens at the temperatures the fire burned and does not need to melt in order to fail.[/quote]

I?m not talking about failing, the steel didn?t merely fail in the towers. It would have to fail in such a way that would allow the towers to collapse in the way that they did. This would, as I said, require the steel to be severed in several seperate intervals, otherwise the integrity of the central support columns, in contrast with the rest of the building, would interfere with a perfect pacaking of the towers into their own footprints.

Either the structure around the support columns would collapse, leaving the central skeleton protruding, or the contortion of the central collumns would interfere with fall causing the building to collapse in a chaotic fashion, resulting in a much messier destruction, probably causing much greater damage to the surrounding area.

That is exactly why in controlled demolitions, the central support structures are of primary concern and must be fractured in a manner that allows for the building to either collapse in on itself or into it?s footprint, depending on the surrounding environmental circumstances.

Sepukku · August 8, 2006, 12:50pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Don’t you read any of the links that debunk this nonsense?

[/quote]

I try to read from as many different sources as possible, and I can say that for every collection of conspiracies, there is their counter-conspiracy or myth-debunker, and for everyone of those, there is a counter-counter-conspiracy, or myth-debunker-debunker!

I try not to choose sides because everyone has their motives, and while I can understand that a prime motive for many conspirators, as you would believe, is to seek attention, or followers from whom to collect assets, or merely just a few hours in the lime-light, so to speak. However, I also understand that the anti-conspirators could be motivated to “cover-up” for just as many reasons.

anyways, I?m sorry if my questions irritate or offend you, but I feel that they are still unanswered and so I still seek satisfactory answers. If it helps you, please ignore me.

Zap_Branigan · August 9, 2006, 2:56am

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Sepukku wrote:
… This does not explain the manner in which the building pancaked though. The central collumns would have to be completely melted to satisfy this opinion.

Please discuss.

They would not have to melt.

I don’t think you have any understaning whatsoever of the situation or you would not make a silly statement like this.

Nothing has to melt. Steel weakens at the temperatures the fire burned and does not need to melt in order to fail.

I?m not talking about failing, the steel didn?t merely fail in the towers. It would have to fail in such a way that would allow the towers to collapse in the way that they did. This would, as I said, require the steel to be severed in several seperate intervals, otherwise the integrity of the central support columns, in contrast with the rest of the building, would interfere with a perfect pacaking of the towers into their own footprints.

Either the structure around the support columns would collapse, leaving the central skeleton protruding, or the contortion of the central collumns would interfere with fall causing the building to collapse in a chaotic fashion, resulting in a much messier destruction, probably causing much greater damage to the surrounding area.

That is exactly why in controlled demolitions, the central support structures are of primary concern and must be fractured in a manner that allows for the building to either collapse in on itself or into it?s footprint, depending on the surrounding environmental circumstances.[/quote]

You are so wrong it is not funny. The only way the towers could possibly fall is exactly how they did regardless of the mode of failure of the beams.

You are talking out your ass.

Sepukku · August 9, 2006, 12:08pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

You are so wrong it is not funny. The only way the towers could possibly fall is exactly how they did regardless of the mode of failure of the beams.

You are talking out your ass.[/quote]

You continue to insult me, so I assume that I persist in irritating you. Again I apologise for that, but the above statement is quite a juvenile retort.

You basically just said “I?m right, you?re wrong” and then you actually have the audacity to say that the mode of failure for the central support structures has no role in the manner in which a building collapses?

I?m sorry, but you will have to do better than this to stop me from persisting. I know you are much smarter than your last post alludes.

So, how can you say that the central support structures, who by their very name and nature determine structural integrity, would not effect the way in which a building collapses, which, also by it?s very nature, is due to a compromise of structural integrity?

So the central structures which provide the base of structural integrity have no importance in structural integrity? hmmm.

It?s like saying the way bones break would not determine anything in the way that your arm would break.

To me it would seem common sense, but apparently I am talking out of my ass.

I am currently in Madrid, Spain where last year the Windsor Building was subject to intense fires for two days. I saw the building every day that I was in the city centre. I have included a pic that I hope shows up. If not you can see the image in the following link:
http://freepress2005.blogspot.com/2005/02/madrids-burning-building-stands-world.html

As you can see here, the building collapsed around the central support structures, with little or no damage to the central support structures themselves, withstanding 1472 F fires for two days. So how can you say that these structures are not integral to the way in which a building collapses?

I am not asking “Why did the Windsor Building in Madrid remain standing, and the WTC collapse?” although that question does have some pertinence. I am merely trying to demonstrate that the central structures are quite important to the way a building will collapse.

Zap_Branigan · August 10, 2006, 12:27am

[quote]Sepukku wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote: