9/11 Loose Change Final Cut Released Online

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 10, 2005
28,697
13,850
136
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
Why did the BBC report building 7 going down befor it actually occurred pretty daming.

Why didn't the BBC report were they got that information . Its pretty damming evidence that something underhanded occurred

:confused: How so?

First, what BBC reported was that WTC7 was going to fall. The building was badly weakened (a 20 story gash in it from WTC1 landing on it) and on fire, engineers determined collapse was imminent, and emergency personnel were pulled back some time before it fell (most likely in an effort to prevent a repeat of the morning's tragedy). That is what the BBC reported.

Second, even if the BBC did do what you say, that would NOT be "pretty damming evidence that something underhanded occurred." Really, the basic logic skills of you CT'ers is severely lacking, to say the least.

Not true a watched it . She reported the Building was down. All the while you could see it in the background . Some body screwed up big time.

Those 3 building going down from fire is the First time in history its happened all in the same day . For one to go down I thought ok . When the second went down i started saying what the hell. When the Third went down I new. So beings it was the first time its ever happened . Why would anyone say its going to go down . You can believe what you want.

What's so hard to believe about 3 buildings going down in a fires on the same day? The events are not inclusive of one another. The probability of one structure failing due to fire is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of the probabilities of the other buildings failing due to fire. And just because there is a low probability of all the buildings failing on the same day, doesn't make it impossible.

Edit:
I can't even see how this conversation could be going on still. The people that believe the crap in those "Loose Change" videos have a little loose change of their own. To believe that stuff just shows that you all can't reason your way out of a paper bag.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Worth watching if you are a kook. Or did they get rid of some of their more stupid statements such as missiles being fired at the WTC or the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile?

Sure are a lot of kooks here. Most of them probably smarter than you. :D
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Worth watching if you are a kook. Or did they get rid of some of their more stupid statements such as missiles being fired at the WTC or the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile?

Sure are a lot of kooks here. Most of them probably smarter than you. :D


Just because a kook is smart...doers not equate to be right.....

So one more time whats your excuse??
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
That's not nearly as damning as all of the Jews in the World Trade Center being absent the day of the attack!
Israeli Jews.
Why is this consistently misquoted?

For example, the city had somehow received reports of many Israelis feared missing at the site, and President Bush in his address to the country on Thursday night mentioned that about 130 Israelis had died in the attacks. But Friday, Alon Pinkas, Israel?s consul general here (NYC), said that lists of the missing included reports from people who had called in because, for instance, relatives in New York had not returned their phone calls from Israel. There were, in fact, only three Israelis who had been confirmed as dead: two on the planes and another who had been visiting the towers on business and who was identified and buried. (New York Times, Sept. 22)
So one Israeli Jew confirmed dead in the Towers?
Now all we need to know is how many Israelis normally worked in the WTC Towers to figure the statistical probability of just one dying.

Could it be by CONTINUOUSLY misquoting, there is misdirection going on?
:(


 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
Why would the "government" tell the Secret Service about the attack? Why wouldn't they just let the Secret service think that the attack was real. After all, that would make it more realistic.
EXACTLY!!!

Still hasn`t answered my question. Country under attack by unknowns. As head of the President`s Secret Service detail, what are you supposed to do immediately?

:)
 

OokiiNeko

Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
508
0
0
And just because there is a low probability of all the buildings failing on the same day, doesn't make it impossible.
Its the falling straight down into their own footprint without outside intervention part which is unbelievable.

:)
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Worth watching if you are a kook. Or did they get rid of some of their more stupid statements such as missiles being fired at the WTC or the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile?

Sure are a lot of kooks here. Most of them probably smarter than you. :D

Most of them are too scared to admit a bunch of uneducated Arabs killed 3,000 Americans on our home soil and our government was unable to stop them.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
And just because there is a low probability of all the buildings failing on the same day, doesn't make it impossible.
Its the falling straight down into their own footprint without outside intervention part which is unbelievable.

:)

Read the NIST report. According to it, the inner parts of the floors weakened, pulling the structure down from the inside. Why would you expect it do anything other than fall straight down?
 

event8horizon

Senior member
Nov 15, 2007
674
0
0
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
And just because there is a low probability of all the buildings failing on the same day, doesn't make it impossible.
Its the falling straight down into their own footprint without outside intervention part which is unbelievable.

:)


i was wrong. they did have some steel from the wtc7. FEMA's BPAT Report had some but the nist just didnt have access to it?????? nist did not have any steel from wtc to analyze.

Jan 6, 2008
Richard Gage's Comments to NIST Committee
? Editor

On December 18, 2007, a NIST subcommittee was convened during which members detailed the progress of their research into the causes for WTC Building 7's "collapse" on 9/11. Richard Gage contributed to the public comments at the end of the meeting. Below is the written (slightly altered) version of those comments.

Undisputed Facts Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7
Response to NIST's Invitation for Written Comments
Documentation of spoken remarks presented on December 18 conference call with the NCST Advisory Committee
Emailed to NIST on January 3, 2008
Richard Gage, AIA ? Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
I'm Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years. I represent Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a fast-growing body of more than 230 architects and engineers dedicated solely to bringing out the truth about all three high-rise building collapses on 9/11. We believe that we have answers to your questions about the puzzling collapse of World Trade Center 7.

In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever. So it behooves all of us, as your own former chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, Dr. James Quintiere, said, "to look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of these collapses."
Let's start with temperatures ? 1,340° F. temperatures, recorded in thermal images of the surface of the World Trade Center rubble pile a week after 9/11 by NASA's AVIRIS equipment on USGS overflights. Such temperatures cannot be achieved by oxygen-starved hydrocarbon fires. Such fires burn at only 600 to 800° F. Remember, there was no fire on the top of the pile. The source of this incredible heat was therefore below the surface of the rubble, where it must have been far hotter than 1,340 degrees.
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., who was hired for the Building 7 cleanup, said that "molten steel was found at 7 WTC." Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center structural engineer, stated that on October 5, "21 days after the attacks, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." Fire department personnel, recorded on video, reported seeing "molten steel running down the channel rails? like you're in a foundry ? like lava from a volcano." Joe O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter, saw a crane lifting a steel beam vertically from deep within a pile. He said "it was dripping from the molten steel." Bart Voorsanger, an architect hired to save "relics from the rubble," stated about the multi-ton "meteorite" that it was a "fused element of molten steel and concrete."
The knowledge that this evidence even exists was denied by one of your top engineers, John Gross, in his appearance at the University of Texas in April of this year.
Steel melts at about 2,850 degrees Fahrenheit, about twice the temperature of the World Trade Center Tower 1 and 2 fires as estimated by NIST. So what melted the steel?
Appendix C of FEMA's BPAT Report documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this "the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."NIST left all of this crucial forensic evidence out of its report. Why? Because it didn't fit in with the official conspiracy theory.
Last year, physicist Steven Jones, two other physicists, and a geologist analyzed the slag at the ends of the beams and in the samples of the previously molten metal. They found iron, aluminum, sulfur, manganese and fluorine ? the chemical evidence of thermate, a high-tech incendiary cutting charge used by the military to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. The by-product of the thermate reaction is molten iron! There's no other possible source for all the molten iron that was found. One of thermate's key ingredients is sulfur, which can form the liquid eutectic that FEMA found and lower the melting point of steel.
In addition, World Trade Center 7's catastrophic structural failure showed every characteristic of explosive, controlled demolition. You can see all these characteristics at our website www.AE911truth.org. The destruction began suddenly at the base of the building. Several first responders reported explosions occurring about a second before the collapse. There was the symmetrical, near-free-fall speed of collapse, through the path of greatest resistance ? with 40,000 tons of steel designed to resist this load ? straight down into its own footprint. This requires that all the columns have to fail within a fraction of a second of each other ? perimeter columns as well as core columns. There was also the appearance of mistimed explosions (squibs?) at the upper seven floors on the network video recordings of the collapse. And we have expert testimony from a European demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, who said "This is controlled demolition? a team of experts did this? This is professional work, without any doubt."
Fire cannot produce these effects. Fire produces large, gradual deformations and asymmetrical collapses. Thermate can produce all of these effects used in conjunction with linear shaped charges. If the thermate is formed into ultra-fine particles, as has been accomplished at Los Alamos National Laboratory, it is called super-thermate, and is very explosive.
The National Fire Protection Association's NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations (1998 Edition) dictates in fire investigations that certain residues should be tested for. Thermate would leave behind signs of sulfidation/corrosion by sulfur. Such residues were in fact noted in Appendix C of the FEMA BPAT report (see note 11). "If the physical evidence establishes one factor, such as the presence of an accelerant, that may be sufficient to establish the cause even where other factors such as ignition source cannot be determined." Thermate and sulfur obviously qualify as accelerants in this case (with regard to the destruction of steel which in turn could have caused the near-free-fall-speed collapse). (The fires were not particularly suspicious, but Building 7's collapse was, because of its symmetry and speed.)
Because NIST seems to have forgotten or neglected to apply key features of the scientific method, I am including as an attachment to this submission Steven E. Jones, "Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method", Journal of 911 Studies, April 2007, Journal of 9/11 Studies: JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf.
How much longer must we endure NIST's cover-up of how Building 7 was actually destroyed? Millions of Americans, including the 230+ architects and engineers and 600 others of AE911Truth.org, demand that NIST come clean with a full-throttle, fully resourced and transparent forensic investigation of the evidence of the controlled demolition of Building 7.

 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Isn't that something She doesn't even Know Building 7 is in the Background. Than right befor the building goes down they lose the feed. You take everything thats in this thread and view it . Its just amazing. The only thing I agree with in the reporters statement of Building 7 going down . Was this .

People cann't comprehend whats going on.

Well she was right about that . With the exception of those of us wearing our tin foil hats.
 

mc00

Senior member
Jan 25, 2005
277
0
0
I give up on all this "9/11","terror","9/11 cover up" list goes on... Only thing I stood by and live by is never put to much faith any government, there reason why our founding father made constitution of U.S because they knew from past history if you give the government a chance for more power they will take it and never return it back.. I've come to understanding 9/11 can't be a cover up or plan because how would they keep it quiet? movies maker having hard time keep insider from releasing screeners. All know is U.S haded coming those attacks because most of us know U.S like to stick there nose where doesn't belong and taking side like example: U.S always look like they are in favor with Jewish instead of Muslims..
but whatever..
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: OokiiNeko
And just because there is a low probability of all the buildings failing on the same day, doesn't make it impossible.
Its the falling straight down into their own footprint without outside intervention part which is unbelievable.

:)

Read the NIST report. According to it, the inner parts of the floors weakened, pulling the structure down from the inside. Why would you expect it do anything other than fall straight down?

Why wouldn't you expect gravity to go up?
What kind of a question is that?
We expect them to tip because that's what buildings do.
This is why they hire demolitions crews otherwise you could just hire someone to dump hot fuel in a building and lite it ablaze.
We expect resistance.
Maybe even just a few seconds of resistance?
Perhaps you can find us some examples of other steel framed buildings collapsing into their own footprint?
I will look forward to you presenting this evidence.

This building burned much longer, just as hot had more weight above it and never collapsed.

This fire in madrid was much larger, just as hot and burned for 24 hours and never collapsed.

Excuse us if we are a little skeptical.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,112
930
126
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Worth watching if you are a kook. Or did they get rid of some of their more stupid statements such as missiles being fired at the WTC or the Pentagon being hit by a cruise missile?

Sure are a lot of kooks here. Most of them probably smarter than you. :D

LOL @ Perry calling people kooks. :laugh:

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Perry404
We expect them to tip because that's what buildings do.
Excuse us if we are a little insane.

Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."



 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Very scientific ans. So you believe the inner columns. all heated up at the exact same time and reached critical heat at the exact same time evenly threw the center columns that allowed the upper floors to collaspe straight down to cause these building to free fall into there own footprint.

Something that in the history of the world that has never occured befor. Yet it happened 3 times in one day. If you can live with that so can I .

But I am a little upset about the taxes I pay every year to help build and prepare a military to stop this sort of thing from happening . Not 1 2 3 but 4 times in one day.

I feel so much more secure now . Knowing Korea doesn't need a Missle programm to delivery a nuke on one of our cities . Knowing all the need to do is fly a plane in and drop their payload.

So its your premise that this is normal behavior for this type of building to act in this way. I wonder if this theory would hold up to in physics.
 

Mavtek3100

Senior member
Jan 15, 2008
524
0
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Perry404
We expect them to tip because that's what buildings do.
Excuse us if we are a little insane.

Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."

Ok well there have literally been 100's of building collapses this century alone, can you please show me 1 example, just 1 that collapsed like WTC1, 2, and 7 did all on the same day? Oh and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but not all trees are solid as you claim. Besides being hollow or otherwise is not an explanation for why it collapses in on itself.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
I'm wondering why demolition crews don't just use jet fuel to bring down buildings.

Forget weeks of planning, inspections, structural weakening, and carefully planting explosives.

Just take some jet fuel 3/4 of the way up a building, set the timer, and bingo...perfect pancake collapse!
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Perry404
We expect them to tip because that's what buildings do.
Excuse us if we are a little insane.

Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."

Ok well there have literally been 100's of building collapses this century alone, can you please show me 1 example, just 1 that collapsed like WTC1, 2, and 7 did all on the same day? Oh and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but not all trees are solid as you claim. Besides being hollow or otherwise is not an explanation for why it collapses in on itself.

please show me one example of another building being hit by a plane
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Perry404
We expect them to tip because that's what buildings do.
Excuse us if we are a little insane.

Kausel addressed the oft-asked question of why the towers did not tip over like a falling tree. "A tree is solid, whereas building is mostly air or empty space; only about 10 percent is solid material. Since there is no solid stump underneath to force it to the side, the building cannot tip over. It could only collapse upon itself."

Ok well there have literally been 100's of building collapses this century alone, can you please show me 1 example, just 1 that collapsed like WTC1, 2, and 7 did all on the same day? Oh and I hate to be the bearer of bad news but not all trees are solid as you claim. Besides being hollow or otherwise is not an explanation for why it collapses in on itself.
How many of those buildings were very large steel frame skyscrapers that were hit by large commercial jets loaded with fuel?

Also, the claim that these buildings "fell in their own foorprint" has been firmly debunked. If they had fallen in their own footprint they wouldn't have destroyed numerous buildings around them. That bit of jargonistic tripe is almost as bad as claiming they fell at free-fall speed. They didn't do that either.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
please show me one example of another building being hit by a plane
All buildings hit by a plane prior to 9/11 never collapsed. Because of their height, the WTCs were actually designed around the risk of a plane hitting them.

Makes you wonder...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
All buildings hit by a plane prior to 9/11 never collapsed. Because of their height, the WTCs were actually designed around the risk of a plane hitting them.

Makes you wonder...
All buildings hit by a plane prior to 9/11? You mean all one of them - the Empire State Building? Not to mention that it was a much smaller plane, was not loaded with fuel, was on a landing approach which means its speed at impact was far slower. Then there's the fact that the Empire State Building is a concrete core structure, not steel frame.

The only thing that makes me wonder is why CTs so consistently omit pertinent and directly relevant information.