Joined: Nov 03, 2007 Posts: 195 Location: cascadia
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:56 am Post subject: Re: Loose Change: Final Cut Now Available!
Lighthouse wrote:
threadbear wrote:
Really? How is your belief in the inability to ever know the truth any different than the confidence some have in their ability to find it? This has a religious component to it as well.
Coming to conclusions based on circumstantial evidence is very dangerous and has nothing to to with truth.
We can only looking at the probabilities of each theory on the basics of the parts, which can be tested. Every conclusion afterwards can per definition not be true in its entirely. Every theory can be considered more or less probable. That's all.
But you guys on both sides are insisting you KNOW THE TRUTH. I envy your faith...
This statement in bold is so loaded with epistemological fallacies that I'm not even going to touch it.
On the whole I think this is a disingenuous response. This is not about "both sides" taking dogmatic views in pursuit of some mythical Truth. And it's not about circumstantial evidence. I think the goal of this film and people in this forum is in pursuing free inquiry for the real 9/11 truth. The difference between faith and free inquiry is that faith will admit no new evidence. Faith is the official story. Faith is the refusal to even discuss building 7. Faith is the refusal to follow the money trail.
Free inquiry, on the other hand, actively seeks out new information in order to encircle the truth and expose contradictions. Free inquiry looks for internal consistency and external coherence of the given explanations. Free inquiry is not about faith or an insistence on "Knowing the Truth." You use the term as if we are talking about an existential question with no real answer when what we are talking about is three destroyed buildings. It is possible to get much closer to the truth than we are now. I think that is what the film is trying to achieve.
Instead, your response seems feigned, like so much smoke, to hide what should be the relatively uncomplicated determination that the official story and some crucial facts are at odds with one another, and that the whole matter requires a real independent investigation. Can we not even agree there? The claim that all the evidence is "circumstantial" is patently false, as evidence has been presented that is direct and unambiguous. The video/audio of the event is most definitely NOT circumstantial, and it tells much.
You also seem to suggest one must be a Professional Structural Engineer to understand what happened because the equations are too complicated for the simple folk to understand? People can't trust their own eyes to tell them what looks like controlled demolitions? Even when the official story consistently ignores building 7? Even when over 200 architects and engineers have come out in favor of a new investigation due to unexplained anomalous and contradictory evidence? Come now.
I have high confidence in my assessment that building 7 was a controlled demolition because it had all the hallmark features of a controlled demolition and I trust my senses. The videos were not doctored. How many of these things have been seen on TV? If you are going to claim building 7 was anything other than a controlled demolition, or that you don't know, because there is only circumstantial evidence, I would consider that intellectual dishonesty at the very least.
Your position is a cop out that I doubt even you believe, and I sure don't. I mean, once you get to 99% sure that one of the buildings was deliberately demolished, aren't we really splitting hairs between 'very high probability' and 'Know'? To me this seems like a semantic distinction whose only intent can be to muddy the waters.
Thanks for the heads-up on the DVD Carl. Can't wait to see it. It is going to make the job of folks like lighthouse so much harder. How can you possibly sell uncertainty when people have the facts!
Sorry Carl... didn't mean to hijack your thread...
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: Re: Loose Change: Final Cut Now Available!
culicomorpha wrote:
.... to make the job of folks like lighthouse so much harder. ...
What job would that be?
Btw. you confirm what I said: BELIEVE not TRUTH because you chose to believe whatever you want to believe. You tend to interpret the evidence in a specific way mostly to confirm your believes.
Don't worry, we all tend do ... The trick is to stay open minded. Everything is possible.
That btw. does not make the official version more plausible nor the one you try to get accepted as the true version of the events. I had enough discussions like this with the guys in the local pub who tend to interpret whatever they see in a very simplified way ... _________________ I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 2:29 pm Post subject: Re: Loose Change: Final Cut Now Available!
Lighthouse wrote:
culicomorpha wrote:
.... to make the job of folks like lighthouse so much harder. ...
What job would that be?
Btw. you confirm what I said: BELIEVE not TRUTH because you chose to believe whatever you want to believe. You tend to interpret the evidence in a specific way mostly to confirm your believes.
Don't worry, we all tend do ... The trick is to stay open minded. Everything is possible.
That btw. does not make the official version more plausible nor the one you try to get accepted as the true version of the events. I had enough discussions like this with the guys in the local pub who tend to interpret whatever they see in a very simplified way ...
Lighthouse--You're a bright guy. It's quite evident. Unfortunately, when you come up against Culicomorpha, Carhole, and many others of similar caliber, you are simply outgunned. Your desire to paint all with the same brush here, both "troofers" and official conspiracy buffs, involves mental gymnastics on your part, not true intellectual and analytical discernment (which you're quite capable of, judging by your posts on other threads)
Posted: Sun Nov 11, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject: Re: Loose Change: Final Cut Now Available!
threadbear wrote:
Lighthouse--You're a bright guy. It's quite evident. Unfortunately, when you come up against Culicomorpha, Carhole, and many others of similar caliber, you are simply outgunned. Your desire to paint all with the same brush here, both "troofers" and official conspiracy buffs, involves mental gymnastics on your part, not true intellectual and analytical discernment (which you're quite capable of, judging by your posts on other threads)
Come on. This thraed tells us one thing: A new Video is for sale.
Actually it is just a new version of an old video ....
It's pure and simple advertising without any information in it:
Thank you so much for your past support of Loose Change. We are happy to announce that Loose Change Final Cut will be done today. That's right, DONE TODAY! Later this week we'll be sending more info on the release schedule, so stay tuned.
To celebrate the occasion, we're offering 10% off any order over $15 placed through the Loose Change Store before Friday, October 19th. Your continued support helps us make the film happen and aids in the press for an independent investigation!
Cheers,
The LC Team
Man, they have put a lotta love into this sucker. I can't wait to see it.
I watched it a while ago but could not take it serious because it is full of statements like that:
December 1st, 1984. A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research. Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.
10 takeoffs and 13 landings - yeah right.
I might be outnumbered, but not outgunned. Even my totally drunk buddies in the pub have better arguments ...
I love that one, it says it all:
culicomorpha wrote:
... You also seem to suggest one must be a Professional Structural Engineer to understand what happened because the equations are too complicated for the simple folk to understand? People can't trust their own eyes to tell them what looks like controlled demolitions? ...
... I have high confidence in my assessment that building 7 was a controlled demolition because it had all the hallmark features of a controlled demolition and I trust my senses. The videos were not doctored. How many of these things have been seen on TV?...
Is this guy serious?
Ok I admit "Loose Change" is the bestest video ever made. I am so grateful that the final edition is now available for 19.95. Watching it will open all our eyes and enlighten us with the truth.
And it beats even my Arnie collection ...
Happy now?
PS: If there are two "PLAUSIBLE" explanations of an event I stick to: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem _________________ I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 2:50 pm Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
I just watched the whole thing online at Google Video but now I can't access it. So, maybe the video was pulled off. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
Joined: Nov 03, 2007 Posts: 195 Location: cascadia
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: Re: Loose Change: Final Cut Now Available!
Lighthouse wrote:
I love that one, it says it all:
culicomorpha wrote:
... You also seem to suggest one must be a Professional Structural Engineer to understand what happened because the equations are too complicated for the simple folk to understand? People can't trust their own eyes to tell them what looks like controlled demolitions? ...
... I have high confidence in my assessment that building 7 was a controlled demolition because it had all the hallmark features of a controlled demolition and I trust my senses. The videos were not doctored. How many of these things have been seen on TV?...
Is this guy serious?
PS: If there are two "PLAUSIBLE" explanations of an event I stick to: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
First, I'm a woman. Your assumptions are not working out very well for you, although I suppose it was a good guess given the ratio here.
Second, Occam's razor, according to Wikipedia: The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory."
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
Occam's razor does not give you free license to ignore facts. You must still explain the observed phenomenon. Many of the facts listed above cannot be explained in any way except by the use of controlled demolition.
I have seen you say many times you cannot verify this piece or that piece of evidence, but I think what makes the above case strong is the way all the pieces fit together in a consistent, coherent way, that matches expectations based on past experience. It is a believable story.
Your explanation, on the other hand, requires excluding most of the above data, requires completely discounting the testimony of the witnesses, and is inconsistent with all known examples of steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire.
I think it is clear which side Occam's razor is on.
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 1741 Location: Australia
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Lighthouse wrote:
Quote:
99% (including myself) don't even understand the physics involved neither the mathematics.
Jet fuel burning at lower temp that what can melt steel brought down 3 buildings at free fall speed.
If you have a hard time with that I suggest you stop commenting here and spend some time catching up on sesame street.
Rarely I get pi..ed off but when the simplest facts don't even sink into an adult (I am guessing) person, I get pretty frustrated.
Without making claims on who odid what, we can conclude the offical story is complete bullshit and citizens of the world are being lied to. _________________ Lets take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
You cant hide, run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
- Pet Shop Boys
Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Micki wrote:
Jet fuel burning at lower temp that what can melt steel brought down 3 buildings at free fall speed.
If you have a hard time with that I suggest you stop commenting here and spend some time catching up on sesame street.
1. Jet fuel burns with 980DegC, carpets, pffice equipment, chemical reactions caused by heat and fire will raise this temperature.
2. Steel melts around 1370DegC (depends on the composition)
3. Carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at a steady rate up to 800°C
4. at 980 DegC steel has alreay lost 67.239564% of its strength.
5. potential kinetic energy of the tower must go somewhere when released.
Micki wrote:
Rarely I get pi..ed off but when the simplest facts don't even sink into an adult (I am guessing) person, I get pretty frustrated.
Me too and now Miki go back on the playground, your nanny is waiting telling you stories... _________________ I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 1741 Location: Australia
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
OK, take North Tower for instance that was hit round level 80.
Simply by looking at the films and reading testimonials we can conclude that the fires didn't burn the frames all the way down to level 1. So what ever portion of the frames that weren't weakened must have provided resistance in the collapse and therefore resulted in a collapse > freefall.
Not very complicated is it?
And why was there molten steel on the sites for weeks after? 980 degree fire cannot result in that.
There so so many more obvious anomalies if you just bother to look into it.
But it seems as if you already crap your mind, so I won't waste any more energy proving the world isn't flat. _________________ Lets take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
You cant hide, run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
- Pet Shop Boys
Joined: Jun 21, 2006 Posts: 1205 Location: Burgundy, France
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:09 am Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Micki wrote:
OK, take North Tower for instance that was hit round level 80.
Simply by looking at the films and reading testimonials we can conclude that the fires didn't burn the frames all the way down to level 1. So what ever portion of the frames that weren't weakened must have provided resistance in the collapse and therefore resulted in a collapse > freefall.
Not very complicated is it?
I'm no expert, but...
The buildings started collapsing from the point of impact, not level 1. By the time the collapsing structure was down towards level 1, the inertia would be so high that no amount of structural metal would have stopped it.
Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? _________________ All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become. - Buddha
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Micki wrote:
OK, take North Tower for instance that was hit round level 80.
Simply by looking at the films and reading testimonials we can conclude that the fires didn't burn the frames all the way down to level 1. So what ever portion of the frames that weren't weakened must have provided resistance in the collapse and therefore resulted in a collapse > freefall.
Not very complicated is it?
And why was there molten steel on the sites for weeks after? 980 degree fire cannot result in that.
There so so many more obvious anomalies if you just bother to look into it.
But it seems as if you already crap your mind, so I won't waste any more energy proving the world isn't flat.
As you know it all and I don't (I really do not know) do you have any idea how much potential energy was stored in one tower? And where did it go when it was released? The energy was converted in what? _________________ I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
Joined: Dec 07, 2005 Posts: 1741 Location: Australia
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Quote:
The buildings started collapsing from the point of impact, not level 1. By the time the collapsing structure was down towards level 1, the inertia would be so high that no amount of structural metal would have stopped it.
The steel below would form resistance that slows down the speed of the collapse. Collapse with resistance must take longer to come down than collapse without (freefall).
It is also funny how all three buildings came down symetrically.
I.e. they didn't topple over as would have been expected unless the weakening happened perfectly in the middle or was spread exactly evenly throughout. _________________ Lets take a ride, and run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
You cant hide, run with the dogs tonight
In suburbia
- Pet Shop Boys
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Lighthouse wrote:
As you know it all and I don't (I really do not know) do you have any idea how much potential energy was stored in one tower? And where did it go when it was released? The energy was converted in what?
How much kinetic energy was released during the collapse of one of the towers?
FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure."
That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.
So that's 400 Gigajoules total gravitational potential energy of one of the towers per FEMA (4 x 10^11 joules).
A ton of TNT or tonne of TNT is a unit of energy equal to 109 (thermochemical) calories, also known as a gigacalorie (Gcal), equal to 4.184 gigajoules (GJ).
So, 100 tons of TNT is roughly equivalent to the gravitational potential energy of one WTC Tower according to the FEMA estimate, the ONLY estimate ever given by ANY of the investigating agencies.
This 100 tons of TNT had to do all the work of:
Shredding the steel skeleton structure which was designed to carry 2.5 times normal loading,
Throwing massive amounts of steel debris upwards and outwards several hundreds of feet,
Pulverizing all the concrete and other non-steel materials into fine powder blanketing all of downtown Manhattan,
Causing a rapid expansion of the pyroclastic-like dust cloud to at least 5 times building volume in several seconds
Shaking the ground at earthquake magnitude 2
Creating orange-red hot 1163 degree F rubble pile temperatures for 5 weeks afterwards
Creating the observed molten metal flowing in the rubble piles
And STILL possess enough gravitational potential energy left over to completely collapse the towers through the awesomely strong, intact, 47 vertical core columns, 250 perimeter columns and other integral structural framework.
None of the investigating agencies analyzed the collapses from this potential energy vs energy-sink standpoint.
The 911 Commission Reports and NIST failed to describe or explain the Total Progressive Collapse of the towers AT ALL. They only described events up until the "initiation of collapse". Just recently, NIST has admitted that it CANNOT explain the Total Progressive Collapse of the towers. According to NIST, the towers fell in approximately ten seconds. Freefall is 9.2 seconds.
It is not possible that falling floors passed through that massive steel supporting structure as if it only put up virtually no more resistance as air.
The potential energy represented in the buildings is not enough to account for even the single energy sink of the complete pulverization to a fine powder of the concrete and everything other than steel in the buildings. Nor is the potential energy contained in the buildings enough to account for the single energy sink of the bright orange to red-hot rubble piles and molten metal running in them for 5 weeks. These extremely high temperatures are well-documented by NASA Thermal Imaging.
The onus is on The 911 commsission, NIST and other defenders of the official story to prove how the gravitational potential energy contained in the buildings is accounts for all the observed phenomena. They cannot prove it because it is physically impossible.
Thus, the official reports completely ignored the Total Progressive Collapse Sequence, preferring to leave it unmentioned. _________________ "May you live in interesting times"
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!
Micki wrote:
Lighthouse wrote:
Quote:
99% (including myself) don't even understand the physics involved neither the mathematics.
Jet fuel burning at lower temp that what can melt steel brought down 3 buildings at free fall speed.
Common sense tells you that jet fuel burning at a lower temp than that which melts steel means that the steel won't fail.
Engineering tells me that steel can and does fail LONG before melting temperature is reached.
Maybe you do need to be an engineer to understand the facts because common sense has failed to do so. When bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces This is a fact. The steel would fail long before it reached anything close to its melting temperature. Not to mention that heat causes steel to expand which increases the stress on it.
So while we don't have steel melting, we do have decreased strength and increased pressure.
Run the common sense test again.
Maybe that is why only engineers can sign off on blueprints and not people with good "common sense"? _________________ Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
