Popular Technology -> 911 Loose Change 2nd Edition (Video)

911 Loose Change 2nd Edition (Video), Time: 1:21

Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

Andrew	Posted: Oct 10 2006, 05:31 AM
Chief of Staff Group: Admin Posts: 8,991 Member No.: 1 Joined: 17-November 04	If you are going to watch any conspiracy videos on this, this is the big one. Dan, I fixed the links and added the original, the 2nd edition and the best one = Screw Loose Change.

Dan	Posted: Oct 13 2006, 07:10 PM
O-2 1st Lieutenant Group: Special Forces Posts: 1,193 Member No.: 8 Joined: 23-November 04	Have you seen this one yet? 9/11 In Plane Site

Karl

Posted: Oct 14 2006, 04:18 PM

O-1 2nd Lieutenant

Group: Special Forces
Posts: 964
Member No.: 148
Joined: 14-July 06

I finally got a chance to watch the 911 Mysteries video. These theroes are very popular lately, and it is good to take a solid look at their arguments. (If you have the time.)

That being done, I find the video to be largely a persuasive argument rather then a logical one--like a lawyer trying to persuade a jury when there is insufficient evidence to support his or her client's side. The things is, conclusions need to be based on facts and logic, not on arguments of suspicion and unverified assumptions. And there are lots assumptions made in this video--especially with observations of effects in which the cause for that effect is assumed rather then logically proven though factual evidence.

A good logical explanation of what happened is "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse", by Thomas W. Eagar of MIT. The video actually mentions this report and then quickly dismisses it, but I find no significant problems with Dr. Eager's analysis. The summary:

QUOTE

A basic engineering assessment of the design of the World Trade Center dispels many of the myths about its collapse. First, the perimeter tube design of the towers protected them from failing upon impact. The outer columns were engineered to stiffen the towers in heavy wind, and they protected the inner core, which held the gravity load. Removal of some of the outer columns alone could not bring the building down. Furthermore, because of the stiffness of the perimeter design, it was impossible for the aircraft impact to topple the building.

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.

- http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

The video itself says this: "When you get to about 1100 degreees Fahrenheit, you lose about half the strength of the steel." (1 hour, 12 minutes in) Followed a few seconds later by "An uncontrolled burn maxes at 1200 Fahrenheit." Then a couple minutes later the video says, "Temperatures too LOW for structural steel failure." Huh?

Where'd the hell they get conclusion from? The information they found shows the exact opposite! Their theory is just not supported by the evidence.

Furthermore, I think that the *motivation* for a controlled demolition makes no sense. If you wanted to make the towers look like they had the collapsed as a result of a terrorist attack, then why not just... destroy them with a terrorist-style attack? If planes hits and fire weren't enough, then a placing big bomb on the planes or in the the tower would (1) work, (2) be alot easier to implement, and (3) not have all of the suspicious side effects of a complex precision controlled demolition.

Ducc	Posted: Oct 15 2006, 11:47 AM
O-4 Major Group: Founders Posts: 2,453 Member No.: 4 Joined: 18-November 04	It's too easy to make a conspiracy theory. As long as you have gaps between the facts (one doesn't follow directly from another), all you have to do is weave a story in between. That's an easy way to start writing fiction, actually; make up a few 'facts' about your story and then fill in the details as best you can.

Karl	Posted: Oct 15 2006, 01:00 PM
O-1 2nd Lieutenant Group: Special Forces Posts: 964 Member No.: 148 Joined: 14-July 06	Well said.

TC_	Posted: Oct 15 2006, 01:20 PM
E-7 Sergeant First Class Group: Special Forces Posts: 411 Member No.: 49 Joined: 22-June 05	Indeed! One starts with known facts, but focuses on the minute details, (and apparant inconsistencies therin) while ignoring the 'big picture'. It is the focus on the contrived minutae that sells these dumb-ass theories. Sorta like a stage magician: Watch THIS hand....(while I actually perform the illusion with my other...)

Karl	Posted: Oct 16 2006, 12:43 PM
O-1 2nd Lieutenant Group: Special Forces Posts: 964 Member No.: 148 Joined: 14-July 06	Also well said. Maybe we should start a skeptics group. Though I must add that I'm a Mulder-style skeptic: I want to believe, but you have to prove it to me first. What do you call that, then... How about, an Open Minded Skeptic. (OMS!) That would make the group name... The Open Minded Skeptics Group

TC_	Posted: Oct 16 2006, 03:46 PM
E-7 Sergeant First Class Group: Special Forces Posts: 411 Member No.: 49 Joined: 22-June 05	In that spirit (and in the spirit of Halloween) we can start by investigating: http://www.ghosts.org/stories/test/index.php

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)

0 Members:

« Next Oldest | The War on Terror | Next Newest »