Virgin Airlines has pulled a controversial internet documentary on 9/11 from its in-flight entertainment system after complaints from bloggers and radio shows. Virgin was going to show this month Loose Change, an 81 minute long documentary which alleges that the 9/11 attacks were not the result of terrorism, but a series of …
Erm...They've not worried too much before
If my memory serves me correctly, this would the same Virgin Atlantic that had the first couple of episodes of Lost on their planes a little while back with a disclaimer that those who were nervous fliers should probably give it a miss... why stop people watching some more crappy programming now?
Following on from the huge success that that pile of claptrap made, follows a movie by the internet angry man "Maddox".
Do a search for "Unfastened Coins" on GooTube.
Turns out the Titanic sinking was a hoax as well!
Back to the story - I'm pretty glad Virgin didn't show it, not because it's about terrorism on planes being shown on a plane, more because the movie is a pile of sh*te, and watching that for a few hours whilst one travels from London to New York or whichever route they decide to put it on would put me to sleep terminally.
Added to that, the guys voice really annoys the hell out of me and I'd be driven to antics that could match terror just to shut up his whiney-nasal voice permeating through the cabin.
... and begin:
... the barrage or poorly worded, over emphasized flame posts from conspiracy believers. A smattering of unrelated conspiracy vitriol would be nice too. Go for it boys:
virgin has guts
I am really surprised that Virgin had the guts to want to show a documentary like that! I mean if what the documentary claims is true (which most probably is) virgin plays with making enemies with the most powerful regime in the world.
Didn't take long for the request for conspiracy crackpots to be brought out of the woodwork.
I blame brainwashed Siberian macaques myself...
Loose Change has NOT BEEN DEBUNKED!!
This author follows a pre-scripted pattern of throwing out a comment like "Loose Change has been throroughly debunked." HOGWASH.
Dr. David Ray Griffin, Professor Emeritus of Theology at Claremont University, has written a blistering indictment of corporate media shills like the person who wrote this article. Griffin's new book is #710 on amazon, and rising quickly. Its entitled, "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory." A must read for anyone who loves democracy.
Also you should read of over 100 mlitary, intelligence, engineering, and physics experts who say we've been lied to about 9/11, many saying outright it was an inside job by members of the US govt. See patriotsquestion911.org. To get educated on 9/11 youtube "9/11 Mysteries" and "9/11 revisted". educate all you know. Our democracies worldwide depend on going around corporate media shills like this online mag.
Just posting some of these bad boys so people who feel inclined to believe Loose Change can read up on it, and how it's total crap.
Could you point me in the right direction of this 'debunking'?
Lets cause some Hysteria
Just what I want to see on a plane trip, a movie that reminds you that you might just crash and burn or be a likely target for a hijacking.
Even if your a nice sane person, what if the bloke down the next row is not.
I'm sure a nice hysterical person in the next row will make your flight so much more enjoyable.
Interesting comments by bloggers in that article...
Makes you wonder who they are trying cover by going on about WW2? What the hell has WW2 got to do with 911? 911 has nothing to do with Nazis but constant referral to Nazis is made by these bloggers, I wonder if they heard about the virgin via guyis.org?
"Loose Change has been thoroughly debunked".
Had the author written "Popular Mechanics have been thoroughly debunked", at least we could all have used the web to locate actual mp3 examples of Popular Mechanics being crucified live on air by Charles Goyette and a phone-in caller ...
Oh, and here.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Uploads/Media/Jeff-Calls-Davin-Coburn.mp3">follow up phone
9-11 was an inside job and anyone not realizing this is delusional. And how has "Loose Change" been debunked. I thought so, it hasn't. Actually, the 'official' story is what has been COMPLETELY debunked. Now I understand it's hard for some of you to comprehend the fact that the gov't would do something of this nature, but it has happened before. We knew the Japanese where coming and let them hit Pearl Harbor to give us a reason to get into WWII. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which got us into Vietnam was exaggerated. If you want a true 9-11/Hitler comparison it would be the fact that Hitler and Bush used attacks against themselves to further thier power grabs. Hitler used the Riegstag fire, bush used 9-11. Both acts committed by the "victims" to draw sympathy and destroy confidence in any opposing view. Wake up people. Even the 9-11 commission itself could find no link between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, the supposed mastermind of 9-11. And by the way, 6 of the alleged hijackers are alive and well and not at all pleased to see the US accuse them of such atrocious acts.
What about the destruction of World Trade Center building #7 on 9-11? Are you familiar with it's "being pulled" that afternoon as quoted by the owner of the building? It was reported to have collapsed, even as it was visible over the reporters shoulder, meaning the media was being fed the story as or before it was happenening.
And on and on.... Research it yourself at infowars.com or 911truth.org or any of the other dozens of sites proving our gov't lied to us.
Swarming from the woodwork
The conspiracy theorists are out in force, so, just for balance, here's another point of view : http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
It is debunked.
Bill Clinton couldnt manage to keep a simple blowjob a secret. The level of complexity and opportunity for failure on a scam the size of 9/11 is orders of magnitude greater.
I guess these kinds of documentaries demonstrate the efficiency of tinfoil hats in protecting the wearers from common sense.
Debunked? What's Been Debunked?
If Loose Change has been debunked, I'd love it if someone would send me the link or reference!
Oh, by the way, debunking normally does not consist of "...you're a &#!!$ if you don't believe the central government!...." Debunking must use logic and reasonably solid sources of information.
When I read through the NIST reports & the 9/11 Commission report, I was struck by the way the scope of investigations were carefully drawn to omit most of the questions I had about the events of 9/11.
911 conspiracy theorists – idiots all of them!
I don’t doubt there could have been financial irregularities during the run up to the event, but the people highlighting this immediately lose all credibility by aligning themselves with the junk science surrounding it. There are perfectly straightforward explanations for things like the ‘mysterious explosions’ and the ‘framework collapsing without melting’ (there are many more but I won’t waste my time). Even the descriptions of an event put forward by the film ‘Loose change’ are in direct contradiction.
The real conspiracy, if indeed there is one, is that the US government managed to successfully cover up financial irregularities by planting these junk science based theories into the heads of nutjobs!
Almost all of the attacks against the film and 911 truthers that have been posted in the comments are of the ad hominem type, ie they attack the messenger and not the message:
"some more crappy programming"
"the movie is a pile of sh*te"
"the guys voice really annoys the hell out of me"
"the barrage or poorly worded, over emphasized flame posts from conspiracy believers" (though, was this person talking about the government's conspiracy story about some Arabs?)
"it's total crap"
and someone points to a URL that has "911_morons" on it...
Someone else points to some articles that "prove" the government story. For example, http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html says "The second event was the continuing fire, fed both by the remaining jet fuel and the office contents of furniture and paper. This fire heated and weakened the structural systems, adding stress to the damaged structure." Well, I bet you didn't know this (from http://www.rense.com/general74/nist.htm):
"The fact is that jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene, will not burn in air in excess of about 1,000°C (1,832°F)nowhere near the 2,800°F melting point of steel. Even this 1,000°C upper limit is very difficult to achieve, since, as Thomas Eagar pointed out, it requires the optimal mixing of fuel with oxygen during combustion, which can only be achieved in a laboratory. In fact, the clouds of black smoke that poured out of the twin towers on 9/11 were an obvious sign that the WTC fire burned at much lower temperatures, probably around 650°C (1,202°F) range, or even lower. This was due to the inefficient mixing of oxygen. It's why most building fires burn no hotter than around 500-650°C. (932 -1,202°F) "
Just a reminder
You don't have to melt steel to weaken it. Especially if you damage the rest of the structure by crashing something into it. WTC 1 and 2 had an architecture consisting of two concentric boxes - an inner box consisting of stairwells and elevator shafts stuff, and an outer box consisting of offices. The floors are suspended between these boxes. The only load-bearing structure is the walls of these concentric boxes. The outer walls were decidedly damaged (you know. Airplanes.) leaving a section of floor with improper support. Heat - and in turn, make more malleable, the steel supports beneath the floor with a heavy load on it (airplane parts + an office complex), and it's not outside the realm of physics that it's going to fall. When it falls, it's going to hit the floor beneath it, and the shock of airplane + office + floor material + support structure striking the floor below, combined with possible weakening of THAT support steel by heat, will cause that floor to drop in a similar manner. After a floor or two, the impact forces is WELL beyond the structural considerations given to a floor designed to have an office sitting on it, and no heating is necessary.
Naturally, these floors that are falling are still tied in places to both the inner and outer shells, and these get pulled apart as well.
Not saying this is 100% right, but in order to look at any sort of structural collapse due to fire, you have to look at many factors - not just the melting/combustion point of the building materials.
Debunking the 'melting point' theory
Here we go…..
Yes, the fires were not burning at the melting point of steel; the trick here is that the steel framework does not have to melt in order for the integrity of the framework to fail, it just needs to soften. Once softened it will creep and ultimately bend (not melt); what could cause the bending – the weight of half a skyscraper acting upon it!!!
It’s a lot like butter:
- it will become hard when frozen (you will have difficulty putting your finger through it)
- it will melt when put in a hot pan
- it will be soft at room temperature (enough to push your finger through) – but it won’t be molten.
It is expected that the towers will collapse when the steel framework is subjected to temperatures significantly below its melting point.
'911 truthers' indeed!
Additional: the reason why the towers took as long as they did too fall is because it is a ‘standard’ requirement for such buildings to have fire protection that must last a minimum of 30 minutes (I know this because it is part of my job). The developers generally aim for the minimum time because it is cheaper to realise (and it is reasonably expected that all personnel will be evacuated in that time).
Just a reminder - Debunking the 'melting point' theory
I suppose that these theories of the nature of the collapse of the first 3 steel framed buildings in history due to fire seem reasonable and plausible to most without further research.
I would like it explained to me why the rubble piles of the each of the two towers was only some fifty feet high and contained entirely within their own footprints if the steel did indeed soften to the point of failure to enable total collapse.
Logic and physics dictate that a bending structure will fall towards its weakest point. Much like that of a woodsman felling a tree in a purposeful direction. As well, the failed steel would be strutting out in certain directions and in this case to points in excess of 1000 feet, the height of the buildings.
A pancake collapse, as described by the penultimate poster, would leave a significant height of the core structure standing. These columns were in excess of 4000lbs/foot at the lower levels. No such core was left standing and as I stated, the rubble pile, including remaining core structure, was only some 50 feet in height (I live 30 miles north of Ground Zero and was an EMT at the time of the event. I have first hand knowledge and an engineering background).
The failure of building 7, the 3rd building to collapse later that day even though it was not struck by a plane, is an even greater mystery as the NIST report concerning the investigation of its failure was based entirely on conjecture as "no steel was recovered from WTC 7", NIST NCSTAR 1-3, WTC Investigation, pg iii (Sept 2005, Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Stuctural Steel).
You tell me whose theories hold more water.
I would like your input on this video....
I know many of you do not believe in any alternative theory pertaining to the WTC collapse. I am curious how you would explain this video...
I am seriously open to any alternative suggestions to the "accidental early press release" idea. Other than pure luck or coincidence that is. Thanks for your time and input.
...the Salomon Brothers Building WAS WTC7
"Debunking the 'melting point' theory" - done!
“I would like it explained to me why the rubble piles of the each of the two towers was only some fifty feet high and contained entirely within their own footprints if the steel did indeed soften to the point of failure to enable total collapse.”
Oh this is so obvious, as pointless as it is (are you trying to suggest the buildings fell into a black hole?).
There are 3 factors:
1) These buildings when standing are probably around 95% air. The concrete will take up the most volume; when smashed like that, concrete it will crumble and fill up the small pockets underneath.
2) the buildings collapsed into the underground train and car park system.
3) If you check out the replays you will find that a significant amount of matter was actually falling outside of the building footprint. Your own video link confirms this: “filling the streets with yet more debris and dust”.
“Logic and physics dictate that a bending structure will fall towards its weakest point.”
Which they did, exactly where the planes hit (most structural damage, greatest heat intensity). The momentum from the upper floors did the rest, resulting with the floor-by-floor avalanche.
“A pancake collapse, as described by the penultimate poster, would leave a significant height of the core structure standing.”
The core structure is only good for forces in a certain directions at certain places. Any beams not completely vertical will fail due to the impact from the momentum of concrete falling on them. The remaining vertical beams won’t be strong enough to support their own weight (as well as being subjected to the lateral forces built up at the bottom so exerting more pressure); hence they will quickly fail too.
“The failure of building 7, the 3rd building to collapse later that day even though it was not struck by a plane, is an even greater mystery.”
The same underground network would likely have been upset be the nearby skyscrapers crashing to the ground with such high momentums. It’s also known that fires were raging – you could see that in the photos. No fire-fighter would dare or bother to extinguish them (given the obvious danger and priorities) - this is what makes this collapse of a steel structure seemingly notable.
Oh, I also have an engineering background: letters after my name: a string of patents in my name: its part of my job to know about fires and fire regulations…..
Output on that video....
What a waste of time that was!
We agree the building was not collapsed.
The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure.
What was given was only a report of a collapse, an early report at that. A partial collapse would seem like a full collapse to underground (or nearby ground) workers. Given the nature of the event you can’t blame people for being jumpy with their descriptions.
I guess there were no reports of ‘explosions’ coming from WTC7 <rolls eyes>
Output on that video....2
A further thought on http://www.truthring.org/?p=3600:
Why on earth would the supposed evil henchmen risk informing various staff of what is planned? Doing so achieves absolutely nothing given that it will be pretty dammed obvious when the building actually does come down. It is also at the risk of the whistle being blown. Much better for the evil henchmen to keep their plans to themselves don’t you think?
This theory does not add up, not at all!
Thank you for your input steve, however it is too bad you cannot have a civil discourse. Your hostility is unnecessary. As for your partial collapse suggestion, may I respectfully say my father, who did not believe any alternative theories of the WTC attack, was there that day (He was a Commodities Trader an EMT and an Auxiliary Police Officer) and tried to enter WTC7 retrieve some of his belongings 5 mins before the building fell, there was no percieved partial collapse. My father was also a PhD, so I believe his opinion was as valid as yours, possibly more so being that he actually witnessed the events of that day.
This is not an accusation, simply a statement of what should be obvious.
I take issue with the premise that 'no secret can be kept, someone would leak it'. If this is the case then what exactly are all the intellegence agencies around the world doing? The NSA/NRO/DIA, etc. would most certainly chuckle at the thought that 'no secret can be kept'.
I am positive there are many highly classified programs which go unreported and unleaked. I would not be surprised if some of them would be morally objectionable to the public or to some of the people carrying them out. However they are still secret. And no, I cannot site specific programs being that I do not have clearance (though many like to point to the Manhatten Project as a simple example).
The fact that I cannot site multiple examples of covert/secret programs does not automatically disqualify the point I am making. I ask again, what exactly are those intelligence agencies doing? It may be disconcerting that there are programs and projects that are, and always will be, beyond our reach and knowledge, but this is most certainly the case, regardless of the superiority of anyones intellect.
The idea that large, moraly objectionable secrets cannot be kept is preposterous.
My response was not intended to be hostile, it’s more a case of a lack of respect of those who by choosing to publish wild and baseless accusations without proper consideration, so undermining examination of what could have been genuinely nefarious deeds.
As for your father entering WTC7 5 minutes before the building fell, there are 2 things wrong with this claim:
1) the 4:57 event was around 15 minutes before your father entered, hence he could well have not been close enough to be aware. You have used a negative proof “no perceived” which is a logical fallacy.
2) I find it impossible to believe anyone would have been allowed to (let alone want to) enter the building given the near ground level fires raging within it and damage to the underground structure beneath it.
If your post regarding secrets is in reference to my henchmen post, as opposed to a spurious rant: it does not address the nonsensical notion of the "accidental early press release" - why reporters need to be informed of a pending collapse prior to it occurring.
I have given you ‘alternative suggestions to the "accidental early press release" idea. Other than pure luck or coincidence’, as well as reasonable explanations to the questions regarding WTC collapse. I can’t help but notice you haven’t actually addressed the given arguments…….
"Debunking the 'melting point' theory" - done!
"Oh this is so obvious, as pointless as it is (are you trying to suggest the buildings fell into a black hole?)."
Buildings, being 85 - 90 % air, when collapsed result in observed rubble piles of 10 -15% of the original heights, including underground structures. This would be 130 - 200 feet. The observed pulverization of much of the concrete is an as of yet still unexplained issue.
You fail to answer where the core columns ended up. Steel of this type does not break up and collapse with the balance of the structure. After all, the core was designed to support the mass of the entire building. If it did indeed "bend" where was it? And in the event of the described pancake collapse, there would have been no stress on the core as the floors would have "pancaked" around them breaking only the floor support clips as surmised.
You also fail to remark on why there was no comprehensive forensic investigation of the collpase of WTC 7. I didn't ask "how".
I am open to any theory, including that put forth by the NIST report, of which I have read much of the some 10,000 pages, keeping in mind that the NIST report is itself nothing but theory. There was so little hard evidence retained for examination that all we have is untested and uncorroborated hypotheses.
Water continues to slip through and will continue until there is independent, unbiased analysis of the events.
I said he "tried" to enter, he was denied access. I don't know what to tell you, he was able to approach the building, period. He apparently had no reason not to do so. Soon after he was denied access, the building collapsed. I am simply relating his firsthand account.
Speaking of logical fallicy...
"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure."
What do you base this comment on? Are you citing any official sources? Or did you come up with this all on your own? You say a 'probable collapse of the underground structure', then use your own conjecture as an argument, not very scientific.
That there was no percieved collapse was simply that, there was no percieved collapse.
I had hoped to have a civil discourse, however it seems you will simply keep making assumtions and arguing them as fact. Sadly, the people on both sides of this argument are equally defensive and delusional.
I have not made up my mind, I am simply asking questions.
Dan M Nalven:
“Buildings, being 85 - 90 % air, when collapsed result in observed rubble piles of 10 -15% of the original heights, including underground structures.”
The storey height was 3.6m, yet the concrete floor slabs between floors were only 10cm deep – that’s 2.8% concrete. The steel structure will be a small percentage of that given the beams are of a ‘H’ design, so that’s 0.6% by my maths (= 44.5kg/m3 density used / solid density). So how on earth did you end up with 85-90%? Were you guessing/hoping?
Further, the underground structure isn’t solid matter, right?
I’ll give you some hints: air conditioning plants and service facilities, underground railway and rapid transit lines, and last but not least – the multilevel car park!
All of a sudden it starts to add up, yes? If not then please state and quantify why not.
“You fail to answer where the core columns ended up. Steel of this type does not break up and collapse with the balance of the structure.”
No I didn’t. I had hoped that would have been really obvious from reading my post. To reiterate: those beams which are not vertical would likely be smashed straight downwards. The remaining vertical beams would simply bend then break (assuming they are too tall to support its own weight especially against the lateral forces below). This is discounting rivet sheer.
“there would have been no stress on the core as the floors would have "pancaked" around them breaking”
I have already answered this. Most of the core will have been immediately stripped away.
Your line of enquiry is intriguing; are you trying to suggest the buildings were made from paper or something?
"logical fallicy" .......LOL
To the anon:
“I said he "tried" to enter, he was denied access”
Irrelevant. Both my points remain standing.
“Speaking of logical fallicy...”
Do you even know what one is? (you certainly can’t spell it) If so please show what text it relates to.
“however it seems you will simply keep making assumptions and arguing them as fact”
Where? Please feel free to disprove anything I have stated as fact – not the conjecture but the claimed facts!
And what about your ‘early press release’? How laughable! You’re not nearly ‘open to any theory’ as you make yourself out to be. Yes you’re asking questions but you don’t seem to be accepting answers that don’t tie in with your obvious bias.
Answer me this: why would the ‘evil henchmen’ risk leaking out information of an imminent collapse? What possible use could come of it?
“Sadly, the people on both sides of this argument are equally defensive and delusional”
That description does not include me. I am not on ‘a side’ neither am I defensive and I’, certainly not delusional; I’m merely debunking the junk science around the event, regardless of who spouts it.
Steve, many people have already brought up valid points and rather than have a civil discourse or, worst case scenario, agree to disagree, you ridicule and attempt to demean. Your attacks are apparent, though thinly veiled. I suppose you need a tech news site's comment section to spew your hostility and fulfill your need for perceived superiority. It seems those vaguely referenced "letters behind your name" aren't enough to satisfy. Enjoy your small pond minnow.
Unfortunately for you: I can justify my ridicule of you. How? See my very first post in this thread. Now read our subsequent posts and see how they relate!
See how I have given logical arguments and factual based responses, these mixed in with some telling questions – all of which remain unanswered. In return you have dodged all the issues raised then masking that by resorting to writing wholly irrelevant posts; I have already pointed this out to you yet you continue. You’re approach is “not very scientific” is it?
You will not accept that my points are valid, let alone more valid than most, simply because they are not in agreement with your prejudice – and now you are backing out because you have nothing to support it!
You discredit your entire movement. You are indeed a 911 nutjob and I claim my £5!
“A gentleman will not insult me, and no man not a gentleman can insult me” - Frederick Douglass
"The Scientific Method
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature "
There has been no event, past or present, with which to compare the collapse of the three WTC buildings.
Due to the nature of the event in question, any conjecture as to the cause or method of the collapses cannot even qualify as a theory, much less a fact, merely an hypothesis.
So, this does away with....
"It is expected that the towers will collapse when the steel framework is subjected to temperatures significantly below its melting point"
"the reason why the towers took as long as they did too fall is..." (You talk as though this is definite, it isn't)
"Any beams not completely vertical will fail due to the impact from the momentum of concrete falling on them. The remaining vertical beams won’t be strong enough to support their own weight (as well as being subjected to the lateral forces built up at the bottom so exerting more pressure); hence they will quickly fail too"
"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure"
"I find it impossible to believe anyone would have been allowed to (let alone want to) enter the building given the near ground level fires raging within it and damage to the underground structure beneath it"
"those beams which are not vertical would likely be smashed straight downwards. The remaining vertical beams would simply bend then break "
Congradulations, you can hypothesize. Join the club.
"See how I have given logical arguments and factual based responses"
No, I don't see. I see a bunch of probably's and likely's. Not exactly fact based, or logical.
And as for this.....
"I also have an engineering background: letters after my name: a string of patents in my name"
Irrelevant considering many other people with letters after thier names disagree with your assessment.
"I find it impossible to believe anyone would have been allowed to (let alone want to) enter the building given the near ground level fires raging within it and damage to the underground structure beneath it."
Using your own speculation on unverified "damage to the underground structure" as an argument is laughable. Besides, what you "find impossible" in those circumstances is irrelevant, you were not there.
BTW, you spell "I'm" with an 'M', since you're so keen on spelling, I thought I'd let you know.
Where's my fiver?
Well I Never, another rant that doesn’t address any issue raised!
Nice to see you can quote a scientific method, pity you don’t seem able to apply it – at any stage; yet based on nothing you somehow believe you are in a position to confidently state:
“So, this does away with....”
Which is quite funny as it doesn't really tie in with your prior claim of:
“I am seriously open to any alternative suggestions”
Which you’re clearly not!
“No, I don't see. I see a bunch of probably's and likely's. Not exactly fact based, or logical.”
Ah, so you also have selective eyesight!
Tell you what: instead of just blankly quoting some of my posts, why don’t you comment on my ‘formulation of the hypotheses’ like you should have done. Until you do there is no reason to accept my explanations as being erroneous.
“There has been no event, past or present, with which to compare the collapse of the three WTC buildings.”
I put it to you there have been no (causal) events which compares with the lead up to collapse of the three WTC buildings. This is something else that I have already commented upon. Keep up!
“Congradulations, you can hypothesize. Join the club.”
Errr, no! As of yet you cannot consider yourself to be part of this club. You haven’t hypothesized anything at all (pro or con) even though I’ve tried to push you towards it. Let’s try again with the "accidental early press release":
‘Why would the ‘evil henchmen’ risk leaking out information of an imminent collapse? What possible use could come of it?’
“Irrelevant considering many other people with letters after thier names disagree with your assessment.”
....and many others agree. Logic dictates that variable is redundant.
My original comment was actually in response to another poster’s background. However, unlike many I also have experience with fire regulations (it’s been my job for 10 years), mostly EN but some UL.
“Using your own speculation on unverified "damage to the underground structure" as an argument is laughable.”
Yet you’ve never given an explanation as to how you conclude why this “alternative suggestion” is laughable, you just state that it is – given your last post that quite ironic, don’t you think?
Do you believe it impossible for the underground structure to have sustained any damage?
“Besides, what you "find impossible" in those circumstances is irrelevant, you were not there.”
Neither were you (in any useful manner); hence more redundant logic. Do I need to remind you of your logical fallacy?
BTW, I’m not spelling police, I just wanted to demonstrate that you couldn’t apply your ‘logical fallacy’ statement and found it aptly humorous that you didn’t spell it correctly – notice how even that question is still outstanding.
Nice try but all you’ve achieved is re-enforcement of the perception of you as a common conspiracy nut!
"It is not the answer that enlightens, but the question." - Decouvertes
Since you seem obsessed with my simple grammatical error I will address it. You seem to only apply it to others arguments, and not your own, so I thought I'd give you a simple definition.
Logical fallacy: "A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning." - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html
Now the quote I was applying Logical Fallacy to...
"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure."
Hmmm, seems to fit the definition of logical fallacy well. To assume your answer is correct based on your own conjecture seems like a mistake in reasoning to me. I'll ask again, (but you won't answer) did you come up with that idea all on your own, what sources are you citing that observed this imagined damage?
"Let’s try again with the "accidental early press release""
If you read carefully (hard for you I know, in your rush to criticize) you will see I never said it WAS an accidental press release. That view was postured by the video clip ( I even put it in quotes as to avoid some moron misunderstanding). I asked for any alternative explanations. You replied with your unbased "probably due to underground damage" comment, and went on the offensive.
"Do you believe it impossible for the underground structure to have sustained any damage?"
You conveniantly ignore the point I was making, that you are coming to conclusions based on your own assumptions. That underground damage was POSSIBLE and whether it actually occured are two entirely different things.
"I also have experience with fire regulations (it’s been my job for 10 years), mostly EN but some UL."
"Why would the ‘evil henchmen’ risk leaking out information of an imminent collapse?"
Who said anything about evil henchmen? I certainly didn't.
"Yet you’ve never given an explanation as to how you conclude why this “alternative suggestion” is laughable"
Again, you ignore the glaring flaw in your own point, the fact that you are using your own assumption as an argument, that is what's laughable. Clear?
"Logic dictates that variable is redundant"
You try so hard to sound smart.
"Ah, so you also have selective eyesight!"
Yet again, you conveniently ignore the point I am making, that you are making many assumptions. Assumptions don't hold water, sorry.
"Which you’re clearly not!"
I am open to new ideas, not suggestions based on imagined underground collapses and filled with hateful rhetoric.
"You haven’t hypothesized anything at all (pro or con)...."
Thank you for noticing, perhaps you should consider that before you go on the attack. So much for your petty insults.
"...even though I’ve tried to push you towards it."
Push me towards it? Now I get to LOL...is that what's making you so mad and driven to insult, that I won't respond to your feeble 'push' by taking sides?
" there have been no (causal) events which compares with the lead up to collapse of the three WTC buildings"
Glad we can agree on something, however do you care to name the collapses of the other 107 story buildings of the same construction and materials with the implied different "causal events"?
"why don’t you comment on my ‘formulation of the hypotheses’"
Okay, since you asked, here's another point you'll ignore...
"Science proceeds by a process of observation, hypothesis formulation, hypothesis testing, and on the basis of the test, accepting or rejecting your hypothesis." - http://slack.ser.man.ac.uk/theory/hyp_null.html
You seem okay on the forming part, but any nimrod can hypothesize. However you seem to be lacking on the testing end of things, good old step four of the scientific method. Without conclusive tests and verification, your arguments hold about as much water as a sieve, steve. And back to square one.
"...and I claim my £5!"
You want a biscuit to go with that?
"Errr, no! As of yet you cannot consider yourself to be part of this club"
If it's any club you're in, count me out.
"Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing." - Engineers motto
Steve, you're the Nutjob
Please, Steve, let me know how it feels to be labelled a nutjob, thoughtful reasoning, in this geopolitical world, the use by the bush neo-cons to use this attack, just like blair, to bring us a police state, is enough of an argument to convince me, that after pearl harbour, gulf of tonkin, and the reichstag, that we certainly do now live in a different world, purely because people are ignorant of facts... steel buildings never before collapsing, yes my kerosene heater lies here in a pool of molten metal, please don't make me laugh...
Try telling that to Kevin Ryan.
The “site manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories [a division of Underwriters Laboratories – UL], which certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings, Kevin Ryan wrote an open letter to NIST (National Institute of Standards) questioning NIST’s Oct. 19, 2004 report that fire caused the three towers to collapse.” Ryan found the voluminous report full of inconsistencies, contradictions and lies. Within a week UL fired Ryan. How dare he publicly question UL, or the government?
see http://www.snowshoefilms.com/ for conference by him and other who refuse to be ignorant...
Welcome to the Stasi UK, you watching me?
"UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt"
"The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects"
"Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time"
"If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed"
Courtesy of http://www.911scholars.org/WhoAreWe.html
Hmmm, sieve is curiously silent.
But hey, if you really want to do this....
"I don’t doubt there could have been financial irregularities during the run up to the event, but the people highlighting this immediately lose all credibility by aligning themselves with the junk science surrounding it."
You just highlighted these potential "financial irregularities", so I suppose, in your own words.....well, I don't want to embarress you too much sieve.
"The real conspiracy, if indeed there is one, is that the US government managed to successfully cover up financial irregularities by planting these junk science based theories..."
So, again with these "finacial irregularities", and again you seem to think there is the possibility of some sort of conspiracy....you're sounding like a nutjob, sieve.
"A partial collapse would seem like a full collapse to underground (or nearby ground) workers."
From whom did you obtain such views and opinions?
Who can you cite having reported an underground (or even partial) collapse of WTC7? No one? Perhaps that is because there has never been ANY mention of a underground collapse of WTC7 what-so-ever, not even in the NIST report. Until, that is, you made some wild claim as such. You're sounding nuttier by the minute sieve.
"My response was not intended to be hostile, it’s more a case of a lack of respect of those who by choosing to publish wild and baseless accusations without proper consideration, so undermining examination of what could have been genuinely nefarious deeds."
I could comment on your clear hostility, your own blatant lack of respect, or your consistently poor sentence structure, but what's more interesting is that you again seem to imply there may have been some "...genuinely nefarious deeds."
"911 conspiracy theorists – idiots all of them!"
You seem to have some internal conflict going on, sieve. I suggest you address that.
"The core structure is only good for forces in a certain directions at certain places."
So you're a structural engineer now? If not, your opinion means little. Those unspecified "letters behind your name" don't lend you much credence.
"The most obvious answer is that the 4:57 event was a partial collapse, probably of the underground structure."
Yep, this quote again. It's such a gem.
FYI, in the scientific community it is generally accepted that when you put forth a previously unmentioned postulation, it is expected that you will provide proof or evidence supporting your claim. You have done niether.
"You will not accept that my points are valid"
No, I won't. And with good reason; because, when asked for evidence supporting your claims...you don't have any, all you do is avoid the question and engage in personal attacks.
"...and now you are backing out because you have nothing to support it!"
Speak for yourself, sieve.
I could go on, but why bother. A logical discourse would have been preferable, but as it is you will just continue to rant...(btw definition of 'rant...:"a loud bombastic declamation expressed with strong emotion" - http://dict.die.net/rant/, seems you're the only one ranting here)...about your fanciful theories and imaginations, toss insults instead of answering questions regarding those fanciful imaginations, and simply make a further fool out of yourself. Though the show may be fun, I have better things to do.
I am well aware what Kevin Ryan (whose field was environmental health, not building integrity) has claimed. The whole truth is that he has conveniently/stupidly missed out a critical fact from his evaluation, something both I and another poster in this thread have already highlighted. A penalty was warranted given his subsequent lack of judgement of publicly broadcasting his woefully inadequate claim. It could be argued that it didn’t warrant his termination but we don’t know what went on behind the scenes.
“yes my kerosene heater lies here in a pool of molten metal, please don't make me laugh...”
This is an utterly poor analogy.
Thanks to gravity, air density and the forced ejection of the gas, the heater itself will be subjected to very little heat because the flame is projected away form the gas canister – not nearly the same as what occurred on 911.
Also, it will be subject to very little pressure – it only has to contain the gas pressure within, not the weight of half a skyscraper.
Furthermore, the canister hasn’t been whacked by a 400mph sledgehammer.
And last but not least – no one is claiming that the steel framework had melted.
Nice try but....
“Since you seem obsessed with my simple grammatical error “
Nope, I’m demonstrating your logical error; I have already made this clear. You’ve made many errors which I haven’t highlighted.
“Hmmm, seems to fit the definition of logical fallacy well.”
Why? You can’t just state that is does. What is the flaw?
The difference between you and me is that I have explained your logical fallacy whereas you, again, are unable to.
“what sources are you citing that observed this imagined damage?”
Imagined? It is well accepted that the area within the ‘bathtub’ underneath suffered damage – unless you are even disputing this?
The upper floors could not stop the fall of a fraction of a skyscraper, given this what is the probability of the underground floors stopping the whole scraper from collapsing it?
Did you know the towers were built on reclaimed land? Does this suggest anything of significance to you?
“If you read carefully (hard for you I know, in your rush to criticize) you will see I never said it WAS an accidental press release.”
Previously you also said: “I know many of you do not believe in any alternative theory pertaining to the WTC collapse. I am curious how you would explain this video...”
Your motives are crystal clear. By linking the video you have attempted to give your ‘alternative’ views credibility; you failed.
“Who said anything about evil henchmen? I certainly didn't.”
You believe in the alternative theories right? What are these if they don’t involve planning or cover-ups? Why did you link that video?
OK, let’s put this to bed - do you or do you not lend credence to the notion that the collapse of WTC7 was planned and accidentally leaked? (as per the video you linked)
Hence I know some facts that others clearly don’t.
“Again, you ignore the glaring flaw in your own point, the fact that you are using your own assumption as an argument, that is what's laughable. Clear?”
My reasoning (which you cutely call ‘assumptions’) are based on fact and logic, something you have not been able to counter on any level except to say ‘no it aint’. If you can’t find a flaw with it then just say so!
“You try so hard to sound smart.”
That is a basic rule of logic. If you don’t understand that then there’s really no hope for you.
“Yet again, you conveniently ignore the point I am making, that you are making many assumptions. Assumptions don't hold water, sorry.”
Nope! You miss my original point. I have given fact based reasoning.
Also, you again claim my answers as false but seem to skirt around why you believe them to be so – you cannot claim to have made any point.
“I am open to new ideas, not suggestions based on imagined underground collapses”
A self-contradiction (unless you have already considered these possibilities, in which case what grounds do you have to dismiss them or render them as being unlikely?)
Hateful? Rhetoric? Oh dear! Now you’re at the bottom of the barrel.
"You haven’t hypothesized anything at all (pro or con)...."
“Thank you for noticing,”
You at last admit that you haven’t given any reasoning behind your claims of my hypotheses being invalid.
“however do you care to name the collapses of the other 107 story buildings of the same construction and materials with the implied different "causal events"?”
Irrelevant! We are focussing on what is, not what isn’t.
"why don’t you comment on my ‘formulation of the hypotheses’"
Go on then. Quoting more from Google doesn’t make it happen!
“However you seem to be lacking on the testing end of things, good old step four of the scientific method. Without conclusive tests and verification, your arguments hold about as much water as a sieve, steve. And back to square one.”
Just let me get my spare 747………anyone got a spare skyscraper? Even then you would think the experiment rigged if it didn’t meet your prejudice.
This is your position summed up nicely. You see, we (or at least some of us) are able to deduce cause and effect, or have an appreciation of the likelihood of, based on accepted knowledge or experience and reason. Much of scientific theory was accepted (at least as a representative model) long before there was a way of testing for the actual existence of it.
I have given you probable explanations based on good physics so satisfying criteria 1, 2 and 3, whereas you have not satisfied any of the 4 but somehow feel you are in the position to pass judgement on my hypotheses. How can that be?
In fact, all you are doing is basing your opinions on the (IMO flawed) arguments of some who give you hope that there is a global conspiracy; you’re blind to anything else.
Me: I have the ability to reason and make an informed and balanced judgement – I can make up my own mind!
Now let me put it to you all: if not due to the planes (fire and impact), what do you believe caused the collapse of the buildings?
Here's another photo for you sieve
(it's a big picture, so deal)
Maybe you will trust this source. Probably not, most likely...
"...you would think" it "rigged if it" doesn't "meet your prejudice".
Or, even more deluded you will think it supports your "underground collapse" fantasy. Too predictable.
By the way, you still haven't cited any sources supporting your arguement. You continue to rely on your own opinion("IMO"), which is increasingly unreliable considering you're split personality regarding the supposed "...genuinely nefarious deeds" you mentioned earlier. Go check another fire extinguisher.
"Me: I have the ability to reason and make an informed and balanced judgement"
- Geek's Guide to Britain BT Tower is just a relic? Wrong: It relays 18,000hrs of telly daily
- Product Round-up Smartwatch face off: Pebble, MetaWatch and new hi-tech timepieces
- Geek's Guide to Britain The bunker at the end of the world - in Essex
- Review: Sony Xperia SP
- Dell's PC-on-a-stick landing in July: report