LOOSE CHANGE: New 9/11 documentary receives media coverage

I think this link spam means Rat can't respond.

 

Why should I have to respond when the evidence speaks for itself?

 

well im just an ignorant human(seriosly i am ) but i have had the uniqe opportounity of watching a demolition it takes a lot of know how to drop a building in its or on its foot i would like to know if these buildings were desiend to fall the way they did if not it would be highly unlikly that after being hit with a plane of that size it would fall in its own print!! this is somthing that every one should contemplate!! think of it, these buildings fell right were they were sopossed to! does this not make you think? i dont perscribe to any idea but i certainly find it curious! i would like someone to show me how it is poss. for these buildings to fall the way they did in laymans terms please!!!!

 

It's not unusual that the towers collapsed onto their own footprint. There was enough damage done on multiple adjacent floors that those damaged floors couldn't support the weight above and buckled. As the upper part of the building fell, it accelerated and the dynamic load on the floors below the original damage couldn't support the load and collapsed. Since the falling part of the building accelerated as it fell, it placed increasingly higher dynamic loads on the intact floors below and crushed them too.

People ask why the towers didn't tip over. Part of the reason is that it would take time for them to tip because of the inertia in the part of the building above the initial damage. Also, once they started to tip, that tipping wrecked whatever support was left in the initially damaged area, and there wasn't anything to hold the bottom of the upper part of the building to allow it to keep tipping. Also, the collapse was fast enough such that there wasn't enough time for the building to tip over completely.

When you fell a tree, the bottom part of the tree trunk is still connected and supporting the upper part that is tipping. This occurs all the time the tree is falling until it strikes the ground.

If you cut the tree all the way through (say mid-way up a long trunk), the tree might tip a little at first, but it would then fall straight to the ground because nothing is there at the bottom to support it (imagine the lower part of the trunk being gone). It falls to the ground before it has a chance to tip over completely in mid-air.

If you look at the collapse of the south tower, it actually tips slightly to the east and south (where most of the damage was done by the aircraft) as the global collapse starts. The collapse was fast enough that it never had time to tip over completely. Also, the upper part of the building that was tipping also got destroyed on the way down, so there wasn't much left of a vertical structure to tip over anyway.

To get the towers to fall over, you would have to disrupt the support at ground level in such a way that one side of the foundation still maintained support while the other side didn't . That's not easy to do, as that part that's trying to hold up the building will likely fail also. You might get it to tip initially, but it would likely collapse from bottom to top before it ever had a chance to tip over completely.

The initial terror hit in 1993 was intended to tip the towers over by blowing out part of the foundation in a non-symmetical way as described above. They actually wanted one tower to tip over into the other.

.

 

Lick

Well presumably you are trying to bring these things to the attention of people because you wish to get a full and open inquiry.

That’s fine but I already wanted a full and open inquiry.

In fact is there anyone here on the forum that is violently opposed to there being a full and open inquiry?

My own opinion is that the wheat will be separated from the chaff. That a lot of the stuff pedalled by many in the 9/11 truth movement will be found not to stand up to scrutiny or will be found inconclusive at best or at worse based on nothing more than supposition, innuendo and opinion. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t think it should have it’s day in court.

So the question then becomes one of what is to be done and into what context is this inquiry to be placed.

From what has been said so far you seem to see this as an exercise in lobbying, just as in the same way that an industry might lobby for something they wanted.

It is not about politics as such, the political views of the people promoting the inquiry is not an issue only their wish for an inquiry is of importance? (Just as lobbyist’s court both left and right)

Now until the inquiry I cannot say but if you believe what you’re saying, isn’t the whole system at fault and so doesn’t the whole system need changing?

If so shouldn’t the 9/11 Truth Movement be a part of a wider political movement for change rather than trying to be separate from politics?

Or do you believe that the inquiry itself will bring political change.

And if so shouldn’t the members of the movement be open to a discussion of what the changes should be?

**

If you don’t believe in changing things by voting and you think a revolution not possible and not worth working for, how exactly are you doing to make the US a better place.

**

“speaking from my own academic and professional knowledge”

LOL, Oh Err are we going to compare dick sizes next?


**

The thing is that I would like to see change in the US system, I think the present system is just not working for the benefits of it’s own and the wider community.

So what is to be done, well I think the American people need to learn about politics and the choices open to them. They are not going to get that from what seems to be an apolitical movement or those who are reluctant to talk about their own political ideas for fear they cannot stand up to scrutiny.

**

 

ok balbus you keep asking "what would you do" you say that you would use the democratic proccess to counter act the the things that are wrong!!! but has this helped? i dont perscribed to iether of your iedeialog (excuse the spelling please) but you have done nothing in my mind to offer an alternitive! you say that the newworld order does not exist. yet if you look it has been referd to numeres times throuh out history! you say its not a conspiricy but yet any time by definition when peeps gather in board rooms to determin what happens in the world it occurs! my point is that it does occur! my question is, is this a plot to take the world into a slave state! or is it to bring the world into a world government were all are eqeal? who will be the leaders? what will be their desire? i beleive in one world with out war but what would be the result? tyrany or freedom? peace or conflict? i belive these are more important questions than wether we are sovrieng or not we are not and no country is at this point in time! we are a global community dependent on each outher! until we realize that there will be no peace on this planet! so do we work for the betterment of mankind? or allow the few to profit from the conflict they create!

 

Anyone who doesn't believe the New World Order exists needs to watch this video, which backs the case for the NWO up 100% with documents, mainstream news articles, and footage of prominent world leaders calling for a New World Order.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-448659287463550973&q=Alex+Jones

But, there are some who will always be in denial if it means guarding and protecting their ego. Some people believe only what they want to believe, even in light of overwhelming evidence that is contradictory to what they believe (or what they want to believe), and if they would rather believe the lies and deceptions out of the mouths of media lapdogs like Tom Brokaw and Wolf Blitzer, that's their choice.

There are, however, people open to information that the media refuses to cover in detail. These are the people I am trying to reach.

 

flmkpr

I’ll refer you a thread I started called “Would a global government and a New World Order be a bad thing?“
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75062

 

Rat

I already know you believe in ‘the conspiracy’ what I’m asking is what things should people do to actually do something about it. Also Rat, you claim ‘the conspiracy’ is headed by the rich and powerful so why are you seemingly suggesting actions (or actually inaction) that would help the rich and powerful becoming richer and more powerful?

 

Another look at thermite and the WTC. For anyone interested, here's an article by Greening that describes thermite reactions that could have taken place between the molten aluminum of the aircraft and building facade and materials within the building, paricularly concrete and gypsum.

It would have been good conspiracy advocates such as Jones (who has a degree in physics) would have at least looked at all the materials involved in the building and aircraft and seen if there could be possible thermite reactions before jumping to conclusions about thermite being placed intentionally as cutter charges. One doesn't even need a degree in materials science to understand these issues. It's easy to do some background reading about this on the web.

Greening has a PhD in chemistry.

http://home.flash.net/~lauras34/WTCTHERM.pdf

Excerpts:

"Occurrence of Thermite Type Compounds at the WTC
If we look at H & K’s list of compounds that have the potential to induce “catastrophic explosions” in the presence of molten aluminum, namely, water, lime, gypsum and rust, we see that all of them were present in the Twin Towers during 9-11:

Water:

The Boeing 767 aircraft impacts caused major structural damage over several floors in each Tower. Sprinkler systems were installed in the Twin Towers but apparently failed to operate during the catastrophic events of 9-11. Certainly, however, many plumbing fixtures near the aircraft impact zones would have ruptured and spilled water, especially in washrooms and kitchenettes, but also in office areas where water coolers, coffee makers and drink vending machines would have broken and spilled their contents.

Lime:

Lime is calcium oxide and forms the base for all cements and concretes where it typically constitutes 60 – 67 wt %. (WTC 1 & 2 contained an estimated 48,000,000 kg of concrete per Tower.) The principal binding agent in concrete is calcium silicate hydrate. The water of hydration of this compound, constituting 5 – 7 % of the weight of concrete, is present in the form of H2O bridges between Ca-O and Si-O layers. This water accounts for much of the chemical bonding that forms between lime and silica during the manufacture of concrete. As previously noted, the combination of water and metal oxide bonding in concrete makes this material very susceptible to explosive reactions in the presence of molten aluminum.

Gypsum:

Gypsum is hydrated calcium sulfate, CaSO4.2H2O. It is the principal ingredient of wallboard (75 – 90 wt %) but is also used as a binder or filler in fireproofing and insulating materials. Large quantities of gypsum wallboard, typically 5/8-inches thick, were used to enclose exit stairwells and elevator shafts throughout the Twin Towers.

Rust:

Rust, which is essentially a mixture of ferric oxides and hydroxides, readily forms on iron or low alloy steels exposed to moist air at ambient temperatures. Post 9-11 photographs of the WTC at ground zero show many rusted steel members in the rubble piles. The iron oxide film thickness measured on selected samples by NIST and FEMA investigators was consistent with the expected level of corrosion of carbon steel after 30 years exposure to the urban/maritime environment of NYC. As shown below, rust may be induced to react violently with aluminum, both in its molten and solid state.

3. Aluminum Reactions in the Rubble Pile

Remarkably, our story of the deadly role played by aluminum in the WTC disaster is not quite over because aluminum has one more chemical trick to perform in the rubble pile. The WTC rubble pile was a veritable stew of materials including body parts mixed with pulverized concrete, gypsum, glass fiber, vermiculite, chrysotile asbestos, mineral wool and glass as well as paper, plastic, copper wire and large sections of steel and aluminum.

Two factors should be considered in evaluating this mix of materials. First, because of the way it was formed amid fires and explosions, the rubble pile was very hot. In fact it is probable that some molten aluminum made its way into the rubble pile.

As previously noted, molten aluminum burning on contact with concrete produces a calcium oxide/silicate slag covered by a white aluminum oxide ash which serves to insulate and contain the aluminum puddle, keeping it hot and burning.

There is evidence that the WTC rubble pile was not just hot, but on fire, and it stayed that way for a long time. See for example Jonathan Beard’s article in the December 2001 issue of New Scientist."

.

 

Smoke billowing from the south side of WTC7 after the WTC1 collapse.



Dark smoke from the south side of WTC7. That's not a cloud from the WTC1 collapse. It's smoke from fires in WTC7. Heavy smoke was still billowing from the south side of WTC7 at the time of its collapse about 7 hours later as seen in videos of the WTC7 collapse.



Debris on the north side of WTC7. You can imagine the amount of debris on the south side of WTC7 which was facing WTC1 tower.

There aren't many photos of the south side of WTC7 after it collapsed because of all the debris that was in the way. The debris gashed the south side of WTC7. Also, planes were ordered to land, so there aren't any aerial photos of WTC7 after the damage was done.

 

Here's a good photo that shows drooping of the floors of one of the WTC towers. It shows sections of a floor that disconnected from the perimeter columns.

It's important because when floors were are connected to the columns, they defined the height of the columns as the spacing between each floor. When a floor becomes disconnected, the effective height of the columns is essentially doubled.

In basic theory and experiment, the maximum load a column can take is inversely proportional to the length of the column squared. So, if you double the column length, the maximum load the column can take before buckling is reduced by a factor of four. If two adjacent floors disconnect, then the maximum load before buckling is reduced by a factor of nine.

It doesn't take too much insight to see that the columns will eventually buckle under load when enough floor sections disconnect from the columns. Buckling of the perimeter columns was seen on some photographs of the towers before the global collapse.



.

 

Given the lack of clarity shaggie id say thats more likely the sgging suspended interior ceiling work. If it is a support column, you are still making a huge leap from one sagging collumn on one floor to global collapse. Also noting that no "raging inferno" is either evident from that photo nor from the recorded testimony of the firefighters on the upper floors which itself contradicts the official farcical explanation.

Again i suggest to you that you seem to be at great pains to validate the conspiracy theory of an administration of repeatedly exposed liars.

Carry on trying to convince yourself that these buildings were so feeble that not only did they defy all historic precedence of far more dustructive infernos of other buildings which never suffered global collapse, but did so in just over an hour. The supposed "assymetrical failure" that resulted in perfectly symmetrical collapse into its own footprint and all without any controlled demolition.

Just doesn't wash, sorry.

 

It's far too thick to be a ceiling. The floors were roughly a couple feet thick, which is consistent with the sagging structure seen in the photo (each story is about 12 feet high). Also, the perimeter columns are partly buckled. That's also consistent with the loss of floor connections or floors that sagged while still connected and pulled perimeter beams inward slightly. The floors (when not sagging) are what gave rigidity and buckling strength to the inner and perimeter columns.

That section that is sagging is over 100 feet long. Ceiling material wouldn't look like that. It's clearly a floor section.
.

 

BTW, columns are vertical, floors are horizontal. The buckling I was referring to was in the columns which are vertical. They will eventually buckle under load when enough floor connections are lost, as I explained earlier. The buckling strength is also decreased by the elevated temperature of the steel.

There are at least two factors working against buckling strength: the loss of floor connections and elevated temperature. A third factor was the initial loss of columns due to the aircraft collision. That places higher loads on the remaining columns. A fourth factor would be sagging floors that are still connected. That tends to pulls columns inward and makes them more prone to buckling under load.

.

 

And once again, the elevated temp nonsense is bunk as evidenced by the empirically oxygen starved smoldering and the recorded testimony of firefighters in the buildings.

The buildings were detonated.

 

Samples were taken from some of the steel in the towers and WTC7. The microstructure showed that the carbon redistributed itself. That doesn't happen unless the temperatures are somewhere between 600 and 1000 C. The steel must have gotten to those temperatures, otherwise the microstructure wouldn't have changed. The steel must have been at those elevated temperature for a while, since the redistribution of carbon is a time dependent mechanism. The carbon atoms diffuse at high temperature to rearrange themselves, which takes time.

Even without the change in carbon, the steel will still weaken at high temperture. It loses its stiffness at high temperature.

I suspect the demolition advocates will claim that the metallurgical data is fake.
.

 

We've been through this before shaggie and I find the use of thermite far more plausible an explanation than supposed "raging" fires which empirical recorded data before the collapses themselves prove they were not.

Further, given that FEMA prevented any independent forensic investigation of the site and rapidly disposed of the evidence in contravention with the rules of evidence in criminal investigations, such coverup is also indicative of a fraud perpetrated upon the American public.

You can believe that buckling explains the symmetircal global collapse. I remain convinced that it was rigged with timed charges to guarantee those buildings fell as intended.

 

Thermite isn't used as a cutter charge. I'm not sure who started all of that. Perhaps Jones. I already mentioned all of the building and aircraft materials that can lead to thermite reactions. There isn't anything mysterious about this. There were far more materials in the aircraft and building that could have caused thermite reactions than any supposedly placed 'thermite detonators'.

Gravity is what drives a global collapse, not thermite. What is needed is for the building to become unstable. It's evident from the buckling of the columns that the structure was unstable. No detonator charges are needed. People don't realize how many charges would have been required to bring down the towers. They would have had to been placed on most of the columns. There were hundreds of columns. You can see many of them were buckled as the fire wore on, but there aren't any signs of detonators going off and taking out columns.

The sagging of floors and the buckling of columns shows that the steel lost its strength at high temperature, not even considering the metallurgical analysis.
.

 

Here's another beauty by demolition advocate Jones. He claims this is a large slug of molten steel that solidified and therefore that thermite was intentionally placed.

This is actually part of a floor. You can see the concrete and the rusted beams. The rod-shaped rusted steel pieces were one-inch diameter rods that were used to stiffen the long 60 foot floor trusses. There is nothing mysterious about this photo. Jones thought that the concrete was slag on top of a slug of solidified steel.