Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

A forum to either submit your own review of a book, video or audio interview, or to post reviews by others.
Post a reply

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Carlhole » Tue 13 Nov 2007, 16:50:59

I just watched the whole thing online at Google Video but now I can't access it. So, maybe the video was pulled off.
Carlhole
 
Top

Re: Loose Change: Final Cut Now Available!

Unread postby culicomorpha » Tue 13 Nov 2007, 19:47:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '
')I love that one, it says it all:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('culicomorpha', '.').. 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."

So, let's start from the reported evidence for building 7 (from http://www.ae911truth.org/):

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.
User avatar
culicomorpha
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: cascadia
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Micki » Tue 13 Nov 2007, 21:07:50

Lighthouse wrote:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '9')9% (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.
Micki
 
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Lighthouse » Tue 13 Nov 2007, 21:31:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'J')et 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.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'R')arely 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 ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Micki » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 08:59:48

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 shit your mind, so I won't waste any more energy proving the world isn't flat.
Micki
 
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby davep » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 09:09:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'O')K, 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?
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Lighthouse » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 09:21:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', 'O')K, 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 shit 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 ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Micki » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 11:34:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 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.
Micki
 
Top

Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 12:12:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'A')s 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).

400 gigajoules is about 100 tons of TNT.

How much is a gigajoule?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Answer.com', '[')list]

  • One gigajoule is the amount of energy a computer/screen combination using 500 Watts consumes in approx. 23 days.
  • One gigajoule equals the amount of energy consumed by a 100 W light bulb in approx. 4 months...


    • Wiki: Units of energy and power

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '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:



    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.
    Carlhole
     
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby jbeckton » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 17:09:20

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', '[')b]Lighthouse wrote:
    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '9')9% (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
    User avatar
    jbeckton
    Expert
    Expert
     
    Posts: 2082
    Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 17:30:06

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', '[')b]Lighthouse wrote:
    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '9')9% (including myself) don't even understand the physics involved neither the mathematics.


    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.


    Don't feel bad, Lighthouse, NIST had a bunch of qualified engineers at its disposal and had $20 million to work with. You would think they would be able to explain something in detail with all that talent and all those resources. Not so!

    They have admitted they cannot explain the tower collapses. And it's been 6 years and their WTC7 is still not finalized. They know they won't be able to explain that one either so they've been stalling and stalling and stalling...

    NIST Admits Total Collapse Of Twin Towers Unexplainable

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paul Joseph Watson', 'T')he National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

    In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

    A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics...
    Carlhole
     
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby culicomorpha » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 20:47:33

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
    ')Maybe you do need to be an engineer to understand the facts because common sense has failed to do so.


    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Paul Joseph Watson', 'T')he National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.


    I think the typical engineer's perspective is that fire should create plastic deformation changes, not catastrophic failure. The buildings should have fallen asymmetrically and over some time, not at near free-fall speed.

    It is nice to see that NIST agrees that there is no other reasonable explanation. It's ashame they are not explicitly stating the obvious, but I guess that claiming Al Qaeda placed the explosives would be a really hard sell.
    User avatar
    culicomorpha
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 249
    Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: cascadia
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby Carlhole » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 23:10:02

    Appeal to NIST pursuant to Request for Correction published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('911blogger', 'I')n April, the team of presented a Request for Correction to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a lab under the Department of Commerce. This request was published in the June issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The authors were James Gourley, Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

    In their reply dated September 27, 2007, NIST states: “we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
    And they expect the requesters to be satisfied with this response?!?
    Remember, NIST is making these statements to men who lost family members in the Towers destruction… Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, as well as to serious researchers Jones, Ryan, Gourley, Gage and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

    Further from the NIST response letter: “NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” The next sentence admits: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue…”
    The Appeal correctly notes: “it is extremely easy to ‘find no evidence’ when one is not looking for evidence.”

    A reviewer urged that the Appeal be published in the Journal with the comment: “the public should be given a chance to see the debate unfolding and how weak the NIST Response was. I believe [the] Appeal is more easily understood than the original Request and is valuable.”
    Carlhole
     
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby culicomorpha » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 23:20:59

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'F')urther from the NIST response letter: “NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.” The next sentence admits: “NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue…”
    The Appeal correctly notes: “it is extremely easy to ‘find no evidence’ when one is not looking for evidence.”


    Yes, in fact the chances are quite excellent that they would find no residue if they never looked.

    See no evil, Hear no evil, Speak no evil. I can almost see the three monkeys on the NIST letterhead.

    I think some people are going to be going to prison for helping with the cover-up here. It seems like the official story is unraveling like the cheap curtain it is.
    User avatar
    culicomorpha
    Lignite
    Lignite
     
    Posts: 249
    Joined: Sat 03 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
    Location: cascadia
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby Carlhole » Sun 25 Nov 2007, 22:06:26

    [align=center][flash width=500 height=361]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?&videoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvp.video.google.com%2Fvideodownload%3Fversion%3D0%26secureurl%3DuAAAABTSddoc4azvdQQ5OdzltoDwnVGZWFaJxLiiNwu8lIKu1v_hSuz5ULK9tdy8dPtfwvyk5zfMqGAwLsOvt5PV47edYZnGeEHtpJMGgZ8PZ2x6AeVE6nFZV-PoCqoi8AGl7Ds6RYDSRT2-RqaMaJiojWH9Dgqos-YPR8mV3COaVLitXwxLRt-bi_wO6C-Tgwc39wKeRUuJeo376uZcKhXN_mVCURDAPuw_Ews5n0QY7I6RYtZp6jke5ZnNtxf8z44Nyg%26sigh%3DVo7RMPp8Cxljx0f-rRp9br-zeeQ%26begin%3D0%26len%3D7794399%26docid%3D-2035108967536002048&thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.com%2FThumbnailServer2%3Fapp%3Dvss%26contentid%3Dcf82554efe814090%26offsetms%3D5000%26itag%3Dw320%26lang%3Den%26sigh%3Dg70bMov7sg1KtdUsXnFNbKkLwsg[/flash][/align]

    Loose Change Final Cut

    $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Google Video', 'T')his is the long awaited Loose Change Final Cut DVD. The Final Cut is the last amazing step in the evolution of the Loose Change 9/11 film. ... all » It presents over 2 hours of new, undeniable evidence that will leave you speechless. Order it now to guarantee your copy from the first printing. SHIPPING NOVEMBER 19, 2007.


    OK, let's try this one more time. The last time I posted the movie, it was removed shortly afterwards.
    Carlhole
     
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby Tuike » Thu 11 Sep 2008, 14:30:01

    Loose Change is coming from a freeview Finnish tv channel right now. (JIM channel) Commercial brake time. It's split in two parts. Next part comes tomorrow.
    User avatar
    Tuike
    Tar Sands
    Tar Sands
     
    Posts: 653
    Joined: Mon 10 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
    Location: Finland
    Top

    Re: "Loose Change: Final Cut" Watch It Online Now!

    Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 12 Sep 2008, 04:19:16

    Who is he kidding? There will never be a "final cut". George Lucas has nothing on this guy.
    mos6507
     
    Top
    Previous
    Post a reply

    Return to Book/Media Reviews

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



    cron