Monday, November 20, 2006

Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics: The Debate

In five parts:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Also see these resources and Matt Taibbi on 9/11 conspiracy theorists.


qwertyxyz said...

The guys from popular mechanics kicked their asses! If i was one of the guys from loose change i would be ashamed of myself from that ass kicking. Their only defense was by cutting into what the popular mechanics guys where saying with stupid "oh yeahs" and shit like that. They are a couple of guys from who the hell knows where vs some of the smartest people in America. 8====D----- All over loose change!

Seeking said...

I disagree. I think the Pop Mech guys came off stammering, superior and made the Loose Change guys look more valid. I'm not really into the 911 conspiracy thing but the debate seemed to give equal credibility to both sides. I didn't feel there was a "win" for either and I had checked this out expecting to see Loose Change debunked!

Jim Lippard said...

If you compare the content of Loose Change to the content of the Popular Mechanics issue (or better yet, their book), there's no question who has supporting facts and evidence and who is constructing fantasies out of half-truths and misinformation.

I was disappointed with this video in that they showed clips from Loose Change but never showed any visual or graphic evidence debunking Loose Change (like this computer-animated analysis of the Pentagon light poles), but I question your critical thinking ability if you thought this "made the Loose Change guys look more valid."

Live Action Tours said...

The Popular Mechanics guys were better debaters and talked the most but the information they presented was weak. I don't think Loose Change is a good doc but to say they got their asses kicked is naive.

The Loose Change guys presented quotes from newspapers from a coroner and the PM debunked it by saying they talked to this guy. They argued that the day he examined flight 93 was so chaotic that these documented quotes were not valid. But PM's assertion BASED ON NOTHING is true and they should be ashamed. The coroner reported this to newspapers -if this isn't credible, changing his story years later certainly isn't. If he did not see body part the day of the event how could he remember them later? The PM guys exhibit very poor debating skills here and go for the low blow -not reason.

Then the topic eventually changes to tower 7 which the magazine's report does not adequately debunk and their tactic of equating the boys with holocaust deniers comes out.

The Loose Change reps got slammed but from a purely critical analysis of the facts presented -not dirty debating techniques, there is no clear winner and it only goes to strengthen the case for a new independent investigation.

Jim Lippard said...

I'm sorry, but I'm not even sure what you're arguing. Are you claiming that there were no body parts at the Flight 93 crash site, even though specific dead people (34 of the 44 on board) were identified as a result of those body parts and DNA?

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that the coroner changed his story "years later"--on September 24, he had identified 11 bodies *without* having to resort to DNA.

There's no question that the bodies of the people on that flight were badly destroyed in that crash, because they weren't trying to make a crash landing, they flew it intentionally into the ground.

So what are you claiming?

Jim Lippard said...

BTW, "9/11 truthers" are just like Holocaust deniers, in the following way: they glom on to what they see as anomalies, and construct a huge edifice of conspiracy designed to explain those anomalies, while disregarding most of the evidence. A rational explanation takes account of as much evidence as possible, while recognizing that in such a huge complex set of events there are bound to be some minor discrepancies here and there. You can't explain the discrepancies by discarding most of the evidence and events (like the known history of the hijackers leading up to the events!).

Live Action Tours said...

"BTW, "9/11 truthers" are just like Holocaust deniers"

I shouldn't argue points with someone who thinks this way. You say "just like" and then go on to explain how these groups are vaguely similar.

I'm just being critical of arguments stated. I'm certainly not agreeing with the Loose Change guys about anything. If those newspaper quotes are bogus then they should site it. I think you are too quick to defend an explanation because it comes from an authority. If those body parts were found then the newspaper quotes must be false. Of course you'll make up your mind before anything is researched because you've already made up your mind. I on the other hand am open to other ideas.

Granted most of the alternatives are far fetched -there certainly has been no explanation for molten steel found under the WTC buildings a week after 911. I'm not checking back on this post anymore so have fun not questioning anything.

Jim Lippard said...

The similarity of methodology is rather precise.

I think it is completely rational to obtain information from *relevant* authorities--for example, about the characteristics of building demolition from engineers who do it, from how steel structural failures occur from structural engineers, about plane crashes from those who investigate them for a living. That doesn't mean those people can't make mistakes--they can and do. But I don't see *any* relevant experts supporting the "9/11 truth" movement.

It's funny that you close by saying that you won't be coming back and listening to anything further, yet you accuse me of being the one who's close-minded. I'm perfectly willing to hear you make an argument and address your evidence directly, if I can, or to say I don't know. Why aren't you willing to do the same?

I'm not aware of any evidence supporting the claim that there was molten steel at Ground Zero. It appears to be a misunderstanding based on a quotation erroneously attributed to Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer who helped design the WTC.

Einzige said...

I shouldn't argue points with someone who thinks this way.

What an ironic comment, seeing as it was followed by so many logical fallacies!

TravisM said...

There's something you have to consider here. A conspiracy of this magnitude is too risky to pull off. The coordination to plant explosives in those building unnoticed would take hundreds of people. I'm an expert with high explosives, I served in the bomb squad for 4 years. It would take thousands of pounds of explosives to take down WTC7 alone. If you watch controlled demos you'll actually see blasts occuring on each floor in rapid succession, even in daylight. Furthermore they wouldn't have had the opportunity to weaken the structure, which is necessary to use the minimum amount of explosives, since that involves removing tons upon tons of concrete to expose the steel structure inside. I'm not saying there isn't something weird about the whole event, I do think there's something weird about it, but to let your brain wonder and come to conclusions without having evidence or any proof isn't fair either. I think at worst someone heard about it and decided to keep it secret. Other than that I seriously, and that's a big seriously, doubt that anyone actually took actions themselves to aid in the event. The risk of collaberation is far too great for the benefits. The general population would literally call for the people involved to be killed.

David H. Willis said...

I'm late to this party but thanks for posting these. I have a "truther" hanging around my blog like a stray cat that someone fed... & he just keeps coming back. Thanks again for the logical and rational comments.

Jim Lippard said...

David: Glad you've found it useful!

Real Truth Online said...

Im the truther that is "hanging around his blog" and what david Willis fails to mention is that we actually went to Bible college together and ever since I went on his blog and told him I have changed views about God, he took it personally and now he attacks the views I have about 9-11 (something he knew about LONG before I began posting the 9-11 stuff on his blog), but since I have hurt his feelings about religion and make fun of him for teaching people about talking snakes, talking donkeys, the sun standing still and one 500 year old man putting two of every animal on a big boat (that he built "himself"--[oh brother]), Dave has thrown a bit of a tantrum and now is spouting off ad hominem attacks on his blog and after REPEATED invitations by me for him to debate me on this, he IGNORES every invitation, ignores all the facts I post and spins his ASS off worse than Bill O Reilly--just like he span that I was just "some truther" hanging out on his blog when we went to college together. He studies NOTHING, researches NOTHING and even when he DOES post videos and links for me to check out---I end up telling HIM the backgrounds of the sources he's sent me. I know the backgrounds of his sources better than HE does. He openly admit he reads NOTHING on this subject and I constantly school him on this subject. I offended him about God, so now he cries like a little school girl and has even had one of his buddies call my house and threaten me. Im thinking about calling his church and telling them he [minister boy] advocates calling people and threatening them. He's a FOX News blowhard who only wants to hear ONE side of the story and quotes yellow journalism assholes like Jim Meigs (a man who just 4 years ago wrote movie reviews)----and NOW he suddenly knows all about engineering?? Dave has also NEVER EVER refuted one thing I have posted---he IGNORES nearly everything I post by his own admittance.

Real Truth Online said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Real Truth Online said...

i didnt mean to post that twice

Real Truth Online said...

hey Jim Lippard---one question about Flight 93......where was the wreckage of the plane after it crashed? all we ever saw is a big hole. Can you think of ANY other plane crash in history where we saw the images of the crash site and huge chunks of the planes werent laying there smoldering? But Flight 93----nope---nothing but a hole!

Why did the 9-11 commission NOT answer over 115 questions as researched by David Ray Griffin? Why are there so many things covered up? Why did Hamilton and Kean ADMIT at the start of the investigation that they werent there to see how 9-11 happened--but only to make sure it doesnt happen again? How can they achieve the latter without finding out the former???

Einzige said...

While I don't have a citation for you, my understanding is that when a plane crashes directly into the ground going more than 400 MPH there's not much that isn't completely obliterated.

Einzige said...

"Directly" -- meaning going straight toward the ground.

Jim Lippard said...

As Einzige says, this was a plane flown intentionally almost straight down into the ground, which is quite different from most plane crashes.

That said, there were still bodies identifiable without the use of DNA, as well as wreckage in primary, secondary, and tertiary debris fields, as described here. (Note: This is a site that argues that Flight 93 was shot down or otherwise broke up prior to hitting the ground, based on the distribution of debris. I'm not endorsing that theory, but he cites contemporary reports about wreckage recovery.)

Real Truth Online said...

When it goes directly into the ground, it's obliterated? So, it vaporizes? And they call MY version of 9-11 nutty? First of all, name ONE other example of a plane completely disappearing. second, how do you even KNOW the plane went "straight down"? Do you have video footage of it? Isnt your assessment of the plane going straight down a theory too??

Preponderance of evidence is what this is all about? Planes dont crash and disappear----ever. There's way more evidence the plane was shot down. That's not a theory----that's based on visual evidence.

Einzige said...

USAir Flight 427, traveling at "only" 260 knots when it struck the ground at an 80 degree angle, was described as "severely fragmented". Not the same as "obliterated", but 260 knots is not 400 mph.

It doesn't require much imagination to realize that a relatively thin sheet of aluminum, traveling at high speed and impacting what amounts to an immovable object, is not going to retain much of its original shape. Have you not seen those high-speed camera studies of fighter jets being flown into concrete walls? They basically become clouds of dust.

Einzige said...

Planes don't crash and disappear

Straw-man and red herring. Did either of us claim that the plane "disappeared"? I recall Jim just mentioning debris fields and identifiable human remains.

Einzige said...

...and here is the exact video I was thinking about.


Jim Lippard said...

Nobody *except* the 9/11 Truthers claim the plane "disappeared" or never existed or went to Cleveland. Everybody else says it crashed into the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where all of the wreckage and human remains were recovered and identified.

What's your point, Real Truth Online? At first it looked like you were claiming that there was no wreckage at Shanksville, which is certainly not correct. Now, it looks like you're saying that Flight 93 may have been shot down, which wouldn't provide any support for the claim that 9/11 involved controlled demolitions, drone planes, faked cell phone calls, didn't involve Osama bin Laden, or any other claim made in "Loose Change" (which is the topic of the blog post we're commenting on here).

Real Truth Online said...

Jim, first of all, the links bewteen Flight 93 being shot down goes along with the demolitions in one way. Of course, since the planes are destroyed and there was no REAL investigation of 9-11, then all we can do is theorize about this one aspect---and I hate theorizing.

In my studies I learned that of the 4 planes involved in 9-11, Flight 93 was the ONLY plane that did not HAVE to be shot down, but yet was. (I believe it was anyway)

The other 3 planes actually hit targets. If youre going to believe it was an inside job like I do, you have to believe there were reasons for the particular flights doing what they did. All 3 flights (not counting 93) had already hit their targets long before 93 crashed. The closest flight to the 93 crash time to hit their target was the Pentagon strike which hit at 9:38am----Flight 93 crashed at 10:03 or 10:06 (thats disputed). 25 or 28 minutes is STILL an incredibly enough time for a fighter jet to find out the 4th plane is still in the air and shoot it down. Now, here's my point: The first 3 planes were in the air a VERY long time and NOT shot down---they could have easily been shot down. The FAA and NORAD knew about these flights in the air a LONG time before the crashed into their targets. This is EXACTLY why the FAA, NORAD and the military's time lines are all DIFFERENT. They had no choice but to cook the books----because it was NOT incompetence---it was a stand down. The first 3 planes were ALLOWED to hit their targets because they had to create the "attack" inflicted. The 4th plane did not have to be shot down because I TOO believe the passengers took the plane over----in FACT, MY belief makes those passengers MORE heroic than the official story does because there 2 pilots on this plane as passengers. I FULLY believe that not only did the passengers take over this flight, I believe they wre FLYING it. I believe that when it was discovered that the plane was actually being FLOWN by the passengers (pilots who were passengers), they got an order to shoot it down for (and here's where we have to theorize, because the plane crashed and everyones dead) whatever reason. The reason I believe it was shot down is this: (and I know you will call me nutty---thats ok) I believe these hijackers had some connection to our CIA or FBI. Some of the hijackers lived with FBI agents on military bases prior to 9-11---this is all mainstream news. The hijackers, whoever they were, were not what we have been told. They had connections and protection from our government. I fully believe that plane was being flown by the passengers and since it was going to land safely with these "mysterious" hijackers who were connected with our own government---they couldnt survive it. Whoever was involved in our governemnt would be exposed if these hijackers survived a safe landing. The plane did NOT have to be shot down---but yet it was. The other 3 planes could have EASILY been shot down, but weren't.

Lippard, just one question: If Bin Laden was responsible for 9-11, why hasnt he been indicted for it? Go to and look at his profile----9-11 isnt mentioned as one of his crimes, why? The FBI even ADMITS theres no hard evidence against Osama! So, if the FBI says there isnt, why did we launch TWO wars, change our foreign policy and why does everyone think he's involved? Can you answer that? Why did Bush say on several occasions about Bin Laden----"Im not that worried about him, he's not a priority"? and why did Bush CLOSE the Bin Laden unit (in charge of finding him) at the CIA?

Oh and another thing Jim----I hate logging into my google account and my site to post on here. Can you make it easier and less time consuming to post here?

Jim Lippard said...

I've experimented with not requiring Google accounts here, and it results in a major spam problem that I don't care to deal with.

You're making a lot of unsubstantiated claims, many of which are demonstrably false--including that there was no real investigation, that there are unreconciled timelines, that the hijackers were connected to the U.S. government (though there is evidence of connections to the Saudi royal family and Pakistan's intelligence service), that the other planes could have been easily shot down (the NORAD tapes have been released), and that Flight 93 was under the control of the passengers (the cockpit recording provides no evidence for that).

Check out my post about "Zeitgeist: The Movie", my post about the real 9/11 conspiracy, and my post about the release of the NORAD tapes.

The FBI "Usama bin Laden" "most wanted" poster hasn't been updated since November 2001; it doesn't mention 9/11 specifically but 9/11 is clearly implied in the statement that he "is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world." If you look at this November 2003 page, there is mention of the 9/11 attacks specifically.

Real Truth Online said...

Jim, read the story on this link:

As far as the cockpit recording of Flight 93, this is why I said the times of the crash are disputed. One being 10:03 (official story) and 10:06, which is the time MANY witnesses heard the explosion (as well as saw debris in the SKY [indicating shoot down]) it is believed (because we will never know) that those remaining 3 minutes were kept from the families and that those 3 minutes may have contained evidence that the flight was in control of the passengers.

As far as the 9/11 commission not being a REAL investigation---youre kidding right? I can actually post 115 lies, omissions and distortions that the 9/11 commission didnt even bother to address or ask---including NO mention WHATSOEVER of WTC 7's collapse. No mention of it--at all---why? The 9/11 commission even said the twin towers were made of a hallow core---LIE. The WTC towers had 47 steel beams in its core. That was a blatant lie.

Jim, are you trying to tell me that the use of drones or the planned use of painted aircraft is NOT something our own government does? I can give you examples that they DO. One being very recent.

I saw your links----all you do on the Zeitgeist story is tell that is IS flawed and you dont offer ANY specific examples. When you mention the income tax, you say "That argument is made in William J. Benson and Martin J. Beckman's book The Law That Never Was, which documents errors in the ratification documents, such as typos, alternate capitalization, alternate pluralization, etc. Courts have ruled that Benson's argument doesn't work and that his selling his book as part of a tax evasion defense package constitutes fraud, and he's served time in jail for tax evasion.”

You give NO examples of the typos, alternate capitalization, etc.. Serving time in jail for tax evasion is evidence that the income tax law is a fraud? That was spin just thrown in there to discredit his character. You were in essence saying “He’s a lawbreaker so of course he’s going to lie”---all spin to advance your agenda. Your argument for the Fed not being private is that the President appoints its head and governors? Do you think MOST or all people in Washington CARE about the Constitution? You act as if the President would always do the legal, moral thing! Look what our current one is doing! Spies, tortures, starts illegal wars-----ALL against the Constitution! And youre trying to argue that the President wouldn’t be involved in corruption? That’s funny! Your posts just SAY that our facts are wrong and don’t actually provide PROOF we are wrong.

You SAYING something doesn’t make it right----PROVE it. By the way, I didn’t say the timelines were unreconciled, I said they were all DIFFERENT from each other. FAA, NORAD, military and the 9/11 commissions timelines----all different. Don’t you think theyd all be the SAME if there’s nothing to cover up? If there’s only ONE story and it’s the truth, they should all match.

Jim Lippard said...

Your first link is regarding matters of legal procedure for criminal court, which are different standards than for knowledge. O.J. was found not guilty in a court of criminal law, but we all know he did it.

The 9/11 Commission report, despite its flaws, is more comprehensive and detailed than anything any 9/11 truthers have ever put together. (The same is true of the Warren Commission report--it had some flaws, but it was more comprehensive and accurate than anything that the JFK assassination conspiracy theorists have put together. Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History, is probably now the most definitive account that corrects those flaws.)

You're correct that there's no mention of the WTC 7 collapse in the 9/11 Commission report, and that that's a flaw in the report. That flaw is rectified by NIST's report on the Building 7 collapse.

p. 558 of the 9/11 Commission report says that "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped." That's an accurate description, yet you claim that it's a "lie," i.e., an intentional falsehood. I have no doubt that it contains falsehoods and omissions, as any report of a complex set of events is bound to do so.

The government uses drones, but that provides no evidence that drones were used to fake an attack on the WTC. If you think that the real planes disappeared and were replaced by drones, then you're off in loon territory.

I don't know why you're discussion income tax in comments on this post, but note that I provided links to supporting evidence rather than presenting detailed analysis of each claim. A friend of mine had a copy of Benson and Beckman's book and I spent an hour or so looking at it to get the basic gist of the argument, and it's as I described. One of the most common problems they describe is that many states failed to capitalize the word "States" in the version of the 16th Amendment they ratified. Illinois had a typo of "remuneration" for "emuneration," Missouri said "levy" instead of "lay," and Washington said "income" instead of "incomes."

"Serving time in jail for tax evasion is evidence that the income tax law is a fraud?" No, serving time in jail for tax evasion is evidence of a rather conclusive sort that his argument doesn't hold up in court.

"all spin to advance your agenda ... Do you think MOST or all people in Washington CARE about the Constitution? You act as if the President would always do the legal, moral thing! Look what our current one is doing! Spies, tortures, starts illegal wars-----ALL against the Constitution!" You clearly have no idea what my agenda is, since you think I'm a mindless defender of the idea that the government can do no wrong. Try reading any of my posts on politics, law, police abuse and corruption, and other controversies in the labels on this blog and you'll quickly be disabused of that ignorant misconception.

"Your argument for the Fed not being private is that the President appoints its head and governors?" That's one piece, but a pretty significant one. The Fed was created by government statute, it's run by people appointed by the president, it engages in regulatory functions, etc. Did you miss the fact that I provided a citation and link to an article that describes the Fed in detail?

"Your posts just SAY that our facts are wrong and don’t actually provide PROOF we are wrong." If you think that, then I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I do often cite other sources as evidence rather than repeating everything those sources say, but that doesn't mean the evidence hasn't been provided.

Real Truth Online said...

Jim, Id love to keep debating, but just like my "buddy" David H. Willis (who has banned me from his site, because he hates facts), you dont seem to research ALL sides of the matter---i DO research all sides. have you ever read David Ray Griffin's books on 9-11? ALL excellent. I LOVE how you call MAJOR omissions in the 9-11 report "flaws"---and that NIST report is a joke. Do you know what they called the collapse of WTC 7? They called it a "NEW phenomenon" because it has NEVER happened before (that a steel framed building collapsed due to fire)---"NEW phenomenon????" are you kidding me? And Im the kook?? How did the media, policemen, and ground zero workers know in ADVANCE that WTC 7 was coming down? There was reports from the BBC and even CNN that announced the collapse of the building and while they were announcing it, it was STILL STANDING in the background behind them! Obviously they received the reports from other sources----but what sources? How could they KNOW in advance if it was a "NEW phenomenon???" Care to answer that?? Im sure you will ignore that.

Heres links of the stories of the announcement of the collapse in ADVANCE:

Here is the story on the flawed NIST report that calls WTC 7 a "NEW phenomenon":

Funny how I read the posts on some of these blogs and they say "so what they announced the collapse before it actually collapsed---what does that mean?"----total morons.

Im not going to go in depth about the Fed---because I know it's a fraud, even Ron Paul admits its a fraud so there blows your theory that its just a made up theory we invented just to hate the government more.

I will address you saying this:

"No, serving time in jail for tax evasion is evidence of a rather conclusive sort that his argument doesn't hold up in court."----but yet you fail to mention the numerous court cases that income tax evaders have WON.

Read G. Edward Griffin's book "Creature from Jekyll Island"--all about the formation of the Fed. It was ALL done in SECRET. No politicians involved, ALL bankers.

Watch this clip:

You said, "No, serving time in jail for tax evasion is evidence of a rather conclusive sort that his argument doesn't hold up in court."----it all depends upon whether you have an informed jury who knows the law!

You said, "If you think that the real planes disappeared and were replaced by drones, then you're off in loon territory."----i believe a drone was used at the Pentagon because an actual plane would have completely obliterated that portion of the Pentagon, rather than just the little damage it did. PLUS, they knew THAT very section of the Pentagon was under construction and knew the damge would be minimal---PLUS, why didnt the hijackers hit the other side of the Pentagon (the west side)? Thats where the top military brass offices were. Why wouldnt the hijackers want to kill the top brass? INSTEAD the hit the very part of the Pentagon that has the LEAST people in it (because of the construction). Boy, these were compassionate terrorists!

The towers were hit by planes because the damge was meant to be massive there---they wanted the towers gone.

We will differ, but at least we actually DEBATE. Not like that Willis guy that just ignores everything I say. He believes in talking snakes, 500 year old men building giant boats and men parting seas with a rod----so his credility is shot to hell.

I may not be continuing to post here because I REALLY hate logging into my account just to post. I never get spam on my site. You can post at my site if you want---its easier.

Jim Lippard said...

"Real Truth": The BBC comment on WTC 7 was explained by the BBC reporter in question, Jane Standley, as I reported here in July when the BBC's "The Third Tower" came out.

"but yet you fail to mention the numerous court cases that income tax evaders have WON": It wouldn't surprise me if a few have won a few cases at the trial court level, but you appear to be changing the subject from Benson's book.

Re: the Pentagon--it was definitely a plane, as proven by the light pole damage. (BTW, if it was a drone, where did American Airlines Flight 77 go?)

FearSpreads said...

Close your eyes.
Imagine that you're a rather large jet flying at 400-500 MPH. feel the air drag against you, the push of the jets, the laws of physics that are at work.

You start to descend, your flaps go down, causing force from the air to push against the flaps and point you towards the ground. Remember, you weigh 100-some tons... you're not exactly balanced right... It takes a while for you to change your trajectory in any direction without stalling...

Now, imagine you've crashed. You're huge, you're made out of really strong material so your relatively thin wings can hold the weight of your gargantuan body against the force of gravity. Your tail is incredibly sturdy so it can stabilize your entire enormous mass. These are parts that take immense pressures, frictions, and forces during every flight. Your engines have enough pressure and air in them to rocket your full weight and size at incredibly high speeds...

In every other crash with a comparable jet, large chunks of debris are present all around. The force it would take to destroy every piece of outwardly visible debris would cause much more damage than that shown in pictures of the pentagon.

A boeing cannot, I repeat, CANNOT reach a direct, nose down, full force 90 deg. impact with the ground. And it is impossible, under real world conditions, to engineer even a 65-75 deg. direction to the ground and still hit a target the size of the pentagon... the himalayas, maybe, but not the Pentagon. In fact, a terrorist cannot possibly engineer a plane crash in any way other than to aim it at a target. They cannot crash it 'better' or 'more direct' as some people insinuate they have... An average crash is really no different than a hijacking could ever be... There are laws governing the aerodynamics of large bodies being propelled at high speeds. changes in direction are slow (very slow) and any attempt to make them faster would debilitate the hijacker's achievement of hitting the target.

flight simulators and real time experience shows me that something is up with the crash. I have, myself, purposefully ran hundreds of simulations to attempt to recreate the kind of angle that would be needed to vaporize a boeing... and I've never been able to.


even coming in at a nice 35-50 deg. angle would do more damage than the ridiculously high angle it would take to 'vaporize' the major pieces of a jet.

These guys supposedly succeeded in hijacking a plane with a small weapon, convincing every passenger to keep seated... That's some kind of Jame's Bond move, right there. They were supposedly planning the hit for a while... with experts of their own. Are we to think that they did not want to cause as much damage as they could?

That being said...
Both parties in this video were stammering, interruptive, and argumentative... The loose change boys, being young and passionate have an excuse; that being that they are young and passionate. The popular mechanics crew seemed rather unimpressive as they cited photos and video that they didn't back up. They credited experts that are directly tied to the government and publicly owned sources... Which are directly implicated by loose change. Of course those reports are going to contradict. Which, of course, makes most complacent people feel comforted that their big protective government has all the answers and would never... ever lie to them.

Authority is untrustworthy as authority has a tendency to actively decide what they feel should be true or false... Winners write the history books.

Welcome to the new America. Mind the planes, and watch out for H1N1, cause that's what they want.

Jim Lippard said...

FearSpreads: There was lots of wreckage and damage at the Pentagon. What's your evidence that there "wasn't enough"?

Where do you think AA Flight 77 went, if not into the Pentagon? If it wasn't AA Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon (and knocked down the light poles within its wing's breadth), what was it?

Einzige said...

Where is there anyone (not in the "truth" camp, that is) who claims that the plane that hit the Pentagon did it from a greater than 65-degree angle?

Clearly it was flying nearly horizontally prior to impact.

psikeyhackr said...

Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

Jim Lippard said...

psikeyhackr: I'm sorry, but what's your argument? It looks like you're saying that there is no single table in the NIST NCSTAR WTC reports that gives the total weight of concrete and steel in the buildings. And from that you conclude, what?