Loose Change: Final Cut

The Final Cut is the cruelest of them all.

Actually the left cheek is just as nice as the right
they are a matching set.
 
I watched the full "Loose Change" - the one that's like an hour and a half or two hours.

So much bullshit in that. I got sick of it.

Seriously, the next person who tells me "Jet Fuel burns at blah blah blah degrees, and steel doesn't melt until blah blah blah blah degrees" I am going to slap across the face.

There was so much pseudo-science in there that it made me sick.

Over and over again, they discuss some science or structural engineering or aeronautical engineering concept, and say something like "Use common sense - that can't be true"

yes. "common sense" is that the explanation given by the American Society of Civil Engineers, all of whom have been designing buildings for longer than the two jackasses who made this film have been alive is flatly wrong.

These two idiots never took the time to find credible experts on the subjects. One of their biggest pieces of "evidence" is an interview with a janitor who said the fall of the tower sounded like a "controlled demolition". Yeah, and how the fuck do you know what a controlled demolition sounds like? I'm curious as to where the janitor got his degree in civil engineering from.

So much of their "scientific" evidence just falls apart at the slightest glance of someone who didn't drop out of high school.

This is the post I made about it after watching it in August
Every "scientific" point in Loose Change is utter bullshit. There is scientific evidence presented by credible experts in each field as to why the claims made in Loose Change are completely wrong. They constantly make comparisons to different situations.

Like, for instance, they say "Well, in most plane crashes, there is much more wreckage" without mentioning the obvious fact that in most plane crashes, the pilot is trying his best to slow the plane down. He's trying to glide in for a soft landing, with all his flaps deployed to slow the plane down, and is trying to hit the ground slowly and at a narrow angle to the horizontal, in order to smoothly come to a stop. He's not diving into a concrete building at full throttle.

Or "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel, and no steel frame buildings have completely collapsed due to fires" while completely ignoring the fact that a jumbo jet crashed into it first, so the structure was badly damaged even as the fires were just beginning. Not to mention, steel looses a lot of rigidity as temperatures increases before actually 'melting', so the fact that the crashes were near the middle of the building meant that the steel structure was under a lot of stress already from supporting the top half of the building, then a plane crashed into it and messed it up badly, and then a fire weakened it.

Everything those two jackasses say is a lie. They constantly answer complex questions pertaining to avionics and structural engineering by saying "Well, use common sense" - because every qualified expert in that field disagrees with them. If a structural engineer says "The building is going to fall down!" do you listen to them, or do you say "Well, common sense says the building is made out of metal, and metal is strong, so it won't fall down"? You do if you're the kind of blathering idiot that makes a film like Loose Change.

The TV interview with the Loose Change guys talking to the Popular Mechanics editors really shows you what it's all about. PM did in-depth researched and talked to credible experts, and the Loose Change pair acted like angry teenagers, insulting PM at every turn.
Click to expand...
 
Gotholic said:
Hey, Jim, how about you watch it completely first? I would like to know what you think after the fact.

It just might turn you.

I think it will turn many here if you just give it a chance and watch it.
Click to expand...

Okay. I'm done.

Let me take you through but a single aspect of the disaster as the authors of this film try to paint it.

They claim that these were the first steel framed skyscrapers in history to be brought down by fire. They use a skyscraper fire in Caracas and Philadelphia as parallel examples. They state that the Caracas and Philadelphia fires burned for many hours yet did not suffer a structural failure. This is true.

What they fail to leave out of their explanations is that the Caracas and Philadelphia fires involved the burning of common flammable materials like paper, wood, cloth, plastics, etc. without the introduction of 24,140 gallons of jet fuel accelerant. Neither of the buildings had suffered any structural impact damage from an aircraft weighing 450,000 pounds striking them at 540 mph.

Their statement that the building was built to withstand the impact of a 707 is true. They speak of the speed of the 707 as a factor (600 mph) and that it has four engines as opposed to the 767s two engines. They also state that the 767 was going 540 mph. What they were trying to convey with the number of engines escapes me.

What they fail to tell you is that the 707, while capable of 600 mph (10 miles per minute), weighs 114,000 pounds less than the 767. What a vast difference that 60 mph difference (600 - 540) must have made. Nine miles per minute @ 450,000 pounds vs ten miles per minute @ 336,000 pounds -- do the math (F = m x a)

767 @ 540 (F) = 11,077,250.629338 pound force
707 @ 600 (F) = 9,190,015.3369321 pound force

The difference is nearly 2 million pound force.

I'm done. I don't want to discuss this any further. The physics don't add up and these idiots try to make something out of nothing using deception and misdirection.

You believe what you want and ignore the 11,077,250 pounds force of blunt force trauma to the building and 24,000 gallons of accelerant and keep comparing that to a common house fire as your debating contention. I will stick to the physical laws involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top