Popular Mechanics vs. Loose Change

Here's some links to the debate they had on In a Democracy Now! or something to that effect.

Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics Pt. 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Comments?

*If already posted, please delete or lock*

I watched the first part and I learned that I could make cellphone calls at cruising altitudes quite well expect I might experience some dropped calls.
Oh God if those are the experts...

Great post. Its great how when they can't answer a question, they claim not to be experts, but they sure act like it in their debunking 9/11 myths piece...

Hurst Publishing=Yellow Journalism

They couldn't bring their evidence to the table from their experts that they have spoken to, I dont know why.

They speak off topic to try to get a point across, but if I knew what I was talking about from the experts, I would answer the question directly, then answer follow up questions, and so on and so forth.. I wouldnt compare this to anything, I would just answer the damn question. If I had evidence, I would state. If I do not have evidence to show, I would keep my mouth shut and say "I'll have to get back to you on that"

They are just editors, not experts. But its been years since 9/11 and they couldn't show evidence, they couldnt put evidence where their mouth is.

The videos where great!!
I can feel the tention in the room, you could cut it with a butter knife.
Popular Mechanics wants us all to belive there Lies.
Let PM keep debateing, they look and act foolish.
Anyone in the right mind wont belive them.
PLEASE PLEASE OH PLEASE BELIVE US!

I think we need to see more of these, untill the mass media outlets have no choice but to cover such debates. Demand Answers!

Look at the facts:
Popular mechanics wrote this book and is making money by selling it to people who want to be told 911 was not an inside job.

Loose Change is FREE, and puts the questions out "why did it happen this way, when the official reports said other wise"

It is clear to me that the only reason PM did the interview was to plug the book. They were asked direct questions and did not give direct answers. They consistently referred to photos that would indeed prove the claim on their behalf, but said the photos were only available to them. This tactic of saying they have a smoking gun to prove the official story but the gun was classified and cant be examined is typical disinformation. The government knows that all they have to do is say they see WMD and people will buy it.

When they had no answers they attempted to place the Loose Change video in the same category as creation vs. god and Halocost deniers. This is clearly an attempt to discredit the films creators on a personal level with out directly answering the claims that were being addressed in direct questioning.

PM is a long time respected publication and that is clearly the reason they were chosen to create the refuting argument on the governments behalf. The government would never rebut the 911 conspiracy because it would mean they acknowledge it to begin with.

I want to know how the landing gear was supposed to have made the exit hole when the landing gear was supposed to be up in the wheel well of the plane and protected by the landing gear doors which are made with Kevlar.

Evidence? What more evidence do you need? Pictures, witness, quotes from experts are all here.

www.911myths.com
www.debunking911.com

Cell phone not usable in an airplanes? Hah!..I been using cellphones in airplanes, when I was a teenager.

Did they say no large parts of the plane was recover? I guess they didn't take time to look up these photos. 911myths.com...

Free fall speeds? Hardly. I bet they didn't show you the whole callaspes of wtc. They cut the film short to show the drop was 9 sec when it was actually over 12 sec.

The time required to strip off a floor, according to Frank Greening, is a maximum of about 110 milliseconds = 0.110 seconds. It is rather the conservation of momentum that slowed the collapse together with a small additional time for the destruction of each floor.

Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s
So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.


Let's see:
KE = 1/2mv^2
The mass of the towers was about 450 million kg, according to this. Four sources, he has. I think that's pretty definitive. So now we can take the KE of the top floor, and divide by two- that will be the average of the top and bottom floors. Then we'll compare that to the KE of a floor in the middle, and if they're comparable, then we're good to go- take the KE of the top floor and divide by two and multiply by 110 stories. We'll also assume that the mass is evenly divided among the floors, and that they were loaded to perhaps half of their load rating of 100lbs/sqft. That would be
208ft x 208ft = 43,264sqft
50lbs/sqft * 43264sqft = 2,163,200lbs = 981,211kg
additional weight per floor. So the top floor would be
450,000,000 kg / 110 floors = 4,090,909 kg/floor
so the total mass would be
4,090,909 kg + 981,211 kg = 5,072,120 kg/floor
Now, the velocity at impact we figured above was
90.4m/s
so our
KE = (5,072,120kg x (90.4m/s)^2)/2 = 20,725,088,521J
So, divide by 2 and we get
10,362,544,260J
OK, now let's try a floor halfway up:
t = (2d/a)^1/2 = (417/9.8)^1/2 = 6.52s
v = at = 9.8*6.52 = 63.93m/s
KE = (mv^2)/2 = (5,072,120kg x (63.93m/s)^2)/2 = 10,363,863,011J
Hey, look at that! They're almost equal! That means we can just multiply that 10 billion Joules of energy by 110 floors and get the total, to a very good approximation. Let's see now, that's
110 floors * 10,362,544,260J (see, I'm being conservative, took the lower value)
= 1,139,879,868,600J
OK, now how much is 1.1 trillion joules in tons of TNT-equivalent? Let's see, now, a ton of TNT is 4,184,000,000J. So how many tons of TNT is 1,139,879,868,600J?
1,139,879,868,600J / 4,184,000,000J/t = 272t

Now, that's 272 tons of TNT, more or less; five hundred forty one-thousand-pound blockbuster bombs, more or less. That's over a quarter kiloton. We're talking about as much energy as a small nuclear weapon- and we've only calculated the kinetic energy of the falling building. We haven't added in the burning fuel, or the burning paper and cloth and wood and plastic, or the kinetic energy of impact of the plane (which, by the way, would have substantially turned to heat, and been put into the tower by the plane debris, that's another small nuclear weapon-equivalent) and we've got enough heat to melt the entire whole thing.

Remember, we haven't added the energy of four floors of burning wood, plastic, cloth and paper, at- let's be conservative, say half the weight is stuff like that and half is metal, so 25lbs/sqft? And then how about as much energy as the total collapse again, from the plane impact? And what about the energy from the burning fuel? You know, I'm betting we have a kiloton to play with here. I bet we have a twentieth of the energy that turned the entire city of Nagasaki into a flat burning plain with a hundred-foot hole surrounded by a mile of firestorm to work with. - Schneibster edited by Debunking 911

Let me make this clear, I don't assume to know what the ACTUAL fall time was. Anyone telling you they know is lying. The above calculation doesn't say that's the fall time. That was not its purpose. It's only a quick calculation which serves its purpose. To show that the buildings could have fallen within the time it did. It's absurd to suggest one can make simple calculations and know the exact fall time. You need a super computer with weeks of calculation to take into account the office debris, plumbing, ceiling tile etc.. etc... Was it 14 or was it 16? It doesn't matter to the point I'm making, which is the fall times are well within the possibility for normal collapse. Also, the collapse wasn't at free fall as conspiracy theorists suggest.

For more analysis of the building fall times, go to 911myths free fall page.

Please refer to Dr Frank Greening's paper for detailed calculations.

www.911myths.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
I want to know how the landing gear was supposed to have made the exit hole when the landing gear was supposed to be up in the wheel well of the plane and protected by the landing gear doors which are made with Kevlar.

So you SERIOUSLY expect the landing gear doors and that section of fuselage to have remained perfectly intact, and not to have blown apart with the rest of the fuselage? Even if the gear doors had Kevlar in them, that doesn't mean that it's not going to blow apart. It might withstand higher forces than other portions of the fuselage, but Kevlar DOES NOT MEAN indestructible.

As for Loose Change v Popular Mechanics, they both have serious flaws in them, whatever the reason they have for looking deeper into 9/11.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you SERIOUSLY expect the landing gear doors and that section of fuselage to have remained perfectly intact, and not to have blown apart with the rest of the fuselage? Even if the gear doors had Kevlar in them, that doesn't mean that it's not going to blow apart. It might withstand higher forces than other portions of the fuselage, but Kevlar DOES NOT MEAN indestructible.

Problem is the wheels are in the wing root/box area, the stongest part of the plane. How did they get out of the wheel wells and do all the damage to the collums and walls.

But Kevlar does mean that they were well protected and would have withstood a lot of punishment.

www.janes.com...

Structure:
Aluminium alloy two-spar fail-safe wing box.
All landing gear doors of CFRP/Kevlar.

[edit on 13-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]

You're also talking about forces that NOTHING could withstand. Just because it's stronger and can take more force doesn't mean that it's going to withstand the massive forces we're talking about here. If that's the case, why haven't they found wing boxes perfectly intact in cases where they were trying NOT to crash and landed on their belly? They blow apart then too. Or in cases where they crash into mountains?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
If that's the case, why haven't they found wing boxes perfectly intact in cases where they were trying NOT to crash and landed on their belly? They blow apart then too. Or in cases where they crash into mountains?

Well in other crashes we usually have some of the better protected areas survive or like the wings are fragile and usually shear off, but areas like the wing box do survive.

Photos,
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...