Tackar hjärtligast, och ber om ursäkt för min långa frånvaro.

//Henke

First error in this video occurs when the narrator states part of the official 'stoey' is that the steel frame of the building melted and caused the building collapse. NO ONE , much less the 911 Commission report states that the steel melted.


Next is that 110 stories fell and pulverized into dust. This is gross exaggeration.

Next is the characterization that the 767 was not loaded with a full load of fuel. It was indeed loaded with most of a full load, for a transcontinental flight. They may not have been at maximum take off weight but the narrator neglects to say that the building was also NOT designed to take the impact of a 707 at max take off weight. Although they quote Robertson saying that the 707 impact design was for one that was lost in fog trying to find the airport they neglect what this implies , a much slower craft with much less fuel than the 767 had. The 707 senario means that the plane is at the end of its flight and would have used most of its fuel load. THAT is why the impact is stated to have been from a much heavier craft and one must note that although kinetic energy increases in direct proportion to an increase in mass it ocreases proportional to the square of an increase in velocity. A plane lost in fog might be doing 200 MPH, it would have a certain amount of KE due to its mass and velocity but if it was doing 400 MPH instead then it would have 4 times as much KE than it had at half that velocity. So the 767 was both heavier AND faster. Odd that this video does not bother to explain that.

Next they make much about the "two isolated pockets of fire" but these were on the 78th floor. That is the lowest floor with any fire involvement. They may have to fight them FIRST before going higher to ensure an escape route for FF's. At any rate the fact that the lowest fire floor had two fires burning says absolutly squat about what was going on throughout the rest of both buildings.

Next , "smoke is sign of an oxygen starved fire". No it is not. One need only watch video of a forest fire to know that there is a lot of smoke even though a forest fire has no problem with oxygen supply. In fact there are few fires that do not smoke, even gasoline burning in a pool will smoke!

"Smoldering but not flaming", is grossly inaccurate. Flames are ceratinly visible through many windows but even that cannot mean that there is no intense fire further back from the windows. The buildings were such that a fire could be burning 100 feet from any window. Note that the much bally-hooed Windsor building was only as wide as the core structure of the WTC towers.

"Imagine building expressly for airplane impact but never thinking of the fuel", yes I can imagine that. The aircraft impact was an add on to satisfy some people who did not want the towers built at all. The structural engineers would be responsible for designing a building that could take an impact BUT fire passive and active suppression is a completely different responsibility. The PANYNJ had , instead of designing for massive fires, negotiated a sweetheart deal as far as fire codes go. Basically they made their own rules in this regard, they did not have to follow the NYC fire code. This sweetheart deal is what should be investigated!!

"No steel building has collapsed due to fire", true but none has had to deal with the damage of a fast heavy aircraft AND a fire either, ever!

BTW the Windsor building had a CONCRETE core structure. It is NOT an example of a steel building on fire in the way that the towers are. Besides as I mentioned, the Windsor building could fit within the footprint of the WTC tower's core.

Well that's all the time I have for this piece of crap. So many errors and misleading statements and only 10 minutes into the video............ I gotta go back to work.

In the part that starts with "why build buildings out of steel" the narrator states that steel stands up to fire better. Well it does compared to wood but in fact concrete withstands fire better than steel. In fact the Windsor building had a concrete core column structure that kept the building from suffering the partial collapses for much longer than would a steel core columned structure. The concrete core columns of that building are credited with keeping it from total collapse.


"Rock like steel grid", oh come on a gross misrepresentation of the structure. In a normal post and beam structure any failure would see the extra load taken up by several nearby members in 4 direction from the failed column. In a tube in tube design such as the WTC towers a failure in the perimeter can only result in nearby columns in 2 directions taking up the bulk of the extra load. It also results in horizontal forces much greater than in a normal post and beam structure because of the long span between perimeter and core.

"tall indestructible core", more self serving exaggreation. The core could simply not have stood on it own. It was too narrow for it own height. Couple that with the extreme buffeting by falling debris and the weakening of the steel by heating and you get the core columns failing at the fire floor levels. Once all that mass is falling you have that mass impacting the lower floor structural members with force and in directions the srtuctur was never designed to withstand.

"sounded like explosions", what would it sound like when a floor truss gives way and large parts of one floor impact the next one down? A whisper? a whine? a whoosh? or a BOOM? No one saw an explosion!

What would one expect to hear just as the tower is giving up and about to collapse? The view of the south tower in the "sound was heard before collapse started" segment is misleading. The south tower leaned over first, then started it collapse but in the video shown it is leaning away from the camera. Smoke prevents us from seeing the debris being thrown out from the side the top is leaning towards and the collapse on the side facing the camera does not start for a second or two later. Hufschmid knows this but chooses to omit this in favor of a slant that he
wants you to swallow.

"red-orange flames are what we saw on Sept 11". Does no one recall that just 10 minutes earlier in this video we were told there were no flames, just smoldering?

"stoves and pots and pans don't melt" well no one has ever said that the steel columns of the towers melted so what's the beef? Furthermore although the flame of your stove is hot enough to weaken the steel of the stove or pot , that stove or pot is not supporting any vertical load at all. That is quite unlike the columns of a large building. Also the stove is supplying enough heat to cook with, the flame area is small compared to the steel surface it is impinging upon, again unlike a structural column that is in the midst of an office fire. You could leave your stove top burners on all day and make the room uncomforatbly warm but would be in little danger of setting the house on fire. However, if a few pieces of furniture are burning in your house the room will quickly heat up to the point at which other items not in close proximity to the flames will ignite. The burning couch is not any hotter than your stove burner but its much larger!

"would fire have the strength to eject such huge chunks of metal?", more misdirection, the material ejected garnered it horizontal velocity from the bending and snapping due to enormous pressure from falling mass NOT from the fire. The statement itself is ,,,, well,,, stupid.

"Wht did the south tower fall first?", it was hit more assymetrically, it was hit on the side that is half the distance to the core than the adjacent sides(which is where the north tower was hit) thus more impact to the core columns in the south tower, there was a very hot and large fire in one corner likely the result of a large amount of office and aircraft debris being in that area, the corner experiencing that fire was on the same side of the building as the corner most affected by the impact, this plane was not travelling downward as the north tower plane was and thus it pieces hit less of the floor thus more debris reached the core and was travelling faster.
Gee a quick read of a few reports gives one all of this. Didn't Eric read anything concerning the towers?

The top part of the south twoer sinks into the dust cloud of the collapse and the narrator excliams that the top section has turned to dust right before our eyes. My eyes see that it sank behind an obscuring cloud of dust.

"Watch the buildings collapsing straught down", which is exactly the direction that gravity would be pulling , " into the path of most resistance, "now you can determine why material was ejected so strongly, it is moving down and hits the rest of the building, where does its energy go? into furthering the collapse and into changing the direction of the falling pieces.

"Seismic data" puts the north tower collapse at 8 seconds. Well obviously the seismic data must not be an accurate way to measure this since unless one has strapped rokets on the building and powered it down there is no possible way to bring it down in 8 seconds. Now , the same seismic data shows heavy vibrations of collapse for WTC 7. In that case it shows it lasting 16 seconds. I wonder how Eric feels about the collapse of #7 and how long he says it took?

"Free fall speed", nope, at least 10% and some measures put them at 50% greater than free fall time of collapse('speed' is an incorrect term here BTW)In order for this to have occured at the same rate as free fall , all the floors would have to start falling at the same time. THAT did not occur, therefore it was NOT free fall. In many photos one can easily see that falling debris outside the footprint of the towers is far in advance of the collapse point, thus the collapse did not occur at a free fall rate.

"96 seconds for a true pancake collapse", Sorry,, Judy Woods' calculations(that's her graphs shown in the film) require that each floor collapse onto the one below it and come to a complete halt before that floor also collapses. That's a ridiculous comparison. "In a true pancake collapse the collapse would lose speed never gain speed", why the hell not? I am truly asking that question since Eric doesn't deem it worth his time to actually explain why. As long as it has some acelleration it will indeed gain speed. It came down at LESS than the acelleration due to gravity but at an acelleration greater than zero.

I'm done with this video, less than half way through it and its incorrect and (what must be deliberate) misleading statements have completely turned me off.

Crusader skrev:
Jag hoppas du står på dig Van_Buren att en visning på skolan blir av...jag gjorde liknande saker på gymnasiet, vilket var länge sedan, och det förändrade mitt liv i en verkligt positiv riktning...
Det skulle vara intressant att höra vad dina kamrater har att säga om filmen...

Jag för min del skulle rekomendera Loose Change 2 ed ifall man inte sett någon 911-film förr, just för att den är så bra gjord, man somnar definitivt inte. Jag tror tyvärr man måste ha "tungt" och animerat artelleri om man ska kunna väcka unga människor idag ur det neddrogade zombi-tillstånd som så många befinner sig i, så den inre sanna människan vaknar. Alex Jones är också bra för ungdomar då han har en vinnande stil och god anda som verkligen smittar av sig.

Jag bor i Lund - hoppas vi kan samordna något kul längre fram i vår? Jag var tvungen att löneslava idag, så tyvärr han jag ej mobilisera någon aktion här, men det kommer det kommer.

Van_Buren skrev:
Well, jag visade Loose Change 2ed för klassen idag. Läraren blev lite blek i fejjan allteftersom filmen fortgick. Jag tror den hade utsatt effekt iaf, att få dem att ifrågasätta den officiella teorin. Svaren, dock, sa jag till dem att de får hitta själva. Hoppas de tittar närmare på det och inte bara avfärdar det.