I think it would be useful if the next release of Loose Change were robust to the vaguely serious portion of Screwloose Change - the personal insults are probably best ignored.
Screwloose chants a mantra that runs "controlled demolitions start from the bottom". The idea is that the towers could not have been brought down by controlled demolition because they collapsed from (around) the top; controlled demolition would require them to fall as Building 7 did.
The mantra is a wonderful insight into the blinkered, conformist mind and I think it would help if the next cut were to expose this thought disorder.
Look at a video of a known, controlled demolition. You will probably see a poster on the building, advertising the demolition firm. The WTC towers did not have demolition company banners displayed, therefore the towers were not brought down by controlled demolition. There are no prizes for spotting the flaw in this argument.
Controlled demolitions normally start from the base, presumably so that the weight of the upper building can be harnessed to assist. Normal controlled demolitions are not clandestine. We wish to consider a sneaky demolition that, for obvious propaganda purposes, has the collapse appear to initiate near the locations of the alleged aircraft collisions. So we postulate blowing out ten metre sections in a controlled sequence beginning near the top. Does this demolition cease to be "controlled" because it was controlled to run opposite to the usual direction? Does it Bush!
Likewise, Screwloose cavils that the large number of external flashes seen in real controlled demolitions were missing. When planning a normal demolition, concealing flashes is not a goal. For a clandestine demolition it is. At a guess, cutting charges could be placed on the outside of uprights so they will discharge inwards (or some similar trick). Of course, much of the towers' strength derived from core columns whose location would obscure any light show their cutting generated.
Screwloose finds comfort in the months conventionally taken to prepare controlled demolitions. Of course, responsible demolishers spend time on ground-work such as removing the building's occupants and potentially toxic fluorescent tubes, etc. There is no suggestion that the towers were brought down by socially responsible contractors.
Who is to say that months were not available?
Grimmer has calculated:
...if a coating slightly less than 2" thick of a thermite coating were applied to the outer surface of any box column, that is sufficient chemical compound to melt that column section. A protective, insulating and cosmetic/disguising layer (e.g. fiberglass/foam) 1" or less would also be helpful.Innocent craftsmen applying what they are told is insulation over steel lumps for a few weeks would plausibly never be noticed, except by dogs specifically trained to detect thermite/thermate or
diphenylpropane. It would be useful to know the capabilities of the WTC sniffing dogs. Since so few dogs study chemistry, Screwloose's innuendo that dogs trained to detect explosives will necessarily detect cutting charges can safely be ignored. Just as not all controlled demolitions are the same, not all explosives are the same. The tunnel vision is the same.
To anyone who's done a bit of reading, Screwloose looks silly. However, for viewers new to the topics it covers, it may seem to have whiff of authority. For this reason, I would like to see a version of Loose Change that clearly rebuffs the silliness. Refuting most of what it has to say shouldn't be difficult; members of this forum could pick a topic each and dismiss the bulk of the claims in a week.
Some of its content might need more work. For example, the claim originating, presumably, with the French "intelligence" services, that the CIA met Mr Bin Laden in Dubai in July 2001 hasn't, as far as I know, been confirmed by anyone from whom I would buy a used car. However, the historical record of British and American spooks and loonies funding Osama's attacks on the Soviet army is
more solid. Perhaps Loose Change could begin with firmly established material, and then mention (as such) the more questionable report of contact a few weeks before New York's urban renewal project began.
Likewise, Screwloose claims to have found steel buildings that collapsed after fires. Someone ought to look into it.
GWT.