|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
the 9/11 truth
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change
Watch the movie. Even though it is long it tells you a lot. It changed my mind for sure. Try to take a stand on the US government. Lets show them they are wrong. Its time for us to do somthing about this.
It does tell you why it may have been planed years before.
It was brought to my attention of another movie by a user named rheana
here is that movie http://believeyourowneyes.com/WTC7/one.shtml
Last edited by Blaster on Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:00 pm; edited 3 times in total
Watch the movie. Even though it is long it tells you a lot. It changed my mind for sure. Try to take a stand on the US government. Lets show them they are wrong. Its time for us to do somthing about this.
It does tell you why it may have been planed years before.
It was brought to my attention of another movie by a user named rheana
here is that movie http://believeyourowneyes.com/WTC7/one.shtml
Last edited by Blaster on Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:00 pm; edited 3 times in total
i suspect that... haha
I gave up on all this ranting ages ago. The endless consipiracy theories go on forever.
Take it from me. It was the aliens!
Take it from me. It was the aliens!
LOL it is so worth the hour and a half. Even my parents changed there mind about it.
i thinks
It was the government...
It was the government...
It was the damn terrorists. KILL 'EM ALL!!!
Your all wrong, it was a plane. Machines WILL take over the world one day, I'm afraid children.
its plain conspiracy....| Mr Smith wrote: |
| Your all wrong, it was a plane. Machines WILL take over the world one day, I'm afraid children. |
hi.. where did you get the video? how realiable is this source?
friend told me. If you watch the movie you will see how reliable it is. It does prove good points.
I don't care, whether it was Osama or not. But it was good, what happened with Osama in return. He w2as a thread against India too. He was supporting terrorist in Kashmir.
He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.
The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.
He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.
The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.
Give the 9/11 a rest
It has been 5 years.
It has been 5 years.
Its not anything you can forget in the US. It is somthing that no one will forget here. It was such a big deal here and still is. There was a whole movie on it. (Farinhite (sp?) 9/11)
| Blaster wrote: |
| Its not anything you can forget in the US. It is somthing that no one will forget here. It was such a big deal here and still is. There was a whole movie on it. (Farinhite (sp?) 9/11) |
While it's pretty obvious certain high ranking government figures knew 9-11 was going to happen (at least the NYC portion, I fully believe it was a predator drone that flew into the mysteriously remodeling portion of the Pentagon) Fahrenheit 9-11 was just a liberal propaganda film. If you want a literal look at the 9-11 truth, pick up some Alex Jones DVDs. He's like Michael Moore from the libertarian POV, and with talent.
9/11 was forced to come, sooner or later. The only question was when, and not if. It still does not make the whole thing governmental.
I think it was the government. While making the twin towers fall they took insurance money, the gold, the money in itm and maybe the extra put options place on the twin towers or the plane.They also created a reason (by blaming osama) for bombing afganistan and blaming terrorist and slowly moving into iraq. Another goal they achieved was to lower the status of the muslims. They showed osama as muslim and that he was a terrorist so with the media he practically brainwashed the citizens showing that all muslims are bad (clearly wrong if you have ever met one)
If anybody knows, I heard a rumor that the license plate of NY changed from twin towers to empire state building right before 9/11. If this is true this can also be evidence (I think).Anybody know otherwise or can prove it?
P.S-Please don't reply if you haven't seen any part of the video. The evidence will probably change your mind
Edit:Have you seen a muslim that behaved unappropriate before? (not from newspaper, tv, or any type of media)
Last edited by TurkishGamer on Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
If anybody knows, I heard a rumor that the license plate of NY changed from twin towers to empire state building right before 9/11. If this is true this can also be evidence (I think).Anybody know otherwise or can prove it?
P.S-Please don't reply if you haven't seen any part of the video. The evidence will probably change your mind
Edit:Have you seen a muslim that behaved unappropriate before? (not from newspaper, tv, or any type of media)
Last edited by TurkishGamer on Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:14 pm; edited 2 times in total
| TurkishGamer wrote: |
| all muslims are bad |
Wait, you mean they're not?!?!
| IceCameron wrote: |
| I gave up on all this ranting ages ago. The endless consipiracy theories go on forever.
Take it from me. It was the aliens! |
lol im with you
Does it matter?
No. 9/11 was a huge tragedy, but there really wasn't much we could've done to stop it. We could've tried to prevent it, but when you have such radical people... the old saying holds true "When there's a will, there's a way"
And it's just a natural reaction to point straight at the government for any little thing that goes wrong. NOTHING (save 3 people) is perfect. And while the prospects of an attack might've been high, if they didn't do it by airplane, they would've found someway else to do it.
It happened 5 years ago, why are you still pulling the gov'ts chain about it? You have to move on. A bunch of third graders poking and trying to annoy each other is all that political parties have come to.
No. 9/11 was a huge tragedy, but there really wasn't much we could've done to stop it. We could've tried to prevent it, but when you have such radical people... the old saying holds true "When there's a will, there's a way"
And it's just a natural reaction to point straight at the government for any little thing that goes wrong. NOTHING (save 3 people) is perfect. And while the prospects of an attack might've been high, if they didn't do it by airplane, they would've found someway else to do it.
It happened 5 years ago, why are you still pulling the gov'ts chain about it? You have to move on. A bunch of third graders poking and trying to annoy each other is all that political parties have come to.
You didn't watch the video.Right?
Let me answer the question of "does it matter?".
Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything.
Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions
Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country.
Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money.
I could list more.Want me to?
(Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???)
Last edited by TurkishGamer on Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Let me answer the question of "does it matter?".
Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything.
Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions
Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country.
Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money.
I could list more.Want me to?
(Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???)
Last edited by TurkishGamer on Sun Apr 09, 2006 6:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Come on guys it's obvious it was terroists. On the news at the moment there's all this rubbish about whether the terrorist they caught should be sentenced to death or not. Of course he shouldn't, he is evil 
and should be tortured for the rest of his life! 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4876612.stm
and should be tortured for the rest of his life!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4876612.stm
| TurkishGamer wrote: |
| You didn't watch the video.Right?
Let me answer the question of "does it matter?". Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything. Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country. Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money. I could list more.Want me to? (Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???) |
I can tell he watched the movie. If you don't have the hour and a half just watch a little at a time. It is weird some of the events. Why was osama in the United States before hand and not captured if he was wanted since 1998?
There is too much evidence that points to the government. Before you say anything here watch the video and then you can start to tell me your opion.
Trust me you will change your mind even if it is just a little bit.
I'm from the US. But I think people should give it a rest. Particularly the media. Yes, it was tragic, hope it doesn't happen again. BUT it is major ammunition for the government to use against its citizens.
Big Brother: We are taking away your freedom of speech
Citizen: Uh, no.
Big Brother: If we don't, then....9/11 will happen again!!!
Citizen: oh no! I'll give in!
Yes, that was a lame example, but it happens, more subconciously of course.
Living in fear is not the answer. However, it was a good thing that it happened, simply because it opened our eyes. We aren't untouchable anymore.
Stereotyping is hurting the free American society. Someone is Arabic so they have to be Muslim. They have to be an extremist. They have to be a terrorist. Oh come on, where is your better judgement? Terrorism is just the new fear. It used to be "communism". People ratting on their neighbors, accusing them off being communist. The Red Scare. And even after looking back on it, there are many that still think of communism as this great evil. Hmm let me think. What did the US gov. tell its citizens to do in defense of a nuclear attack from the communist Soviet Union? Hide under their desks (students). Yes hiding under a thin piece of artificial wood and metal will save you from 1. the nuclear blast and 2. nuclear fall-out. Oh and everyone else should build a fall-out shelter under their house. Has anyone seen the movie "Blast From the Past" ? I do hope you realize they are poking fun of that.
Now before you accuse me of being anti-American, I want you to know, that I am just thinking outside of the box the media/government is feeding you.
Big Brother: We are taking away your freedom of speech
Citizen: Uh, no.
Big Brother: If we don't, then....9/11 will happen again!!!
Citizen: oh no! I'll give in!
Yes, that was a lame example, but it happens, more subconciously of course.
Living in fear is not the answer. However, it was a good thing that it happened, simply because it opened our eyes. We aren't untouchable anymore.
Stereotyping is hurting the free American society. Someone is Arabic so they have to be Muslim. They have to be an extremist. They have to be a terrorist. Oh come on, where is your better judgement? Terrorism is just the new fear. It used to be "communism". People ratting on their neighbors, accusing them off being communist. The Red Scare. And even after looking back on it, there are many that still think of communism as this great evil. Hmm let me think. What did the US gov. tell its citizens to do in defense of a nuclear attack from the communist Soviet Union? Hide under their desks (students). Yes hiding under a thin piece of artificial wood and metal will save you from 1. the nuclear blast and 2. nuclear fall-out. Oh and everyone else should build a fall-out shelter under their house. Has anyone seen the movie "Blast From the Past" ? I do hope you realize they are poking fun of that.
Now before you accuse me of being anti-American, I want you to know, that I am just thinking outside of the box the media/government is feeding you.
terrorism, why would the united states kill its own people, and one of their biggest tourist attractions. id rather make money off tourists then blow them up.
| TurkishGamer wrote: |
| You didn't watch the video.Right?
Let me answer the question of "does it matter?". Yes it does because the government blamed muslims and lied to the people about everything. Yes it matters because they listened to phone calls and everything and shut up the people that had opposing opinions Yes it matters because they got away with this and they will probably do the same thing and start going into iran or another middle eastern country. Yes it matters because a lot of innocent people died in an act that got a few people a lot of money. I could list more.Want me to? (Doesn't anybody think the government controls the media???) |
Your pointless bickering about the issue doesn't, and will not change anything. September 11, 2001 happened already - and we CANNOT change that. Even if it was the governments fault (which makes no sense, by the way... because, you know... Good ole' Bush just called the terrorists and told them to do it), that doesn't matter!
Will people watch the video before they talk? That is why some of us really belive it. It all does make sense after a while. Just please watch the movie before you say different.
Actually if you would have watched the video there is lots of evidence showing that terrorists had nothing to with this. American media taped someone who looked like osama and made the look-alike say that he was behind this (have you ever heard of someone who stole something and admitted it but wasn't sorry for it?)
We cannot change it but we can try to prevent another one. You know U.S invaded Iraq right for no reason at all except to steal some oil? I bet you that in the next 5 or 7 years U.S will go into another middle Eastern country for a false reason and not leave their army from there (This country might be Iran or Syria).
P.S-I think some people are worse than children. They get taught something wrong early on but when they find out the truth they ignore it and don't learn from it.
We cannot change it but we can try to prevent another one. You know U.S invaded Iraq right for no reason at all except to steal some oil? I bet you that in the next 5 or 7 years U.S will go into another middle Eastern country for a false reason and not leave their army from there (This country might be Iran or Syria).
P.S-I think some people are worse than children. They get taught something wrong early on but when they find out the truth they ignore it and don't learn from it.
| TurkishGamer wrote: |
| (have you ever heard of someone who stole something and admitted it but wasn't sorry for it?) |
Actually, that's pretty much been the MO for terrorists since the beginning - whether it be terrorists from the Middle East, ETA, IRA, whatever... After a terrorist attack, a group or person claims responsibility - sometimes to add new threats or make some demand, other times to "inform" the public about the reason for the attack - often retaliation. Oftentimes, groups that had nothing to do with the attack will even claim responsibility (for something like "free PR"). In either case, they're not admitting in order to show remorse. So, Osama Bin Laden claiming responsibility for 9/11 was really no surprise (if it was him
).
That said, while there are lots of things in this film that come dangerously close to being misinformation and manipulation of fact, there are also real issues that should be addressed.
I tend to severely dislike conspiracy theories (since they're most often just a way to make something very simple very complicated, when it's not really needed). And a large percentage of this is typical conspiracy nut fare - ignoring details that contradict your theory; skipping over perfectly reasonable and simple explanations; using dubious sources for information; etc. While (like the majority of Europeans) I'm not a fan of the Bush administration, I sincerely doubt the motives for 9/11 that this film supplies.
But there are questions raised in it that really demand a proper answer.
I can tell who did and who didn't watch the movie. The people that didn't watch the movie say terriost and the people that did say government. Watch the movie before you arguee.
You're all wrong.
It was a CareBear.
They plan to perform a communal attack on the states and all of Europe. Then they'll relocate us to Australia, and have killer tortoises run the world by their side.
/true story.
It was a CareBear.
They plan to perform a communal attack on the states and all of Europe. Then they'll relocate us to Australia, and have killer tortoises run the world by their side.
/true story.
I watched the video last night. Honestly, I don't see how it couldn't have been the government. There was too much evidence to prove it was them. I understand that governments do drastic things sometimes under the pretense that it's for the good of their country, but this is just terrible. And we gained nothing from it (that we the general population know about anyway) other than getting an excuse to put troops in the Middle East and putting a few million dollars in someone's pocket. 
I can tell you watched the video. It is our goal to get more and more people to watch the video. So start telling others to watch the video to show that our government is capable of doing stuff like this.
So please take the time to watch the movie and help out our country.
So please take the time to watch the movie and help out our country.
I don't believe it was the goverment for many reasons I do not wish to o itno here (for fear of being flamed). Waht would thr government possible stand to gain by such an act? Possible respirsals againts [alleged] terroritsts?
The whole idea seems obsurd to me.
The whole idea seems obsurd to me.
Then watch the movie. People may say "why" but there is no reason to that. Our government is crocked i guess. But the point is that the evidence is in the movie.
Sorry for the double post but i found something else. This if you stop the movie at 25 seconds and look at the right corner right at the top of the yellow thing you see a white thing. That looks to be in no way a 757. To me it looks more like a missle. Let me show you something.
That is a 757.
That is a tomahawk missile
If you notice it looks like it is a tomahawk missile not a 757.
For those that didn't bother to watch the movie. Let me show you the hole at the pentagon.
Notice the size. That whole is only 16 feet big. Show me a picture of a 16 foot plane. There is none. That is clearly the damage of a missle.
Anyhow have fun watching that. It does show a lot. Plus there is no damage on the grass from skid marks.
Ok now take a look at this angle of a camra. Stop it at 1.27 You can kind of see what looks to be the tip of something.
I circled it here to show you. Does that look like the tip of a 757? No. More like the tomahawk missile.[/img]
That is a 757.
That is a tomahawk missile
If you notice it looks like it is a tomahawk missile not a 757.
For those that didn't bother to watch the movie. Let me show you the hole at the pentagon.
Notice the size. That whole is only 16 feet big. Show me a picture of a 16 foot plane. There is none. That is clearly the damage of a missle.
Anyhow have fun watching that. It does show a lot. Plus there is no damage on the grass from skid marks.
Ok now take a look at this angle of a camra. Stop it at 1.27 You can kind of see what looks to be the tip of something.
I circled it here to show you. Does that look like the tip of a 757? No. More like the tomahawk missile.[/img]
It does seem that if you join the dots you get a very nasty picture... BUT what can be done if this film is the gospel truth ?....Kick out the government and jail those responsible for any part however small in the deception ? (I think there would be a lot off ppl jailed) and who is going to actually do it ?...have a revolution ?...........let things carry on the way they have and hope the next government is honest and honourable ?...... erm....... the opposition was in on it ??????????
Face it if this IS true we are all screwed, isnt this a catch 22 situation ?
The original link was broken
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change
Face it if this IS true we are all screwed, isnt this a catch 22 situation ?
The original link was broken
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1519312457137943386&q=loose+change
| Blaster wrote: |
| . |
LoL!
(Sorry)
I had someone forward a government conspiracy link to me a while back.. it's fairly convincing
and then I saw another link a few weeks later where a tv newscaster who was quoted in the original link explained how his words were taken completely out of context and showed that the evidence was scattered everywhere in plain sight, to the point where it's complete lies and manipulation to say that it wasn't a terrorist action
here's a link to the same general information
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1
I realize this won't change the minds of all the idiots out there who want to believe our government caused it.. but I hope there are still some who retain their grasp of reality (or at lest those who understand the concept of googling - it took me 30 seconds to find all that information again)
and then I saw another link a few weeks later where a tv newscaster who was quoted in the original link explained how his words were taken completely out of context and showed that the evidence was scattered everywhere in plain sight, to the point where it's complete lies and manipulation to say that it wasn't a terrorist action
here's a link to the same general information
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1
I realize this won't change the minds of all the idiots out there who want to believe our government caused it.. but I hope there are still some who retain their grasp of reality (or at lest those who understand the concept of googling - it took me 30 seconds to find all that information again)
Read the Wikipedia Article about the Loose Change documentary. While I thought it was a good movie, and made one think, the article certainly raises some concerns about the validity of some of the claims made by the film.
I just watched the two Judicial Watch Pentagon films. Although they are very low quality security camera recordings, you do get to catch a glimpse of what hit the Pentagon. Now, unless those cameras are very far away from the Pentagon (which they do not appear to be) then the "object" which struck the Pentagon is too small to have been a 757. It is much closer to the size of a missile, as Blaster said.
Also, in video #2, there is a bright flash at about :34. Why/how would a 757 emit a bright white flash several seconds after it impacted. It couldn't be from the fuel, because that would have burned away in the initial impact. Another thing to put into consideration.
I also took the time to read the Wikipedia Article. It made me question a lot of the things said in the film. However, being that anyone can edit it, it too may not be valid. Just something to think about.
Also, in video #2, there is a bright flash at about :34. Why/how would a 757 emit a bright white flash several seconds after it impacted. It couldn't be from the fuel, because that would have burned away in the initial impact. Another thing to put into consideration.
I also took the time to read the Wikipedia Article. It made me question a lot of the things said in the film. However, being that anyone can edit it, it too may not be valid. Just something to think about.
Joe Friday i dont' get you.
I to read the wikiarticle and agree with Petee. And yes i see what you are saying Petee. You made a good discovery.
And to all i am trying to get bondings to allow me to make a site on this.
I to read the wikiarticle and agree with Petee. And yes i see what you are saying Petee. You made a good discovery.
And to all i am trying to get bondings to allow me to make a site on this.
| Blaster wrote: |
| Joe Friday i dont' get you.
I to read the wikiarticle and agree with Petee. And yes i see what you are saying Petee. You made a good discovery. And to all i am trying to get bondings to allow me to make a site on this. |
What's not to get? He posted a good article debunking major points of the theory. Do you discount that article out of hand or do you have info to dispute the article?
I don't know, but it's still a horrible thing, and I can't bare to see all those people dying.
( MOVIE NOT WORKING )
I think it will be terroristme, why should the govoment kill alot of inecent people? I don't think it will be them, because alot of people in the goverment will not allow it, and if they not could stop it, it would get into the world somehow
I think it will be terroristme, why should the govoment kill alot of inecent people? I don't think it will be them, because alot of people in the goverment will not allow it, and if they not could stop it, it would get into the world somehow
| Blaster wrote: |
| I can tell who did and who didn't watch the movie. The people that didn't watch the movie say terriost and the people that did say government. Watch the movie before you arguee. |
Has it ever occured to you that the people who say "terrorist" might actually have seen the movie, and just paid better attention than you did? I have this on DVD, for use as a very good example of the methods of misinformation - perfect because no actual propaganda film comes even close to the levels of blatant manipulation of "Loose Change" - not by being convincing, but by way of the sheer amount of BS misinformation presented in a matter of just one and a half hour.
Avery has learned a lot from Michael Moore. The only difference between them is: Moore mostly has a point, but sadly makes it easier to dismiss by his manipulation of selected footage and facts in order to emphasize this point. Avery does it constantly throughout his film and clearly in order to mislead. I'd only seen it once, when I said this:
| Kaneda wrote: |
| That said, while there are lots of things in this film that come dangerously close to being misinformation and manipulation of fact, there are also real issues that should be addressed. |
I take that back. Nothing in this film should be addressed (because the couple of things I thought should be addressed turned out to be entirely made up), and it doesn't come close to being misinformation and manipulation of fact (that was simply wrong choice of words). It is.
Methods include (just add this to the stack at wikipedia - this is only excerpts of a longer list):
Uncredited/anonymous citations and sources
- Osama Bin Laden's supposed hospital treatment in Dubai before the attack - we have one source for that: Le Figaro, quoting an anonymous informant.
Citations taken out of context
- FOX reporter Mark Burnback saying the plane had no windows on the side. Avery fails to mention that Burnback was two miles away, looking at a plane flying at 500 mph (and ignores the hundreds of other eye witness accounts from people who were closer, saying it was a commercial airliner).
- The Lamont-Doherty seismic institute citation was dismissed by the quoted person himself as "incorrect and not in context".
Dubious sources
- American Free Press (sure, if you can't find other sources, look there...)
- conspiracy theorists (like Jim Marrs)
- Wikipedia, as mentioned elsewhere
- Osama Bin Laden's testimony taken as fact?!
- Random posts on a forum (for example, as support for the "gold rings forbidden in islam" claim)
- unknownnews.net
Layman opinion or expert-in-other-field opinion disguised as expert opinion
- The "experts" who, according to Avery, claim the remaining engine part is not from a Boeing 757. One has nothing to do with planes, the other was an engine part manufacturer, who simply stated that he didn't produce this part.
- The "experts" who claim the towers could only have been a demolition. One of them, after closer inspection, admitted he was wrong a week later, which was "obviously" a part of the conspiracy.
Ignorance of obvious sources
- NORAD members
- actual aviation experts
- the actual manufacturer of 757 Rolls Royce engine parts
- structural engineers
- firemen
- demolition companies
Selective interviews
- Statements from 2 eye witnesses at Pentagon, whose accounts back up Avery's claims. Ignoring the large amount of people who say otherwise.
Selective image documentation
- "No trace of flight 77". There are dozens (maybe hundreds) of photos and videos clearly showing the wreckage of flight 77. Avery decides to show us the few where the wreckage is as disguised as possible.
Speculation derived from events which are easily explainable without resorting to conspiracies
- Why did "Emergency Response to Terrorism" feature WTC in crosshairs in 1997? I seem to recall the WTC being attacked by terrorists in 1993. Maybe that's why...
- Why don't we see the plane on the released Pentagon surveillance tapes? Because a camera going at 1 frame per second will hardly catch a glimpse of a plane going at 500 mph.
- Why was Rumsfeld working at the opposite end of the building at the time? Because that's where he usually works.
- Why are the windows next to the hole at the Pentagon completely intact? Because they're built to withstand a bombing. If they weren't, they wouldn't be intact either if a cruise missile had hit the wall next to them.
- Why did the FBI confiscate surveillance tapes from the Pentagon area? In order to investigate...
Misconceptions
- Yes, some interpretations of Islam forbid gold rings for men. In several pictures and videos of Osama Bin Laden he is wearing a gold ring, however, for example: http://www.september11news.com/Nov4OsamaJazeeraTV.jpg
- Osama is left handed, but the left hand is considered unclean in Islam. It wouldn't surprise me if he was forced to write with his right from childhood (I know some teachers did that here in Denmark until only a few decades ago). Later videos also show him not using moving his left arm or hand at all, indicating that he may have lost use of it.
- Sorry, but no demolition I've ever seen has been done by a few randomly placed charges blowing up at random intervals. I've never seen a demolition where the top of the building was blown first, either.
- It's perfectly possible to use a cell phone at flight altitude, also in 2001. Also, Avery fails to mention that not all these calls were made with cell phones (one of them even includes the mention of using an airphone - twice).
Half truths
- Yes, 14 fighter jets were "left" to protect the US on 9/11. Which was the same amount as most other days before 9/11. I fell for this one until I checked.
- Yes, a Boeing 747 MAY have Pratt and Whitney engines. However, Flight 77 had Rolls Royce engines. And yet, Avery spends the next 5 minutes comparing the remains found to a P&W engine.
Plain false assumptions
- "The fuel would have burned off immediately after impact."? No. As his own image to accompany this statement clearly testifies, the fuel takes time to burn.
- People mentioning a second explosion inside WTC means there's a bomb? No. It means there may have been a second explosion. "Explosion" has never been a synonym for "bomb". Avery spends a lot of time on eye witness accounts here. He might have spent that time on more of those eye witnesses who claimed the Pentagon attack wasn't by a commercial airliner - if there had been any more such eye witnesses.
Made up claims of second party ("straw men")
- Noone claimed flight 77 "vaporized" OR "bounced off the lawn". Yet Avery builds up a lot of debate against these nonexistant statements.
- Noone claimed the nose of the plane caused the hole in the inner ring at Pentagon. Rather, the official report says it was the landing gear.
Claiming similarity between totally unrelated events
- About 20 cases of Avery comparing the wreckage, sounds, explosions, shockwave or whatever of flight 77 (and the planes crashing into the twin towers) to crashes of other planes, which were (one or - usually - more of the following): smaller, travelling at different speeds, not smashing into reinforced concrete, crashing at different angles etc. etc.
- About 10 examples of buildings not collapsing after a fire - which wasn't caused by a 767 flying into them at top speed with a massive amount of jet fuel. Also, these buildings were not constructed in the same way.
"Sleight of hand"
I use this term to speak of instances where a documentary maker is using "magician's tricks". In "Loose Change" the main example of this is telling people what to see.
- Show two entirely different engine parts while claiming they're "identical".
- Show a Pentagon lawn with plane debris and claim there isn't any trace of the plane.
- Show a piece of plane debris ripped to shreads and claim it's not scratched.
- Show damaged and tilted cable spools and claim they're "completely untouched".
- Show footage of plane crashing and claim there's "no shockwave", in whatever way we're supposed to see that on (slow motion) video footage.
- Show footage of orange-yellow fireball and indicate that we're looking at a bright silvery flash.
- Show footage of one of the towers collapsing, yet start when the building has already collapsed about 1/5 of the way, and then claim we're seeing it collapse in 10 seconds - in spite of the fact that we can't see the actual building falling, due to dust and smoke.
Downright lying
- The outer hole was "no more than 16 feet in diameter"? Look at ANY clear photo (not that one filled with smoke and water sprays that Avery likes to use), and you'll see it's more like 70 feet wide - before the roof collapsed.
- WTC was "the first buildings in history to collapse due to a fire"? Sure, if you don't count the thousands of other buildings which have done the same.
- Giuliani shipped off debris from the site before experts could investigate? Nope, not according to anyone who'd know. Fell for this one, until I noticed the second time that there was nothing to back this statement up.
Ignorance of common sense
- Why discuss your evil conspiracy plans in publicly available documents - as Avery seems to think the US government did (see his - out of context - quotations from various government reports in the opening)).
The fact is, there's not a single thing in "Loose Change" that holds up to scrutiny - you don't even have to apply close scrutiny, and most of the time, no research is needed. Most of it can be dismissed by plain common sense. As mentioned, there's much much more. One guy did an insane amount of work in that regard:
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
Knock yourself out.
Last edited by Kaneda on Sun Jul 23, 2006 7:55 am; edited 3 times in total
i have seen this before, and disagree with it.
how do you expect me to take you seriously when you can't even spell terrorism?
Get a life desktop warrior.
Thanks to Kaneda for doing the research. We appreciate it.
Get a life desktop warrior.
Thanks to Kaneda for doing the research. We appreciate it.
It's terrorism .Cleanly Bush knew it forehand long before and could have easily stopped it. There are several truths clear that it is the bush government that has actually let the planes bypass intelligence and kill people. Anyways terrorism rocks everywhere recently in Mumbai.
| area547 wrote: |
| Thanks to Kaneda for doing the research. We appreciate it. |
Thanks area547, but you're giving me too much credit - there's not much in my list (if anything) that you won't find elsewhere. The link provided at the end of the previous post amounts to actual research. You'll also find all the points from my post - and more - listed there.
And that's really the point. The sad thing is, most of the problems in the documentary can be found by just looking at it - no research needed - and the rest can be dismissed by a few quick checks of the facts. The great thing is, the film serves as a good example for people to see how to watch a documentary critically.
| TurkishGamer wrote: |
|
P.S-I think some people are worse than children. They get taught something wrong early on but when they find out the truth they ignore it and don't learn from it. |
The mental capacity you've demonstrated here at club Frihost makes it mathematically impossible (division by zero) for me to worry about anything you think is possible, or any of your claims made while trying to comprehend the physics of airplanes and shopping carts in contrast to your hollywood home videos of you and your boyfriends playing airplane.
I mean, if anyone were able to derive the math behind what 100 tons of jet packed with fuel does when it meets a concrete building of unknown construction, it sure as **** aint you pal... so just go smoke up another fatty, sit back with your birkenstock hippie loser pals, and rail away on why everything everywhere causes your bleeding heart to weep, especially over a president apparently dead set on flooding the state with more slackers (read voting block, or fellow constituants to you).
| Quote: |
| - The outer hole was "no more than 16 feet in diameter"? Look at ANY clear photo (not that one filled with smoke and water sprays that Avery likes to use), and you'll see it's more like 70 feet wide - before the roof collapsed. |
I want you to look at the following picture.
I made the signs to show you something. Those signs are about 1.5 feet long and 2 feet high. If you count the sings the one going accross is 11. That times 1.5 is 16.5. Now it is seven from top to bottam. 7*2 is 14. Now if you are saying i put that image there then look ath the next image.
Still think i put it there. Well then seach Google Images and you will see in ever picture that it is there. So no it is not no 70 foot hole. That is totall bs. Those signs are 11 feet in height or length. How about you actually watch the movie and not read what others have to say. Then you will see that there is a lot of evidence.
Anyone know what that is a pic of? Didn't I hear that there was some minor damage to the interior courtyard? Not stating, asking.
Here is a link to other pages with many photos of the exterior. It seems that the photos in the links below are not of the same section. Take a look.
Link one
Link two
[img]http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/010914-F-8006R-006.jpg [/img]
Here is a link to other pages with many photos of the exterior. It seems that the photos in the links below are not of the same section. Take a look.
Link one
Link two
[img]http://www.thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/010914-F-8006R-006.jpg [/img]
there is no evidence that a plane hit there. That to me looks like it collapsed. I don't see any area where wings would have fallen in or anything. Give more info then that.
| Blaster wrote: |
| there is no evidence that a plane hit there. That to me looks like it collapsed. I don't see any area where wings would have fallen in or anything. Give more info then that. |
Did you look at the sites? There is a pretty decent analysis of the exterior impact. And you'd expect a collapse. What do you think those photos are if not the impact site?
Again, I ask you is that photo you posted supposed to be the main impact point?
so you mean to tell me that the plane hit that then just disappered.
| Blaster wrote: |
| So no it is not no 70 foot hole. That is totall bs. |
Don't know why I bother with this, but... Your pictures are of the hole exiting the second ring of the Pentagon. Avery is talking about the outer ring entry hole. The outer hole is known to have been probably 70-75 feet wide (low estimate, the media reported "about 100 feet" a few days after the crash).
While we only have clear pictures after the collapse of the outer wall (the rest are covered by smoke, water, fire etc.), the chance that a 16 feet wide hole would collapse into a ca. 100 feet wide gap is slim at best. Added to that, we have the eye witness accounts of firemen etc. But I guess the evil government brainwashed all of them - or threatened them into silence.
The inner hole (your photo) is about 16 feet (which, by the way, is wide enough to even allow for the fuselage of a 757 - 12-13 feet in diameter - to pass through it - although it most likely didn't).
| Quote: |
| How about you actually watch the movie and not read what others have to say. Then you will see that there is a lot of evidence. |
Yawn. Yes, I actually bothered to write an extensive (but not as extensive as it was possible) list of errors in a film, but couldn't bother to watch it. Sure. Let's just repeat it, because it doesn't seem to sink in: I've watched this. More than once. I have it on DVD. I've shown it to media students as an example of the methods of misinformation.
How about you actually watch the movie with your brain switched on (assuming you have one)? Then you will see that there's not a scrap of real evidence (and we're not talking proof here, just evidence). If you can't use your brain critically, consider reading the massive amount of errors listed at the "Loose Change Guide" link provided in the previous message.
*sigh*
| Blaster wrote: |
| so you mean to tell me that the plane hit that then just disappered. |
Well, everything I've read says the plane would have disintegrated. There are other photos showing small pieces strewn about. But look here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/punchout.html
It seems the photo you show is the Punchout hole on the interior courtyard, not the main impact as suggested. If you doubt the photos I posted earlier, what do you think they are pics of? I think this one is pretty hard to accept as being evidence for your conspiracy. It looks like a perfect example of misdirection on the part of conspiracy theorists.
I don't care, whether it was Osama or not. But it was good, what happened with Osama in return. He w2as a thread against India too. He was supporting terrorist in Kashmir.
He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.
The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.
Its funny that he is hated by so many people and yet he is still alive???
He was destroying the pride of Afghanistan too. He caused destruction of Bamian statue, which was created my cutting a mountain, by ansesters of afghanistani people.
The Bamian statue was a symbol of pride for afghans. It was the largest statue of this type.
Its funny that he is hated by so many people and yet he is still alive???
ok well i want to know one thing. Does korosene really get hotter then 3034.4 degrees F? There is no ****** way that that will get hotter then that. 3034.4 is the burning point of titanium. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001826.html That is the chart of metles. If you put that to fehreheit it makes 3034.4. So don't tell me that korosene is going to burn hotter then that. I couldn't find the actuall heat it gets up to but it is something like maybe 1000 degrees.
Hm, I'm starting to change my mind now a bit. There is a lot of good evidence being posted here that actually goes against the conspiracy video.
Also, in regards to what you just said Blaster. Airplanes are often made of (at least partially) Aluminum. I checked that table in your link and found the melting and boiling points for Aluminum. They are much lower than that of titanium.
Melting: 660.32 °C 1220.576 °F
Boiling: 2519 °C 4566.2 °F
It could be possible then, that the heat from the jet fuel could have at least melted the aluminum of the plane. However, I don't think that it would make the entire plane just disappear.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions.
EDIT-
I just found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel) on Wikipedia. It's a entry on Jet Fuel. However, as I posted earlier, because anyone can edit it, it may not be accurate.
Last edited by Petee on Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:50 am; edited 1 time in total
Also, in regards to what you just said Blaster. Airplanes are often made of (at least partially) Aluminum. I checked that table in your link and found the melting and boiling points for Aluminum. They are much lower than that of titanium.
Melting: 660.32 °C 1220.576 °F
Boiling: 2519 °C 4566.2 °F
It could be possible then, that the heat from the jet fuel could have at least melted the aluminum of the plane. However, I don't think that it would make the entire plane just disappear.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions.
EDIT-
I just found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel) on Wikipedia. It's a entry on Jet Fuel. However, as I posted earlier, because anyone can edit it, it may not be accurate.
| Quote: |
|
Flash point: 38°C Autoignition temperature: over 425°C Freezing point: -47°C (-40 °C for JET A) Open air burning temperatures: 260-315 degrees C Maximum burning temperature: 980 degrees C |
Last edited by Petee on Tue Jul 25, 2006 6:50 am; edited 1 time in total
| Blaster wrote: |
| ok well i want to know one thing. Does korosene really get hotter then 3034.4 degrees F? There is no **** way that that will get hotter then that. 3034.4 is the burning point of titanium. http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0001826.html That is the chart of metles. If you put that to fehreheit it makes 3034.4. So don't tell me that korosene is going to burn hotter then that. I couldn't find the actuall heat it gets up to but it is something like maybe 1000 degrees. |
Before we move on, are we agreed that the photo of your 16 foot hole is the punchout hole on the interior of the courtyard and NOT the impact site? That claiming that was too small for a 757 was a gross misrepresentation? I see no point in refuting "fact" after "fact"and then haivng you just move on like it never happened. So let's all agree on this before moving on, ok?
| Quote: |
|
Before we move on, are we agreed that the photo of your 16 foot hole is the punchout hole on the interior of the courtyard and NOT the impact site? That claiming that was too small for a 757 was a gross misrepresentation? I see no point in refuting "fact" after "fact"and then haivng you just move on like it never happened. So let's all agree on this before moving on, ok? |
I agree to that HoboPelican. I didn't even think about that being the inside hole until it was said here. I always thought it was the hole on the outside of the second layer, right behind the impact site. Now I realize that doesn't make much sense.
i can agree on that now i am saying where did the plane go. even if it did just varish it wouldn't have that fast. So why can't see see pieces of it in any of these pictures.
| Blaster wrote: |
| i can agree on that now i am saying where did the plane go. even if it did just varish it wouldn't have that fast. So why can't see see pieces of it in any of these pictures. |
Actually, there are lotws of pics. Try this site
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
Well, it depends from point of view. For Muslims, its government, for Americans - terrorism.
| Blaster wrote: |
| 3034.4 is the burning point of titanium. |
And titanium makes up about 6% of a Boeing 757:
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/385503-1.html
| Quote: |
| Since the early 1980s when Boeing engineers unveiled the 757 and 767 models, which respectively contain 6 and 2 percent titanium, metallurgists have worked steadily to improve titanium alloys. |
It's not as hard as Avery claims to get information on what materials are used for a Boeing airplane. Of course, in this single case, he insists on conveniently "doing things right" and doesn't look further than simply asking Boeing. Convenient, because it allows him to focus on titanium.
The majority of the 6% is to be found in the landing gear, which is why:
Wheelrim
Main landing gear
It's not hard to find "new" images of more debris:
The problem is simply that the web is crowded with conspiracy sites, and for some reason, those sites like to focus on the same couple of pictures... So those are the only ones you'll see on page after page of Google search.
What happens to a 757 flying into a reinforced concrete wall? It's never been tested. What has been tested is what happens to a Phantom F-4, smashing into a concrete wall equivalent to the ones used at nuclear plants. Not the same. The plane is (obviously) much smaller, it hits straight on, the new Pentagon wall (which had been built at that particular wing) was not likely to be reinforced in the same way (which is why the plane actually managed to penetrate the wall) etc. However, the Boeing also carried almost 9000 gallons of fuel to help the process. Well, anyway, watch what happens:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3939904420012109745&q=f4+phantom
The only pieces left of the Phantom were the points of the wings - which could pass the wall unobstructed.
And this is what happens to the fuselage of a Boeing MD-11 hitting water (Swissair 111, crashing in the ocean at Nova Scotia, killing 229 people):
98% of the plane was recovered from the bottom of the ocean, and other than bits of the engine and landing gear, it all looked like that. After hitting water.
Noone's saying the plane melted or vaporized. Except for Avery.
EDIT: Replaced some images with local copies, so as to not suck the bandwidth from the poor hosts who supplied them.
Last edited by Kaneda on Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:17 am; edited 3 times in total
| eldarian wrote: |
| Well, it depends from point of view. For Muslims, its government, for Americans - terrorism. |
Hardly. Don't generalize. I'm not an American, I see overwhelming, undeniable evidence that it was terrorism. I have several muslim friends who say the same. Clearly, some Americans like to think it's their government.
And you can be sure even if every single picture, video, sound recording and document would be released (and more of them have than Avery is willing to admit), conspiracy nuts would still be crying "CONSPIRACY!!!!" They'd continue saying that, if a surveillance tape showed very clearly a boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon (it would "obviously" have been manipulated).
Because how much more evidence is needed when hundreds of eyewitnesses, and even more "earwitnesses" (hearing the plane before the crash) say it was a plane? When hundreds of people died at the Pentagon and even more at WTC? A lot more evidence, according to these nuts.
Danish TV has a correspondent in Washington, as do most media. I know her personally. I also know that 15 minutes after the Pentagon crash, she was on TV, standing at the Pentagon, telling how she was nearby when it happened, and heard a plane flying low over Washington and then a crash. Believe me, noone would mistake the sound of a missile for a commercial airliner. Was she brainwashed or threatened to silence? I guess the CIA or whoever you want to blame are pretty quick, having silenced reporters from all over the world in a matter of half an hour.
Ok what about flight 93? Did any of you here of any fire. where did it go? Did the plane disapere? Did it melt too? Yea thats what happend. Planes just melt now. There like ice cream. They just melt. But leave nothing behind. Something would be found. Bones or something. Bodies just don't melt. Not like that. Explain that.
Edit: This is my 2911 post
Edit: This is my 2911 post
| Blaster wrote: |
| Ok what about flight 93? Did any of you here of any fire. where did it go? Did the plane disapere? Did it melt too? Yea thats what happend. Planes just melt now. There like ice cream. They just melt. But leave nothing behind. Something would be found. Bones or something. Bodies just don't melt. Not like that. Explain that.
Edit: This is my 2911 post |
You've lost me here, Blaster. There was debris scattered over a large area. They even have the black box. Are you implying that the there was not a crash? How many of these pieces of evidence do we have to discredit before
we can put this to bed?
| Blaster wrote: |
| Ok what about flight 93? Did any of you here of any fire. where did it go? Did the plane disapere? Did it melt too? Yea thats what happend. Planes just melt now. There like ice cream. They just melt. But leave nothing behind. Something would be found. Bones or something. Bodies just don't melt. Not like that. Explain that. |
Did it "melt too"? Nothing melted. Flight 77 didn't melt, Flight 93 didn't melt, the WTC steel structures didn't melt either. Don't put up more straw men - Avery put up quite enough as it is.
Debris, like HoboPelican said, eye witnesses, 44 passengers and crew, 33 of which were identified. And a black box.
| Washington Post wrote: |
| The fuselage burrowed straight into the earth so forcefully that one of the "black boxes" was recovered at a depth of 25 feet under the ground.
As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, [Wally] Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total. |
This is all very tasteless discussing, but seems it has to be done... Had there been recognizable bodies, I'd have personally started my own conspiracy theory (except that, while I'm very often crude, arrogant and respectless, I also have enough taste and situational judgment to not be the creep who'd do so), because there's no way a plane crashing vertically into the ground at such speed will leave the bodies of victims spread around like you'd see in a Hollywood movie. I'm actually surprised by the large parts of the plane they did find - about 2 meters of the side of the fuselage, engine parts etc. Of course, that's because this has all been "planted" by the government, not because the world isn't as neat and tidy and simple as conspiracy theorists want it to be[*].
Back to the Swissair 111, which crashed into the ocean - into water. Out of the 229 people killed, 1 of them could be identified visually. One. The rest were scattered into 15000 pieces.
Enough tastelessness.
[*] I say this, because that's the main basis of conspiracy theories. World doesn't make sense. There is no grand plan. So let's just make one up and pretend it does make sense and there is a plan. Because it's easier than coping with the scattered reality. For some, that's a comfort, just as it was a comfort for the US and the rest of the world to blame all our troubles on a single man (Bin Laden) - as if we'd live in perfect harmony the moment he's dead - when the truth is, he's just a very visible example of something which goes much much deeper, and is not so controllable as a single person. If there wasn't such a recognizable face to attach to these horrors, the US would have been in a much worse state after the attacks. Focus your fears and doubts into a single point, and they become less troubling.
Also, some of these theories (like "the moon landing didn't happen") are funny. This one isn't. Should be obvious why that is.
Nah your full of it. Its not even worth arguing with you. The WTC wouldn't have just fallen at freefall speed. It probley wouldn't have feel at all. Tell me what cases. Also tell me why just randomly WTC7 feel.
| Blaster wrote: |
| Nah your full of it. |
Nope, Avery is. As has been very clearly shown.
| Quote: |
| Its not even worth arguing with you. |
Nope, because there's nothing to argue about. September 11 was an act of terrorism, not a huge conspiracy planned by the US government. End of story.
| Quote: |
| The WTC wouldn't have just fallen at freefall speed. |
And behold, it didn't. I won't bother with the details once again, they've already been mentioned, and are well documented on several sites (such as the one I linked to earlier) and in several documents.
Most conspiracy theories, including this one, only work by ignoring piles of evidence. And bothering with the details is pointless when the person you're arguing with simply ignores the arguments and evidence put forth and continues to believe in his ghosts and goblins.
| Quote: |
| Also tell me why just randomly WTC7 feel. |
Again, why bother? Other than pointing out that there was nothing random or sudden about it collapsing. It was expected by the fire department after the collapse of WTC1 and 2. Hence no people died in that collapse. I guess the New York fire department was in on the whole conspiracy thing too...
Now tell me why it shouldn't have collapsed. And what the point would have been of making it collapse anyway. Not like it changed anything - it was just another incident, which even went fairly unnoticed by most media. Where's the point? The answer is, there wasn't a point, because there didn't need to be.
| Blaster wrote: |
| first off i want you to go and read through some of the topics here
I want you to especially look at this post. Look at the photos of WTC6 and WTC5 but then when you look at WTC7 nothing is there. So why didn't WTC5 and WTC6 not fall when WTC7 did? |
Ok, I looked. Not sure exactly what you want addressed. WTC7 was a 47 story building. 5 and 6 were under 10 apiece. . WTC5 did collapse down to the 3rd floor and 6 was badly damaged. I'm not sure what is hard to accept here.
I'm not familiar with that site, but from what I saw, it was almost exclusively pro-conspiracy posts. I even noticed a disclaimer saying "Any unsuitable posts will be removed". I could be wrong, but does that refer to posts debunking the conspiracy? The point I'm trying to make is that I am somewhat suspicious when differing opinions are not allowed.
I've spent the most of my adult life in research labs where failure analysis
was a big part of the job description. You learn early on to question everything, but not to jump to conclusions. This theory would be laughed out of any lab I've ever worked in. When you have someone over and over presenting evidence of a particular failure mode (and that evidence is repeatedly refuted), you have to consider that the person is trying to make facts fit his pet theory instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.
Anyway, if you have specific issues from that site, let's talk about them.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showforum=27
That forum right there is ment for what you are talking about. But i still think it is funny that WTC7 fell. So yea there are things there. But i still think there is more evidence that it was government then terriouism.
That forum right there is ment for what you are talking about. But i still think it is funny that WTC7 fell. So yea there are things there. But i still think there is more evidence that it was government then terriouism.
I believe that it was terrorists, but I have seen many videos on it and I do not think that it was planes that crashed into the buildings. I think that the government covered something up by using the plane story.
| Blaster wrote: |
| first off i want you to go and read through some of the topics here
I want you to especially look at this post. Look at the photos of WTC6 and WTC5 but then when you look at WTC7 nothing is there. So why didn't WTC5 and WTC6 not fall when WTC7 did? |
Why should we bother, when you won't even acknowledge, much less address any of the debunking of these socalled "theories" that's been done so far? It's like speaking to a rock. We could go on and on discrediting every single thing spewed out by these nuts. Clearly wouldn't have any effect or make any difference.
The only interesting thing about the forum you link to (because reading more of this crap isn't interesting in the long run) is... that there's absolutely no discussion. People are agreeing with each other on every single scrap of "evidence" no matter how dubious the claim may be - and ridiculing (but, like you, not addressing or refuting) any critical discussion of their pet monster. Real world theories aren't created in a vacuum. These are.
One last thing, and then I'll spend my time on more worthwhile issues. When you look at WTC7 in a photo on that forum, "nothing is there". The question to ask then is, when was this picture taken? As usual, conspiracy nuts don't bother with minor details such as dates or sources, so we'll have to guess. Since there's no smoke or dust in the air, and since there's cranes and bulldozers several places on the site, and since there is a clear 10-12 stories high pile of debris in the early images (see image below, for example), I'd guess probably a month later.
At the edge of the WTC7 site a few days after the collapse. Doesn't look empty to me.
Is it so strange that the site was cleaned up? What were you proposing? That WTC7 disappeared into thin air in some kind of Philadelphia experiment? There's enough footage to prove (if it were necessary) that it didn't.
So, was it "controlled demolition"? Certainly not. None of it was. And why not? Because demolitions of buildings which are even very much smaller than these take MONTHS to prepare - planting explosive materials, weakening the structure by sawing up to 95% through pillars and beams etc. Not only would it obviously have been noticed when people are working there every day. These supposed explosives would also have been noticed by the bomb sniffing dogs that Avery makes such a point (not...) out of telling us were in the buildings due to a bomb threat - for 14 days up until only a week before the attack. And to add to that, the already weakened structure required for a demolition would render day to day work impossible. This according to several independent structural engineers (those who'll even bother addressing such an insane claim).
There's not a scrap of real evidence for these theories, there's stockpiles of evidence against them, there's no believable motive, and the additional strain on our suspence of disbelief simply continues to pile up. Not only was the entire government apparently in on this conspiracy, the fire department and police were too, as well as news correspondents from all over the world, hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses, hundreds of day to day workers at the WTC (otherwise, they'd have made a fuss out of the men in black who were planting explosives and purposefully weakening the structures), volunteers helping to clean up, engineers called in to the research as experts etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. They were all part of it.
I'll leave you to believe what you want, but don't pretend everyone else is ignorant while you see the light. This discussion started only because you insisted that anyone claiming it was terrorists hadn't seen the video. And it ends here, since it's going nowhere.
as Mulder would say " The turth is out there "
One thing that does make me wonder is , are they looking into the design of the building(s) itself ..... was that at fault in anyway ?
One thing that does make me wonder is , are they looking into the design of the building(s) itself ..... was that at fault in anyway ?
Controle demolitions take that long becuase of how they fall. They are ment to damage nothing around them. Thats what makes it take so long. But this was not needed here. So it might have only took a week.
| Blaster wrote: |
| Controle demolitions take that long becuase of how they fall. They are ment to damage nothing around them. Thats what makes it take so long. But this was not needed here. So it might have only took a week. |
I'm not into this conspiracy theory at all so it would help me if you explained it a bit to me. Isn't it a given that something hit the buildings? Why even suppose that the government planted munitions in the the building? This all seems so over the top, even for our duplicitous government.
You are correct, Blaster, much of the time taken to prep a building for implosion is to ensure it topples inward (or in a particular direction). But it is also necessary to weaken the structure to guarantee it's collapse. Not tearing out interior supports, not being able to get directly to support structures and still ensuring a collapse would require and even larger charge, thus increasing the risk of exposure. It all seems unnecessary if you are going to ram a plane into the tower anyway. Timing the explosions and making sure the plane hit the general area of the explosives is just to easy to foul up. It would just be simpler to load the plane with explosives.
As Kaneda and I both pointed out, item by item we've been debunking these issues and have never heard any response back from you, except for you putting forth another piece of "evidence" of conspiracy. At some point you have to reexamine your thesis, don't you? I don't believe our government is above lying to us and throwing away lives to garner support, but the evidence here is just not compelling.
So, let's summarize:
What is the theory, plane, missle, munitions or combination?
If a combination of plane and munitions, why make it so complicated?
Do you have any response to the debunking done earlier?
| Blaster wrote: |
| Nah your full of it. . |
Either Blaster is a really good troll, or he is really REALLY gullable.
i think it's the us government and friends.
it's impossible for muslim terrorist to have skills like that in 9/11
it's a professional job with a good scenario & director from hollywood.
greed always makes people blind.
they would not stop until all the universe using usa flag.
i think you should watch more movie about divide et empera
throwing the rock and then hiding the hands.
they should be more close to god, since they can't bring their power to heaven or hell.
it's impossible for muslim terrorist to have skills like that in 9/11
it's a professional job with a good scenario & director from hollywood.
greed always makes people blind.
they would not stop until all the universe using usa flag.
i think you should watch more movie about divide et empera
throwing the rock and then hiding the hands.
they should be more close to god, since they can't bring their power to heaven or hell.
Hey Blaster...
?? ??
| Kaneda wrote: |
|
Why should we bother, when you won't even acknowledge, much less address any of the debunking of these socalled "theories" that's been done so far? It's like speaking to a rock. We could go on and on discrediting every single thing spewed out by these nuts. Clearly wouldn't have any effect or make any difference. |
??
??My favorite conspiracy module is the ‘proof’ that there were explosives because plumes of pulverized concrete shot out during the falls.
Silly rabbits.
Silly rabbits.
The supports of the twin towers wouldn't have all failed. The top floors might have fell but not the whole building that fast. So explosives had to have been planted. They really didnt' care if they killed anyone or damaged anything of course. In Avery's movie it clearly gives examples of buildings that have been on fire that have not fallen. One of which even was hit by a plane. So why would the twin towers fall when the other buildings didn't? Yes i am listening and reading everything you write. But i find stuff you dont' address like you do with me. So i am reading your stuff dont' take it that i am not.
| Blaster wrote: |
| The supports of the twin towers wouldn't have all failed. The top floors might have fell but not the whole building that fast. So explosives had to have been planted. They really didn't' care if they killed anyone or damaged anything of course. In Avery's movie it clearly gives examples of buildings that have been on fire that have not fallen. One of which even was hit by a plane. So why would the twin towers fall when the other buildings didn't? Yes i am listening and reading everything you write. But i find stuff you don't' address like you do with me. So i am reading your stuff don't take it that i am not. |
Sorry, why do you make the assumption that they shouldn't have fallen? FEA analysis has shown that it is a definite possibility. What makes you think only the top floors would collapse? Are you a mechanical engineer? Demo expert? A citation from an expert stating that as a fact? You have to have something to make you believe that. I don't know which airplane impact you are talking about, but the only one's I remember are a small plane recently and a WWII bomber hitting the Empire State building. Neither can be compared to the WTC. Every accident and fire is unique and you are walking on thin ice when you try to draw parallels
I'm not accusing you of not reading our posts, but I was asking why you put forth evidence and then, when it is proven wrong, you ignore that and go on to some other evidence. Are you hoping that after awhile we are going to tire of it and give up debunking and let it stand undisputed?
The concept is worth discussing, but after so many theories are shown to be wrong or highly suspect, why do you still believe in it? The fact is that Bush has never felt like he needed any reason to do what he does, so why concoct a complicated plan that has a high likelyhood of failing in a most embarassing way? It doens't make sense. Bush might be ignorant, but I don't think he's certifiable.
Wow, Blaster. For as many posts as you have, you don't seem to have a realy strong grip on reality. I mean, you seem pretty convinced about something that has absolutely NO credance whatsoever. Not even a liitle bit.
I mean, "It was a a conspiracy because the building shouldn't have fell"?
That's pretty lame if you ask me. I think you just like to stir up trouble.
I mean, "It was a a conspiracy because the building shouldn't have fell"?
That's pretty lame if you ask me. I think you just like to stir up trouble.
What about aliens? Where are you alien guys? There is always a conspiracy about aliens.
I myself am not a mechanical engineer but i have a family member who is. He said that becuase of the way the twin towers where built and modified afther the 91 bombing they reinforced it. So he was saying that the amount of steal in the building compared to the apporox. amount of heat that was taken. Take a look at the images here. Look at images 10 and 11. Do you notice the cracks? Thats solid steal that was cracked there.
This image shows the top half of one of the towers falling. See how it fell. That weight wouldn't have made the whole tower fall.
Its things like these they i am still skeptic about.
This image shows the top half of one of the towers falling. See how it fell. That weight wouldn't have made the whole tower fall.
Its things like these they i am still skeptic about.
| Blaster wrote: |
| I myself am not a mechanical engineer but i have a family member who is. He said that becuase of the way the twin towers where built and modified afther the 91 bombing they reinforced it. So he was saying that the amount of steal in the building compared to the apporox. amount of heat that was taken. Take a look at the images here. Look at images 10 and 11. Do you notice the cracks? Thats solid steal that was cracked there.
This image shows the top half of one of the towers falling. See how it fell. That weight wouldn't have made the whole tower fall. Its things like these they i am still skeptic about. |
I dont' understand this - "the amount of steal in the building compared to the apporox. amount of heat that was taken"
Just a couple of points though. First, ask your family member if he thinks they reinforced the entire building or only the lower floors. I don't see how you can reinforce the upper structure without basically rebuilding the whole thing. I could be wrong here, so if someone has better info, let me know. Secondly, that is a crack in the outer sheeting, not solid steel.
For the sake of discussion, can you list the three most compelling pieces of evidence for this theory? If we can refute those, would you stop believing in it?
It's all just a bunch of paranoid idiots who have nothing better to do than make up conpiracies... move on. Terrorism does exist, and although I agree that it should be stopped, it happens.
| dz9c wrote: | ||
lol im with you |
Ditto.
This has been going on forever, but it kind of does make a little bit of sense it was the government, but it could have just been a couencedence,but I really do not know, I am kind of in between thinking that it was the government and the terrorism. But In a way it oculd be the government judging by that movie. But, also as you can see terrorist are trying to start WW3 They have been sence osama Bin Ladden. So I had a dream the other night right? Well yeah it is just a dream, but I thought it was pretty interesting. So I figured id post it.
Well in my dream I was watching terrorist back in the day and they were maiing experiments on other people (Of there kind) and they figured out how to change people and change the looks of them by color. So they made us Americans to be slaves for them, but then it got out of hand by trying to make us more smart to create things that the terrorist could not create because they were not smart enough. So they made us smarter and smarter, but it got out of hand and we turned on them and had out land and we were Americans and we had freedom from terrorist and etc etc... So then we got to 2001, we made a fake attack on our own contry and blamed it on the terrorist to get back at them for trying to use us as slaves, so the terrorist try to start WW3 to make us weaker and try to make us loose WW3 and they will make us slaves again.
Weird dream huh?
Well in my dream I was watching terrorist back in the day and they were maiing experiments on other people (Of there kind) and they figured out how to change people and change the looks of them by color. So they made us Americans to be slaves for them, but then it got out of hand by trying to make us more smart to create things that the terrorist could not create because they were not smart enough. So they made us smarter and smarter, but it got out of hand and we turned on them and had out land and we were Americans and we had freedom from terrorist and etc etc... So then we got to 2001, we made a fake attack on our own contry and blamed it on the terrorist to get back at them for trying to use us as slaves, so the terrorist try to start WW3 to make us weaker and try to make us loose WW3 and they will make us slaves again.
Weird dream huh?
hobo hes not really sure if they did reinforce the upper floors. But i'm sure the twin towers where ment to withstand planes being flown into them. I say this becuase they are so high up in the air and on foggy days a plance could not see it and crash into it. So i am sure they are ment to with stand things like that. The steal was rapped around a fire proff material ment to withstand fires. The top levels of this might have been destroyed put i doubt the lower levels would have too.
Your whole idea is based on speculation. All of it.
The buildings DID stand up to the planes hitting them. BUT, the fires that burned afterwards eventually melted the steel that held the floors above that area up. When the floor or two collapsed, the combined weight of the other floors higher up was MORE than enough weight to keep the floors below it collapsing all the way down. I'm sure if the planes hit the top 3 to 5 floors of the buildings, they would not have fallen. Anything below that, and the sheer wieght of the floors above would easily crush the steel below as it fell and gained momentum. It's basic physics.
| Blaster wrote: |
| But i'm sure the twin towers where ment to withstand planes being flown into them.. |
The buildings DID stand up to the planes hitting them. BUT, the fires that burned afterwards eventually melted the steel that held the floors above that area up. When the floor or two collapsed, the combined weight of the other floors higher up was MORE than enough weight to keep the floors below it collapsing all the way down. I'm sure if the planes hit the top 3 to 5 floors of the buildings, they would not have fallen. Anything below that, and the sheer wieght of the floors above would easily crush the steel below as it fell and gained momentum. It's basic physics.
Gah, can't pass up this discussion. Even if it leads nowhere, it's still somewhat interesting.
Please don't feed the conspiracy nuts The steel didn't melt. It was merely weakened to less than half its strength - as steel tends to be, when in high temperatures. Other than that, you are, of course, correct. Fire proofing... Since WTC was built around the peak of the asbestos hysteria, inferior fire proofing materials were used for the majority of both towers - with only the North Tower having asbestos from around the 64th floor and down.
Older buildings would have stood much longer (a good asbestos coating should withstand fire temperatures for several hours). And yes, weakening the steel is enough to make a floor collapse, with the rest following it (as S3nd K3ys said, due to the weight above). That's why the steel was fire proofed in the first place. However, analysis showed that the used proofing material had simply fallen off in flakes - as the inventor of the asbestos spray method had predicted decades before:
(but yes, he was very biased)
Several structural engineers have even criticised the NIST report, because it takes the planes crashing into the buildings to be a necessary factor. According to these engineers, the fire alone, with no damage caused by the planes, would have been enough to make the building collapse.
Please point out those "cracks" to me, maybe do a screen grab of the image and circle them? If you mean the black spots/lines at the edge of the dust cloud, I see no cracks, only falling debris.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
| The buildings DID stand up to the planes hitting them. BUT, the fires that burned afterwards eventually melted the steel that held the floors above that area up. |
Please don't feed the conspiracy nuts
The steel didn't melt. It was merely weakened to less than half its strength - as steel tends to be, when in high temperatures. Other than that, you are, of course, correct. Fire proofing... Since WTC was built around the peak of the asbestos hysteria, inferior fire proofing materials were used for the majority of both towers - with only the North Tower having asbestos from around the 64th floor and down.
Older buildings would have stood much longer (a good asbestos coating should withstand fire temperatures for several hours). And yes, weakening the steel is enough to make a floor collapse, with the rest following it (as S3nd K3ys said, due to the weight above). That's why the steel was fire proofed in the first place. However, analysis showed that the used proofing material had simply fallen off in flakes - as the inventor of the asbestos spray method had predicted decades before:
| Herbert Levine wrote: |
| If a fire breaks out above the 64th floor, that building will fall down. |
(but yes, he was very biased
)
Several structural engineers have even criticised the NIST report, because it takes the planes crashing into the buildings to be a necessary factor. According to these engineers, the fire alone, with no damage caused by the planes, would have been enough to make the building collapse.
| Quote: |
| Take a look at the images here. Look at images 10 and 11. Do you notice the cracks? Thats solid steal that was cracked there. |
Please point out those "cracks" to me, maybe do a screen grab of the image and circle them? If you mean the black spots/lines at the edge of the dust cloud, I see no cracks, only falling debris.
It wouldn’t even have to melt it. If enough of the members where heated not even significantly they would fail. Steal looses a lot of strength quick when it is heated.
Bad choice of words, sorry. I used "melt" because I figured it was beyond the scope of comprehension of those individuals with the tin foil hats.
Hobo already said somthing about the image.
Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground.
Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground.
| Blaster wrote: |
| Hobo already said somthing about the image.
Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground. |
All of those statements might care some weight (I just reread this, no pun intended) if you where a structural engineer with experience in high-rise construction and demolition. Failure modes in something as complex as a 100+ story structure is something I don't think anyone here is an expert on.
I've spent a big part of my career testing how objects fail under stress and, without a thorough understanding of ALL aspects on each test, predicting how and when something will fail is a total crap-shoot. Even with great experience about all you can do is predict general probabilities of how things are going to happen.
(BTW-my experience was with ceramics, corrugate, packaging and simple 2x4 fire walls, so I am no expert on high rises either.)
To anyone who watches the video and believes in a massive conspiracy theory: how about researching the other side a bit more? Are you that gullible and easily led that one well made video can persuade you to accept a completely ludicrous and ridiculous story?
Here's a decent place to start reading: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
'Wanting' to believe something doesn't make it true. It's an insult to the memories of those who died that some people deny huge amounts of evidence to satisfy their own whims and grudges.
Here's a decent place to start reading: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
'Wanting' to believe something doesn't make it true. It's an insult to the memories of those who died that some people deny huge amounts of evidence to satisfy their own whims and grudges.
| Blaster wrote: |
| Hobo already said somthing about the image.
Anyhow steal could have withstod the floors. The top floors might have fallen but i doubt the whole thing. It it did i wouldn't have expected it to in the time between when the plane hit to when it fell. It would have taken a long time for it to fall. Plus i think there would have been signs that it was going to fall. Here it was standing one minute then the next it was down on the ground. |
?!?!??!?! Taken a long time to fall? ??
What on earth does that mean?
If you drop a ton of concrete off the top of a building, it won't fall slowly, it'll go straight to to bottom accelerated by gravity.
If the structural supports of a building weaken to the point where they buckle, then the entire thing will just *collapse*. It won't fall a bit and linger in midair to ask for directions on where to go next.
| joxang wrote: | ||
?!?!??!?! Taken a long time to fall? ?? What on e |