Post by: ximmortalxxkingx on May 11, 2006, 07:00:00 PM
This video is an hour and 20 minutes, and is REALLY worth the time watching this.
(Note: if this was some ****ty documentary about "possiblities" i wouldnt bother saying anything. This truly is amazing, and 100% is true{Fact-wise}. Its so good it was shown at my best friends school.)
I have posted this on numerous other message boards i belong too, and amazingly, every1 gets along, and discusses it. I really hope the same happens here
You may have seen this before, even at your school. The 3 college age students who did this are currently touring the states showing this at schools(And other things) and answering questions
Video: http://www.shoutwire....y_USA_Evidence
The official website:
http://www.loosechange911.com/
Thanks, and remeber dont post unless you watch all of it.(I know there is no rule saying this, but i would really like to keep this thread open for discussion and points of veiw)
Post by: gcskate27 on May 11, 2006, 08:12:00 PM
http://www.physics.b...nergy/htm7.html
Post by: lordvader129 on May 11, 2006, 08:18:00 PM
Post by: ximmortalxxkingx on May 12, 2006, 09:42:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 12 2006, 03:25 AM) 
i watched the first half of the first loose change and it was so full of underinformed bullshit i couldnt bear to watch the rest of it, i wont be wasting an hour of my life on the second installment
This is exactly what i asked you politly not to do. There is no need to flame dude..and you didnt see the second edition so why are you even posting here...
anyways, gcskate27, thanks for posting that site. Its really interesting
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 11:37:00 AM
QUOTE
This is exactly what i asked you politly not to do. There is no need to flame dude..and you didnt see the second edition so why are you even posting here...
because i saw the first one and found the creator to be completely misinformed about nearly everythign he talked about, do you really think i expect the second installment to be any more accurate? ill sit through it just so i can debunk more accurately though
essentially, if i were to say a certain book written by a leader of KKK was great and it talks about how blacks are bringing down the nation, would you have to read the book to know its full of crap? of course you wouldnt. you know what the KKK is like, so you expect everything out fo them to be BS, just like i do with the maker of loose change
Post by: gcskate27 on May 12, 2006, 02:13:00 PM
i dont know how anyone can argue the pentagon weirdness or the squibs from the towers...
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 03:31:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 12 2006, 04:20 PM)
so are you saying you disagree with consp theories as a matter of course regardless of what evidence they show? just curious...
i dont know how anyone can argue the pentagon weirdness or the squibs from the towers...
i dont know how anyone can argue the pentagon weirdness or the squibs from the towers...
for the pentagon, i havent seen anything conclusive form either side
but as far as the "squibs" from the towers (i assume you are referrign to the puffs of debris out the windows as it collapsed) i dont see any reason to believe that is anything other than debris from the collapse, since the support structure was on the outside frame of the towers the interior could easily have been collapsing ahead of the outer structure
and i dont disagree with all conspiracy theories just because, i happen to disagree withthe creator of loose change because he has not show in himself to be a knowledgable authority on anything he talks about (quite the opposite in fact)
Post by: ximmortalxxkingx on May 12, 2006, 03:42:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 12 2006, 09:20 PM)
so are you saying you disagree with consp theories as a matter of course regardless of what evidence they show? just curious...
i dont know how anyone can argue the pentagon weirdness or the squibs from the towers...
Yeah, they came down SO perfectly...and its weird how WTC7 came down, exact same way, and every building near it was untouched.
Lordvader129, i appreciate you watching this to see it before discussing it
I never saw the first, but i personally think the second one has some really interesting things. Thanks again vader, i look forward to seeing your reply after you watch it
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 04:10:00 PM
QUOTE
Yeah, they came down SO perfectly
well, i have a question for you, how should they have fallen? i assume youll say they should have toppled over to one side, but for that to happen some force would have to push them over, no such force was present at the time of the collapse, the only force acting on the towers was gravity, which pulls straight down
wtc 7: like the pentagon, ive seen no conclusive evidence either way, i havent heard any statements from anyone who seems to know what they are talking about on the subject, so i remain undecided
Post by: gcskate27 on May 12, 2006, 04:14:00 PM
read/watch steve jones' lectures vader and youll hear a lot more on the subject of the towers and wtc7 by a very knowledgable person... the only thing ive heard of people who disbelieve jones is that he doesnt give a hypothesis for 'whodunnit' even though all hes calling out for is further investigation and for the evidence to not be removed, ie scrap steel being shipped to asia before being inspected...
as for the pentagon, thats one of the interesting points of loose change... they show an example of a flight that hit a lightpost and it didnt simply continue on its path to say the least, the pentagon plane apparently hit 5... the most damning evidence against the pentagon is the fact that 5 slides were released that show nothing... there is no reason to not release slides that show the plane if indeed it was there... the evidence against it FAR outweighs the official story...
to dismiss these films and discussions simply because they are conspiracy theories is foolish... even if only one aspect of loose change is truth, wouldnt that mean something to you? *you in general, not vader...
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 04:19:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 12 2006, 06:21 PM)
surely a plane hitting one side would have weakened the building enough for the floors above to topple towards the side where the plane hit, yet they came straight down in a near freefall... very, very odd for a building meant to take such forces to collapse in such a fashion... read/watch steve jones' lectures vader and youll hear a lot more on the subject of the towers and wtc7 by a very knowledgable person...
ive read those too, but people underestimate the sheer maginitude of the force exerted by gravity on the towers, go find the first loose change thread here, i posted the physics calculating the force of the collapse, over 9 million tons of force exterted on the structure (a structure designed to support about half a million tons)
would be roughly equivilent to me puttin an elephant on your shoulders, you body would collapse with a freefall too, even if i took out one of your knees to try to make you collapse to one side
Post by: gcskate27 on May 12, 2006, 04:34:00 PM
so the fact that this is the only example of a building with those approximate circumstances (obviously theres no precedent of an airplane hitting a skyscrapper) collapsing, let alone straight down in a near freefall should raise any suspicion? if the official story is a weakening of the building by fire caused a collapse, of which ill fully admit gravity will affect a weakened structure, that still doesnt come near to accounting for the straight down collapse... the fire, regardless of the fact that it couldnt have possibly been hot enough to compromise the structural integrity based on only burning office supplies, would not have a uniform affect on the structure... add that to the main point, the impact of the planes, and there is no way they should have collapsed the way they did...
and back to the squibs from the floors below... why would there be explosions in staggered stories below seconds before and during the collapse? no explanation there, it shouldnt have happened given the official story...
note: im not saying something crazy like bush did it to control the world because hes a lizard creature, im just saying that the official story does not add up and the evidence surrounding is very, very suspicious...
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 04:44:00 PM
when that section of the structure failed the rest of the support frame could no longer withstand the forces exerted by the top 1/3 of the building, causing the complete collapse
as for the "squibs" i see no evidence to indicate they are explosions at all (they certainly dont look liek explosions in any of the footage ive seen) and i dont think you do either, you just heard someone call them that and now you believe it
Post by: ximmortalxxkingx on May 12, 2006, 05:29:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 12 2006, 11:51 PM)
the structural steel used in teh construction of the towers would have been significantly weakened by the fire, this normally wouldnt have an effect as they were encased in a fireproof covering (to prevent just such an event, this is also why none of the other building that burned for hours mentioned in LC1 collapsed) this casing was stripped off by the inpact of the plane, exposing the steel to the fire and weakening it very quickly
when that section of the structure failed the rest of the support frame could no longer withstand the forces exerted by the top 1/3 of the building, causing the complete collapse
as for the "squibs" i see no evidence to indicate they are explosions at all (they certainly dont look liek explosions in any of the footage ive seen) and i dont think you do either, you just heard someone call them that and now you believe it
If you would have watched LC2, you would have seen how they scientifically proved the fire could not have melt the steel, as it would have taken 40 minutes at 3000 degrees, and the fire from the jet fuel could only reach 2000. But you say you watched it, and i respect your opinion. (I would have respected your disagreement in the first place, its just you hadnt watched it. Now that you have, i dont mind that you want more proof
)
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 05:55:00 PM
QUOTE(ximmortalxxkingx @ May 12 2006, 07:36 PM)
If you would have watched LC2, you would have seen how they scientifically proved the fire could not have melt the steel, as it would have taken 40 minutes at 3000 degrees, and the fire from the jet fuel could only reach 2000. But you say you watched it, and i respect your opinion. (I would have respected your disagreement in the first place, its just you hadnt watched it. Now that you have, i dont mind that you want more proof
) did i say the steel was melted? no, it was weakened, the steel would lose about 50% of its strength when heated to 1100 degrees, and over 90% of its strength when heated to 1800
ask any firefighter whose seen the aftermath of a steel building fire, steel beams bent and folded in ways you might not think was possible if you hadnt seen it firsthand
Post by: ximmortalxxkingx on May 12, 2006, 07:06:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 13 2006, 01:02 AM)
did i say the steel was melted? no, it was weakened, the steel would lose about 50% of its strength when heated to 1100 degrees, and over 90% of its strength when heated to 1800
ask any firefighter whose seen the aftermath of a steel building fire, steel beams bent and folded in ways you might not think was possible if you hadnt seen it firsthand
They did ask firefighters...the ones who were actually there. You obviously didnt watch this...but you know what...im not gonna argue with you. You can think what you want. I dont care. goodday
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 07:16:00 PM
QUOTE(ximmortalxxkingx @ May 12 2006, 09:13 PM)
They did ask firefighters...the ones who were actually there. You obviously didnt watch this...but you know what...im not gonna argue with you. You can think what you want. I dont care. goodday
no, i havent watched it yet, ive been at work without speakers, but in the frist LC he showed a picture of some smoldering metal and claimed it was melted steel, it didnt look melted to me though, just looked like other post-fire wreckage ive seen
since i am goign to watch as much of LC2 as i can stand when i get home, i think its only fair that you read this article from popular mechanics
http://www.popularme...html?page=1&c=y
Post by: ximmortalxxkingx on May 12, 2006, 07:51:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 13 2006, 02:23 AM)
no, i havent watched it yet, ive been at work without speakers, but in the frist LC he showed a picture of some smoldering metal and claimed it was melted steel, it didnt look melted to me though, just looked like other post-fire wreckage ive seen
since i am goign to watch as much of LC2 as i can stand when i get home, i think its only fair that you read this article from popular mechanics
http://www.popularme...html?page=1&c=y
Sure thing
I want both sides of the story...
If you watch lc2 and still think the story is complete cra_p, ill glady respect your disagreement
Post by: lordvader129 on May 12, 2006, 10:28:00 PM
one thing i found amusing was how he makes a bunch of points about how little damage was done to the structure of the pentagon (including pointing out how the blast resistant windows survived the blast...hmm, wonder why) then 10 minutes later makes the point that the section of the building hit was reinforced to "survive just such an impact" so then its no wonder it survived, right? he just debunked his own point
Post by: gcskate27 on May 13, 2006, 09:23:00 AM
QUOTE
as for the "squibs" i see no evidence to indicate they are explosions at all (they certainly dont look liek explosions in any of the footage ive seen) and i dont think you do either, you just heard someone call them that and now you believe it
you can think that all you want but youre wrong... its obvious youre stance is to disbelieve anything said on the subject, so ill just say again, watch the steve jones' lecture...
Post by: lordvader129 on May 13, 2006, 12:12:00 PM
if the government did stage 911, why did they use an over-the-top james bond villain scheme? especially with soe many holes in it, if this conspiracy extends to the very top of the government im sure they could have done a better job (just like those who claim the moon landing was a hoax)
if they wanted to use it as an excuse to attack afghanistan and iraq, why not just mock up a bunch of migs in iraqi colors and attack with those?
if they wanted to blow it up for the insurance why not just park a big truck in the basement (bigger than 93) bow that up, then bring the towers down on top of it?
why make up some crazy situation involving all the passenger of the flight and so many third parties? thats where common sense comes in
Post by: gcskate27 on May 13, 2006, 01:57:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on May 13, 2006, 03:43:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 13 2006, 04:04 PM)
see where did i say its a huge gov coverup? nowhere... all ive said on the subject is that the official stroy doesnt add up, which it doesnt...
so the official story isnt the truth.
lets play csi. why isnt it the truth? whats the motive?
Post by: gcskate27 on May 13, 2006, 04:28:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on May 13, 2006, 04:38:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 13 2006, 06:35 PM)
gee maybe thats what further investigation could answer...
well the idea is to have some reasoning before you spend time, money, and other resources on an investigation
Post by: gcskate27 on May 13, 2006, 04:46:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on May 13, 2006, 04:57:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 13 2006, 06:53 PM)
READ THAT LECTURE BY STEVE JONES
read my post after the first time you told me to read it
Post by: guitarfrk on May 13, 2006, 08:57:00 PM
but think about it...if the govt REALLY wanted to clear everything...why not release the hotel/gas station cameras that had perfect footage of the pentagon crash(the gov't confiscated these soon after 9/11 happened)
but then again...
as lordvader said...why involve so many people whan they could have EASILY cloaked two migs...or even two f-14's since im sure thelly have plenty at their disposal (considering their recent retirement from the navy) disgusied with foriegn markings
but back to the other side....
that may be even more questionable than what really happened bc peolple WILL speculate no matter what
and they could have used the extra civillian deaths(from the planes) to convince people that the government wouldnt have done it.
and now for my final comment AGASINST the video..
the guy does seem to mislead you with certain things.. (ie. the melting point of steel...when really he should have stated the point in which steel loses its integrity)
and against the debris shooting out of the windows thing...
did you ever consider that the surface area of each floor caused a mometary "puff" of air that shot debris out of each floor(for an example..when you shut the cover of a textbook at a moderate speed..you feel air being forced out)
Post by: brandogg on May 14, 2006, 07:10:00 PM
Post by: gcskate27 on May 14, 2006, 07:59:00 PM
Post by: Heet on May 14, 2006, 10:29:00 PM
Most of them are europeans who would love to run the U.S. remotely. All bash fox news, Bush, talk about "war for oil", "Bush lied and people died". LoL pathetic.
You people are idiots. Go look for Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
Post by: gcskate27 on May 15, 2006, 02:57:00 AM
Post by: throwingks on May 15, 2006, 06:02:00 AM
Post by: lordvader129 on May 15, 2006, 11:41:00 AM
QUOTE
Cave in? Sure! At the point of impact and its near vicinity maybe! All the way down to the bottom like a thermite fuelled controlled demolition? Only a grade A fucking moron would believe that! 
but the point of impact IS where the towers failed, which of course put well over 9 million of pressure of the remaining structure causing to to collapse
QUOTE
Do you know the precision that goes into demolishing a building like that? What are the chances of the impact/burning form a plane crash managing to accomplish exactly the same effect? Don't tell me, freak accident? Coincidence?
actually the precision goes mainly into keeping debris and other junk from scattering out and damaging surrounding structures, anyone with eyes can tell you shit was flying everywhere when the wtc collapsed, hardly looked "controlled" to me
QUOTE
Was tower 7 hit by a plane? Didn't that fall in the same way?
no, it was hit by the wtc
almost 25% of the lower part of its structure was completely torn out by the collapse
Post by: gcskate27 on May 15, 2006, 12:24:00 PM
Post by: slightly_damp on May 15, 2006, 01:18:00 PM
Post by: lordvader129 on May 15, 2006, 03:20:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 15 2006, 02:31 PM)
vader, where do you get your facts exactly?
which fact or facts are you calling into question?
Post by: gcskate27 on May 15, 2006, 05:03:00 PM
and how could it be that damaged given the tower fell virtually straight down and the building in question was 350 feet away, also being the only building in its area to collapse?
Post by: lordvader129 on May 15, 2006, 05:45:00 PM
also, if you weatch the tower collapse, it didnt fall straight down, it spewed debris in every direction, upon inpact with the ground the debris would be shot out even harder, easily causing damage to a building the path of a large peice
which also happens to be anopther reason the collapse doesnt look liek the least bit "controlled" to me
Post by: gcskate27 on May 15, 2006, 06:38:00 PM
you still havent mentioned what your sources are... wheres that 25% claim come from?
Post by: Alex548 on May 15, 2006, 06:43:00 PM
Lay a book on the table & open it. Now place some confetti on the pages & slam the book shut.
The pressure from slamming the book pushes the confetti all over the damn place.
Now pretend what you just did is only ONE floor of the WTC (which weighs considerably more than a book). Imagine how far debris would fly when the towers started collapsing.
Inside the building was far more than confetti. I think furniture, people, filing cabinets, etc weigh quite a bit. That crap went flying out of the windows and it had to hit somewhere. Parts of the plane also broke off when they crashed into the towers. All that stuff had to fall somewhere, didn't it?
Couldn't that explain how WTC7 was hit?
Post by: lordvader129 on May 15, 2006, 06:45:00 PM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 15 2006, 08:45 PM)
so the other buildings were magically unharmed?
you still havent mentioned what your sources are... wheres that 25% claim come from?
you still havent mentioned what your sources are... wheres that 25% claim come from?
well the other buildings adjacent to the towers also collapsed (they were much lower and wider so only sections of them collapsed)
the 25% "claim" comes from the popular mechanics article i posted a while ago, thansk for reading it
Post by: Alex548 on May 15, 2006, 06:57:00 PM
Post by: damam on May 16, 2006, 09:03:00 AM
QUOTE(gcskate27 @ May 11 2006, 03:19 PM)
theres plenty of stuff in loose change thats suspect, but plenty of things that are also interesting... for actual fact, look into steve jones' lectures...
http://www.physics.b...nergy/htm7.html
dude, you know your grasping at the last thread when you put your faith in a mormon
Just joking. I am completely submerged in mormonism so its hard not to take a jab when i get a chance.try reading Dr. S. Shyam Sunder's report. Although it is a bit dry, and no where near as seedy or conspiracy oriented. . . so it is no where near as fun
I love this quote from him source
QUOTE(Trade Center report @ recently addressed many of the issues 9-11 conspiracy theorists have with the study. Dr. Sunder replied)
After Dr. Sunders presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadnt been able to sleep at night since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.
The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of molten metal at ground zero indicates the likely presence of high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.
I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way, the woman said.
Actually, I have read it, Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.
Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, "Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Whos Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we cant worry about that. Facts are facts .
truth be told i have not read the nist reports nore do i intend too. I did read the pop mechanic article which was largely based on sunders research. And i will put a lot more stock in sunders then in jones. Tower 7 seems to be the last real hold out in the conspiracy theories. NIST ran out of funding before they could evaluate it. I really hope they can get the funding and put this to rest.
Post by: Alex548 on May 16, 2006, 02:54:00 PM
Click Me
Post by: lordvader129 on May 16, 2006, 03:31:00 PM
QUOTE(Alex548 @ May 16 2006, 05:01 PM)
For those of you conspiracy theorists who claim a plane never hit the pentagon and truly believe it was a missle...
Click Me
Click Me
only the second frame of that shows what might be a plane, dylan avery uses that vid and claims there wasnt a plane, what is in the video however the is trademark orange-yellow kerosene blast that he dylan says wasnt present at the pentagon
Post by: throwingks on May 16, 2006, 03:56:00 PM
Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
http://www.abovetops...e_evidence.html
Post by: lordvader129 on May 16, 2006, 04:41:00 PM
QUOTE(throwingks @ May 16 2006, 06:03 PM)
I know I posted this before and I am sure I will post it again.
Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
http://www.abovetops...e_evidence.html
Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11
http://www.abovetops...e_evidence.html
funny how much more 757 peices someone who was actually looking for a 757 found, as opposed to loose change who shows 2 or 3 peices
Post by: throwingks on May 17, 2006, 05:19:00 PM
It was the NWO. It's obvious. I mean our government isn't smart enough for this, it has to be the NWO controlling our government. But, the sad thing is, is the NWO is controlled by the alien supreme leaders that we mistook for our Gods (also known as the greys).
It's true, I googled it.
Post by: lordvader129 on May 17, 2006, 05:46:00 PM
QUOTE(buckwheat @ May 17 2006, 07:17 PM)
http://terrorize.dk/....don.wright.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/...ie.mcintyre.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/...entagon.747.wmv
http://www.positiont...ntagon-live.mpg
http://terrorize.dk/...ws.report.1.wmv
911 was an inside job.
http://terrorize.dk/...ie.mcintyre.wmv
http://terrorize.dk/...entagon.747.wmv
http://www.positiont...ntagon-live.mpg
http://terrorize.dk/...ws.report.1.wmv
911 was an inside job.
im at work right now and have no speakers, but ill watch each of those when i get home and tell you why they prove nothing
Post by: lordvader129 on May 17, 2006, 06:18:00 PM
QUOTE
you're a bitch ass mutherfucker who can't handle the truth. Ho.
clearly this is someone who wants to be taken seriously as an intellectual
Post by: CattyKid on May 17, 2006, 06:47:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 17 2006, 06:25 PM)
clearly this is someone who wants to be taken seriously as an intellectual
QUOTE
Man all these half conspiracies. Go all the way with it.
It was the NWO. It's obvious. I mean our government isn't smart enough for this, it has to be the NWO controlling our government. But, the sad thing is, is the NWO is controlled by the alien supreme leaders that we mistook for our Gods (also known as the greys).
It was the NWO. It's obvious. I mean our government isn't smart enough for this, it has to be the NWO controlling our government. But, the sad thing is, is the NWO is controlled by the alien supreme leaders that we mistook for our Gods (also known as the greys).
Like, the New World Order?
That also gets a
.
Post by: lordvader129 on May 17, 2006, 10:33:00 PM
QUOTE(buckwheat @ May 17 2006, 07:17 PM)
says he a saw a "small, 2 engine commuter plane" crash into the pentagon, he was on the 12th floor of an office building over 3 miles away and on the opposite side of the pentagon than the plane hit
the wreckage found at the site and other eyewitnesses confirm was in fact a 2 engine 757, an easy enough mistake to make given his distance
regardless, how does a smaller plan prove it was an "inside job?"
QUOTE
plane hit the pentagon....peices of the plane scattered on the lawn...nice bit about donald rumsfeld helping victims before being ushered into the command center....eyewitness says american airlines 757 crashed short of pentagon, reporter says he only sees evidence the plane hit the pentagon itself (other eyewitnesses have said the plane scraped over the lawn and hit the pentagon).....attack happened on side opposite of high brass
ok, so the terrorists didnt do their homework, still no closer to an "inside job"
QUOTE
sources say a plane crashed into pentagon...eyewitness says a US air 737 (was an american airlines 757) since we dont know this persons vantage point or expertise in identifying aircraft travelling at 500 miles an hour 30 feet overhead its easy enough to disregard it as a simple error
but again, how is it an "inside job?"
QUOTE
unconfirmed (reporters word, not mine) reports that it was a helicoptor, not a plane, and further reports it was a plane and a helicoptor (the plane hit near the helipad, ever play chinese telephone, stuff gets messed up and people pass info along) reports that there was an explosion (plane full of fuel crashing does create quite a boom and fireball)
ok, getting closer, i think, but no "inside job" yet (this last one better be a videotaped full confession from bush and rumsfeld or im going to be very disappointed)
QUOTE
(british news, great source for firsthand information) reports of a hijacked plane crashing into pentagon...in the confusion (again, his words, not mine) eyewitnesses claimed it was a bomb
ok, so at least one person though it was a bomb, im sure anyone who was in the area and didnt actually see the plane thought "bomb" at first (kamikaze jumbo jet doesnt really rank too high on a military threat list, at least it didnt back then)
so yeah, you sure proved me wrong
Post by: damam on May 18, 2006, 08:07:00 AM
QUOTE(throwingks @ May 17 2006, 12:26 PM)
Man all these half conspiracies. Go all the way with it.
It was the NWO. It's obvious. I mean our government isn't smart enough for this, it has to be the NWO controlling our government. But, the sad thing is, is the NWO is controlled by the alien supreme leaders that we mistook for our Gods (also known as the greys).
It's true, I googled it.
dude get a life -- everybody knows that the psychologists planned and executed the entire thing. Its soooooo obvious.
Freedom Mag: Published by the Church of Scientology International
Post by: lordvader129 on May 18, 2006, 04:53:00 PM
QUOTE(damam @ May 18 2006, 10:14 AM)
dude get a life -- everybody knows that the psychologists planned and executed the entire thing. Its soooooo obvious.
Freedom Mag: Published by the Church of Scientology International
if tom cruise believes it it must be true
Post by: madthumbs on May 23, 2006, 02:13:00 PM
Think about it...
Who's enemies are we fighting? What's the only country we can donate to tax free? What country does the US treat better than it's own? What does mind controlling Christianity accomplish (pushed by alternative media)?
You're seeing what they want us to see. If the soldiers knew who they were really fighting for and making the US bankrupt in the process they might be willing to stop the mass murder for a little while.
Post by: lordvader129 on May 23, 2006, 03:41:00 PM
or dylan avery and his buddies are just a bunch of media whores who want to be famous directors (they said so themselves) and thats why they get so much attention
Post by: Heet on May 30, 2006, 08:32:00 PM
Its funny because these are the types of people that believe shit like this.
Post by: EverestX on May 31, 2006, 07:42:00 AM
Now, don't let me get ahead of myself here, I think that Loose Change 1 & 2 were very well put together, directed, and contained a lot of valuable information regarding the incidents. But I do have to say, I doubt that it was as in depth of a cover up as you are led to believe. I find it rather comical all this rhetoric for both sides, the anti-liberal chat and the like. Although someone has brought up a rather interesting, and my personal favorite part of conspiracy's, you cant disprove them because then the plot just thickens. I love it. That's the shear reason I watch these videos all the time. It's nothing to do with keeping my feet on the ground, it's thinking outside the box and finding relations with coinciding events thus developing a plot of little to no truth, or perfect truth in its entirety.
I will definitely be keeping up with this thread, however i plan to not add much beyond a "Atta-boy" for everyone with decent evidence to prove one way or another. It's a sad fact we will never be able to conclusively prove what really happened and all those people died.
However I think someone should take a look at what pilots think about flying a 757 30 feet above the ground @ 500mph. It would take a lot more than a little Cessna training session, and taking out a biplane to pull that off. Just my 2 cents but I prefer to think the pilots were (Saudi? maybe) fighter pilots. Because that is not something you learn in school, that is something you learn from military tactics and years of training.
If you really are looking for a real conspiracy check out the Fluoride Deception (book and movie). You should be much more worried about that.
Keep upa good clean discussion fellas.
-EvX-
Post by: Aquarillis on June 05, 2006, 07:58:00 AM
The Pod:
Most 9/11 CT's have abandoned the "pod" idea due to lack of evidence, and the need for one.
No Stand-Down Order:
The article didn't mention where the rest of the jets were, now did they? And 14 fighter jets to protect the WHILE US? What if were were attacked by a foreign air force? They gave us a partial factm not the whole fact.
Flight 175's Windows:
I personally agree with the article. It's hard to see airplane windows when you're far away, and the plane is moving fast, plus it being in the morning, and you would also focus attention to the World Trade Centers.
Intercepts Not Routine:
Well, you DO have fourteen fighter jets to protect the WOLE UNITED STATES, so it would be safe to assume that getting to any plane would be hard to do.
Widespread Damage:
The article claims that jet fuel went careening down elevator shafts. Too bad that the elevators are airtight, and the fire wouldn't survive the 900+ foot drop down with little oxygen, and then blow the bottom floor's windows out. A bomb would, though.
"Melted" Steel:
The article claims that there was a raging inferno that made steel weaken. I'll counter this with a picture or two:
What about the fire cheif that mad it to the floors of the fire and actually devised a plan to take the fires out, if it was such a steel-melting inferno?
I'm too tired to debunk te debunking... I'll do it alter.
Post by: lordvader129 on June 05, 2006, 04:39:00 PM
QUOTE
The Pod:
considering the focus of this thread is Loose Change it should be noted those boys still think the AA paint job is a missile pod
QUOTE
No Stand-Down Order:
with military budgets dropping since the fall of the soviet union this doesnt seem odd, besides, when was the last time we were attacked by a military on our home soil?
QUOTE
Intercepts Not Routine:
ive often wondered why people bring this up, what are interceptors supposed to do with a commercial jet in flight?
ask it to land? we can do that from the ground
board the plane? this isnt a movie, people dont jump from one plane to another in midair
shoot it down? right, and i suppose this would have caused less controversy
QUOTE
Widespread Damage:
well if the jet fuel go into the elevator shafts then that would mean they arent airtight anymore, right? its very easy to imagine th eplane punched a hole int he elevator shaft allowing the fuel to spill down and ar to be drawn from the home (essentially it would turn an otherwise airtight shaft into a nice forge...which BTW is what is used to melt steel)
besides, who ever heard of an airtight elevator shaft anyway? wouldnt it be kinda tough for the folks in the elevators to breathe?
QUOTE
"Melted" Steel:
now show pictures of every other spot in the building that may or may not have been on fire
as far as the fire cheif, i highly doubt he was referring to the entire floor, he wouldnt have had enough time to investigate the entire floor, he was probably only talking about what he say immediately after exiting the stairwell
Post by: Aquarillis on June 06, 2006, 06:34:00 PM
Now, take a good look at these two pictures:
Here's a picture of the WTC being built:
Notice the steel cores. Also remember that the WTC's were the strongest buildings in New York, and were designed to withstand MULTIPLE 707's hitting it, a large storm, and bombings.
Oh, and keep this argument in this thread, let's not lash out at each other or mess up any buisiness deals because of this, ok?
Post by: lordvader129 on June 07, 2006, 02:05:00 PM
QUOTE
Okay, there is a radio recording of him reaching the floor and finding two isolated pockets of fire, and was telling the radio operator what he needed to take out the fires. I'm pretty sure he was there.
i never said he wasnt there, i simply said he wasnt referring to the ENTIRE 78th floor, simply the area he saw immediately outside the stairwell
each floor was about an acre in size, it would have been near impossible (as well as impractical) for him to investigate the entire floor
the first pic doesnt prove anything, is the scale correct? is the angle of approach correct? why is the smoke obscuring the building forming a perfectly horizontal line? either it was added after the picture was taken (why?) or the wall of the building was pieced together from multiple photographs, meaning we have no way of knowing if the "undamaged" section of wall there is even in the right place
for second pic, the top section doesnt need to squash the entire building, it just needs to start the chain reaction, each floor it collapses adds more weight to collapse, the 78th floor was crush by the 32 floors above it, by the 77th floor was crushed by 33 floors above it, the the 76th floor by 34 floors, and so on and so forth, all the way down to the ground floor which had 110 stories fall on it
QUOTE
Also remember that the WTC's were the strongest buildings in New York, and were designed to withstand MULTIPLE 707's hitting it, a large storm, and bombings.
it was designed to withstand MULTIPLE 707s now? for a building that was built over 30 years ago its design sure changes alot
it was designed to withstand the impact of a (A = meaning one, single) 707 (slightly smaller than 767) presumably "lost in fog" and assumed to be travelling at approach speeds (1/2 to 1/3 the speed of the planes that did hit the towers) and having already dumped its fuel
Post by: Rylinkus on June 07, 2006, 07:04:00 PM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Jun 7 2006, 09:12 PM)
it was designed to withstand the impact of a (A = meaning one, single) 707 (slightly smaller than 767) presumably "lost in fog" and assumed to be travelling at approach speeds (1/2 to 1/3 the speed of the planes that did hit the towers) and having already dumped its fuel
I believe the challenger was designed not to become a fireball on takeoff.....
Actually there's probably a video about that being a gov. conspiracy floating around here somewhere.
Post by: guitarfrk on June 07, 2006, 08:13:00 PM
QUOTE
Actually there's probably a video about that being a gov. conspiracy floating around here somewhere.
yah ..i think it was in the same thread about nasa faking the moon landing
Post by: lordvader129 on June 07, 2006, 10:55:00 PM
QUOTE
you see a plane in the Pentagon?
me personally? no, but these people did
QUOTE
"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20
"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News
Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001
- "Bush Vows Retaliation for 'Evil Acts'." USA Today, 11 Sep 2001
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001
"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing black cloud,' he said."
- "Hell on Earth." UU World, Jan/Feb 20
"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," - Ahwatukee Foothill News
Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our cars. It was an incredible moment." Massachusetts News
Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building." dcmilitary.com November 16, 2001
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.] NFPA Journal November 1, 2001
along with dozens if not hundreds of others, now lets see you post a similar list of people who specifically DIDN'T see a plane hit the pentagon
QUOTE
you see a plane in Shanksville?
again personally, no, but the peopel who were there sure did, so wheres your witnesses who didnt? (and dont give me that out of context BS form the coroner, im sick of seeing that)
QUOTE
wtc7 fell cause there was a FIRE in it?!?!
a 12 alarm fire and structural damage, firefighters figured it was goign to collapse long before it did and cleared the area, find me a structural engineer who says it shouldnt have collapsed
QUOTE
Both towers fell, at FREE FALL speed?
uh, no, they didnt, time it sometime
QUOTE
HOW do you know there were 19 terrorists?
ill bite on this one, i go by what the FBI report says, but how do you know there WEREN'T 19 terrorists?
QUOTE
You see, if you buy the 9/11 story, without one shred of proof, YOU my friends are the wack jobs.
there pletny of proof, witnesses, and expert testimony, you just dont like any of that
QUOTE
2 airplanes, 3 buildings. Someone at the CIA didnt do their math when planning 9/11.
4 planes, 3 buildings, 1 very large hole in the ground
QUOTE
Even Hollywood does a better job than 9/11!!
is that what this is about? 9/11 didnt look like a hollywood movie so it must be fake?
QUOTE
Then when you are done with that don't rely on Loose Change, it's not the only documentary covering the inconsistancies. Checkout the following site and get all documentaries under your belt. If you are honest with yourself and watch them completely you will never believe the official 9/11 Cover Story again. Good night.
loose change isnt the only documentary ive watched and its not the only documentary ive found to be full of crap
and in closing, as far as "thinking for myself" thats nearly impossible in a situation such as this, so your right, im no better qualified to state why the tower should or shouldnt have collapsed than you are, so how does that make me more blind than you?
the people who ARE qualified to make such statements (actual RELEVANT experts like structural engineers and demolitions experts) all agree with the NIST FEMA and 9/11 Commission reports, and what evidence i can examine myself i do (believe me, ive been looking into this who thing before the first conspiracy movie was ever put out there)
the truth is, your not unhappy that i havent done any independent research, your unhappy because i HAVE done research, and i dont agree with you, along with any other intelligent person who does research
Post by: mmm12dna on June 08, 2006, 12:00:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 12 2006, 11:51 PM)
the structural steel used in teh construction of the towers would have been significantly weakened by the fire, this normally wouldnt have an effect as they were encased in a fireproof covering (to prevent just such an event, this is also why none of the other building that burned for hours mentioned in LC1 collapsed) this casing was stripped off by the inpact of the plane, exposing the steel to the fire and weakening it very quickly
when that section of the structure failed the rest of the support frame could no longer withstand the forces exerted by the top 1/3 of the building, causing the complete collapse
as for the "squibs" i see no evidence to indicate they are explosions at all (they certainly dont look liek explosions in any of the footage ive seen) and i dont think you do either, you just heard someone call them that and now you believe it
lordvader129
if you can find evidence of hijackers in f77 which crashed into Pentagon, you can DO me and I promise I will wash up nicely for you.... hint.. check the flight manifesto of passengers and see if you can find a name of hijackers... another hint, check the autopsy reports that identified the bodies in the Pentagon crash site...
to say that the fire weaken the structure is a joke and WTC were designed for multiple plane crashes... fi the top collapsed because of the fire and the crash, it is impossible for the whole building to crumble. See the fine dust/powder of concrete covered up everywhere inches high!! what kind of collapse can do that??
if pancake effect happened, the steel reinforced concrete cores would still be there... nothing can pancake the central cores away, which go straight up to the sky.. do you care to explain the molten lava that was still red hot weeks later in the basement of tower 1, 2 and building 7 ???
FBI just came out and said that "no hard evidence has connected Osama Bin Laden to 911". all we want is a thorough investigation of 911.... after all, Bush and neocon agenda has everything to gain from this attack, not the Al Qeada. Even if Bush and Cheney did absolutely nothing during 911, the attacks would be neutralised.... that's the standard defense mechanism in this country, but it totally collapsed that day with 15 military exercises going on the same day to confuse the real attack from the real military excercises, and to sent most if not all flighter jets away from their bases to fight an imaginary enemy far north to Alaska and Canada...
there are way too many records that Al Qeada members were working with CIA etc...
Trillions of dollars missing from Pentagon audit and the debate over Gore's 2000 stolen election were the two major concerns before 911.-just two examples of how convenient 911 really was for Bush and the military industry complex... after 911, no one from media/the publics mentioned these issues..
it took decades for americans to wake up from the lies of JFK tragedy since the majority of this nation don't buy the official report anymore. 911 will wake us up much sooner!!!
if you ask why they do it, the answer is 1. they could 2. they got away with it many times(JFK, Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, Oklahoma bombing, illegal/privately owned Fed. Reserve, un-consititutional income tax/IRS...etc). 3 money and power..
Post by: mmm12dna on June 08, 2006, 12:19:00 AM
QUOTE(Heet @ May 31 2006, 03:39 AM)
If tom cruise believes it, it must be true LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Its funny because these are the types of people that believe shit like this.
it's funny that people can believe that molten lava is caused by fire from jet fuels???..!!
funny how people can believe in shit like this...
Post by: maltonbranch on June 08, 2006, 03:27:00 AM
The twin towers falling at FREEFALL speed, the structure supports. blown into 30meter bits, no beams sticking up out of the gound. Proves, the towers didnt fall by fire damage. LOL oh my god, sod tom cruise its fact thats proved. open your eyes holly shit bush is killing your country and us all. he doesnt regard anything worthy. look at the ozone, he doesnt give a damn as hes benefitting from it.
I love you yanks who believe it, even when there is evidience. And alot of it. If the fire was so hot, why was there people hanging out the holes of where the plane crahed into the towers. Where did the heat come from if you say thats what brought down the towers as it all burned off in a big ball of fire outside. where did this heat come from, as the periodic Stats its impossible. IMPOSSIBLE that jet fuel even if it didnt all burn off like it did could melt the steel.
People say its an insult to the victims of 911 when people mention conspiracy. Its an insult to look at the evidience and facts of 9/11 - and be blind to it as you Dare not stand upto bush or even open your eyes to it. Damn people 16foot hole...lol jumbo jet + 16foothole = impossible.
I know people are blind in life physically. but i never knew people with common sense can be blind mentally.
Nuff said from me.
Bring down bush!
Post by: maltonbranch on June 08, 2006, 03:41:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ May 12 2006, 02:25 AM)
i watched the first half of the first loose change and it was so full of underinformed bullshit i couldnt bear to watch the rest of it, i wont be wasting an hour of my life on the second installment
LOL, underinformed....ooops wernt they informed by the same person as your been informed by....Bush!
Again another hick who wont watch it all. and then states a comment. IQ's on some people.
You never stated a comment on how the facts are wrong. why they are wrong. you just say underinformed. lol
every person that see this and doesnt admit its correct never say why its wrong. never. they say its possible for sky scraper to fall at free fall from fire. prove it as there is none in history apart trade towers "cough". bollox
I cant believe you have swallowed it from bush when the evidience proves hes lying.
Post by: maltonbranch on June 08, 2006, 04:25:00 AM
Post by: lordvader129 on June 08, 2006, 10:41:00 AM
Quote
Im sorry, but a jumbo jet does not dissapear. the wings would show on the pentagon. the engines would create there own holes and the lawn would be marked. But it isnt.
Post by: damam on June 08, 2006, 01:53:00 PM
excellent post
have you read the nist report?
Post by: throwingks on June 08, 2006, 02:59:00 PM
Bow down to Vader.
That belongs in the best of xbox-scene thread. Too bad it is in the comedy forum, or I would post it there.
Post by: Alex548 on June 08, 2006, 06:33:00 PM
QUOTE
That belongs in the best of xbox-scene thread. Too bad it is in the comedy forum, or I would post it there.
I actually found it to be a quite amusing.
Did you notice the join dates of all those idiots who were talking crap prior to Mr. Vader's comments?
They all thought they had the last word in this debate... and 8 hours after vader's post... none of them have come back to post a reply.
Post by: lordvader129 on June 08, 2006, 07:42:00 PM
QUOTE(Alex548 @ Jun 8 2006, 08:40 PM)
I actually found it to be a quite amusing.
Did you notice the join dates of all those idiots who were talking crap prior to Mr. Vader's comments?
They all thought they had the last word in this debate... and 8 hours after vader's post... none of them have come back to post a reply.
methinks idiots should be more like idiot, i kinda doubt multiple people happen to see this thread and join at the same time
but much like their conspiracy theory theres no evidence so im forced to not ban them (of course if i were to think like them theyd all be banned just for disagreeing with me, lol)
Post by: CattyKid on June 08, 2006, 08:49:00 PM
QUOTE(maltonbranch @ Jun 8 2006, 05:34 AM)
Where did the heat come from if you say thats what brought down the towers as it all burned off in a big ball of fire outside. where did this heat come from, as the periodic Stats its impossible. IMPOSSIBLE that jet fuel even if it didnt all burn off like it did could melt the steel.
This is the ONE thing I don't get. Now, if there WERE in fact things like office supplies, computers, electrical wiring burning and jet fuel did not produce significant heat to melt steel, then where did this heat come from? A burning piece of paper can't melt steel. I doubt burning insulation on wiring could melt steel. Computers, chairs (fabrics), cubicles (don't burn at too high a temp, right?)... them burning can melt steel? Doesn't SOUND right, does it to any of you?
Now, what I would ask next is... IS there an explosive that can melt steel, since people claim this proves they were brought down by explosives? If so, is it hot enough to flash-melt steel, since for example, a steel column would only be exposed to the heat from an explosion for a fraction of a second, right?
Post by: lordvader129 on June 08, 2006, 10:05:00 PM
QUOTE(CattyKid @ Jun 8 2006, 10:56 PM)
This is the ONE thing I don't get. Now, if there WERE in fact things like office supplies, computers, electrical wiring burning and jet fuel did not produce significant heat to melt steel, then where did this heat come from? A burning piece of paper can't melt steel. I doubt burning insulation on wiring could melt steel. Computers, chairs (fabrics), cubicles (don't burn at too high a temp, right?)... them burning can melt steel? Doesn't SOUND right, does it to any of you?
Now, what I would ask next is... IS there an explosive that can melt steel, since people claim this proves they were brought down by explosives? If so, is it hot enough to flash-melt steel, since for example, a steel column would only be exposed to the heat from an explosion for a fraction of a second, right?
well for one thing the steel didnt melt, not before the towers collapsed at least, the fires softened the already dammaged steel structure to a point where they could not hold the weight of the upper part of the building
in demolition linear shaped charges, or cutting charges, like these are used
as the name implies, they dont melt anything, they cut it, they are fast burning and produce a very large blast wave which cuts the steel, resulting in this
BEFORE
AFTER
the melted steel was found weeks and even months after the towers fell, which theorists say is proof of very hot explosives used (thermite for example, even though thermite isnt an explosive, its more like a very hot napalm) however nothign could impart so much heat to the steel that it would still be melted months later (the steel along with the entire tower would have been vaporized by that much heat) so it means there must have been a constant heat source on the steel under the debris
over the course of weeks or months, even a wood fire can impart enough heat to melt steel (given the nice blanket of debris to prevent heat from escaping)
Post by: Alex548 on June 09, 2006, 12:35:00 AM
QUOTE(lordvader129 @ Jun 8 2006, 06:49 PM)
methinks idiots should be more like idiot, i kinda doubt multiple people happen to see this thread and join at the same time
but much like their conspiracy theory theres no evidence so im forced to not ban them (of course if i were to think like them theyd all be banned just for disagreeing with me, lol)
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing you were. 1 idiot creating multiple accounts and making multiple BS posts.
Post by: Aquarillis on June 09, 2006, 11:20:00 AM
Quote
1. Claim: Charles Burlingame, an ex-Navy F4 pilot who worked in the Pentagon, participated in an exercise simulating crashing a 757 into a building in October 2000, before retiring to take a job at American Airlines,
Post by: lordvader129 on June 09, 2006, 11:52:00 AM
Quote
Source?
Post by: Chook on June 09, 2006, 04:15:00 PM
The fuel wouldn't burn completly because it reaches its UEL, where there is too much fuel and not enough oxygen for a flash explosion.
I have friends who think it was faked. This I doubt. I do give some likelyhood that the government didn't do everything to stop the events that they knew about.
Post by: lordvader129 on June 09, 2006, 10:18:00 PM
QUOTE
QUOTE
Then what planes landed there, and why was there such suspicious activity in Cleaveland?
one of them was Delta 11, which was believed to have been hijacked (it wasnt) people referring to it as "the hijacked plane" could have led to confusion, ive never seen any records of "suspicious activity" other than what loose change provides
just want to make a corect here, Delta 1989 was the thought-to-be hijacked plane that landed in cleveland, American 11 was another thought-to-be hijacked plane (it didnt land in cleveland)
Post by: lordvader129 on June 10, 2006, 01:55:00 PM
QUOTE
Why does the Commission not mention the bomb that was believed to have been aboard Delta 1989?
Why does the Commission not mention when it was known that Delta 1989 wasnt hijacked?
Why does the Commission not mention the evacuation of Cleveland tower, airport and city?
Why does the Commission not explain the reason why Delta was believed to have been hijacked?
Why does the Commission not mention when it was known that Delta 1989 wasnt hijacked?
Why does the Commission not mention the evacuation of Cleveland tower, airport and city?
Why does the Commission not explain the reason why Delta was believed to have been hijacked?
the 9/11 Commission investigated the hijackings and terror attacks of 9/11, Delta 1989 was neither hijacked no involved in any terrorist activity (this was clear once it landed) so it was not investigated
QUOTE
Why does the Commission not explain why FAA and NORAD seem to have worked perfectly for Delta but not for UA 93?
ever wonder why the terrorists deactivate the transponders? its because those broadcast identifying information about the plane, UA 93 was off course with no transponder, making it very difficult to track
Delta 1989 was on course (until it was asked to land in cleveland) and its transponder was on, making it easy to identify and track