Print

[ximmortalxxkingx]

I just saw this last night. It was amazing. It was how the government staged 9/11, why, and how. Now, dont post ANYTHING unless you FULLY watch it. Discussion is great, but you dont need to be discussion somthing you have only seen half of. So if you didnt finish, dont post. Second. Whether you believe it or not, DONT FLAME AT ALL.

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)

[gcskate27]

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

[lordvader129]

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

[ximmortalxxkingx]

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

[lordvader129]

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

[gcskate27]

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...

[lordvader129]

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...

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)

[ximmortalxxkingx]

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

[lordvader129]

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

[gcskate27]

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... 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...

[lordvader129]

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

[gcskate27]

*just went and read your comments in the other thread so you can skip most of the below, but i strongly suggest you look into steve jones' stuff...

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...

[lordvader129]

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

[ximmortalxxkingx]

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 )

[lordvader129]

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