Topic: Loose Change: 2nd Edition, How The Government Staged 9/11 (Read 566 times)

ximmortalxxkingx · « **Reply #15 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

lordvader129 · « **Reply #16 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

ximmortalxxkingx · « **Reply #17 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

lordvader129 · « **Reply #18 on:** May 12, 2006, 10:28:00 PM »

so whats version 2 about this video? its all the same footage, quotes, narrations and music as the first one, the only difference is they talk about the pentagon first then the wtc (it was wtc then pentagon in the first one)

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

gcskate27 · « **Reply #19 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...

lordvader129 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2006, 12:12:00 PM »

dylan avery likes to talk about using common sense, so lets do that

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

gcskate27 · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2006, 01:57:00 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...

lordvader129 · « **Reply #22 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?

gcskate27 · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2006, 04:28:00 PM »

gee maybe thats what further investigation could answer...

lordvader129 · « **Reply #24 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

gcskate27 · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2006, 04:46:00 PM »

READ THAT LECTURE BY STEVE JONES

lordvader129 · « **Reply #26 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

guitarfrk · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2006, 08:57:00 PM »

im not really decided for or against this conspiracy...

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)

brandogg · « **Reply #28 on:** May 14, 2006, 07:10:00 PM »

You're right about the steel - because it didn't melt. No one has ever claimed that the steel melted. It did, however, become extremely hot, as you said, 2000 degrees. For a science project, go to a building the size of the WTC, and go to the same location where the planes hit, then bump the temperature up to 2000 degrees, and watch the steel cave in. It doesn't need to melt, at 2000 degrees it has lost all of it's strength and can no longer support the millions upon millions of pounds of building on top of it. I'll agree that the government is ot to be trusted, but if you even fathom that the whole 9/11 attacks were faked, and the towers were bombed, then you are a grade A fucking moron.

gcskate27 · « **Reply #29 on:** May 14, 2006, 07:59:00 PM »

what does that look like dripping from the tower?

IPB Image

Author Topic: Loose Change: 2nd Edition, How The Government Staged 9/11 (Read 566 times)