Topic: Loose Change: 2nd Edition, How The Government Staged 9/11 (Read 564 times)

Heet · « **Reply #30 on:** May 14, 2006, 10:29:00 PM »

Its the same conspiracy liberal tripe that you can find on 999,999,999 liberal websites.

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.

gcskate27 · « **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2006, 02:57:00 AM »

yeah lol, evidence be damned: liberals are stupid lol

throwingks · « **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:02:00 AM »

Aren't 90% of professors liberal? Yeah, they must be stupid.

lordvader129 · « **Reply #33 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

gcskate27 · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2006, 12:24:00 PM »

vader, where do you get your facts exactly?

slightly_damp · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2006, 01:18:00 PM »

*shakes head in disbelief*

lordvader129 · « **Reply #36 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?

gcskate27 · « **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:03:00 PM »

well for one, the 25% destruction of the lower floors of wtc7... does this look that damaged to you?
IPB Image

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?

lordvader129 · « **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2006, 05:45:00 PM »

what does the other side of the building look like?

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

gcskate27 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:38:00 PM »

so the other buildings were magically unharmed?

you still havent mentioned what your sources are... wheres that 25% claim come from?

Alex548 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:43:00 PM »

Try this out:

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?

lordvader129 · « **Reply #41 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?

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

Alex548 · « **Reply #42 on:** May 15, 2006, 06:57:00 PM »

Yeah, thanx for that link. Was some pretty good reading & it provides first hand accounts from people who were actually there as well as explanations by experts who know more than someone who is reading the conspiracy crap on the internet.

damam · « **Reply #43 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.

Alex548 · « **Reply #44 on:** May 16, 2006, 02:54:00 PM »

For those of you conspiracy theorists who claim a plane never hit the pentagon and truly believe it was a missle...

Click Me

Author Topic: Loose Change: 2nd Edition, How The Government Staged 9/11 (Read 564 times)