Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Crap! My comment from this morning never showed up! It was the first one of about 40 I made on blogs today. Thanks, you guys, for posting there.
Loose Change
- Thread starter delphi_ote
- Start date
- Status
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
From reading that site's opening post, I'm gonna go off in the woods and become a hermit, 'cause there may be no hope for mankind.
Ramooone
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 134
they get more paranoid by the minute....
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3940&view=findpost&p=4311529
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=3940&view=findpost&p=4311529
wow these people are immensly deluded. Drop outs. I am speechless seeing that 'we are serious' rubbish. Its basically people who hate bush. These people have so many screws loose.
These guys have no idea the difference between a movie and real life!
Xmen is real! Superman lives! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I love Australia.
You guy shave it all. Intelligent Design. Conspiracy nuts screaming about demolitions without evidence. I mean omg, pentagon bodies got taken to a different morgue then others during 9/11! cover up!
You know on the weekend, one of the teams expected to win in the Australian Football League didn't!! ◊◊◊◊ conspiracy!
These guys have no idea the difference between a movie and real life!
Xmen is real! Superman lives! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
I love Australia.
You guy shave it all. Intelligent Design. Conspiracy nuts screaming about demolitions without evidence. I mean omg, pentagon bodies got taken to a different morgue then others during 9/11! cover up!
You know on the weekend, one of the teams expected to win in the Australian Football League didn't!! ◊◊◊◊ conspiracy!
for your consideration
it seems as though you all have thought very much about this issue and have researched it extensivly. perhpas you could address some particular issues with which I find intruiging and worthy of further analysis. I appologise for typing the links longhand, apparently members with fewer than 15 posts aren't allowed to post links.
Initially the most convincing evidence I saw that the twin towers where taken down by explosives where the demolition squibs found in most of the videos showing the collapse.
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
Here's a good sight where you can really check it out. The loose change video also shows a whole bunch of them frrom different video tapes.
physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Here's a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, which brings to light some very interesting evidence regarding molten steel found at ground zero, more info on the demolition squibs, the phenomena of WTC 7, and what appears to be cordite dripping from one of the towers before it falls.
Nobody has of yet been able to find another steel reinforced skyscraper that colllapsed because of a fire. As you can see here: portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310898.shtml
there are many buildings in which fires have raged far longer and hotter than in the WTC towers and have stood firm. As a matter of fact the WTC itself had an inferno within it that lasted for 3 hours in the 1970's, and that was before they added fireproofing technology like sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
You may say that it was a combination of the impact of the jet and the fire that caused the collapse, the fire not melting the steel but weekening it enouph for it to not be able to support the building. However, even if that where true (which experts in "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" seem not to think), the steal beams below the fire would retain their structural integrety and would remain standing or would only bend, causing the building to fall sideways rather than straight down. The reason you need demolitions to bring down a building like this is because you have to cut the steel beams into segments in order for the building to fall straight down.
The fires in the trade center where actually dying down before the collapse, as indicated by black smoke coming from the towers. Here there's a recording of a fire fighter who reached the 78th floor of the second tower and seemed to think that the fire would be easy to contain.
wnyc.org/news/articles/7869
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons". This allows for an explanation as to how the bombs could have appeared within the towers.
Then of course there's the put options:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/19/BU184559.DTL
made before the attacks which indicate the strong possibility of forknowledge of the attack and of which Lyn Howard claimed that the CBOE was investigating. To date no such investigation has been made public.
Another peculiar piece of information which should also be investigated is Larry Silverstein's purchase of the 2 main WTC buildings and a substantial insurance claim put in effect, both shortly before the 9/11 attacks. He even went so far as to demand twice the insurance reimbersement, one for each seperate plane crash.
So these are a few preliminary pieces of evidence that I submit to your forum in the interest of challenging your skeptical stance on the issue and for obtaining feedback as to possible alternate interpretations of the evidence. Most of the evidence I've presented is contained within the Loose Change 2 video.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
I'm personally dissapointed that the government hasn't addressed most of these issues, and there are many people (including professional physicists, engineers, and similar experts as represented in the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" orginization) who find the goverment appointed investigations full of inconsistancies and impossibilites.
it seems as though you all have thought very much about this issue and have researched it extensivly. perhpas you could address some particular issues with which I find intruiging and worthy of further analysis. I appologise for typing the links longhand, apparently members with fewer than 15 posts aren't allowed to post links.
Initially the most convincing evidence I saw that the twin towers where taken down by explosives where the demolition squibs found in most of the videos showing the collapse.
911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html
Here's a good sight where you can really check it out. The loose change video also shows a whole bunch of them frrom different video tapes.
physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Here's a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, which brings to light some very interesting evidence regarding molten steel found at ground zero, more info on the demolition squibs, the phenomena of WTC 7, and what appears to be cordite dripping from one of the towers before it falls.
Nobody has of yet been able to find another steel reinforced skyscraper that colllapsed because of a fire. As you can see here: portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310898.shtml
there are many buildings in which fires have raged far longer and hotter than in the WTC towers and have stood firm. As a matter of fact the WTC itself had an inferno within it that lasted for 3 hours in the 1970's, and that was before they added fireproofing technology like sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
You may say that it was a combination of the impact of the jet and the fire that caused the collapse, the fire not melting the steel but weekening it enouph for it to not be able to support the building. However, even if that where true (which experts in "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" seem not to think), the steal beams below the fire would retain their structural integrety and would remain standing or would only bend, causing the building to fall sideways rather than straight down. The reason you need demolitions to bring down a building like this is because you have to cut the steel beams into segments in order for the building to fall straight down.
The fires in the trade center where actually dying down before the collapse, as indicated by black smoke coming from the towers. Here there's a recording of a fire fighter who reached the 78th floor of the second tower and seemed to think that the fire would be easy to contain.
wnyc.org/news/articles/7869
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for "security reasons". This allows for an explanation as to how the bombs could have appeared within the towers.
Then of course there's the put options:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/19/BU184559.DTL
made before the attacks which indicate the strong possibility of forknowledge of the attack and of which Lyn Howard claimed that the CBOE was investigating. To date no such investigation has been made public.
Another peculiar piece of information which should also be investigated is Larry Silverstein's purchase of the 2 main WTC buildings and a substantial insurance claim put in effect, both shortly before the 9/11 attacks. He even went so far as to demand twice the insurance reimbersement, one for each seperate plane crash.
So these are a few preliminary pieces of evidence that I submit to your forum in the interest of challenging your skeptical stance on the issue and for obtaining feedback as to possible alternate interpretations of the evidence. Most of the evidence I've presented is contained within the Loose Change 2 video.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
I'm personally dissapointed that the government hasn't addressed most of these issues, and there are many people (including professional physicists, engineers, and similar experts as represented in the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" orginization) who find the goverment appointed investigations full of inconsistancies and impossibilites.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Welcome, Xraye! All of your questions have been addressed in this thread and elsewhere, but I don't expect you to slog through 80-some pages to find it. I only mention this to prepare you for the impatience you are going to encounter. A lot of people here have debated many times over these same questions, introduced by newbies in ones and twos, using the same links and same questions.
Don't take it personally, and I hope you stick around.
I'll be addressing some of your questions personally, but I have to go to work. In the meantime, please review the critique of Loose Change mentioned in my signature. There's a wealth of information there.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Well, here's a strange thing. After seeing the responses, I couldn't help going over there and explaining what I meant. And now I can't post there. No notice of suspension, nothing. I just can't reply to threads. I was, however, able to edit my sig.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
here's a video of an interesting perspective givin by 2 foriegn intelligence agents. in it they cite the neo conservative document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", as well as a book entitled "The Grand Chessboard" written by Zbigniew Brzezinksi who was the National Secretary Advisor to Carter and who worked with Regan in an intelligence capacity. both are very interesting pieces of evidence that give much credence to the possibility of a governmental conspiracy in which 9/11 was used as a catalyst to gain popular support for thier foriegn adjenda.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8274552561914055825
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,459
Welcome to the forum! You're in for a bumpy ride, but you are far more welcome here than we are at the Loose Change forum.
We covered this somewhere in the 85 preceding pages. I know its huge but it would be good etiquette to read them and respond to the responses, not just present the same evidence we've already seen.
We've seen all this too.
And this.
Would the steel beams below the fire retain their structural integrity if the building above fell down upon them? You're going to need a lot of math to prove that. Also, you don't know what is happening to the core inside the building. The outer shell is collapsing straight down, but inside the building, the vertical core sgments could be shearing, bending, snapping or toppling. How do you know whats happening in there?
You going to need a lot of math regarding the heat conductivity of steel, concrete etc to show that the steel was actually cooling while the fires died down. Steel retains heat for a long time. How small does a fire have to be for the net tempertaure change to be negative rather than positive? If you want to make a claim its up to you to do the working.
In this thread its been clearly shown that rigging the WTC for demolition would have taken weeks, not hours. Does Ben Fountain or any of the other 20,000+ survivors describe any evidence of the building being torn up and put back together after one of these drills?
Tiresome old news. It has been investigated, but the findings were too boring to make it onto the moonbat boards.
How dare he buy stuff! How dare he insure it! How dare he claim on the insureance! What on earth is so strange about this?
You're way too late to challenge us with this stuff. If you have more however, bring it forth..
The government hasn't addressed the issues because they are in possession of so much more information than you are. They know that your questions don't even make sense when viewed alongside that evidence. They also know that your 'experts' are a tiny fringe movement of cranks working outsode their expertise, and that the general public will just believe whatever the hell they want. Answering all this nonsense would be a vast and pointless waste of time. Look what happened to the official Roswell report.... or don't you believe that either?
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Hi Xraye. Welcome aboard. I have to second Chipmunk Stew's recommendation to read that critique of "Loose Change." I have to second it because I wrote it
, and I took some time to address, in detail, nearly all of the questions you ask. You requested that we watch "Loose Change." I contend that no one besides Avery, Rowe and Bermas has watched it more closely than I have. Actually, in terms of its substance and specific claims, I contend that I have watched it much, much more closely than they have.Do you have any evidence that anyone not named in the "official" version was involved in any way in the planning or execution of the terrorist attacks of 9/11?
ETA: I assume that you're from the "Loose Change" forum. I would have posted my critique there, but I was banned quite a while ago because the mods felt that I was "wasting people's time" and "arguing dishonestly"...on a thread I started. That thread, by the way, was by far the most popular on the site. Can I get your opinion about the LC mods, who claim to be "truth seekeers." banning people who disagree with the claims made in the video? It's been an ongoing problem.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You truly are a despicable, rotten man. How dare you question people's emotions, now ? You look at a picture, decide the emotion is not genuine, and somehow decide that this supports your childish theory.
You might have notice I've stopped beign polite, now.
Shrinker, I'm surprised that you don't feel welcome to post in the other forum. What gives you that impression? Gravy and Shrinker, on your advice I'll wade through the previous posts and make note of any relevant posts that may adress my questions, as well as the websight you've made which addresses the Loose Change video.
It may take me some time to research my response to your guy's questions, so please be patient.
It may take me some time to research my response to your guy's questions, so please be patient.
Belz...
Fiend God
Woah... I mean... you just... like... demolished his arguments with such eloquence and ease that I must now become one of you.
...no... really, geggy. I'm sure we're just a few years away from brain transplant. Wouldn't that work great for you ?
Belz...
Fiend God
Except that large-scale conspiracies are impossible.
Doesn't ANYONE in the CT croud have psychological, historical or sociological training ?
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
Welcome to the forum.
Skeptics don't feel welcome at the LC forum, because we keep getting banned or suspended for what seem like spurious reasons, one poster got a 3 month suspension for just asking what the forum rules are! Mods over there have given very clear indications that if you don't "get it" after your first few threads there, then you are an "obvious troll" who should not waste their time. Over here you will not be suspended or banned for your views, or rules are clearly stated, and we even have an appeals process.
Reeco
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2005
- Messages
- 551
Please, let's not try and kid anyone here. The Loose Change forums are not a good place for debate, unless you happen to believe in the CT. It's a boys club.
Also, I'm not sure how closely you've watched the footage of the WTC collapse if you believe the fires were nearly out. They were raging right up until the last.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
The site you link to says itself that "It shows two very distinct squibs emerging from the North Tower's northwest side, which is in profile on the tower's right, at about two and five seconds into the collapse."
So they didn't cause the collapse, did they?
Moreover I can't help but notice that the holes in the building associated with these "squibs" seem to be rather smaller than the one associated with the plane.
You seem to have answered yourself.
Have you done the math? 'Cos I've seen a lot of reports by experts, and they don't seem to be of your opinion.
Unfortunately the fire dying down would not restore structural strength to the building.
More later ...
- Status