The "Oh God, Here We Go Again about a 9/11 Conspiracy" Thread [Archive]

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 01:22 PM

dear god, this has been shot down to death

loose change is your evidence? really now lol

read this too ok
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

How come there where many older buildings which had been burning longer, and even one which had a plane crashed into it, and they didnt collapse, then?

Also dont forget the steel used in the buildings where tested to a standard which meant they where completely fireproof for up to a huge amount of hours, and even normal steel would last a few hours.

Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

What about the explosions seen while the building was falling? And how the news heard the explosions at the base before the buildings collapsed?

Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

How come WTC7 was seen in the background when a reporter was saying it has collapsed? How would they get that info in advance?

When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Maybe, but where where the engines? How come there was a part that wasent even recognized? How come the explosion looked like a missile not the plane explosions caused by the jet fuel? How come almost all of the footage which would prove what the government say is the truth are hidden? Where are the marks on the ground?

MacNut

Sep 29, 2008, 01:26 PM

Wow this thread has way more propaganda than the average person can deal with. And they say the right spews a lot of crap.

dukebound85

Sep 29, 2008, 01:41 PM

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 01:47 PM

hey you know gullible isnt written in the dictionary?

http://www.america.gov/st/pubs-english/2007/March/20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/1.html this link focuses all on the pentagon and loose changes bogus claims

The first picture on the last link looks Photoshopped.

Regardless, it all comes down to the fact we could spend the rest of time providing each other with biased links, but we would never agree with each other about this.

There is plenty of evidence either way, and just because the film Loose Change made mistakes or you can provide a few photos, it dosent really prove anything.

I suppose the only guy that really knows for sure what happened on that day is Bush, and he aint gonna tell anyone, is he?

Therefore, we will never really know what happened for sure. Simple as that.

dukebound85

Sep 29, 2008, 01:54 PM

The first picture on the last link looks Photoshopped.

Regardless, it all comes down to the fact we could spend the rest of time providing each other with biased links, but we would never agree with each other about this.

There is plenty of evidence either way, and just because the film Loose Change made mistakes or you can provide a few photos, it dosent really prove anything.

I suppose the only guy that really knows for sure what happened on that day is Bush, and he aint gonna tell anyone, is he?

Therefore, we will never really know what happened for sure. Simple as that.

i beg to differ. there is much more evidence supporting it not to be a conspiracy than evidence there is. if loose change is the best "evidence" you can dig up, then that is woefully inadequate. as far as proving, what else do you want? the links ive provided prove the claims in loose change are crap. meanwhile, you only provide the loose change video and then your opinion which was fed to you by that movie

why hasnt loose change released another video countering these claims? because they cant, pure and simple. as far as biased links, all the links ive provided just use the facts to prove loose change wrong. thats called being objective. loose change does a good job leaving out a lot of the story and fills it in with what they want it to be rather than what it really is.

and that photo photoshopped? you must be trying to find excuses to belive in that movie now lol

some people just like to believe in conspiracies...

TheAnswer

Sep 29, 2008, 02:07 PM

Please, let's not this thread turn into another rehash of the exhaustive 9/11 conspiracy thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=287929).

Let's concentrate this thread on the latest conspiracy...and how aluminum foil has supplanted tin foil, even though aluminum is inferior in reflecting the alien/government thought reading waves.

Iscariot

Sep 29, 2008, 02:14 PM

There is plenty of evidence either way, and just because the film Loose Change made mistakes or you can provide a few photos, it dosent really prove anything.

There actually isn't plenty of evidence either way, and that's the problem. There is zero physical evidence that this was an inside job. There is thousands of tonnes of physical evidence that planes were flown into towers. The fact that the guy who made Loose Change doesn't even have a basic understanding of physics is kind of an indication he doesn't know what he's talking about. There are 345 instances of conjecture not supported by evidence, logical fallacies, and other errors of omission or research in the video. That's one error every 23 seconds!

And then, of course, you're alleging that one of the most incompetent administrations in American history, an administration incapable of outing Valerie Plame without it being blown wide open, of masterminding the greatest conspiracy that has ever existed? Only to be defeated by some youngster with a love of his own voice and a scrappy can-do attitude?

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 02:22 PM

dukebound85

Sep 29, 2008, 02:27 PM

The nature of the evidence it was a inside job is a conspiracy, wherefore there will be no certain evidence, however there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Why are the video tapes that would prove the government's story about the pentagon where eight hidden from the public?

without certain evidence, you have no leg to stand on

those tapes are classified. how does it suprise you that there are classified documents pertaining to the largest attack on US soil since WW2

BigHungry04

Sep 29, 2008, 02:36 PM

dear god, this has been shot down to death

loose change is your evidence? really now lol

read this
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I was just about to post that link when I saw that you posted it. The only downside to these people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy is that even when presented with scientific evidence that provides 99% chance that it happened the way the government says it happened, they say there's still a chance that it was that way, and yet when asked to provide verifiable evidence they can't.

Once there is verifiable proof the the 9/11 conspiracy, I'll believe it. Until there is I will believe what I saw and what the government says.

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 02:52 PM

Just to clear this up, Loose Change is NOT my only evidence.

All you have to do is search Google for "9/11 conspiracy" and you will get many sites - and films, for that matter - supporting my opinion.

Whether you choose to believe whatever George Bush says or not is none of my business, but I watch the world with an open mind, and I certainly wont believe something when Bush - who cheated in the elections and started a war on Iraq with no evidence of weapons there - says.

Also, answer this, how come on the FBI's wanted poster for Bin Laden it dosent say anything about 9/11, and when asked why they said they had no evidence.

Iscariot

Sep 29, 2008, 03:38 PM

Just to clear this up, Loose Change is NOT my only evidence.

Loose change isn't evidence, with nearly three errors for every minute of film. The very fact that films and sites like it have to grasp at such tiny straws is that there simply is no evidence.

Occam's razor. What is more likely: that a small group of men hijacked planes in one terrible attack, or that the machinations of a government that can't cover up a simple break-in at a hotel managed to silence thousands of people and engineer the greatest conspiracy to have ever occurred without a single person coming forward to speak up (except for a scrappy youngin' with a can-do attitude and Windows Moviemaker)?

What you're proposing is simply absurd, and no one has yet been able to supply any alternative explanation with fewer errors or omissions than the official story. It has nothing to do with being "open-minded", it has everything to do with a crippling lack of reason. The numerous lies of President Bush that you cite as motive are actually brilliant evidence in his own defense; each and every one of his administration's idiotic blunders have been revealed for what they are. You are attributing what would be one of the greatest conspiracy acts ever masterminded to an administration that can't even convincingly fake evidence for the Iraq war.

there will be no certain evidence

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. With the thousands of rescue workings (including volunteers) not a single one thought to pick up or photograph anything suspicious? Are they all in on it too?

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 04:33 PM

Loose change isn't evidence, with nearly three errors for every minute of film.

Thats for the second cut, what about the final cut which uses all new content?

Badandy

Sep 29, 2008, 04:39 PM

Thats for the second cut, what about the final cut which uses all new content?

All I can say is that you truly do reside in your stated location.

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 04:42 PM

All I can say is that you truly do reside in your stated location.

Nope, I reside in the real world, whereas you, and others who have been arguing with me, live in a world where whatever the government say must me true.

Queso

Sep 29, 2008, 04:43 PM

Nope, I reside in the real world, whereas you, and others who have been arguing with me, live in a world where whatever the government say must me true.
You are David Icke and I claim my $10!!

MacNut

Sep 29, 2008, 04:45 PM

"I reject you're reality and substitute my own."

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 04:45 PM

You are David Icke and I claim my $10!!

Errr... What? :confused:

Queso

Sep 29, 2008, 04:48 PM

Errr... What? :confused:
Errr... What? :confused: indeed....

Link (http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/)

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 04:55 PM

Errr... What? :confused: indeed....

Link (http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/)

I'm nothing like that, his belifs remind me strangely of Xenu... :p

I, however, dont believe what is fed to me by the media... Dosent mean I believe there is weird crap controlling the world.

MacNut

Sep 29, 2008, 04:57 PM

By media you mean the movie you are promoting?

Can this side convo be spun of as it has nothing to do with the thread.

BoyBach

Sep 29, 2008, 04:58 PM

Oh god, not again!:rolleyes:

That response was far too polite.

If Bush doesn't leave office there will be a revolution and it will be televised.

Nah. Surely the revolution will be blogged? :D

You are David Icke and I claim my $10!!

I can remember watching him being interviewed on 'This Morning' a few years ago, and it looked like Fern Britton and Phillip Schofield were going to hurt themselves in their attempts not to burst into laughter. Fortunately for me and my work colleagues, we didn't have to worry about such politeness and pissed ourselves!

mactastic

Sep 29, 2008, 05:00 PM

How come there where many older buildings which had been burning longer, and even one which had a plane crashed into it, and they didnt collapse, then?

Also dont forget the steel used in the buildings where tested to a standard which meant they where completely fireproof for up to a huge amount of hours, and even normal steel would last a few hours.
I'm (almost) an architect, so let me give you a little perspective on this. Steel is a ductile material. It's properties begin to change rapidly under heat, which is why fireproofing is required for steel structural members. When steel heats up, it doesn't simply fail, it stretches. And stretches and stretches. At temperatures of around 800 degrees this begins to happen.

Fireproofing at the time the WTC was built typically included a spray-on application of a foam that provided heat resistance. The length of required protection dictated how thick the application was. But an explosion that would strip the fireproofing from the structural members was not factored into the design, and as a result the fire protection was not required to be able to resist those types of forces. When the planes hit, that fireproofing was simply blown off the columns and beams, and the steel was instantly exposed to the heat of the fire. This is not an unreasonable scenario. I've touched this kind of fireproofing, and it is easily removed with your fingers. An explosion adjacent to it would clear the steel of any fireproofing.

As the steel stretches, it starts to transfer the load it was carrying to other structural members. Eventually you will surpass not only the design load, but the ultimate failure strength of the structural connections. And this is where the failure was determined to have begun. Not with the actual structural members themselves, but with the bolts that held the members together. Under stresses far larger than were ever intended, due to the elongation of the structural members, these bolts began to fail. As each one failed, it required the other bolts nearby -- already near maximum stress anyway -- to take on significant addition load. When this happened, it caused a progressive and catastrophic failure; exacerbated by the fact that the WTC was not built in the same manner as a traditional skyscraper. In order to get larger open floor areas, the WTC was built using load-bearing external walls. Most skyscrapers have interior columns, and hang what is known as a curtain wall on the exterior of the building. A curtain wall is a non-structural exterior. It's why many skyscrapers seem to be all glass on the outsides, because it's not required to carry any load other than it's own weight. The WTC had a central structural core, and beams that spanned from the core to the exterior, load bearing, wall. A slender structural member requires regular horizontal bracing (such as that provided by beams connecting the core to the exterior walls) in order to prevent buckling. As the bolts connecting the beams between the core and the walls failed, the exterior walls began to buckle. This caused the top of the building to drop down onto the story where the failure occured. The already weakened joints below subsequently gave way, and a progressive failure of the entire structure occurred.

I realize this will never satisfy certain skeptics, but this scenario has been demonstrated to be entirely consistent with what we know occurred that day. Please do not believe that steel will not deform to the extent that it will cause a failure until it reaches it's melting point. That is not true.

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 05:04 PM

By media you mean the movie you are promoting?

Can this side convo be spun of as it has nothing to do with the thread.

I am not promoting anything.

All you have to do is look into it and you will see the holes in the story... If you dont trust films, look into it yourself.

TBH we all have our own opinions and thats fine, it dosent seem like you will be changing your minds anytime soon... You would rather trust the guy who cheated in the elections! And started a war with no evidence!

Queso

Sep 29, 2008, 05:06 PM

Explanation
IANAA nor do I play one on TV, but IUTBACE* and that's pretty much how I was taught it (with a lot more formulae and stuff).

* I used to be a civil engineer

dukebound85

Sep 29, 2008, 05:08 PM

I'm nothing like that, his belifs remind me strangely of Xenu... :p

I, however, dont believe what is fed to me by the media... Dosent mean I believe there is weird crap controlling the world.

while good to have an open mind, what you say is hypocritic as you take "loose change" as the gospel and every other real study as "false"

please tell me what credentials this Dylan Avery has.....oh that's right, none. hes an aspiring film student who has been denied admission twice to film school

why are you so quick to believe what he says over professional opinions? ask yourself that

MacNut

Sep 29, 2008, 05:08 PM

IANAA nor do I play one on TV, but IUTBACE* and that's pretty much how I was taught it (with a lot more formulae and stuff).

* I used to be a civil engineerI remember watching TV specials on the WTC and that is just about what they said. It is also why people on the top floors were trapped, because all the staircases were in the center of the building.

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 05:12 PM

I'm (almost) an architect, so let me give you a little perspective on this. Steel is a ductile material. It's properties begin to change rapidly under heat, which is why fireproofing is required for steel structural members. When steel heats up, it doesn't simply fail, it stretches. And stretches and stretches. At temperatures of around 800 degrees this begins to happen.

Fireproofing at the time the WTC was built typically included a spray-on application of a foam that provided heat resistance. The length of required protection dictated how thick the application was. But an explosion that would strip the fireproofing from the structural members was not factored into the design, and as a result the fire protection was not required to be able to resist those types of forces. When the planes hit, that fireproofing was simply blown off the columns and beams, and the steel was instantly exposed to the heat of the fire. This is not an unreasonable scenario. I've touched this kind of fireproofing, and it is easily removed with your fingers. An explosion adjacent to it would clear the steel of any fireproofing.

As the steel stretches, it starts to transfer the load it was carrying to other structural members. Eventually you will surpass not only the design load, but the ultimate failure strength of the structural connections. And this is where the failure was determined to have begun. Not with the actual structural members themselves, but with the bolts that held the members together. Under stresses far larger than were ever intended, due to the elongation of the structural members, these bolts began to fail. As each one failed, it required the other bolts nearby -- already near maximum stress anyway -- to take on significant addition load. When this happened, it caused a progressive and catastrophic failure; exacerbated by the fact that the WTC was not built in the same manner as a traditional skyscraper. In order to get larger open floor areas, the WTC was built using load-bearing external walls. Most skyscrapers have interior columns, and hang what is known as a curtain wall on the exterior of the building. A curtain wall is a non-structural exterior. It's why many skyscrapers seem to be all glass on the outsides, because it's not required to carry any load other than it's own weight. The WTC had a central structural core, and beams that spanned from the core to the exterior, load bearing, wall. A slender structural member requires regular horizontal bracing (such as that provided by beams connecting the core to the exterior walls) in order to prevent buckling. As the bolts connecting the beams between the core and the walls failed, the exterior walls began to buckle. This caused the top of the building to drop down onto the story where the failure occured. The already weakened joints below subsequently gave way, and a progressive failure of the entire structure occurred.

I realize this will never satisfy certain skeptics, but this scenario has been demonstrated to be entirely consistent with what we know occurred that day. Please do not believe that steel will not deform to the extent that it will cause a failure until it reaches it's melting point. That is not true.

How come, then, if the WTC was indeed burned down in that very short amount of time at freefall speed, it would have been the first time in history?

MacNut

Sep 29, 2008, 05:13 PM

How come, then, if the WTC was indeed burned down in that very short amount of time at freefall speed, it would have been the first time in history?How many other 120 story buildings were hit by planes and collapsed?

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 05:14 PM

while good to have an open mind, what you say is hypocritic as you take "loose change" as the gospel and every other real study as "false"

please tell me what credentials this Dylan Avery has.....oh that's right, none. hes an aspiring film student who has been denied admission twice to film school

why are you so quick to believe what he says over professional opinions? ask yourself that

As I said before, I am NOT saying Loose Change is perfect and holds all answers etc. HOWEVER there are many many websites and films which support my opinion.

How many other 120 story buildings were hit by planes and collapsed?

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

dukebound85

Sep 29, 2008, 05:21 PM

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

like get your facts straight

that plane was going a mere 200mph. the planes that hit the wtc were going 500-600mph and were larger in size

not to mention that the structure of the buildings plays a key role in structural integretity.

http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9603-002.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/attack/main501989.shtml

there goes that arguement lol

stop making claims that are
1)wrong

TheAnswer

Sep 29, 2008, 05:26 PM

As I said before, I am NOT saying Loose Change is perfect and holds all answers etc. HOWEVER there are many many websites and films which support my opinion.

How many of these sites are selling products related to their theory or generating revenue from advertisement on their sites??

dukebound85

Sep 29, 2008, 05:27 PM

As I said before, I am NOT saying Loose Change is perfect and holds all answers etc. HOWEVER there are many many websites and films which support my opinion.

no way! did you know there are films and many websites that believe in

1) vampires
2) Scientology
3) bigfoot
4) and even the destruction of the WTC by the gov't

crazy i know. however it must be true as there are people that have many websites and films saying it is:rolleyes:

TheAnswer

Sep 29, 2008, 05:30 PM

no way! did you know there are films and many websites that believe in

2) Scientology

And even worse Cheeseology!!

Every time I pass by their headquarters, the Cheeseologists want me to take a rennet assessment test and talk to me about ridding me of Body Fetans. :p

PowerFullMac

Sep 29, 2008, 05:33 PM

And even worse Cheeseology!!

Every time I pass by their headquarters, the Cheeseologists want me to take a rennet assessment test and talk to me about ridding me of Body Fetans. :p

Do not muck teh Cheeze! :p

dukebound85, there are no sites that believe in Scientology that actually give you info about it, you need to pay for years of audit consoling for that :D

Iscariot

Sep 29, 2008, 05:54 PM

Thats for the second cut, what about the final cut which uses all new content?

How much of it is new content? Even if the new content is bulletproof (which I guarantee it isn't), any of the existing content is still massively erroneous.

Nope, I reside in the real world, whereas you, and others who have been arguing with me, live in a world where whatever the government say must me true.

Absurd. I'm one of the biggest critics of the United States government and the Bush administration on MacRumours. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day, and agreeing with the Bush administration about the basics of 9/11 isn't being close-minded and trusting, it's being right. The simple fact is that this is reality and not an Orwellian dystopia, and in reality the simplest explanation is most often the correct one. The spread puts the real physical evidence handily on the side of "terrorists of some stripe flew planes into buildings". I wouldn't trust this administration to catch a cold, why on Earth would anyone choose to believe that behind closed doors these liars, frauds and snake-oil salesmen turn into the most brilliant evil minds of this century?

KingYaba

Sep 29, 2008, 09:39 PM

liars, frauds and snake-oil salesmen turn into the most brilliant evil minds of this century?

Duuuh, so they can get away with it! :) P

quagmire

Sep 29, 2008, 09:52 PM

From the thread this was split from

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

fighter vs commercial airliner. Which one creates a bigger hole?

It's a fairly simple concept. The fighter plane created a small hole compared to the ones in the WTC. There was enough structural support left from the fighter plane impact for the weight to be transfered to the remaining support beams and keep the building standing. Now the WTC had little structural support left in the hole so the weight of the top of the building was too much for the remaining steel beams which was also further weakened by the fire.

PS: Also look at what duke pointed out.

mactastic

Sep 29, 2008, 10:10 PM

How come, then, if the WTC was indeed burned down in that very short amount of time at freefall speed, it would have been the first time in history?
The WTC did NOT "burn down". It experienced a catastrophic structural failure due to the application of heat to metal.

There is a significant difference.

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

From the thread this was split from

fighter vs commercial airliner. Which one creates a bigger hole?

It's a fairly simple concept. The fighter plane created a small hole compared to the ones in the WTC. There was enough structural support left from the fighter plane impact for the weight to be transfered to the remaining support beams and keep the building standing. Now the WTC had little structural support left in the hole so the weight of the top of the building was too much for the remaining steel beams which was also further weakened by the fire.

PS: Also look at what duke pointed out.
To this, I would also add that you have to understand the structural differences between the WTC and a traditional skyscraper. As I mentioned in my post above, the WTC was built with a central structural core, and a structural exterior wall with beams spanning between the two to create the individual floors. A traditional skyscraper is built using columns dispersed throughout on a grid. There is more redundancy, but open floor space is limited by the column grid spacing.

This is critical because when you puncture the exterior wall of a traditional skyscraper you still have numerous columns that are stacked on top of each other floor to floor that remain intact. In fact, since the curtain wall exterior of a traditional skyscraper is not load-bearing, you could remove it with no structural effect. But when you puncture the wall of the WTC, particularly with the massive wingspan of the planes that struck it, you remove a large number of the floor to floor stacked columns, and there are no columns in the interior of the building to pick up the slack. This is why it is possible to have the WTC fail in this fashion.

Whether the terrorists knew this or just got lucky is still unresolved.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 02:59 AM

None of your arguing explains the numorous accounts of explosions heard at the base of the towers before they collapsed.

.Andy

Sep 30, 2008, 03:10 AM

None of your arguing explains the numorous accounts of explosions heard at the base of the towers before they collapsed.
That's because they can't explain them. I've heard that the night before the towers came down CIA operatives (their shirts had the CIA logo in yellow on them) were seen with controlled DEMOLITION experts (also wearing shirts but this time white that said "demolition") were seen working on the support columns of the towers. That's the only explanation for these explosions. Or aliens with ray guns.

Counterfit

Sep 30, 2008, 03:15 AM

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

B-25s can NOT travel at over 400MPH. Heck, their cruise speed is only 275mph, just over half the cruise speed of a 767-200ER. Then let's consider weight and fuel capacity. The maximum takeoff weight of a B-25 is 35,000lbs. The EMPTY operating weight of a 767-200ER is 181,610lbs, That maximum takeoff weight of it is 395,000lbs. Fuel capacity, B-25:1,000 Gallons. The 767's had about 10 times that amount when they hit the towers.
And then wingspan. B-25: 67', 767-200ER: 156'.

So yeah, the two accidents are COMPLETELY COMPARABLE! :rolleyes: Put some Lube™ on the doors to your "open mind".

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2008, 04:08 AM

None of your arguing explains the numorous accounts of explosions heard at the base of the towers before they collapsed.

Eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable by virtue of how memory works. There are numerous studies about how easily memory is influenced by outside events and how incredibly faulty it is.

Bias creeps into memory without our knowledge, without our awareness. While confidence and accuracy are generally correlated, when misleading information is given, witness confidence is often higher for the incorrect information than for the correct information.

Causes of Memory Unreliability

1. Memory is "blurred"

There are several reasons for this. One is that images in our mind's eye are never as clear as an actual perception. If you try to recall your bedroom, you can get a general image of the location of large and significant objects, their shapes, colors, etc. But the image is not nearly as detailed as what you would see if you were actually viewing the room.

2. Memory Fills In The Gaps

Memory is a reconstruction, not a record. As noted, memory traces are, at best, highly impoverished versions of the original percept. The eyewitness will often have insufficient information in the memory itself, so the reconstruction must invoke pieces of information from other sources. There are two main sources of additional information: 1) pre-existing schemas and 2) other memories. People understand the world through "schemas" and "scripts," stereotyped mental models of objects and events. When they recognize a situation, either in perception or in memory, they invoke the most applicable schema or script and may unconsciously fill in missing information in order to complete the reconstruction.

3. Memory systematically distorts perception

Memory tends to distort perception in systematic ways. For example, people tend to remember colors as being brighter and more saturated than they actually were. Other studies show that people asked to recall vehicle speed tend to overestimate slow speeds and to underestimate fast ones. Additional studies show systematic biases in remembering distance and size. Lastly, as noted above, memory also biases toward expected events.

4. Memory is personal

Human memory does not exist so that an observer may accurately report previously seen events. The actual, physical events are merely grist for the mill of interpretation. Each witness extracts an interpretation that is meaningful in terms of his own beliefs, experiences and needs. Once the interpretation occurs, the events themselves become relatively unimportant. Moreover, since each person interprets the events in terms of his own world view, different eyewitnesses observing the same event may have different interpretations and different memories. To put it succinctly:

"We do not see what we sense. We see what we think we sense. Our consciousness is presented with an interpretation, not the raw data. Long after presentation, an unconscious information processing has discarded information, so that we see a simulation, a hypothesis, an interpretation; and we are not free to choose" ( Norretranders, 1999).

5. Memory is biased by question retrieval method

Eyewitness memories can be biased by the questions asked at the time of retrieval. Several famous studies have shown that the question can supply information that the eyewitness will incorporate into the answer. The question can easy supply information that helps fill in gaps in the respondent's memory.

6. Memory Changes over time and with retelling

Numerous studies have shown that memory changes over time.

With the multitude of digital cameras and recording devices, there would be some corroborate evidence of these explosions being somehow unusual (unusual for a massive structure collapsing in on itself). Much of the eye witness testimony about the explosions are very sketchy and in fact have changed with time (William Rodriguez for example). Additionally most of the quotes about "explosions" are actually victims of quote mining. Example:

"I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”

But the full quote includes:
"I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."

Some of the full quotes actually offer their own explanation:
We all looked up. At the point, it all let go. The way I see it, it had to be the rivets.

Even the firefighters seem to be providing alternate (and actually plausible) explanations for why there might be some loud noises at the centre of a massive terrorist attack. The explosions could be transformers, electrical equipment, concrete floor slamming into concrete floor, steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension, cars being smashed, and a litany of other possibilities that would generate an explosive sound. You don't think hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel, aluminum and concrete collapsing in on itself would generate a few explosions under that kind of enormous weight and power? There's no evidence of explosions that can't be explained by an unbelievable amount of force being exerted in an incredibly short period of time.

MacNoobie

Sep 30, 2008, 04:08 AM

Ok so assuming that ALL the conspiracy out there is true what would be the benefit of creating 9/11? Oil? Ousting Husein?

Open mind lol sorry I dont buy into the "my governments out to get me" mantra anymore. And so what if Bush started the war in Iraq and went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan? at least he had the balls to start 2 major wars and go after the terrorists rather then crapping his pants and wanting "talks" and "sanctions". Seriously even the fact that it took NATO 30 DAYS to say yes or no on invading Iraq is a joke I mean c'mon if I was sadam and I heard from an aid of mine that I was being targetted for having WMD's based on evidence that the US found I would of called up Libia, Pakistan, Iran who ever had my back and told em to stash the WMD's in their yards where obviously the US cant go and a MONTH's head start would of given them enough time to roll trucks and trucks of it out and stash it.

The fact that US troops came back and said hey we didnt find WMD's (no surprise) thus making Bush look like an ass to Americans was I guess an added bonus to an already Bush hating public.

You really think the FBI would talk to anyone when putting up posters and answer questions.. its the FBI!!!!!

Just to clear this up, Loose Change is NOT my only evidence.

All you have to do is search Google for "9/11 conspiracy" and you will get many sites - and films, for that matter - supporting my opinion.

Whether you choose to believe whatever George Bush says or not is none of my business, but I watch the world with an open mind, and I certainly wont believe something when Bush - who cheated in the elections and started a war on Iraq with no evidence of weapons there - says.

Also, answer this, how come on the FBI's wanted poster for Bin Laden it dosent say anything about 9/11, and when asked why they said they had no evidence.

skunk

Sep 30, 2008, 04:19 AM

And so what if Bush started the war in Iraq and went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan? at least he had the balls to start 2 major wars and go after the terrorists rather then crapping his pants and wanting "talks" and "sanctions".Repeat after me:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

iBlue

Sep 30, 2008, 04:29 AM

None of your arguing explains the numorous accounts of explosions heard at the base of the towers before they collapsed.

I'm going to ignore all the other comments which have been addressed plenty and just focus on this one, because if what you're implying is correct, that the gov-peeps planned this massive conspiracy and then screwed up a detail as trivial as timing for some explosions? That's just dumb.

I don't trust any government and I definitely think there's more to many stories we hear but I can't possibly find credibility in the idea of them planning this out.

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2008, 04:31 AM

Repeat after me:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Didn't you once (cleverly) rail on me for doing the same with a line about evolution? :p

hulugu

Sep 30, 2008, 04:32 AM

There was a building that was hit by a military fighter plane in the fog that, although is smaller than a commercial jet, is much faster, and the building burned longer and DIDNT COLLAPSE!

When? Is there a case of a fighter hitting a building at high speed?

B-25s can NOT travel at over 400MPH. Heck, their cruise speed is only 275mph, just over half the cruise speed of a 767-200ER. Then let's consider weight and fuel capacity. The maximum takeoff weight of a B-25 is 35,000lbs. The EMPTY operating weight of a 767-200ER is 181,610lbs, That maximum takeoff weight of it is 395,000lbs. Fuel capacity, B-25:1,000 Gallons. The 767's had about 10 times that amount when they hit the towers.
And then wingspan. B-25: 67', 767-200ER: 156'.

So yeah, the two accidents are COMPLETELY COMPARABLE! :rolleyes: Put some Lube™ on the doors to your "open mind".

Is he really talking about the B-25 crashing into the Empire State Building in 1940?

Holy hell. The B-25 is tiny compared to the 767. Even at the same speeds, the kinetic energy from the 767 is almost exponential compared to the B-25.

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2008, 04:37 AM

exponential

Them's fightin' words. You leave your fancy thirty-fi' cent words outta this, mister scientist man.

hulugu

Sep 30, 2008, 04:41 AM

I'm going to ignore all the other comments which have been addressed plenty and just focus on this one, because if what you're implying is correct, that the gov-peeps planned this massive conspiracy and then screwed up a detail as trivial as timing for some explosions? That's just dumb.

I don't trust any government and I definitely think there's more to many stories we hear but I can't possibly find credibility in the idea of them planning this out.

Cues up conspiracy theorist: "No, no. See you don't understand. The government is like super-clever man. They like mess up some stuff to like make it fit the pattern, man. See, then there'd be no conspiracy and then man, that's when you know there's a conspiracy happening, man."

Unfortunately, you can never convince someone who has delved so deeply into conspiracy mythology. It's a religious conversion and no amount of logic or evidence will change such a person's opinion. In a sense, conspiracy-followers are religious, they look for a overlapping authority and a sense of order when there is none.
This can't be the act of a few nihilistic men, but rather it must fit within a larger framework of conspiracies and plots. And, always behind these plots is order, evil and corrupt, but nonetheless order. The seeking of conspiracies is the seeking of order among chaos. It's the nascent pattern-recognition of every human being.

Them's fightin' words. You leave your fancy thirty-fi' cent words outta this, mister scientist man.

I'm sorry, maybe I should have said: "bigger than a sow on Sunday."

What's funny, I started thinking about the KE formula, decided the hell with it, and just started thinking it was "really, really big."

iBlue

Sep 30, 2008, 04:52 AM

...
Unfortunately, you can never convince someone who has delved so deeply into conspiracy mythology. It's a religious conversion and no amount of logic or evidence will change such a person's opinion. In a sense, conspiracy-followers are religious, they look for a overlapping authority and a sense of order when there is none. ...
Ah, good point(s) and that's me, convinced. :D

<bows out of thread>

MacNoobie

Sep 30, 2008, 05:06 AM

Well no but WMD's are a threat regardless of 9/11 and as I said 30 days gives who ever had em a **** load of time to move em all out.
Repeat after me:
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

xUKHCx

Sep 30, 2008, 05:43 AM

HOWEVER there are many many websites and films which support my opinion.

Then why don't you provide links. If we could have them one at a time I am sure they can be taken apart from a logical standpoint.

Well no but WMD's are a threat regardless of 9/11 and as I said 30 days gives who ever had em a **** load of time to move em all out.

I just have to address this point, one you have now made twice. Do you really think that in those 30 days all of the worlds satelittes just looked the other way. If there was a mass movement of WMD out of Iraq it would've been obvious. And to suggest otherwise seems more that a stretch beyond immagination.

BoyBach

Sep 30, 2008, 06:18 AM

None of your arguing explains the numorous accounts of explosions heard at the base of the towers before they collapsed.

This one always amuses me. How many people now what an "explosion" actually sounds like?

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 07:01 AM

Ok so assuming that ALL the conspiracy out there is true what would be the benefit of creating 9/11? Oil? Ousting Husein?

They used it as an excust to get Bin Laden and it has been involved in many laws passed.

It also gets people on their side with the war on terrorism

Queso

Sep 30, 2008, 07:20 AM

This one always amuses me. How many people now what an "explosion" actually sounds like?
An extremely loud bang followed by immediate crashing noise, a short period of silence, then lots of people talking and running.

Not pleasant.

.Andy

Sep 30, 2008, 07:24 AM

An extremely loud bang followed by immediate crashing noise, a short period of silence, then lots of people talking and running.

Not pleasant.
This also describes the loss of my virginity.

skunk

Sep 30, 2008, 07:28 AM

An extremely loud bang followed by pieces of shrapnel hitting the wall and all the windows getting blown in. Then silence.

yg17

Sep 30, 2008, 07:41 AM

Oh my god, I can't believe people actually believe this bullcrap about 9/11 being a government conspiracy.....

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 10:38 AM

Oh my god, I can't believe people actually believe this bullcrap about 9/11 being a government conspiracy.....

Yes they do and its not bullcrap.

iShater

Sep 30, 2008, 10:57 AM

Well no but WMD's are a threat regardless of 9/11 and as I said 30 days gives who ever had em a **** load of time to move em all out.

Cause all those countries you listed are like sooooooooooooooo close to Iraq, geographically and politically that they would have loved to take the WMDs and hide them.

Wake up, the WMD BS was an excuse to invade Iraq long before 9/11 happened.

skunk

Sep 30, 2008, 11:22 AM

Didn't you once (cleverly) rail on me for doing the same with a line about evolution? :pI never rail. Have you seen the price of train tickets these days?

iJon

Sep 30, 2008, 11:45 AM

I remember years ago when I first watched Loose Change. It brought out a lot of emotions, a lot of anger and many other things. I told everyone I knew and figured how could they lie, it is so well put together and everything.

Well being the skeptic I try to be I started to look up rebuttals. The Loose Change Official forum was a great place to start. They have a whole area set aside for skeptics. The more and more I read on the video the more rebuttals I found and I finally changed my stance to it being just a conspiracy theory.

I do believe a government is capable of doing something like this if they really tried. I just have a hard time believing that it was in fact a inside job in this particular scenario.

Loose Change was nothing more than a great marketing video, with good effects, sound, visuals and the whole works. It's very convincing if you don't spend the time to research the other side of the fence. Big events in humanity will always bring big conspiracy theories because that's how humans act. We have to find an alternative reason for every actual reason that is given to us.

jon

xUKHCx

Sep 30, 2008, 12:03 PM

Yes they do and its not bullcrap.

You haven't posted any links/reports to give us the impression otherwise. We are yet to see any of these other websites that you claim to support your position.

The few crumbs of information you have posted have been shown to be wrong/inaccurate.

BoyBach

Sep 30, 2008, 12:08 PM

I do believe a government is capable of doing something like this if they really tried.

I think you give governments far too much credit if you believe one could successfully execute something of this magnitude, and then hide their involvement for seven years.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 12:10 PM

You haven't posted any links/reports to give us the impression otherwise. We are yet to see any of these other websites that you claim to support your position.

The few crumbs of information you have posted have been shown to be wrong/inaccurate.

http://www.911lies.org/
http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/

No steel framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - due to the high temperatures that would be required to weaken structural steel past it's critical safety margin - even though very large, very hot, and very long-lasting fires have ravaged many steel-structure high-rise buildings. These buildings are all in use today:

• Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building,
burned for 17 hours over 26 floors
• Los Angeles, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories,
burned for 3.5 hours over 5 floors
• Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories,
burned for 18 hours over 8 floors
• New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories,
burned for six hours

EricNau

Sep 30, 2008, 12:18 PM

Yes they do and its not bullcrap.
Then you need to PROVE it. You need to present scientific evidence that cannot be otherwise explained, except by invoking a mass-scale conspiracy theory.

So far, you have yet to present any scientific or empirical evidence where the only logical explanation is the conspiracy theory you're promoting (i.e. all the evidence you've put forth can be better explained by the traditional theory that two planes struck the towers).

Until the burden of proof has been met, it is indeed "bullcrap."

BoyBach

Sep 30, 2008, 12:18 PM

<List of tower fires.>

Were any of those buildings an exact replica of the WTC towers and did they have an almost fully fuel laden Boeing 767 smash into it?

Motley

Sep 30, 2008, 12:19 PM

[url]
No steel framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire - due to the high temperatures that would be required to weaken structural steel past it's critical safety margin - even though very large, very hot, and very long-lasting fires have ravaged many steel-structure high-rise buildings. These buildings are all in use today:

• Caracas, Venezuela, Oct, 2004, 56 story building,
burned for 17 hours over 26 floors
• Los Angeles, May 1988, 1st Interstate Bank, 62 stories,
burned for 3.5 hours over 5 floors
• Philadelphia, Feb, 1991, Meridian Plaza, 38 stories,
burned for 18 hours over 8 floors
• New York, Aug, 1970, New York Plaza, 50 stories,
burned for six hours ]

Did any of these have their support structure's insulation stripped away by an airliner crashing into them at a high speed, followed by being doused with jet fuel?? :confused::mad: (don't know why I'm even trying)

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 12:24 PM

Then you need to PROVE it. You need to present scientific evidence that cannot be otherwise explained, except by invoking a mass-scale conspiracy theory.

So far, you have yet to present any scientific or empirical evidence where the only logical explanation is the conspiracy theory you're promoting (i.e. all the evidence you've put forth can be better explained by the traditional theory that two planes struck the towers).

Until the burden of proof has been met, it is indeed "bullcrap."

EVIDENCE: Explosions where seen and heard at the base of the towers before the buildings collapsed, the building fell at nearly freefall speed, explosions in the buildings where seen while its falling, jet fuel dosent melt at a high enough temperature to melt steel, the hole in the pentagon was far too small for a 747 to have hit it, the explosion resulting from the "plane" hitting the pentagon looking nothing like a jet fuel explosion.

spikespike

Sep 30, 2008, 12:29 PM

Again (as was pointed out earlier in the thread) the steel doesnt have to melt. Intense heat (well within the ranges posted earlier) would be sufficient to weaken it to the point where it was not structurally sound.

gauchogolfer

Sep 30, 2008, 12:30 PM

EVIDENCE: Explosions where seen and heard at the base of the towers before the buildings collapsed, the building fell at nearly freefall speed, explosions in the buildings where seen while its falling, jet fuel dosent melt at a high enough temperature to melt steel, the hole in the pentagon was far too small for a 747 to have hit it, the explosion resulting from the "plane" hitting the pentagon looking nothing like a jet fuel explosion.

You do not seem to understand the difference between evidence and conjecture.

Also, are you seriously implying that at plane didn't crash into the Pentagon? Where did the missing plane go then?

bartelby

Sep 30, 2008, 12:31 PM

EVIDENCE: Explosions where seen and heard at the base of the towers before the buildings collapsed, the building fell at nearly freefall speed, explosions in the buildings where seen while its falling, jet fuel dosent melt at a high enough temperature to melt steel, the hole in the pentagon was far too small for a 747 to have hit it, the explosion resulting from the "plane" hitting the pentagon looking nothing like a jet fuel explosion.

Jet fuel on it's own isn't hot enough. Add combustible material and funnel air to it and you'll exceed the 1130ºC you need to remove the structural strength. It doesn't have to melt.

I didn't realise it was a 747. I thought it was a 757. A much smaller aircraft.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 12:35 PM

Jet fuel on it's own isn't hot enough. Add combustible material and funnel air to it and you'll exceed the 1130ºC you need to remove the structural strength. It doesn't have to melt.
A house fire can reach 1100ºC in a few minutes

I didn't realise it was a 747. I thought it was a 757. A much smaller aircraft.

747, typo, sorry. However, you cant even see where the engines hit it! Even the windows are still OK, if a plane hit it, there would at least be a mark where the engines hit, and the explosion wouldnt look like a missile explosion.

spikespike

Sep 30, 2008, 12:36 PM

747, typo, sorry. However, you cant even see where the engines hit it! Even the windows are still OK, if a plane hit it, there would at least be a mark where the engines hit, and the explosion wouldnt look like a missile explosion.

How do you know it wouldnt look like a missile explosion?

EricNau

Sep 30, 2008, 12:36 PM

EVIDENCE: Explosions where seen and heard at the base of the towers before the buildings collapsed,
That's not scientific evidence - it's anecdotal evidence subject to our own shortcomings and biases. Hearsay isn't allowed in courtrooms, nor the world of science.

the building fell at nearly freefall speed,
Were you expecting it to defy gravity?

explosions in the buildings where seen while its falling,
Once again, hearsay.

jet fuel dosent melt at a high enough temperature to melt steel,
on April 29, 2007, fire melted steel for the second time in history. A freeway accident occurred in Oakland, California that made us all take a second look. A tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline lost control and crashed on an elevated underpass in the Macarthur Maze, a knot of converging freeway ramps taking cars from the 24, 80, 580, 880, and 980 freeways and funneling them into the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza. The fuel exploded into flames and burned fiercely for several hours, but it only took minutes for the span above the flames to collapse and fall onto the span below. The director of Cal Trans, the California state transportation authority, said the heat from the fire had melted the steel girders and bolts that support the concrete roadway. He said "If you have that kind of heat, you're going to have this kind of reaction. We're not surprised this happened." Link (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4054)

the hole in the pentagon was far too small for a 747 to have hit it,
You realize cameras caught the plane hitting the building, right? If this was indeed a conspiracy, and more explosives were added, the hole would be larger than the plane.

the explosion resulting from the "plane" hitting the pentagon looking nothing like a jet fuel explosion.
Perhaps they looked more like a "plane combining with concrete" explosion?

BoyBach

Sep 30, 2008, 12:38 PM

I didn't realise it was a 747. I thought it was a 757. A much smaller aircraft.

You are correct, it was a Boeing 757 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77) that (allegedly :rolleyes: ) hit The Pentagon.

Even the windows are still OK

The Pentagon has, and had, bomb proof windows.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 12:40 PM

You are correct, it was a Boeing 757 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77) that (allegedly :rolleyes: ) hit The Pentagon.

There we go, a huge plane can hit the Pentagon leaving that small hole?

bartelby

Sep 30, 2008, 12:40 PM

there would at least be a mark where the engines hit, and the explosion wouldnt look like a missile explosion.

A mark on what?

Where the impact was?

Did they rebuild the walls to check?

BoyBach

Sep 30, 2008, 12:43 PM

There we go, a huge plane can hit the Pentagon leaving that small hole?

Evidently.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 12:43 PM

You realize cameras caught the plane hitting the building, right? If this was indeed a conspiracy, and more explosives were added, the hole would be larger than the plane.

Cameras where caught the "plane" hitting the building, however the videos have not been released to the public except 5 frames which show nothing about what hit it.

bartelby

Sep 30, 2008, 12:45 PM

There we go, a huge plane can hit the Pentagon leaving that small hole?

A 757 isn't huge.
Full loaded it's nearly 1/3 the weight of a 747. It's wingspan is over 70' less.
It's nearly 20' lower...

Don't make me have to go into the loft and drag down the 30 hours of News 24 footage I've got. I started recording just after the second plane hit the WTC.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 01:17 PM

A 757 isn't huge.
Full loaded it's nearly 1/3 the weight of a 747. It's wingspan is over 70' less.
It's nearly 20' lower...

Don't make me have to go into the loft and drag down the 30 hours of News 24 footage I've got. I started recording just after the second plane hit the WTC.

Let me just show you this. (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 01:25 PM

Let me just show you this. (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

and let me counter with this........again to this stupid link you provided

http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/1.html

Queso

Sep 30, 2008, 01:29 PM

on April 29, 2007, fire melted steel for the second time in history. A freeway accident occurred in Oakland, California that made us all take a second look. A tanker truck carrying 8,600 gallons of gasoline lost control and crashed on an elevated underpass in the Macarthur Maze, a knot of converging freeway ramps taking cars from the 24, 80, 580, 880, and 980 freeways and funneling them into the San Francisco - Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza. The fuel exploded into flames and burned fiercely for several hours, but it only took minutes for the span above the flames to collapse and fall onto the span below. The director of Cal Trans, the California state transportation authority, said the heat from the fire had melted the steel girders and bolts that support the concrete roadway. He said "If you have that kind of heat, you're going to have this kind of reaction. We're not surprised this happened." Link (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4054)
Well that was obviously set up by the Bush Administration to cover its tracks wasn't it? :D :p

EricNau

Sep 30, 2008, 01:30 PM

So, PowerFullMac, we've told you what it would take for us to believe your claims (namely, scientific evidence), but what would it take for you to change your mind?

heehee

Sep 30, 2008, 01:35 PM

So, PowerFullMac, we've told you what it would take for us to believe your claims (namely, scientific evidence), but what would it take for you to change your mind?
Nothing. Bush is EVIL. My light bulb burnt all because of him. :mad:

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 01:43 PM

My mind is not changed.

There is no point of this argument becasue its impossible for us to change each other's minds.

EricNau

Sep 30, 2008, 01:48 PM

My mind is not changed.

There is no point of this argument becasue its impossible for us to change each other's minds.
We've fully disclosed the reason why we're not convinced: the proponents of this conspiracy theory have failed to meet the necessary burden of proof.

It would be perfectly possible for you to change my mind, assuming the evidence you supplied met the typical requirements of science.

What's your excuse?

fivepoint

Sep 30, 2008, 01:50 PM

My mind is not changed.

There is no point of this argument becasue its impossible for us to change each other's minds.

Haha, this is very true... if you can watch the History Channel special and read the Pop. Mech. articles on the subject... and still not get it, then you will NEVER get it! :D

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 01:53 PM

Haha, this is very true... if you can watch the History Channel special and read the Pop. Mech. articles on the subject... and still not get it, then you will NEVER get it! :D

unfortunate too

imo it is sad to be so unwavering in beliefs even when confronted with indisputable evidnece proving such belief wrong

thats not called having an open mind, its the complete opposite

calculus

Sep 30, 2008, 01:54 PM

The trouble with having an open mind is that people keep putting things in it...

Sdashiki

Sep 30, 2008, 02:20 PM

imo it is sad to be so unwavering in beliefs even when confronted with indisputable evidnece proving such belief wronge

God Bless America!

djellison

Sep 30, 2008, 02:49 PM

My mind is not changed.

Because you live in a fantasy world and don't want to change your mind. You've not given the FACTS of the matter one iota of attention.

I pity you. I am also nervous that someone can come to the conclusions you do, despite having the facts explained. What else do you think about the world. You're probably allowed to vote. You might even own a car, a gun, you might even be a parent. What nut-job ideas are in your mind when going about day to day activities. It's frightening.

fivepoint

Sep 30, 2008, 02:59 PM

Because you live in a fantasy world and don't want to change your mind. You've not given the FACTS of the matter one iota of attention.

I pity you. I am also nervous that someone can come to the conclusions you do, despite having the facts explained. What else do you think about the world. You're probably allowed to vote. You might even own a car, a gun, you might even be a parent. What nut-job ideas are in your mind when going about day to day activities. It's frightening.

Ohhhhhh...
http://www.rockingham.k12.va.us/sound_sorting/initial_blends/sn/images/snap.jpg

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 03:08 PM

Because you live in a fantasy world and don't want to change your mind. You've not given the FACTS of the matter one iota of attention.

I pity you. I am also nervous that someone can come to the conclusions you do, despite having the facts explained. What else do you think about the world. You're probably allowed to vote. You might even own a car, a gun, you might even be a parent. What nut-job ideas are in your mind when going about day to day activities. It's frightening.

I dont have "net-job ideas", I am not mad, there is nothing wrong with me. I have a different view to you. Simple.

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 03:14 PM

I dont have "net-job ideas", I am not mad, there is nothing wrong with me. I have a different view to you. Simple.

no, you have a view that is proven false and wont accept facts that prove your view false

this isnt a debate like stem-cell research where each side has valid claims, but rather an argument as silly as believing the world is flat when its proven its round and yet insisting its still flat

Queso

Sep 30, 2008, 03:15 PM

I dont have "net-job ideas", I am not mad, there is nothing wrong with me. I have a different view to you. Simple.
Views and opinions incorporate new evidence and change over time. Despite all you have been presented with you are clinging to something which is irrational. What you hold isn't a different view but a dogmatic belief.

mactastic

Sep 30, 2008, 03:41 PM

None of your arguing explains the numorous accounts of explosions heard at the base of the towers before they collapsed.
Lots of things could have caused noises that sounded like explosion. Have you ever heard a large electrical substation short out? It sounds a lot like an explosion. (Funny story, a contractor backed a front-end loader over one on a project I was overseeing. He's never gonna live that one down :D). Heat causes metal to expand rapidly, which can cause failure of items attached to the steel before the structural actually fails. All kinds of stuff was going on in those towers before they fell. To suggest that there is no other explanation for noises heard other than that they were government-planted explosives is willful ignorance of the facts.

EVIDENCE: Explosions where seen and heard at the base of the towers before the buildings collapsed, the building fell at nearly freefall speed, explosions in the buildings where seen while its falling, jet fuel dosent melt at a high enough temperature to melt steel, the hole in the pentagon was far too small for a 747 to have hit it, the explosion resulting from the "plane" hitting the pentagon looking nothing like a jet fuel explosion.
See above regarding explosions.
Things fall at freefall speed. That's why it's called freefall.
See above regarding explosions.
Steel does not need to melt in order to fail. Also, jet fuel does not melt.
The Pentagon is not a normal structure. A reinforced structure will show less damage than an unreinforced structure would.
Jet fuel explosions do not look like what you see in a Jerry Bruckheimer film.

killr_b

Sep 30, 2008, 03:41 PM

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 03:47 PM

Actually, it's the popular mechanics and history channel who have been proven wrong time and time again.

According to their BS my oven's heat should lead to a global collapse of my condo. :rolleyes:

Jason Bermas is pretty good at laying it out for you…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmDQQ9K5Ccg

soooo your "evidence" is a punk kid saying its a conspiracy:rolleyes:

by the way, your oven is designed to *gasp* maintain a heated environment. there is a difference between intended environment (like a oven and high temps) and not intended environment (like burning fule in a tower). that is the worst analogy i have ever heard in my life

how about you give me professional studies conducted by scientists that debunk popular mechanics and the history channel. oh thats right, your evidnece is a punk kid getting interviewed on a street wearing a hoodie:rolleyes:

haha Jason Bermas is a producer of the loose change video which is what has been completely invalidated. i love how you use him as proof. good job

iJon

Sep 30, 2008, 04:00 PM

I think you give governments far too much credit if you believe one could successfully execute something of this magnitude, and then hide their involvement for seven years.

You're probably right. I'm just stating that I never underestimate the power of a government or any government.

jon

mactastic

Sep 30, 2008, 04:04 PM

According to their BS my oven's heat should lead to a global collapse of my condo. :rolleyes:
Do you have a load-bearing oven?

Queso

Sep 30, 2008, 04:05 PM

According to their BS my oven's heat should lead to a global collapse of my condo. :rolleyes:
Either your "oven" is actually a firing kiln or your analogy is absolute rubbish.

Do you have a load-bearing oven?
30-odd floors of load apparently...

iShater

Sep 30, 2008, 04:11 PM

What's next? they are gonna make up evidence about WMDs and take us to a war that will cost us a trillion dollars and the world hundreds of thousands of lives for a personal agenda? :rolleyes:

:(

While I don't agree that the government is "behind it", I do believe some of our "allies" knew about it, and it was a gift handed to the Bush administration to use as an excuse for an agenda planned long before anything happened.

Iscariot

Sep 30, 2008, 04:13 PM

Yes they do and its not bullcrap.

You have not provided a single argument that we haven't been able to explain handily.
EVIDENCE: Explosions where seen and heard at the base of the towers before the buildings collapsed,

I already explained that.
the building fell at nearly freefall speed

From a physicist:
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,
v = at
v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s

"If the top fell freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time."
explosions in the buildings where seen while its falling,

I already debunked that (with quotes from actual firefighters on the scene no less).
jet fuel dosent melt at a high enough temperature to melt steel

It doesn't have to, it only has to generate enough heat to affect the structural integrity of steel. Ever seen what metals do when you heat them up? This is BASIC science and it's already been covered in this thread.
the hole in the pentagon was far too small for a 747 to have hit it,

A 757 hit it, which is much smaller than a 747. The Pentagon is made of bomb-resistant materials, what with it being such an important part of the American strategic machine. Besides that, even if the Pentagon was hit by something else, both WTC towers were still hit by planes, which was the far more devastating impact of the attacks.
the explosion resulting from the "plane" hitting the pentagon looking nothing like a jet fuel explosion.

Based on what? Besides that, even if the Pentagon was hit by something else, both WTC towers were still hit by planes, which was the far more devastating impact of the attacks.

ucfgrad93

Sep 30, 2008, 04:15 PM

While I don't agree that the government is "behind it", I do believe some of our "allies" knew about it, and it was a gift handed to the Bush administration to use as an excuse for an agenda planned long before anything happened.

While I don't agree with this, it is certainly more plausible than PowerFullMac's conspiracy.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 04:23 PM

Based on what? Besides that, even if the Pentagon was hit by something else, both WTC towers were still hit by planes, which was the far more devastating impact of the attacks.

Compare the explosions from when the planes hit the twin towers, where there was a blue explosion and it wasent bright orange, to the explosion at the Pentagon where it was.

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 04:25 PM

Compare the explosions from when the planes hit the twin towers, where there was a blue explosion and it wasent bright orange, to the explosion at the Pentagon where it was.

without making sure what you said was true, do you not understand that the wtc towers are completely different in construction than the pentagon?

the pentagon is a reinforced building. to expect identical damage is insane

not to mention they were different planes lol

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 04:29 PM

without making sure what you said was true, do you not understand that the wtc towers are completely different in construction than the pentagon?

the pentagon is a reinforced building. to expect identical damage is insane

not to mention they were different planes lol

The fuel in those planes would be the same, though, therefore should make the same explosion.

arkitect

Sep 30, 2008, 04:29 PM

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 04:31 PM

The fuel in those planes would be the same, though, therefore should make the same explosion.

lol o really now. that is not necessarily the case. there are different grades of jet fuel. im not going to look it up which plane used which grade but it is not 100% certainty they used the same fuel

also, the building would play a role in the explosion

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 04:36 PM

lol o really now. that is not necessarily the case. there are different grades of jet fuel. im not going to look it up which plane used which grade but it is not 100% certainty they used the same fuel

also, the building would play a role in the explosion

Someone in the Pentagon at the time also said they smelled something that is used for missiles, and it has a very different smell to jet fuel.

Queso

Sep 30, 2008, 04:39 PM

And which "Allies" would these have been?

UK? France? Saudi-Arabia? Germany?
Erm...I do remember reading in 2001 that the French and German secret services had raided a number of addresses early that year in connection with the failed plot to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market in December 2000. In one of the addresses in Hamburg they discovered evidence relating to a planned airborne attack on the USA, and the names of a number of the 9/11 hijackers who were by that time undergoing flight training in Florida. This information was passed to the CIA and FBI, but was not followed up.

However, arrogance meant it got missed rather than conspiracy. After the Pan Am Lockerbie bomb European airports were told by the American FAA to increase their security. When managers asked what the US authorities were doing at their own airports about the threat, they were told by the FAA officials that "there will never be a terrorist attack on US soil". When your government departments have that attitude, it's only a matter of time before they get caught on the crapper by something big.

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 04:39 PM

Compare the explosions from when the planes hit the twin towers, where there was a blue explosion and it wasent bright orange, to the explosion at the Pentagon where it was.

You need to rewatch Loose Change. They are all orange. I don't see any blue in the WTC explosions.

The fuel in those planes would be the same, though, therefore should make the same explosion.

The amount of fuel in the planes would be different, given the size. Also, the construction of the building plays a role. The WTC buildings had a lot more glass and open space that the Pentagon, so the explosion would have appeared more intense (but smaller) at the Pentagon site.

.Andy

Sep 30, 2008, 04:42 PM

Someone in the Pentagon at the time also said they smelled something that is used for missiles, and it has a very different smell to jet fuel.
Missiles smell strongly of peppermint.

iShater

Sep 30, 2008, 04:44 PM

And which "Allies" would these have been?

UK? France? Saudi-Arabia? Germany?
:rolleyes:

The ones that always spy on us. :rolleyes:

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 04:45 PM

Someone in the Pentagon at the time also said they smelled something that is used for missiles, and it has a very different smell to jet fuel.

Ignoring the unreliability of eye witness testimony. Is the odor they smelled unique to missile propellant? Could a similar odor be explained by a more logical source?

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 04:48 PM

Someone in the Pentagon at the time also said they smelled something that is used for missiles, and it has a very different smell to jet fuel.

your evidence is "someone" and even then, how is that reliable? lol

please give me real data

do you know what jetfuel smells like? much less missile components?

Jaffa Cake

Sep 30, 2008, 04:49 PM

Someone in the Pentagon at the time also said they smelled something that is used for missiles, and it has a very different smell to jet fuel.I can smell something too, and you're right – it certainly isn't jet fuel...

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 04:51 PM

your evidence is "someone" and even then, how is that reliable? lol

please give me real data

do you know what jetfuel smells like? much less missile components?

The certain explosive within this missile and jet fuel have very distinct smells.

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 04:52 PM

The certain explosive within this missile and jet fuel have very distinct smells.

you are missing the point

GIVE SOME REAL DATA TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS

im getting really tired of your "opinions" stated as facts. im sure im not the only one. many people here have asked you to give data yet you simply do not and keep coming back to loose change as your sole evidence

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 04:53 PM

I can smell something too, and you're right – it certainly isn't jet fuel...

smells like utter bs to me:cool:

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 04:54 PM

you are missing the point

GIVE SOME REAL DATA TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS

im getting really tired of your "opinions" stated as facts

Hours of evidence. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598)

That is Loose Change FINAL CUT, all content in that is new, so completely different from what was "debunked".

.Andy

Sep 30, 2008, 04:55 PM

im getting really tired of your "opinions" stated as facts
This quote is going to come in handy.

Hours of evidence. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598)

That is Loose Change FINAL CUT, all content in that is new, so completely different from what was "debunked".
This thread just keeps on giving!

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 04:56 PM

Hours of evidence. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598)

That is Loose Change FINAL CUT, all content in that is new, so completely different from what was "debunked".

you are missing the point

GIVE SOME REAL DATA TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS

im getting really tired of your "opinions" stated as facts. im sure im not the only one. many people here have asked you to give data yet you simply do not and keep coming back to loose change as your sole evidence

wow how convienent:rolleyes:

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 04:58 PM

The certain explosive within this missile and jet fuel have very distinct smells.

What type of missile? What odor was detected? Again, can it be explained by other chemicals or chemical reactions known to be on the scene? What are the credentials of the eyewitness? Is he/she an odor specialist? How close to the location was he/she? What was his/he state of mind? If he/she was in a stressed state, could this have had an effect on his/her sense of smell?

rdowns

Sep 30, 2008, 04:58 PM

Hours of evidence. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598)

That is Loose Change FINAL CUT, all content in that is new, so completely different from what was "debunked".

So what you're saying here is that Loose Change was debunked and then all new content added to support all that was debunked.

kthxbai

mactastic

Sep 30, 2008, 05:00 PM

I can smell something too, and you're right – it certainly isn't jet fuel...
You are correct about that, sir.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:04 PM

I should also add that the article "debunking" Loose Change was written by the US government... They are not exactly gonna admit to it, are they?

LethalWolfe

Sep 30, 2008, 05:05 PM

The certain explosive within this missile and jet fuel have very distinct smells.

I should also add that the article "debunking" Loose Change was written by the US government... They are not exactly gonna admit to it, are they?
Popular Mechanics and the History channel are written by the US Government?

Lethal

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:07 PM

Loose Change is not my only evidence, look at the list of sites I posted earlier.

Take a quick look at this (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo), too.

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 05:10 PM

Hours of evidence. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598)

That is Loose Change FINAL CUT, all content in that is new, so completely different from what was "debunked".

OK, time permitting, I'm going to actually use my degree here.:eek:

I have a degree in Film and Media Studies. I've taken courses in film production, film theory as well as courses in propaganda. In the earlier exhaustive 9/11 conspiracy thread, I pointed out the ways that it's producers used film techniques to reenforce their point of view. I haven't had a chance to watch the new version. I'll try to find some time over the next couple of days to sit down and point out exactly which tactics they are using to persuade you.

In the mean time, you have to remember that all media come from a point of view and with an objective to persuade. Everyone has an agenda, and the more you know about the sources of any piece of media, the better equipped you will be to analyze its contents and see if they truly stand up to scientific examination. I'm not sure if the producers of Loose Change have a purely capitalistic/profiteering objective, an anti-NWO agenda, or as some have suggested are on Bush's payroll:

According to George Monbiot, "The film's greatest flaw is this: the men who made it are still alive. If the US government is running an all-knowing, all-encompassing conspiracy, why did it not snuff them out long ago? There is only one possible explanation. They are in fact agents of the Bush regime, employed to distract people from its real abuses of power. This, if you are inclined to believe such stories, is surely a more plausible theory than the one proposed in Loose Change." - Source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/06/comment.film)

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:19 PM

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 05:24 PM

The reason they are still alive is because if they where all to be killed it would be obvious what happened and it would basically PROVE one and for all it was a inside job.

The whole "they really work for Bush" thing reminds me of something South Park would use to parody something... Oh yeah... :rolleyes:

But, if the Bush team is as all-powerful as their theory puts forth, they would have stopped the Loose Change crew before or shortly after the first version hit, before it got big. And then no one would be the "wiser".

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:27 PM

Look at this... More evidence! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY)

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 05:27 PM

im still waiting for a professional study that proves it was an inside job powerfulmac.....
and by professional, i dont mean a bunch of film students, but rather complete with engineers/scientists, the works.

dont let me down now lol

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:28 PM

im still waiting for a professional study that proves it was an inside job powerfulmac.....

dont let me down now lol

PowerFullMac, get the name right! :p

Watch Final Cut! I linked to it!

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 05:30 PM

PowerFullMac, get the name right! :p

Watch Final Cut! I linked to it!

my bad on the name

Didn't i just not say evidence created by film students?:rolleyes:

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 05:37 PM

Didn't i just not say evidence created by film students?:rolleyes:

Hey!! I'm on your side! :p:p Plus, I don't believe any of the Loose Change crew actually have degrees in film.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:40 PM

Hey!! I'm on your side! :p:p Plus, I don't believe any of the Loose Change crew actually have degrees in film.

Just coz you have no degree in something dont mean you cant do it...

xUKHCx

Sep 30, 2008, 05:45 PM

Look at this... More evidence! (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY)

The evidence presented in that video is hardly compelling.

Dust clouds, let me see a plane crash + building fire + building collapse would certainly give rise to a dust cloud.

Bright flashes - Lots of broken glass falling + sunlight will cause those bright flashes seen.

I could go on but it seems that you are too locked into the conspiracy theory to even think objectively.

If you are going to keep using youtube to look stuff up why not look at what the "other side" has to offer. I found those in about 2 minutes of searching and seem to give a lot more plausible explaination as to what went on that the videos you provided.

Pentagon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8)
WTC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8)

Just coz you have no degree in something dont mean you cant do it...

Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer (quite topical for this thread) ...

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 05:47 PM

Hey!! I'm on your side! :p:p Plus, I don't believe any of the Loose Change crew actually have degrees in film.

haha i know. i meant as far as talking about the structural analysis, it helps to have degrees in that field

Just coz you have no degree in something dont mean you cant do it...

lol so tell me why i should take their word over engineers who do these types of analyzes for a living that disprove the kids who dont have film degrees claims?

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2008, 05:48 PM

This is a very entertaining thread. :p

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:50 PM

lol so tell me why i should take their word over engineers who do these types of analyzes for a living that disprove the kids who dont have film degrees claims?

If you watch Final Cut, you will see experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 05:52 PM

If you watch Final Cut, you will see experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.

can you stop referencing loose change as the gospel? it has been disproven multiple times

that movie has such an adgenda and is in no way objective

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 05:57 PM

can you stop referencing loose change as the gospel? it has been disproven multiple times

that movie has such an adgenda and is in no way objective

You apparently "disproven" the Second Cut, but NOT the Final Cut, which uses all new content.

I am not "referencing Loose Change as the gospel", but you ask for engineers agreeing with me then thats what I give you.

iShater

Sep 30, 2008, 06:00 PM

This is a very entertaining thread. :p

It surely is, just like watching a ping-pong ball bouncing from one side to the other. Except it is slow and painful, and nobody is doing any new moves. :eek:

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2008, 06:01 PM

It surely is, just like watching a ping-pong ball bouncing from one side to the other. Except it is slow and painful, and nobody is doing any new moves. :eek:

It's more like watching a ping-pong ball bouncing against a brick wall. :p

xUKHCx

Sep 30, 2008, 06:02 PM

You apparently "disproven" the Second Cut, but NOT the Final Cut, which uses all new content.

All new content yet they are suppose to be cuts of the same original content. And the film maker deemed it to be worthy representation of the facts when he released the second, debunked, cut so how can we really trust the all new content.

The absolute faith that you put in this film is somewhat alarming to say the least.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 06:04 PM

All new content yet they are suppose to be cuts of the same original content. And the film maker deemed it to be worthy representation of the facts when he released the second, debunked, cut so how can we really trust the all new content.

The absolute faith that you put in this film is somewhat alarming to say the least.

Whether you trust the film itself or not, you cant argue with footage of experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.

hulugu

Sep 30, 2008, 06:07 PM

You apparently "disproven" the Second Cut, but NOT the Final Cut, which uses all new content....

I'm going to use this logic as my thesis defense.

"Oh, you don't like this, well then wait until you the the Final cut."

If the Final Cut is debunked should we expect to see the Director's Cut? Or maybe the Director's Cut on Blu-Ray? Will there be a Widescreen Deluxe Exclusive version?

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 06:08 PM

Whether you trust the film itself or not, you cant argue with footage of experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.

yet quotes like this make me think otherwise. aka loose change likes to cherry pick lines

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/three-tricks-and-distortions-in-loose.html

Queso

Sep 30, 2008, 06:08 PM

Whether you trust the film itself or not, you cant argue with footage of experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.
Yes you can, if they've just undergone the same brainwashing you appear to have suffered. The human brain always looks for patterns, whether they're there or not. All it takes is a little suggestion and even experts can become convinced. Do you think the Virgin Mary appears in watermelons too?

xUKHCx

Sep 30, 2008, 06:09 PM

Whether you trust the film itself or not, you cant argue with footage of experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.

Seriously

If you can't trust the film then you can't trust what is said in it.

ucfgrad93

Sep 30, 2008, 06:14 PM

And which "Allies" would these have been?

UK? France? Saudi-Arabia? Germany?
:rolleyes:

Don't know, all I'm saying is that it is much more plausible for the government to have had advance warning of the attack and do nothing, than to plan and carry out the attack in secrecy. Not that I believe this is what actually happened.

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 06:14 PM

I'm going to use this logic as my thesis defense.

"Oh, you don't like this, well then wait until you the the Final cut."

If the Final Cut is debunked should we expect to see the Director's Cut? Or maybe the Director's Cut on Blu-Ray? Will there be a Widescreen Deluxe Exclusive version?

The point is everything in the Final Cut is entireley different content to what was in the "debunked" second edition.

Yes you can, if they've just undergone the same brainwashing you appear to have suffered. The human brain always looks for patterns, whether they're there or not. All it takes is a little suggestion and even experts can become convinced. Do you think the Virgin Mary appears in watermelons too?

Experts have training and can study things properly. Also, what they actually did was show a expert a video of the tower collapsing and not tell him what it is until after he had watched it and said it was definatly a controlled demolition.

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 06:17 PM

Whether you trust the film itself or not, you cant argue with footage of experts agreeing it was a controlled demolition.

You can, as pointed out earlier...if the footage of the experts has been edited to only show point where it agrees with the point of view of the film producers.

Additionally, one or two or three experts (who may or may not have been paid to appear in the film) isn't exactly a majority of the expert community on this subject.

Does the film point to a study or a poll of expert opinion on the subject?

EricNau

Sep 30, 2008, 06:18 PM

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 06:19 PM

The point is everything in the Final Cut is entireley different content to what was in the "debunked" second edition.

Experts have training and can study things properly. Also, what they actually did was show a expert a video of the tower collapsing and not tell him what it is until after he had watched it and said it was definatly a controlled demolition.

do you not realize loose change cheery picks quotes that fit their adgenda?

why are you so quick to believe these "experts" who have probably been misquoted and have since changed their mind after the initial reaction to the numerous professional studies that prove it wasnt?

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 06:20 PM

The point is everything in the Final Cut is entireley different content to what was in the "debunked" second edition.

OK, if that's true, then it's not truly a "Final Cut", which is the final edited version of a film. If this is entirely different content, then this is a new film. The producers are just using the brand value of the "Loose Change" name as a marketing ploy.

Experts have training and can study things properly. Also, what they actually did was show a expert a video of the tower collapsing and not tell him what it is until after he had watched it and said it was definatly a controlled demolition.

Again, one expert. Surely you are aware that there exist other experts that disagree with his opinion? Additionally, those methods sound more akin to the Pepsi Challenge™ than a scientific analysis on the collapse.

LethalWolfe

Sep 30, 2008, 06:21 PM

The point is everything in the Final Cut is entireley different content to what was in the "debunked" second edition.
No, the point is Loose Change is full of so much BS that they keep having to change their story so how can one reasonably believe anything they are selling?

Lethal

dukebound85

Sep 30, 2008, 06:24 PM

PowerFullMac

Sep 30, 2008, 06:27 PM

OK, if that's true, then it's not truly a "Final Cut", which is the final edited version of a film. If this is entirely different content, then this is a new film. The producers are just using the brand value of the "Loose Change" name as a marketing ploy.

Who cares, its still about the same thing by the same people.

Anyone who hasent actually seen Loose Change Final Cut should NOT comment on it until they have.

Again, one expert. Surely you are aware that there exist other experts that disagree with his opinion.

There are many experts who support Loose Change's views, in fact, there is even a website started by engineers and architects who believe it was a inside job. Link. (http://www.ae911truth.org/) < dukebound85, I believe this will satisfy your needs, too.

Macaddicttt

Sep 30, 2008, 06:29 PM

Experts have training and can study things properly. Also, what they actually did was show a expert a video of the tower collapsing and not tell him what it is until after he had watched it and said it was definatly a controlled demolition.

Um, what video did they show him if he couldn't tell it was the World Trade Center? Apparently he couldn't see the building too well, or else he would have recognized it right away. That really improves the credibility of the testimony...:rolleyes:

iJohnHenry

Sep 30, 2008, 06:42 PM

This is a very entertaining thread. :p

So is masturbation, but hollow in the end, for all the fury.

Are they speaking of a government that could not organise a farting contest at a bean festival??

Simply amazing.

God Bless Canada.

ntrigue

Sep 30, 2008, 06:47 PM

Beyond conspiracy. This has been a blessing for the Bush family and their interests in military development. Don't blame W; blame the puppeteers.

LethalWolfe

Sep 30, 2008, 06:49 PM

Who cares, its still about the same thing by the same people.
You're kidding right? We shouldn't care that the filmmakers keep revising their story because it keeps getting debunked?

Lethal

hulugu

Sep 30, 2008, 07:03 PM

The point is everything in the Final Cut is entireley different content to what was in the "debunked" second edition....

That was entirely my point. They submitted an argument, watched its evidence get thrashed, so they submitted new evidence. And, apparently, they can do this ad infinitum without losing a bit of credence with you.

And, that's a problem. Of course, I said earlier that you were never going to be convinced that the conspiracy was hokum because you've been converted.

BoyBach

Sep 30, 2008, 07:13 PM

PowerFullMac, I'd keep quiet if I were you. The Secret Service monitor the Internet for leaks and their blacked-out cars will be arriv...

TheAnswer

Sep 30, 2008, 07:18 PM

There are many experts who support Loose Change's views, in fact, there is even a website started by engineers and architects who believe it was a inside job. Link. (http://www.ae911truth.org/) < dukebound85, I believe this will satisfy your needs, too.

Again, what percentage of total experts in those fields in this? What do the majority of physicists, demolition experts, firefighters, architects and structural engineers believe?

Who cares, its still about the same thing by the same people.

You think the government is involved in a massive conspiracy/cover-up, yet don't care about the possible agenda behind that marketing move?? (hint: $$$).

Anyone who hasent actually seen Loose Change Final Cut should NOT comment on it until they have.

PowerFullMac I know Loose Change isn't your only evidence, but I urge you to rewatch it again, keeping an eye out for the following (consider this a brief primer on propaganda):

1. When they use voiceover narrative:
a. How many times does the narrator use his tone to question the "official position"? How many times is the "official position" phrased as a question?
b. How many times does the narrator tell you what you are seeing? (I know the earlier versions used this trick quite often). This also applies to on screen graphics. How often are you told what you are seeing?
c. How many times is what the narrator saying followed up with a source that can verify his commentary?
d. How many times is a certain phrase repeated in an attempt to make it more credible?

2. Are there shots that exist only to appeal to emotion.

3. For every edit, question:
a. How is the new shot related temporal and spatially to the previous one?
b. How does any audio voiceover relate to the shot, both temporal/spatially and in terms of content? Are they necessarily related or are they being combined for persuasive effect?
c. How does the quality of the video/camerawork effect your perception of the action within the shot?

4. For each separate source of audio, question
a. How is the new audio related temporal and spatially to the previous one? For example, are you being made to believe that two or more audio clips of reporters is a conversation between them?
b. Additionally, what is the context of the audio clip in regards to the entirety of the the existent audio of that source? Is it representative of that persons opinion or is it a sound bite taken out of context?
c. If multiple sources are repeating the same information, remember that news agencies often have the same sources. Multiple newscasters repeating the same information does not increase it's credibility. Same goes for quotes from newsreporters in on-screen graphics.

5. Are far as the science:
a. Is the "official story" being presented in its entirety or do the producers simplify or distort the "official story" to put together a "straw-man argument"?
b. What credentials are given for the experts on both sides? Are they given at all? Are experts from both sides given equal time? Or do the producers give you the "official story" themselves?
c. Is every "suspicious" event on 9/11 explained in relation to its context? In other words, are you told how government activity differed from normal government activity on that day? Or do they just throw it out there for you to speculate?