The WTC was losing millions and was a failure. Yes thousands of people died and it was a horrible tragedy, but the owner of WTC made 7 Billion dollars in insurance money from it, and alot of valuable information that corrupt people did'nt want getting out was destroyed. Watch WTC 7 collapsing again, it buckles in the middle and collapses down, why? Where did the fire come from?
THE NEW LOOSE CHANGE VIDEO- You need to watch! for your own sake
- Thread starter Mattman
- Start date
almostaskier
Active member
Um, a humongous power grid that shorted causing a fire that WEAKENED the structure of the building, causing it to collapse???
So you think that when there is a terrorist attack, all relevant videos should be open to the public? when there's a rape, and it was videotaped, should the public be allowed to see that video to prove to them it was a rape?
Oh good, i guess you ARE fighting for the rights of the people that died that day...
OMG!!! the MEDIA!!!! AAAIIEEE!!!!
So you think that when there is a terrorist attack, all relevant videos should be open to the public? when there's a rape, and it was videotaped, should the public be allowed to see that video to prove to them it was a rape?
Oh good, i guess you ARE fighting for the rights of the people that died that day...
OMG!!! the MEDIA!!!! AAAIIEEE!!!!
A gasoline fire (which is not very hot) from an airplane on the 75 to 80th floors could not weaken a steel cored building for 80 floors down enough to compeletely bring it to the ground. People escaping never reported fire below the crash.
I am not saying it is a government conspiracy, and i'm not sure what really happened, all i am saying is that there were explosives in the building, a jet can't bring down a scyscraper of that size. Why can you hear rapid explosions right before the towers fall?
I am not saying it is a government conspiracy, and i'm not sure what really happened, all i am saying is that there were explosives in the building, a jet can't bring down a scyscraper of that size. Why can you hear rapid explosions right before the towers fall?
almostaskier
Active member
gasoline? are you trying to insult our collective intelligence? kerosene my man, PLUS furniture, office stuff, computers, full of chemicals, gas mains...
care to tell me who said there was no fire below the crash? and care to tell me how that is relevant? the planes crashed where the weight of the falling building would have been enough to start the successive collapse of the rest of it...
you don't know that there were explosives, you don't know that a jet can't bring down a building of that size. lemme give you a hint: it did.
rapid explosions? many thing sound like explosions: steel girders snapping, released pressure from the inside of the building, oh, i dunno, gas lines catching fire?
care to tell me who said there was no fire below the crash? and care to tell me how that is relevant? the planes crashed where the weight of the falling building would have been enough to start the successive collapse of the rest of it...
you don't know that there were explosives, you don't know that a jet can't bring down a building of that size. lemme give you a hint: it did.
rapid explosions? many thing sound like explosions: steel girders snapping, released pressure from the inside of the building, oh, i dunno, gas lines catching fire?
TMswitch06
Member
hey mattman ever heard the term "beating a dead horse" ? well you have beaten it, filled it with hand grenades, grinded up all the pieces in a giant blender, drank the horse smoothie, shit it out, lit it on fire, then ran over the ashes with a steamroller. oh and you're an artard
skier_boy26
Active member
Seriously, talk about beating a dead horse. After watching this video again, and many of the prevailing videos and websites regarding this issue (and yes, most of it is on the internet) it is just regurgitated conspiracies. This has been brought up time and time again on here, and its just not worth debating because it is alwways ends up being a circular argument where all the facts come from somebodies website, or misconstrued details, usually from just regular people or from early accounts. Fuck it
MitchPee
Active member
Mattman just in case you didn't see here's my post again.
The Madrid and other buildings shown in the video were pure fire. See there's a slight difference between these examples and 9/11. A fucking plane crashed into the towers. Do you have any idea what kind of force that is? The towers were made to withstand a plane crash engineeringly speaking. The force of one that is. When you add weakened steel with the loss of many supports on the building, it results in a lot of factors that can cause even the most planned out buildings to topple. Nevermind the fact that the seismic activity caused by the first towers collapse could be a major factor why the second one fell.
An operation like the one you're speaking of would cause years of preparation and a lot of people. To place explosives like the ones claimed to have been used in 9/11 would require placing them in locations all around the building, not just central.
Are you just going to deny history? Are you going to deny the fact that Bin Laden exists and that his groups that fought in the Afghani-Russian war. Are you going to deny the fact that British reporters have met and spoken with him and completely neutral parties have told stories of his Jihad on America since 1998?
Look Mattman, let me put it in simple terms for you. You're believing a video you watched on the internet involved entirely by speculation.
All these videos show one-sided pictures and questionable interviews. I have talked to people that were as close as physically possible to the WTC towers. They claimed to hear nothing about "explosions" and the such.
Now, it's very very easy to put "evidence" together years after the actual event. People don't remember as well and people start to believe so much that it was a conspiracy that they imagine they heard/saw things they didn't, or they just flat out lie. Where is your common sense. This operation could never go unnoticed. The tracks would have to be exposed somewhere. There have been ABSOLUTELY NO signs of any explosives being retrieved from the WTC. Now don't you think a firefighter might be testifying if they had found some signs of explosives?
If you look at the WTC debris, it wasn't stacked nearly as high as normal controlled demolitions. A 110 foot housing projects building left a pile of debris 65 feet high. It was spread out over a far distance. This gives the indication that the top of the tower did indeed fall on a different path than the rest of the building which is a physical impossibility of a demolition because of the fact that a demolition of that size would have to implode. Another reason why you wouldn't hear MULTIPLE explosions. You would hear ONE explosion as the building implodes. This would cause an even break (which didn't happen) and then the buildings weight would do the rest. This was not the case of 9/11. The surrounding damage to many buildings around was a key indicator that a demolition had not been conducted because of the fact that simply the building debris was spread too far. Either a demolition creates the implosion goes clean and everything goes wrong or the tower breaks off into an L shape at the point of the implosion. As you can see, this is not the case.
You see Mattman, at 1,008 feet (nearly 9 times the height of the controlled housing projects demolition) the pile of debris was just about as high. This means the debris was spread further than could possibly be detained by a controlled demolition.
Also, the noise heard by the explosions of the housing projects building in Chicago could be heard from outside the city. This was a 110 foot building. You would need 9 times more explosives to take down the WTC. This would mean it could be heard in parts of NJ and in the most northern part of the Bronx. How come there were no testaments of noise heard?
Now, here's where I'm really going to give you shit. The claimed point of the "demolition" was somewhere between the 90th and 97th floors. The only possible way that explosives wouldn't have been placed in the office floors would be if they were placed on the mechanical floors (which would be floors 7,8,41,42,75,76,108,109. So this clearly means that the source of the first tower collapse came from somewhere where there was corporate property. Physically meaning there would be explosives planted on pillars in the office space.
Please if you have any further questions I would be glad to address them. Until then just try and think using logic, and not your imagination.
The Madrid and other buildings shown in the video were pure fire. See there's a slight difference between these examples and 9/11. A fucking plane crashed into the towers. Do you have any idea what kind of force that is? The towers were made to withstand a plane crash engineeringly speaking. The force of one that is. When you add weakened steel with the loss of many supports on the building, it results in a lot of factors that can cause even the most planned out buildings to topple. Nevermind the fact that the seismic activity caused by the first towers collapse could be a major factor why the second one fell.
An operation like the one you're speaking of would cause years of preparation and a lot of people. To place explosives like the ones claimed to have been used in 9/11 would require placing them in locations all around the building, not just central.
Are you just going to deny history? Are you going to deny the fact that Bin Laden exists and that his groups that fought in the Afghani-Russian war. Are you going to deny the fact that British reporters have met and spoken with him and completely neutral parties have told stories of his Jihad on America since 1998?
Look Mattman, let me put it in simple terms for you. You're believing a video you watched on the internet involved entirely by speculation.
All these videos show one-sided pictures and questionable interviews. I have talked to people that were as close as physically possible to the WTC towers. They claimed to hear nothing about "explosions" and the such.
Now, it's very very easy to put "evidence" together years after the actual event. People don't remember as well and people start to believe so much that it was a conspiracy that they imagine they heard/saw things they didn't, or they just flat out lie. Where is your common sense. This operation could never go unnoticed. The tracks would have to be exposed somewhere. There have been ABSOLUTELY NO signs of any explosives being retrieved from the WTC. Now don't you think a firefighter might be testifying if they had found some signs of explosives?
If you look at the WTC debris, it wasn't stacked nearly as high as normal controlled demolitions. A 110 foot housing projects building left a pile of debris 65 feet high. It was spread out over a far distance. This gives the indication that the top of the tower did indeed fall on a different path than the rest of the building which is a physical impossibility of a demolition because of the fact that a demolition of that size would have to implode. Another reason why you wouldn't hear MULTIPLE explosions. You would hear ONE explosion as the building implodes. This would cause an even break (which didn't happen) and then the buildings weight would do the rest. This was not the case of 9/11. The surrounding damage to many buildings around was a key indicator that a demolition had not been conducted because of the fact that simply the building debris was spread too far. Either a demolition creates the implosion goes clean and everything goes wrong or the tower breaks off into an L shape at the point of the implosion. As you can see, this is not the case.
You see Mattman, at 1,008 feet (nearly 9 times the height of the controlled housing projects demolition) the pile of debris was just about as high. This means the debris was spread further than could possibly be detained by a controlled demolition.
Also, the noise heard by the explosions of the housing projects building in Chicago could be heard from outside the city. This was a 110 foot building. You would need 9 times more explosives to take down the WTC. This would mean it could be heard in parts of NJ and in the most northern part of the Bronx. How come there were no testaments of noise heard?
Now, here's where I'm really going to give you shit. The claimed point of the "demolition" was somewhere between the 90th and 97th floors. The only possible way that explosives wouldn't have been placed in the office floors would be if they were placed on the mechanical floors (which would be floors 7,8,41,42,75,76,108,109. So this clearly means that the source of the first tower collapse came from somewhere where there was corporate property. Physically meaning there would be explosives planted on pillars in the office space.
Please if you have any further questions I would be glad to address them. Until then just try and think using logic, and not your imagination.
MitchPee
Active member
What are we paying the price for? To invade Iraq? Wow dumbass look at all the money we're making from that! TONS OF MONEY! Sarcasm...
Listen to what you're saying, it's a circular pattern of shit. Nothing connects, just a bunch of different theories mixed with the idiots that will actually be convinced by them. What oil have we got from Iraq? The US gets enough oil as it is. There's no American oil companies in Iraq right now so what the fuck are we gaining? Again you make a horrible point.
Listen to what you're saying, it's a circular pattern of shit. Nothing connects, just a bunch of different theories mixed with the idiots that will actually be convinced by them. What oil have we got from Iraq? The US gets enough oil as it is. There's no American oil companies in Iraq right now so what the fuck are we gaining? Again you make a horrible point.
MitchPee
Active member
Info on that please. I could see why he would have terrorism as a top priority considering there was a BOMB set off by terrorists in it. I would love to hear where you came up with that, because nobody would be stupid enough to make it the month before an attack like that.
Rumors of a terrorist attack on those buildings have been eminent forever, having terrorism on the top priority is highly credible. What's going to bring it down? A hurricane? Seriously think about what factors could actually bring down such a building other than a huge plane crashing into it.
Rumors of a terrorist attack on those buildings have been eminent forever, having terrorism on the top priority is highly credible. What's going to bring it down? A hurricane? Seriously think about what factors could actually bring down such a building other than a huge plane crashing into it.
Mattman, you are a retard. Plain and simple. If I ever had any doubts before this thread, they are now completely gone and vanished.Please, think with some common sense before you post, if that's possible. Almost 19,000 posts and I still have yet to see one that is well thought out and relavent.
I am not in the mood to type out long drawn out responses to every "scientific" claim you have made in this thread, but umm... lets see. In this post alone...
"some demolistions go sideways" Demolitions on buildings of more than 5 stories or so NEVER go sideways. Ever. Experts place charges so that building fall into their own footprints.
"NEver in History is that Gas Fuel would bring down Steel buildings." Putting your third grade grammar aside, yes, you're right. Gas explosions are not typically powerful enough to cause a steel structure to fail. However, the fires associated with those gas explosions can, and will severely weaken steel. Natural gas typically burns at 2000-2500 degrees farenheit. At 2000 degrees, steel loses over 90% of it's strength. I'm not a structural engineer, but I know that 10% of its original strength is not enough to support a 40+ story building.
"At the bottom of the twins towers, why were the glass blown out?" This is actually very common in demolition, not because of bombs or explosives, but because of simple air compression, and the same principle can be applied to the towers. Where you you think millions of cubic feet of air being compressed rapidly downward are going?
Oh, and here are my sources, though I didn't have time to document them correctly.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition
http://www.energy.ca.gov/naturalgas/index.html
I am not in the mood to type out long drawn out responses to every "scientific" claim you have made in this thread, but umm... lets see. In this post alone...
"some demolistions go sideways" Demolitions on buildings of more than 5 stories or so NEVER go sideways. Ever. Experts place charges so that building fall into their own footprints.
"NEver in History is that Gas Fuel would bring down Steel buildings." Putting your third grade grammar aside, yes, you're right. Gas explosions are not typically powerful enough to cause a steel structure to fail. However, the fires associated with those gas explosions can, and will severely weaken steel. Natural gas typically burns at 2000-2500 degrees farenheit. At 2000 degrees, steel loses over 90% of it's strength. I'm not a structural engineer, but I know that 10% of its original strength is not enough to support a 40+ story building.
"At the bottom of the twins towers, why were the glass blown out?" This is actually very common in demolition, not because of bombs or explosives, but because of simple air compression, and the same principle can be applied to the towers. Where you you think millions of cubic feet of air being compressed rapidly downward are going?
Oh, and here are my sources, though I didn't have time to document them correctly.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition
http://www.energy.ca.gov/naturalgas/index.html
oakjewlery
Active member
shiitss weakkk
Dr._TubesTied
Member
my spanish teacher showed it to us in spanish class and she got suspended for a week. i dont really beleive anything she says though because she also thinks that the pyrimids were built from the top down by aliens. anyway, after she got suspened she came back and now sells the DVDs under her desk for a dollar. i bought it and it was pretty interesting, but i dont believe it.
Capt.Flannel
Active member
That's fucked up man... sounds a little like Socrates' type stuff. If she's executed, beware.
Rez4frederick
Active member
How do you guys explain WTC 7 going down and the random 747 that "supposedly" hit the pentagon then?
skier_boy26
Active member
WTC 7 was showing signs of collapse long before it did! For fucks sake. There were signs of cracks and subsidence long before it finally fell. This has been said time and time again, and proved!
Look where the tower was in relation to the the other towers collapsing:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-wtc7-lg.jpg{/IMG}
It had to brunt the impact of both towers collapsing. Initial reports of the buildings damage are usually the main basis for all conspiracies regarding WTC7, but countless times it has been refuted, and refuted by people who have credentials (i.e. not some guy browsing the internet). Furthermore, whether you like it or not, it did have flaws: one was a set of cantilevering floors to distribute weight, and these failed due to the damage. It is not impossible for a building to fail! Second of all, there are gas lines that did run within the building, and did not shut off. This will not melt the steel, but it does affect the properties of both reinforced concrete and steel. Coupled with the severe damage caused by the crashes of the other two towers, it was enough for the building to go down. And the aforementioned, buildings of this height do not fall sideways! They are not trees. As the structure system fails, it falls straight down.
And another aspect, which I think most people such as yourself overlook, is the nature of these terrorists. There have been countless attacks, and many substantial attacks on the United States and other Western countries over the past 40 years. Mnay do involve airliners, some dont. It fits everything that they have done (or maybe that is too perfect, and the government tried to make it look that way? obviously).
Look where the tower was in relation to the the other towers collapsing:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-wtc7-lg.jpg{/IMG}
It had to brunt the impact of both towers collapsing. Initial reports of the buildings damage are usually the main basis for all conspiracies regarding WTC7, but countless times it has been refuted, and refuted by people who have credentials (i.e. not some guy browsing the internet). Furthermore, whether you like it or not, it did have flaws: one was a set of cantilevering floors to distribute weight, and these failed due to the damage. It is not impossible for a building to fail! Second of all, there are gas lines that did run within the building, and did not shut off. This will not melt the steel, but it does affect the properties of both reinforced concrete and steel. Coupled with the severe damage caused by the crashes of the other two towers, it was enough for the building to go down. And the aforementioned, buildings of this height do not fall sideways! They are not trees. As the structure system fails, it falls straight down.
And another aspect, which I think most people such as yourself overlook, is the nature of these terrorists. There have been countless attacks, and many substantial attacks on the United States and other Western countries over the past 40 years. Mnay do involve airliners, some dont. It fits everything that they have done (or maybe that is too perfect, and the government tried to make it look that way? obviously).
skier_boy26
Active member
damnit slip of the finger
jksl
Active member
milli vanilli LIPSYNCHED! due to their anger of being caught back in the late 80s, they spent about 12 years planning their intricate plot to get back at the world and hijack planes and crash them into hollywood. however, not having any sort of knowledge about flying, they ended up hitting the twin towers. the end.
Rez4frederick
Active member
ok, then what about the pentagon?
Supposedly a 747 bounced off the ground and hit 5 light poles before it hit the pentagon, but yet there is not a single scuff of the grass where the plane supposedly bounced off the ground before it hit. The hole is not big enough for 747 in the wall of the pentagon and the FBI confiscated all the nearby security tapes and the only thing they released is 5 frames of an "explosion" but you see no huge ass plane, please, explain that one.
Supposedly a 747 bounced off the ground and hit 5 light poles before it hit the pentagon, but yet there is not a single scuff of the grass where the plane supposedly bounced off the ground before it hit. The hole is not big enough for 747 in the wall of the pentagon and the FBI confiscated all the nearby security tapes and the only thing they released is 5 frames of an "explosion" but you see no huge ass plane, please, explain that one.
Rez4frederick
Active member
and honestly, its just tooo much of a coincidence that the guy who owned the twin towers had just got insurance on his buildings for "terrorist attacks". What did all of a sudden he just had the urge to get insurance even after the shit that happened in the 1980s? fucking bullshit
skiierman
Active member
Are you retarded? You're really trying to use that fucking video as evidence? They never showed the actual hole the plane went through in that video you jackass. As far as the grass goes, it was torn to shit but once again being the genius you are, you only used the footage edited in the video to make it look like they aren't complete shit heads. As far as the FBI confiscating all near by security tapes? You are are a fucking douche. It was an attack on the Pentagon so of course they are going to get all the evidence they can for the investigation.
wilkesyachtingco
Active member
This is a leopard.
srwinnsuco
Active member
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/299/59/
watch this shit
our government isnt even close to a democracy wake up people.
our government does shit secretly all over the world that we never hear about, it might be plausable that there was some sort of involvement in 911, please just be open minded. yeah 3000 people died in 911, if you people didnt realize 3000 US soldier have died in iraq now for no reason what so ever and no one seems to give a shit about those dead americans. Just he dead americans in the twin towers.......
watch this shit
our government isnt even close to a democracy wake up people.
our government does shit secretly all over the world that we never hear about, it might be plausable that there was some sort of involvement in 911, please just be open minded. yeah 3000 people died in 911, if you people didnt realize 3000 US soldier have died in iraq now for no reason what so ever and no one seems to give a shit about those dead americans. Just he dead americans in the twin towers.......
almostaskier
Active member
people don't vote anymore?
you know what, go to zimbabwe, then complain.
you know what, go to zimbabwe, then complain.
srwinnsuco
Active member
dude you suck a houseing project is a lot different than 100 story buildings i dont see the corelation. thats not logical at all. a 100 story bulding is going to fall a lot differently than a 110 foot (feet not story's people) housing project.
srwinnsuco
Active member
haha fuck you i'm not complaining i'm just saying your country is a military industrail complex not a democracy.
almostaskier
Active member
omg! he gone and quoted Eisenhower...
so, a country that has a military-industrial complex can't be a democracy?
what about france?
so, a country that has a military-industrial complex can't be a democracy?
what about france?
srwinnsuco
Active member
ok cool man were a democracy
a lot of good it did us
if i remmeber correctly a lot of the country voted in the last election because they were pissed about iraq and wanted a change or us out of iraq....
and what have we gotten from out new democratically elected leaders.....
jack shit but the same thing that we've gotten for the last 10 years.....
which would be the voice of the pople not being applied by our elected officials
when is nancy pelosi going to address leaving iraq
probably never......
just saying
we might have a democracy but it doesnt do a very good job of representing the people or their needs....
a lot of good it did us
if i remmeber correctly a lot of the country voted in the last election because they were pissed about iraq and wanted a change or us out of iraq....
and what have we gotten from out new democratically elected leaders.....
jack shit but the same thing that we've gotten for the last 10 years.....
which would be the voice of the pople not being applied by our elected officials
when is nancy pelosi going to address leaving iraq
probably never......
just saying
we might have a democracy but it doesnt do a very good job of representing the people or their needs....
derbski
Active member
what would be the motive of the govt to have 9/11. I believe that these videos say (ive watched loose change, im in school right now so I cant watch this one) that the government did this to give justification to the war. number one, look how much the war has helped us, and number 2, all they would have needed would to do would be to say that bin laden planned on doing the attack on the WTC, and they would have had enough justification to go to war with them, the government would never have any need to actually have the attack happen.
derbski
Active member
even if it was a demolition, steel cant fall at the "speed" of gravity, which isnt a speed, its an acceleration. nothing falls with the acceleration of gravity, unless its in a vaccum, there is air resitance, and nothing can fall at that speed, so the video is wrong, it isnt falling at top gravitational acceleration, and it couldnt if it was a demolition either. Also, all sky-scrapes are designed to colapse straight down instead of sideways, incase of attacks, earthquakes( even though they dont happen in new york) anything that could bring down a building, because if something that size fell sideways, it could kil tens of thousands
wilkesyachtingco
Active member
just as soon as she gets done with the important things... like her using her govmnt plane to doodle around the country.
srwinnsuco
Active member
ahh exactly you are so correct.
t-roy
Active member
from watching that movie and the one about the jet hitting the pentagon, the original loose change, your mind really starts to wonder.
everything you say will anger someone out there, or someone else will disagree with you. that's the way people are.
right now i feel pretty scared for the fate of the world and our country, much like i did after watching an inconvenient truth. my stomach is going to feel sick and disgusted for a few minutes or an hour, but then i'm likely going to forget about it for the time. i'll remember the video and tell my friends to watch it, but there isn't much i can do right now to go out and change the world. i don't have the funds or the information to make a good argument or whatever to start something, and if i did i would likely get shut up by the government. right now, i'm going to go check the mail and see if ski porn came in...
everything you say will anger someone out there, or someone else will disagree with you. that's the way people are.
right now i feel pretty scared for the fate of the world and our country, much like i did after watching an inconvenient truth. my stomach is going to feel sick and disgusted for a few minutes or an hour, but then i'm likely going to forget about it for the time. i'll remember the video and tell my friends to watch it, but there isn't much i can do right now to go out and change the world. i don't have the funds or the information to make a good argument or whatever to start something, and if i did i would likely get shut up by the government. right now, i'm going to go check the mail and see if ski porn came in...
MitchPee
Active member
EVERY government does shit behind the people's backs. Are you that ignorant? Do you not know anything else about the rest of the world?
Nobody cares about those Americans at all...right that's why we DON'T have reminders all the time about 9/11 and the people that were killed.
Nobody cares about those Americans at all...right that's why we DON'T have reminders all the time about 9/11 and the people that were killed.