| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LL Moonmanhead
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Location: yo momma
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: I love a good conspiracy theory |
 |
|
Makes quite a compelling case.
WTC 7, hmm...'we made the decision to "pull it"'..
Not convinced by all the claims but some things certainly don't add up.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911
Anyway, it's well worth a watch if you haven't already seen it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A very good debunking of the loose change video. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LL Moonmanhead
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Location: yo momma
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| A very good debunking of the loose change video. |
I'm not claiming everything in it is the gospel truth, but building 7 confuses me the most.
why would building 7 collapse? The fires in that building were quoted as being "small" and should have been put out by the sprinkler system. The towers didnt fall onto it and it wasnt hit by a plane, but later in the day it collapsed. A 47 floor steel frame building, this had never happened before (apart from the twin towers of course)
And if you consider that the same intensity of fire and heat as in the towers would have occured at the pentagon, how come the damage there was nowhere near as bad? Filing cabinets, PCs and wodden stools visable in the hole created by inpact. Surely if the plane disintergrated into nothing (no wings, no engines,no tyres, no seats, no luggage) then office furniture in such close proximity would also have disintegrated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinglejangle
Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Location: Far far far away.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
LL,
I'm not going to pretend to know much about physics and construction, but I imagine that two hundred story towers collapsing would create acouple of rather significant shockwaves. Maybe that would have a bit to do with it.
I also remember on the news that day a good deal of worry being expressed about the structural integrity of the other buildings, including specifically #7. (also #4 I seem to recall.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinglejangle wrote: |
LL,
I'm not going to pretend to know much about physics and construction, but I imagine that two hundred story towers collapsing would create acouple of rather significant shockwaves. Maybe that would have a bit to do with it.
I also remember on the news that day a good deal of worry being expressed about the structural integrity of the other buildings, including specifically #7. (also #4 I seem to recall.) |
Exactly. The two largest buildings in the world suddenly releasing all that potential energy would create a helluva a lot of over pressure. That energy has to go somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LL Moonmanhead
Joined: 21 Mar 2005
Location: yo momma
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jinglejangle wrote: |
LL,
I'm not going to pretend to know much about physics and construction, but I imagine that two hundred story towers collapsing would create acouple of rather significant shockwaves. Maybe that would have a bit to do with it.
I also remember on the news that day a good deal of worry being expressed about the structural integrity of the other buildings, including specifically #7. (also #4 I seem to recall.) |
But Silverstein, who had just recently become tennent of the WTC's stated in an interview that he made the decision on the advice of firefighters to 'pull it'. Slip of the tongue, maybe!?!?
If it was 'pulled', which you have to admit, it does look a lot like a controlled demolition. The explosive/charges had to have been in place before Sept 11. They cannot do that in a day, yet alone in a day when the building had a number of small fires on various floors.
Thats all i'm saying!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| A very good debunking of the loose change video. |
Didn't the DE-BUN-KING machine go into full tilt following the events in Dallas November 22nd, 1963?
I believe the record clearly shows it did. Standard operational procedure.
Perception management ( aka MIND CONTROL ).
For his part, Arlen Specter naturally won a few points from the coup plotters with his role in mapping out the now infamous MAGICK BULLET .... "theory".
Hmmmmm ... where is Specter now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlen_Specter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Two things stand out, because there is virtually no explanation: the damage to the Pentagon before the collapse and the lack of virtually any evidence of the plane, and the 5 frames of video footage along with what they won't release. I can think of no reason whatsoever to not release footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. None.
Well, there are also the temps, the flashes, etc. at the WTC.
The history books in 50 years could be quite interesting. Might be full of the WTC story and how "patriots" took back America from the Libs.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Summer Wine
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Location: Next to a River
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I watched a TV program a few years back about Switzerland and how since WW2, they had made it a policy to build explosives into their tunnels and bridges as well as provide every male citizen with a rifle in case of war.
It could be possible that the US has done the same and it wasn't solely the cause of the planes but also  other reasons. Nor was it a planned occurance but one that occurred due to something outside the control of those in power that brought the towers down regardless of how strong they are suppposed to be because of their steel infrastuctures..
Just offering a possiblity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Two things stand out, because there is virtually no explanation: the damage to the Pentagon before the collapse and the lack of virtually any evidence of the plane, and the 5 frames of video footage along with what they won't release. I can think of no reason whatsoever to not release footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. None. |
What are you expecting to see?
Or not see?
Are you one of those of the opinion that a commercial airliner didn't hit the Pentagon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Summer Wine wrote: |
| I watched a TV program a few years back about Switzerland and how since WW2, they had made it a policy to build explosives into their tunnels and bridges. |
Well you can see the same thing in Israel and north of Seoul, and you used to be able to see it in West Germany.
It's done to prevent rapid advancement by enemy tanks and other ground vehicles along existing transportation infrastructure.
Hard to see how it would apply to commercial buildings.
Here's what I would like to see: 3 or more structural demolitions experts stating in writing that that in their professional opinion these buildings were brought down with explosive charges.
Can anyone do that?
Surely it shouldn't be hard to find?
| Quote: |
| It could be possible that the US has done the same and it wasn't solely the cause of the planes but also other reasons. |
I'm extremely stupid, as everyone reading the Current Events Forum already knows. I don't get it.
So, could you elaborate on this?
What 'other reasons'? [nudge nudge, wink wink?]
| Quote: |
| Just offering a possiblity. |
Of course.
A possibility that the WTC towers were wired with explosives in the same fashion that bridges and tunnels of Switzerland are wired.
I'm curious- what kind of odds would you give this possibility?
Good? Okay? Slim? very remote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
Two things stand out, because there is virtually no explanation: the damage to the Pentagon before the collapse and the lack of virtually any evidence of the plane, and the 5 frames of video footage along with what they won't release. I can think of no reason whatsoever to not release footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. None.
|
Who says there is no evidence of a plane? A video put up on the internet? Why not release the footage? I dunno maybe in the military mind you don't release full security cam footage, giving future attackers an idea of the quality of the video and what they might do to confound the video. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did you two watch the video? First, Bulsajo, I did not state an opinion of any kind. I reacted to the video, but did not state an opinion about it. Why always looking for a fight?
mindmetoo, there were a number of different possible video sources mentioned in the movie. Also, I don't recall the video stating the frames released were from US Gov't security film. Do you really think the five frames released compromise national security? Or that five more would? They were exterior shots of a building you can go look at any time you want, aren't they? Do you seriously think there aren't foreign spies wandering by scoping things out on a regular basis?
Why release frames that only show the explosion and not the plane hitting?
Anyway, I remind you I stated no opinion, so move along. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Did you two watch the video? |
Loose change? Old hat. Of course I have. Which version, 2002 or 2004? It's been posted here a few times, and thoroughly debunked both here and at more 'reputable' sites. Interesting to note that it appears to have just gotten some new attention, yours among them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29
| Quote: |
| First, Bulsajo, I did not state an opinion of any kind. I reacted to the video, but did not state an opinion about it. Why always looking for a fight? |
What are you talking about?
You posted, and I am responding.
It's a simple question, why are you dodging it?
And why are you accusing me of doing what you constantly do to Gopher?
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I remind you I stated no opinion, so move along. |
You clearly indicate you have problems with some missing footage (5 frames to be exact), I am trying to discover why.
I didn't realize this would be a problem for you, but in hindsight I guess I should have known better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Did you two watch the video? |
Loose change? Old hat. Of course I have. Which version, 2002 or 2004? It's been posted here a few times, and thoroughly debunked both here and at more 'reputable' sites. Interesting to note that it appears to have just gotten some new attention, yours among them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29
| Quote: |
| First, Bulsajo, I did not state an opinion of any kind. I reacted to the video, but did not state an opinion about it. Why always looking for a fight? |
What are you talking about?
You posted, and I am responding.
It's a simple question, why are you dodging it?
And why are you accusing me of doing what you constantly do to Gopher?
| Quote: |
| Anyway, I remind you I stated no opinion, so move along. |
You clearly indicate you have problems with some missing footage (5 frames to be exact), I am trying to discover why.
I didn't realize this would be a problem for you, but in hindsight I guess I should have known better. |
Blah, blah, blah... Your question implies an assumption on your part. you did not ask, "What do you think about it." You asked a skewed question, thus, your not "just" asking, and I'm not interested in a debate about the veracity of the video nor about the conspiracy theory, which is why I stated there *may* be some interesting revisions to textbooks in the future.
Try to keep up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
