9-11 Re-visited

[Harv]

This video was brought to my attention by some younger people who got the link from MySpace or something they use. It is quite shocking. Watch it only if you have nearly one and a half hours time available.
www.loosechange911.com (Since underline does not show, copy/paste)

[Quentin_11C]

I've seen that video before. It's pretty convincing, especially the evidence of the Pentagon crash (jet liner outline, lack of wreckage) but what i found most interesting was the titanium melting point vs jet fuel burning temperature. The parts about the flash just before impact on the twin towers is questionable, as anything can be done with a computer.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Yes, I've seen this before. It's very convincing. I don't watch the news hardly at all, so I have no idea if any of the claims made in this video have been refuted in any way, but I'd be interested to hear how the government has reacted to it.

[General Septem]

Yes, I've seen this before. It's very convincing. I don't watch the news hardly at all, so I have no idea if any of the claims made in this video have been refuted in any way, but I'd be interested to hear how the government has reacted to it.
Oh, people have attempted to refute them but to little avail. There was a Popular Mechanics article, for instance, that attempted to refute some of the claims, but all it ended up doing was insulting your intelligence.

I'd reccomend this site: http://universalseed.org/

I'd personally skip the Alex Jones videos, but the David Ray Griffin ones and the others are very good. Alex Jones is just a little too... I don't know.

[freakazoid]

Oh, people have attempted to refute them but to little avail. There was a Popular Mechanics article, for instance, that attempted to refute some of the claims, but all it ended up doing was insulting your intelligence.

I'd reccomend this site: http://universalseed.org/

I'd personally skip the Alex Jones videos, but the David Ray Griffin ones and the others are very good. Alex Jones is just a little too... I don't know.
Hey General, I watched Loose Change carefully (with a very open mind) and can refute many of the claims. To put in short; I really believe that the claims of Loose Change are false and easy to disprove. The easiest one to refute is the claim that the building was brought down by a "planned implosion." Will give details if you want. That claim is absolutely impossible to be true and could have in no way happen.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

the building was brought down by a "planned implosion." Will give details if you want. That claim is absolutely impossible to be true and could have in no way happen.


How is it imposible to be true? It seems that the video pointed out very well just how impossible the opposite of the case is to be true. Just how could the buildings have fallen straight down, level by level as they did if it wasn't planned? I would think that instead of a vertical collapse, the buildings would have tipped in one direction or another and caused severe damage from falling materials to the area surrounding for a distance almost as long as the building is tall.

[General Septem]

The Loose Change video is kind of an introductory video. It doesn't really bring up everything, it just opens the mind to challenge that which the government would have us believe. After I watched that video I made up in my mind that I neither believe nor disbelieve either side of the story. Before I watched the video, I was convinced it was an act of middle eastern terrorists. Afterward, my opinion was that it could've happened either way. But when I started getting into some of the heavier ones, the ones that get more in detail, the "official" explaination just became less and less plausible.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Well stated. It seems now that something more than what we are told to believe has happened. I am much more interested in finding out just what the absolute truth is than I am in caring who is to blame for the issue. My future is probably doomed either way anyways.

[freakazoid]

How is it imposible to be true? It seems that the video pointed out very well just how impossible the opposite of the case is to be true. Just how could the buildings have fallen straight down, level by level as they did if it wasn't planned? I would think that instead of a vertical collapse, the buildings would have tipped in one direction or another and caused severe damage from falling materials to the area surrounding for a distance almost as long as the building is tall.

** OK, here is why...

1. 4 or 5 black puffs of smoke as noted by Loose Change are no proof any charges going off and could have been anything including pipes bursting under pressure that were filled with black smoke or anything else like air conditioning ducks bursting open as the building came down that were also filled with black smoke from the fires.

2. It would have taken hundreds of carefully set changes to bring down the towers.

3. It would take weeks to carefully set the very special types of charges that are required to bring the towers down.

4. You can not just set them anywhere, they must be very carefully placed to explode in a manner to cut the steel girders in just the right manner. To do so would have meant that hundreds of holes would have had to be cut into paneling, dry wall, and other outside covering of the girders to get to them. Do you really believe that this could have been done in the entire building and NO ONE, including plumbers, electricians, construction men, janitors, security people, people that worked in the hundreds offices in the towers, cooks, maids, visitors, builder managers, etc., etc., etc., would have never noticed a SINGLE charge being set and said nothing about it? Do you believe that no one would have asked why people were showing up in offices, cutting holes in the walls to get to the steel girders to set charges and mounting suspicious charges all over the building? No one would say a word? NO POSSIBLE WAY!! One person I debated this subject with tried to tell me that it was possible merely because the "security people worked for Jeb Bush's security company and that means they ALL did nothing (as ordered I suppose) to try and look into why all this suspicious activity." "Are you kidding me?" ...was my answer, do you think they all wanted to die in a building explosion and demolition (which many of them did that day the towers came down)?

5. Have you seen a real implosion of a large building (maybe on TV)? It takes hundreds of charges going off in concert and you can easily see them exploding all over the outside of any building as it falls (you see none of any such charges in ANY video), the footage shown in Loose Change shows 3 or 4 relatively small puffs of black smoke and THAT is their SOLE "proof" that the building was brought down on purpose by controlled implosion. It does not look anything like a real controlled implosion used to bring down large buildings like the trade towers.

That entire claim is total bullshit in the extreme, as is many other claims in Loose Change.

[freakazoid]

The Loose Change video is kind of an introductory video. It doesn't really bring up everything, it just opens the mind to challenge that which the government would have us believe. After I watched that video I made up in my mind that I neither believe nor disbelieve either side of the story. Before I watched the video, I was convinced it was an act of middle eastern terrorists. Afterward, my opinion was that it could've happened either way. But when I started getting into some of the heavier ones, the ones that get more in detail, the "official" explaination just became less and less plausible.

The open mind part, I totally agree with you. And I think it is important to always question government authority and claims, as you say, General.

[General Septem]

RE: 1. 4 or 5 black puffs of smoke as noted by Loose Change are no proof any charges going off and could have been anything including pipes bursting under pressure that were filled with black smoke or anything else like air conditioning ducks bursting open as the building came down that were also filled with black smoke from the fires.

True, the smoke plumes are a weak argument, but they're also not the only evidence.


RE: 2. It would have taken hundreds of carefully set changes to bring down the towers.

They'd be the biggest buildings to be brouhgt down by controlled demolition but it's possible.


RE: 3. It would take weeks to carefully set the very special types of charges that are required to bring the towers down.
4. You can not just set them anywhere, they must be very carefully placed to explode in a manner to cut the steel girders in just the right manner. To do so would have meant that hundreds of holes would have had to be cut into paneling, dry wall, and other outside covering of the girders to get to them. Do you really believe that this could have been done in the entire building and NO ONE, including plumbers, electricians, construction men, janitors, security people, people that worked in the hundreds offices in the towers, cooks, maids, visitors, builder managers, etc., etc., etc., would have never noticed a SINGLE charge being set and said nothing about it? Do you believe that no one would have asked why people were showing up in offices, cutting holes in the walls to get to the steel girders to set charges and mounting suspicious charges all over the building? No one would say a word? NO POSSIBLE WAY!! One person I debated this subject with tried to tell me that it was possible merely because the "security people worked for Jeb Bush's security company and that means they ALL did nothing (as ordered I suppose) to try and look into why all this suspicious activity." "Are you kidding me?" ...was my answer, do you think they all wanted to die in a building explosion and demolition (which many of them did that day the towers came down)?

The core, composed of 47 steel beams, was in a hermedically sealed shaft. They could've been loaded to the brim with explosives and nobody would've noticed.


RE: 5. Have you seen a real implosion of a large building (maybe on TV)? It takes hundreds of charges going off in concert and you can easily see them exploding all over the outside of any building as it falls (you see none of any such charges in ANY video), the footage shown in Loose Change shows 3 or 4 relatively small puffs of black smoke and THAT is their SOLE "proof" that the building was brought down on purpose by controlled implosion. It does not look anything like a real controlled implosion used to bring down large buildings like the trade towers.

The explosives are placed where the tower is supported. The twin towers were completely supported from the inside. Most of those 20-story tall concrete buildings you see demolished on TV are supported at least in part by their outside structure, as well as by concrete pillars placed throughout the building. Therefore, explosives have to be placed on the outside structure as well. But since the weight of both towers were completely supported from the 47 steel beams in the hermedically sealed core of each building, you'd have to be inside to know there were bombs going off, and actually people did.

There's so much evidence that the planes didn't bring these towers down, it's a wonder the government even dared to do it. The first piece of evidence is the fact that they even fell in the first place. Second, they fell straight down. The only way for them to have fallen straight down is if the steel beams were broken into sections; no steel beam can collapse onto itself. Third, if the building had "pancaked", those 47 steel beams would have been left sticking up several hundred feet in the air. Fourth, the buildings were built in three self-supporting sections, so even if the top section fell, there would be no reason for the bottom two sections to fall because it's not like there was any extra weight on them. Fifth, all the concrete was pulverized into dust. There should have been chunks of concrete, yet there was none. Sixth, no steel building has ever collapsed due to a fire before or since 9/11.

[Unimmune]

I do believe the government had a part in this, but it's still unclear atleast to me how. There are many speculations and theories, but does that really matter? You'd have to be blind to see that this wasn't just another part of the plan to gain money and power. And with that arogant, but true statement, maybe you can enlighten me as to how, to only better justify my means for a solution in the situation.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

** OK, here is why....


None of that explains why it fell straight down though, it just explains that it wasn't as safely controlled a demolition as what happens in a public controlled demolition. GS points out some good arguments to support the fact that we aren't hearing the real truth to what happened. I want to know why the buildings fell as they did, not why they couldn't have fallen through a specific planned demolition.

[freakazoid]

General, those are all good theroies, but still no proof of what Loose Change is claiming. Anything could have happened, but no one has presented any facts that substanciate any claim that the towers were in fact brought down by an implosion. And, the possiblities that you posted could have happened but how without anyone knowing or seeing? I don't think it is very probable.

[General Septem]

General, those are all good theroies, but still no proof of what Loose Change is claiming. Anything could have happened, but no one has presented any facts that substanciate any claim that the towers were in fact brought down by an implosion.

Well for one, they couldn't possibly have fallen at that speed if the building had to "crush itself".

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Anything could have happened, but no one has presented any facts that substanciate any claim that the towers were in fact brought down by an implosion.


No one has presented any facts that substanciate the claim that the government is making either. So where does the truth lie?

[freakazoid]

Well for one, they couldn't possibly have fallen at that speed if the building had to "crush itself".
But how would the use of explosive charges caused it to come down faster? And, I do believe that the weight of the top section of the building coming down would cause a cascading affect bringing the sections below the falling debris down fairly easily. That, I think, is more likely.

Also, one point that Loose Change failed to note when discussing the temperature of burning jet fuel (that they claim is not hot enough to melt the certified steel used in the towers) was the very well know affect of the "blast furnace." If you start a fire in an enclosed area, it will burn at a given temperature, but if you set up, or if one exists naturally in a given fire area, the "blast furnace affect," fuel and other burning material can and does burn at rates many times hotter then without the blast furnace affect that could have easily melted the steel girders holding everything up. Loose change seems to have left that possibility out of their documentary.

[freakazoid]

No one has presented any facts that substanciate the claim that the government is making either. So where does the truth lie?

The true lays in carefully researched facts.

[General Septem]

But how would the use of explosive charges caused it to come down faster? And, I do believe that the weight of the top section of the building coming down would cause a cascading affect bringing the sections below the falling debris down fairly easily. That, I think, is more likely.

Well, when we're talking about nearly free-fall speed, there had to've been something other than the weight of the building crushing the rest of it, because if floor 151 had to crush floor 150, that would've slowed it down a little bit, and if every floor took a half a second to pulverize, the building would've taken just under a minute to collapse, not 15-20 seconds.

[freakazoid]

Well, when we're talking about nearly free-fall speed, there had to've been something other than the weight of the building crushing the rest of it, because if floor 151 had to crush floor 150, that would've slowed it down a little bit, and if every floor took a half a second to pulverize, the building would've taken just under a minute to collapse, not 15-20 seconds.

Good points, will have to look further into that, General.

[General Septem]

Good points, will have to look further into that, General.
I want to look into it more myself. I'm still not completely sure what happened, but every time I learn something new, it just seems less and less plausible.

[freakazoid]

I do believe the government had a part in this, but it's still unclear atleast to me how. There are many speculations and theories, but does that really matter? You'd have to be blind to see that this wasn't just another part of the plan to gain money and power. And with that arogant, but true statement, maybe you can enlighten me as to how, to only better justify my means for a solution in the situation.

Who are you addressing, Unimmune?

[Paisleyspeaker]

One thing that deserves more attention is just how the towers differed in structure. Most buildings that you see professionally imploded or demolished are built with interior beams and girders holding the weight of the building, and so we think in terms of demolishing those structures, but the towers were built with the skin or facing of the building holding the weight. I am no engineer, but my husband builds houses for a living and as he explains it, it makes sense that if you were to take out a few key points others would "rack" or be pushed on way or another and fail. Each peice of steel would not only hold the weight it did, but also keep the other peices in the correct positions to bear their share of the weight as well. With the open floor plan and no colunms between the floors to stop it, the floors would do as they did and pancake onto one another.

[General Septem]

One thing that deserves more attention is just how the towers differed in structure. Most buildings that you see professionally imploded or demolished are built with interior beams and girders holding the weight of the building, and so we think in terms of demolishing those structures, but the towers were built with the skin or facing of the building holding the weight.

That's how the 9/11 Commission Report explained it, but it's an outright lie. In reality, the entire weight of the building was supported by the 47 steel beam cores. This was actually what was unique about the building. The outer face of the building was composed of about 250 smaller steel beams; their only purpose was to protect the building in the event of storms. They didn't actually hold up any of the weight of the building.

[dekrantenjongen]

Hi,
the implosion of the towers is one thing.....
but what about the other I don't know how many things that don't add up???

the missing frames in the vids of the Pentagon?
the small hole the first 15 minutes?
extra explosions?
one motor of a missile seen?
no tail pieces...wings...plane parts???

no traces of a plane in Pensylvania..

-removal of gr.zero pile of dirt covered up big time....
-extra explosions wtc
-if the planes above new york would have flown the flight path that was declared by the government, the planes would have crashed long before reaching the wtc. The descent over the distance at the speed was impossible.

all sites were cleaned by the same company.

I'm sorry....this is done back to the times of Romans and Greeks; sacrifice of their own to blame the others and start a war.

Also see: "operation cyanide" on google.

[Quentin_11C]

The descent over the distance at the speed was impossible. The posted aircraft specifications (Such as maximum descent rate, minimum turn radius, etc) are all based well within the maximum limits of an aircraft's potential as a safety precaution so that pilots don't do something crazy. That kind of descent rate is well within an aircraft's limits, even an aircraft of that size and especially with pilots trained on Cessna and Piper Cub type aircraft.