modx-lite Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 But all buildings are different? As mark said, it was built to have as much open space and light as possible so I presume it'll have a completely different structure to Empire State. And again, as Mark said, he architect himself said that in hindsight it shuold have been designed differently - there was a programme on C4 a whilae ago about it, I can;t remeber all the details but I think the interview with him was on that. I'm also pretty certain I remebr it saying that they had allowed for the imapct of a jet, but not the fuel burning? Or it could have been the explosion they allowed for, but not the continued burnning of the fuel. I can;t remebr but it was along those lines, so either that show or this must be wrong.Also if there were bombs planted, would it not make sense to just detonate those and claim terrorists planted those, rather than go the effort of flying two planes into the buildings? I don;t know. And I'm pretty cerain no one knows, other than people high up in gov't etc, which is precisely why all this cinspiracy stuff is a waste of time - it's just people looking at some sketchy stuff but not actually having a clue on specific details as they're not experts!But yeah I'm not saying this whole vid is rubbish, there is some weird stuff like the bets on stock market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I'm also pretty certain I remebr it saying that they had allowed for the imapct of a jet, but not the fuel burning? Or it could have been the explosion they allowed for, but not the continued burnning of the fuel. So burning fuel that lasts 17 minutes, 100+ storey's up effect's a floor 7 storey's underground?I'm sorry, but there is clearly something wrong here. The pentagon one still get's me, with there being no skid marks, a hole not even big enough for the fuselage, let alone wings and engines, and how it somehow penetrate's 9 feet of steel re-inforced concrete.Obviously, there are some truely bullshit idea's in there, but it's still highly interesting stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) I'm sorry, but there is clearly something wrong here. The pentagon one still get's me, with there being no skid marks, a hole not even big enough for the fuselage, let alone wings and engines, and how it somehow penetrate's 9 feet of steel re-inforced concrete.I've 'known' that an airliner did not crash into to the Pentagon for a long while now. I'd never seen that stuff about Flight 93 though. Again, a plane did not crash into that field which they claim. That cannot be proved without black boxes or video footage etc but in my mind I'm 100% certain that those are facts... In which case, if the government lied about those, then what the fook's going on with the Twin Towers?! I'd also never come accross the Trade Centre building 7 which conveniently fell down, containing the DoD, CIA, Secret Service etc.I have to admit I've always liked a good conspiracy-for example I imagine they did get to the moon but I very much doubt the famous video from the surface is anything but a fake, filmed in a studio. Everyone knows the (slightly insubstantial) evidence behind that but there you go.What makes me think about the 9/11 stuff is that if, as it would appear from the stuff presented in that film, the secret service were behind the attacks why would they do it? Surely the oil in Iraq and getting rid of Osama is not a big enough reason to kill thousands of innocent people which leads me to believe that the reason may well have been misdirection. Which is where I'm going to end this blurb because it's starting to sound like Swordfish.Anyway, very very interesting film highlighting some seriously strange stuff going on which, as said before, simply doesn't add up. I wonder what people like Tony Blair would have to say on the matter...Daveedit: Just to keep things correct, it was a B-25 that flew into the Empire State Building, not a B-52. The mistake is corrected on the Loose Change website. Edited January 31, 2006 by monkeyseemonkeydo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurston Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Wow that totally changed my opinion of what happend on 9/11 and i agree that the american government and the F.B.I are all liers just using 9/11 as an excuse to invade iraq and thats why they refuse to investigate anything to do with 9/11 or the pentagon attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) Just been havinga scan on t'internet and found this which, along with the stuff shown on the video includes some pretty convincing videos and photo's of the Flight 175 hitting the second Tower firing a missile into the tower before it hits...Again, these guys are obviously looking for something but do appear to have found what they were looking for!!Dave Edited January 31, 2006 by monkeyseemonkeydo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) But all buildings are different? As mark said, it was built to have as much open space and light as possible so I presume it'll have a completely different structure to Empire State. And again, as Mark said, he architect himself said that in hindsight it shuold have been designed differently - there was a programme on C4 a whilae ago about it, I can;t remeber all the details but I think the interview with him was on that. I'm also pretty certain I remebr it saying that they had allowed for the imapct of a jet, but not the fuel burning? Or it could have been the explosion they allowed for, but not the continued burnning of the fuel. I can;t remebr but it was along those lines, so either that show or this must be wrong.Also if there were bombs planted, would it not make sense to just detonate those and claim terrorists planted those, rather than go the effort of flying two planes into the buildings? I don;t know. And I'm pretty cerain no one knows, other than people high up in gov't etc, which is precisely why all this cinspiracy stuff is a waste of time - it's just people looking at some sketchy stuff but not actually having a clue on specific details as they're not experts!But yeah I'm not saying this whole vid is rubbish, there is some weird stuff like the bets on stock market. the building was made to resist hurricane force winds for days on end a force that is much more severe than a jumbo hitting it. the building was actually mde to withstand jets being flown into it anyway, and the steel could withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for like 2 hours before even becoming slihtley inclined to bend. you would know this if you had watched the vid . i'll try find the site i was on last night that proves this. Edited January 31, 2006 by mat hudson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modx-lite Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 he building was made to resist hurricane force winds for days on end a force that is much more severe than a jumbo hitting it. the building was actually mde to withstand jets being flown into it anyway, and the steel could withstand temperatures of 2000 degrees for like 2 hours before even becoming slihtley inclined to bend. you would know this if you had watched the vid Yeah I prob should have watched whole video first. Watched it all now, and that stuff about the melting at bottom of the basement/blown out windows on ground floor does seem odd. But like I said, I watched another program a bit ago which completely contradicts things in this vid - as I said before, the program on C4 explained how there was a design fault in the building, and an interview with it's architect confirmed it. So, as \I said before, clearly one of them is wrong.Another example of this contradicting the C4 documentary - in this vid it says 'no one at all was allowed access to the wreckage... the steel etc was shipped off to be reccled before any investigation...' - but on the C4 program it showed huge trucks delivering every single significant ppiece of the wreckage to an island somewhere in NY where each bit was investigated for hours to try and find the cause. Again, clearly either this vid or C4 is wrong.o burning fuel that lasts 17 minutes, 100+ storey's up effect's a floor 7 storey's underground?I'm sorry, but there is clearly something wrong here. The pentagon one still get's me, with there being no skid marks, a hole not even big enough for the fuselage, let alone wings and engines, and how it somehow penetrate's 9 feet of steel re-inforced concrete.Obviously, there are some truely bullshit idea's in there, but it's still highly interesting stuff.Yeah I'm not disgareeing with there being lots of crazy suspicious stuff, especially after watching the whole vid (e.g. the flight recorder boxes 'not' being recoevered...), and loads of interesting points. I just hate the way it then spoils all this with contradictary points. Another example - the whole phoning relatives thing. First it shows the examples of people calling on the PLANE'S phone. Then two minutes later it says how MOBILE phones wouldn't work - a bit irrelevant?? (although to be fair I'm guessing itbwas claimed that a lot pof the calls were made from mobiles). Then it shows that guy's experiment which proved mobiles wouldn't work at 32,000ft cruising altitude - I'm pretty certain the plane won't actually have been at 32,000ft when it was approaching the towers? Unless they're a hell of a lot higher than I thought...BUT then agani some do seem really starnge - like the guy calling his mum saying his FULL name?! How bizarre. I really can't make my mind up...Although the vid definitely doesn't show any good explanations for why Bush Administration would do this to itself, ther than a few sketchy 'people made some money' reasons - certainly not as much money as the whole thing cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
011001000110010101110010 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 The twin towers where erected quickly though, with an inner and outer shell. The planes damaged the outershell and just enough of the inner shell to cause them to callapse. (according to my dad) but all of the explosion was outside the building... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 who's your dad? structural engineer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swize Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Some of it flew over my head like the ending and all that about the plane being blown up but still registerd as there or something anyone care to explain ? Sam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoyoyo Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 a b52 which is a bigger plane, flew into the empire state building and it was fine. only damage was concrete. and its still standing is it not? also the empire state buildidng did not have sprinklers, the twin towers did.When did that happen? I've never heard of that, not been a sceptic just haven't heard of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 When did that happen? I've never heard of that, not been a sceptic just haven't heard of it.July 28th 1945Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 bearing in mind a b-52 has a wingspan of about 180 feet , and that the first one didnt fly until 1958. but yeah has been ammended. i guess we'll never know , will probably all be uncovered in a hundred years or so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 has anyone had their parents oppinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 All this about bombs going off in the towers, it might have been terrorists who planted them there...just in case the plane plan didn't happen, and / or to aid with the destruction.But of corse something like that won't be mentioned in the video because it's going against what they say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) isnt it funny how security was reduced, bom sniiffer dogs taken off duty and staff evacuated several times in the weeks leading upto 9-11?just saying jt edit: oh and the freewheel remover worked, mark was over the moooooooooon. Edited January 31, 2006 by mat hudson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
modx-lite Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 isnt it funny how security was reduced, bom sniiffer dogs taken off duty and staff evacuated several times in the weeks leading upto 9-11?just saying jt wink3.gifJust a quick point - how do you know that's what hapenned? None of us can. Believing that just cos it's on this vid is no different to believing the media telling us it was planes. Not having a go or anything, I'm just tryin to make the point that we really don't know, seems it's just a case of deciding who you trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 So why would the people who took out the twin towers do it?(Not watch the vid fully) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 I saw about 10 minutes of it until his annoying accent pissed me off.Thing is, I'm really not gulible. That video is picking out the finest elements and blowing them out of perportion. I agree, I haven't watched it all so I don't really have a right to complain, but I gather it will be the same as any other conspiricy video...you know the kind, wars in iraq/germany ect, moon landings, governments, religion.How do you know any of those papers are real? Its just one of those things where you either believe it or you don't. Governments take risks, they have too, but do you REALLY believe that they would do something like this?If you want a REAL conspiracy, why don't you read up on Ian Blair and de Menezes (innocently shot on the tube). Something is really wrong there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 The bombs in the tower thing's a bit strange in some ways too- if it was government organised then surely they'd blame the bombs on the terrorists and accept that there were bombs along with the planes.To Anzo, it's not only the little things. I agree that these conspiracy theorists take it too far sometimes which detracts from their believability but if you look at the video, or a number of websites, you'll see that a plane did not crash in Pensylvania and a plane did not crash into the pentagon. In my mind those are facts outwith any video I've watched. And therefore, if the US blatantly lied about those, then what the fook's going on with the rest of it?!!DaveOf course there's also the possibility that the consiracy's are partly led by government agencies to cast doubt on what did or didn't happen anyway!!Also, regarding moon landings... We may or may not have landed and walked on the moon but I'm 95% sure the majority of the footage and all the photo's are fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted February 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 So why would the people who took out the twin towers do it?(Not watch the vid fully) well, lets think about it as if george bush did it.. he blows up towers. blames it on terrorists. goes on a wear on terror that basically means he takes over iraq ( and the biggest resource of oil in the world) and after a while returns everything apart from the oil. infact the later part has happened. he owns the oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anzo Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 well, lets think about it as if george bush did it.. he blows up towers. blames it on terrorists. goes on a wear on terror that basically means he takes over iraq ( and the biggest resource of oil in the world) and after a while returns everything apart from the oil. infact the later part has happened. he owns the oil.Makes sense in some cases though. A country run by terrorist groups, who get all the income from all exports. Like Afganistan, the taliban were funded by selling Opium, Al Queda by oil/opium.It makes sense to stop the income, thus reducing ammunition funding, materials ect. Would you rather Americans have the money from oil or terrorists? Fair enough, people don't like Americans and think Bush is a twat and people say it and try and make it sound like a 'new opinion thats never been thought of' but its bullshit, when have governments ever been liked? Personally, I think Tony Blair is a good PM, but theres thousands that would disagree.Anyway, one point which would make sense, that I'm suprised no government actually did, would be to purchase the opium fields in Afgan, with benefits being, 1. ending funding for terrorist groups in Afgan, 2. Control, or Eliminate the exporting of Opium into the UK and other countries, 3. Its cheap to do, and you'd hit two bird with one stone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nick Riviera Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 right , i do hope you are joking , terrorist bombs to take out the two of them?the buildings both fell perectly "textbook demolition" if you will in all fairness it could have happened but its unlikely , taking into account that it takes weeks to prep a building for demolition , and then to fit the explosives.i think they would have noticed a load of arabs running about drilling holes in the walls this is unlikely. now in a realistic situation you would need a large quantity to take out one of the trade centers, i mean look what happened in '93 , was a mere scratch. now for it to have happened they would have needed to get these large quantitys of explosives in there at somewhere in decent relation to the structure to get it to fall , now on one of the towers , its a possibility for a few men to get in and plant it inconspicuously , amidst the mayhem , but in two towers? no way and if it was done in a rush there was not a hope in hells chance of getting two f**king huge towers to fall perfecty straight. now taking into account the quantity of the explosives needed , it would be too great to be done incognito.then also the quality of explosives it would probably be something cheap , semtex or something. would never be able to do it that quickly , secretly and effectively Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted February 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 isnt it funny how security was reduced, bom sniiffer dogs taken off duty and staff evacuated several times in the weeks leading upto 9-11? ^^^ if anything i guess thats whenthey would have put the bombs in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 well, lets think about it as if george bush did it.. he blows up towers. blames it on terrorists. goes on a wear on terror that basically means he takes over iraq ( and the biggest resource of oil in the world) and after a while returns everything apart from the oil. infact the later part has happened. he owns the oil.No one would go along with that! Sounds stupid to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.