Loose Change 2nd Edition

[Dan6061]

^^^ if anything i guess thats whenthey would have put the bombs in.

This could be true.

But wasn't there videos from Bin Laden saying he did it?

Saying that, how hasn't he been found yet?

If it was all the government, maybe Bin Laden was 'one of them' as a decoy sorta thing?

And about the tapes being confiscated, maybe they took it to look into it loads ( I mean, LOADS) to try and figure out what actually happened, before letting the media get hold of it and 'half' looking into it and making people believe all kinds of things that may have happened.

About the bombs in the buildings: maybe it was all set up during a long period of time?

I mean, like what has been said, it would take ages to get one building (let alone 2) to fall that perfectly.

This could also add up to it being the government, I know it's f**ked up, but it would have cost them shite loads more money if other buildings got hit.

And think about it, would terrorists really care if they got more buildings when only trying to get 2?

The whole Pentagon situation's really got me.

The frames shown in the video show no plane at all, the mark on the grass only shows a line in which the 'plane' could have taken (decoy?)

Also, in the video it shows the holes caused by the explosions, and how (whatever it was) plane could not have done that, and could not get through 9ft of concrete.

So that could have been bombs as well?

This is just all that's going on in my head, so what I think about it.

My opinions on it etc.

I can accept it if i'm wrong on this.

[anzo]

But wasn't there videos from Bin Laden saying he did it?

Yes, but terrorists will claim anything. Remember the rail bombings? About 4 terrorist groups claimed responsibility for that.

----

Right, imagine this story to be true. Flawless. It would probably cause hell on Earth. No oils, no fuels, no security, mass rioting, assassinations, calpse in the US government and ours, more terrorist attacks. If Bush tried this, like the story said, it would be choas, the security level would be to the point were they'd have to kill people who knew anything to prevent this getting out.

Who made this video? Some american student? If this shit was true, believe it or not, you would know absolutely NOTHING about it.

[SamHolmes]

This could be true.

But wasn't there videos from Bin Laden saying he did it?

Did you watch the whole video?

Supposedly it was a 'fake' because he was writing with a different hand and he looked slightly different to the other pics of him

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Supposedly it was a 'fake' because he was writing with a different hand and he looked slightly different to the other pics of him

Dude, look at it again... The guy in the video clip is not Bin Laden. I'd never seen that before but before the narrator said (in his frickin' annoying voice) that it wasn't him it was clear it wasn't. However, that doesn't prove that much as we all know people like Osama and Saddam have about 30 people who are made to look like them so you never quite know who's who. But the guy in that video isn't the real Osama.

Dave

[Bionic Balls]

i guess he wasn't islamic either...seeing as he had a gold ring...

weird stuff

[mat hudson]

anyone argueing about the flight 93(i think it was flight 93 ) biz the fact there was no plane wreckage at all and it landed at another airport was pretty conclusive in my eyes

[Mark W]

Bumpy poos:

Click

I know no-one will bother reading any of that, but take any of the half-arsed ideas that Loose Change gave you, look them up on the index that's listed on that site, and realise how laughably wrong some of "facts" portrayed by Loose Change are.

It's like they invented the website I couldn't be arsed to invent.

Hurrah.

EDIT: Oh, and "lol"

EDIT 2: Oopsies, #2...

EDIT 3: Just as a snippet of pwnag3:

"Melted" Steel

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: 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."

[RicH_87]

EDIT 3: Just as a snippet of pwnag3:

That's about as far away from 'pwnag3' as you can be.

That's already been DISPROVED, that paragraph is deffinatly not anything new, have you actually seen the videos of molten material pouring out of the towers?

They are saying there, that of course it wasn't hot enough to melt steel, the steel simply bent and the building fell down, however there is video evidence of red hot molten material puring out of the towers, so obviously something had melted.

Have you heard of thermite?

I'm guessing you have, imo thermite or something similar was used to burn through the steel. When thermite reacts it looks EXACTLY like the material that was pouring out of the side of the twin towers.

--------------------

Anyway, have you thought about the fact the twin towers fell straight down? as in the top fell right through the bottom without any of it flying outwards into nearby buildings?

If the steel at the top simply bent, then surley the top would of fallen off/sideways, and sure, some of the remaining building would of been brought with it, but it deffinatly wouldn't of landed in two perfectly neat piles.

For the tower to have fallen the way it did, all 4 of the main beams would have to have failed at almost exactly the same time. We know for a fact that one of the towers was hit on a corner. Therefore only one of the main beams would of been majorly effected, the one furthest away would of been reletivley unscathed. And certainly not effected by fire.

Plus, if the it was all so clean cut, why were almost all of the major structural beams sent away to be melted down, before 'the experts' had a chance to examine them??

Becasue they would of found evidence of cutting that's why.

[adamtrials]

In the same way that many of us were fooled by the video, parts of this dispelling article could also be just as fake.

Who knows who to believe these days

[yoyoyo]

For the tower to have fallen the way it did, all 4 of the main beams would have to have failed at almost exactly the same time. We know for a fact that one of the towers was hit on a corner. Therefore only one of the main beams would of been majorly effected, the one furthest away would of been reletivley unscathed. And certainly not effected by fire.

But think about it, a plane crashing into the corner of a building. It's not going to stay in that corner is it. The force will be strong enough to reach all four corners or at least spill jet fuel around. But hey, i'm no expert.

[munkee]

Jesus christ.. its amazing how much absalute bollox is dreamed up. I would put my life on betting that 90% of the so called "conspiracy facts" quoted on here have just come from some little techy nerds on some far distant klingon forum with of course a demolition world trade centre sub forum who infact know f**k all about what they are on about. Why cant people nowadays take shit from face value? everyone has to keep picking out this and that and this and that adding 2 and 9 to get 3 then rejumbling the words and requoting until yes eventually someone states that if you add 9 and 3 you get 12 which has a two in it.

Think about the people that host these f**king videos most of them are washed out tv presenters or failed actors that couldnt cut it in hollywood. Either that or they are as bent as that michael moore who just has a stick up his ass because he doesnt like george bush.

The buildings fell down because two f**king planes hit it. Two aeroplanes were not talking about some two bit model gliders hitting it and it suddenly collapsing. Were talking about huge f**k off planes. Do you really think any building could withstand that? It was a structural bloody miracle that the building stood for so long. The building burned because every building is built with fire safety factors incorporated. Fire protection has to last over an hour. So for all those people who say why didnt it collapse straight away blah blah.. thats the fire protection doing its job. Seriously.. just look at the facts and not some random bullshit you find on the internet. Get a book read history do something but dont use the internet. That klingon sub forum has taken hold of all the 9/11 facts and changed them i swear. But you dont have to listen.. its fine. Im happy with opposing opinions it just eats me up inside when people start quoting the possible chemicals that were seen spilling out of the building. All i saw were people jumping out the building to save their lives, people who made that decision that they stood more chance of jumping from floor number 30000000 than staying in the building. Do you really think a human being within the government could look at those pictures, the videos all of the media and not crack and say .. "sorry lads.. actually it was billy no mates over there that planned it... he wants a bit of oil you see.. he bought a new car and petrol prices are through the roof".

I take back what i said.. or maybe the klingon cult did not get this site:http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc7.htm i knew atleast one place would be able to cut the bullshit from the truth.

Edited August 18, 2006 by Spacemunkee

[Mark W]

Anyway, have you thought about the fact the twin towers fell straight down? as in the top fell right through the bottom without any of it flying outwards into nearby buildings?

If the steel at the top simply bent, then surley the top would of fallen off/sideways, and sure, some of the remaining building would of been brought with it, but it deffinatly wouldn't of landed in two perfectly neat piles.

For the tower to have fallen the way it did, all 4 of the main beams would have to have failed at almost exactly the same time. We know for a fact that one of the towers was hit on a corner. Therefore only one of the main beams would of been majorly effected, the one furthest away would of been reletivley unscathed. And certainly not effected by fire.

Evidently haven't read any of the reports by the structural engineers who were appointed to oversee the construction, the various independent studies there have been on the matter, the diagrams of the building's layout, the mini-tests they did to see if the buildings would've collapsed as they did and so on? The steel didn't "bend" or "fall" or whatever, the way the original architect designed it meant that it twisted and fell in such a way it didn't fall out. I can't remember what the documentary I saw on it was, but they described it all, showed how it could happen, showed how it did happen, performed tests on models of the building, etc. Either way, the fact it was hit at one corner first means bugger all.

None of the "Facts" explaining how it was a huge conspiracy theory have amounted to anything at all, but the main thing is that no-one has ever managed to come up with a cojent motive for doing it. Bearing in mind they're the most powerful nation on Earth, they don't really seem to have done what they wanted, at any point after the attacks? Either way, I still haven't read anything, heard anything or seen anything that would even begin to solidly suggest they had a real reason for killing several thousand people, destroying many millions of dollars of their own equipment, putting themselves in huge PR problems, having to get tens of thousands of people who'd have to be "in" on it to remain silent and so on.

It's just a huge load of fanny.