"loose Change" (9/11 Conspiracy Film)

[wasup]

First off, if a mod reads this, could they split this thread into another thing about the 9/11 movie loose change? Anyways, see this debate with the loose change people and editors of "Popular Mechanics." http://www.break.com/LooseChangeLies On the right hand side, there is a list of videos. Start with part one and go to part five. One "conspiracy" myth is that the jet fuel could NOT have possibly made the steel collapse. BUT, steel loses 50% of its strength at a temperature that jet fuel CAN burn at. Here are some links to give you answers to popular misconceptions: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1227842.html http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html And to answer your question "how could it have dropped that fast" 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)? NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A). As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.” In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.[/b] That was from one of the links. Fuck, I'm good.

[wasup]

Um, I think you guys are diverging from the topic slightly.[/b] Which is why I suggested to split it :yumdumdoodledum:

[eightyape]

try this one its the most scientific of all http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...;q=steven+jones not really am movie but a physics lecture ill add my other post that has a link to the major piece of irrefutable evidence in this criminal investigation. the kernel of truth that needs publicising.

[eightyape]

"There is a principle of physics that exists in the political threads on this web site" universal mind apr24 dreamviews forum yes it is called galileos law of freefalling bodies and info can be found here, http://www.911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml its a single page detailing some physics (and how they apply to falling buildings of modern construction) that i learnt when i was ten and is as true today as it has been since the "father of physics" first investigated it. definitive scientific proof of how dangerous your govt. is and dont get me wrong, i like america and americans- its your govt your elective process and a lot of your media i cant fricking stand. im not anti american or xenophobic in any way and before you ask -yes i am a physicist and even if i wanted to believe the official version of events purported by mine and your govts. both. there is no way my education could let me as their story violates principles of gravity and last time i dropped an apple it hit the floor. to quote the song "everybodys gotta learn sometime" you have been lied to. i had my mate check this site for any flaws in the science and also my father as they have a doctorate and proffessorship in the subject respectively and i am a mere post grad. please feel free to tirade against this post as im sure you will, but gravity is gravity is gravity and a bomb is a bomb is a bomb and no matter how much pride you have in your govt they cant violate the rules of reality. i wish i was wrong i really do as this political situation is terrifying and my govt it seems is also complicit. i do actually like koolaid when im thirsty and been to the gym but its hard to find here- we have something called lucozade which does the job lovely. i am not a truther nor are the guys who produced this website -just simply nerdy physicists who cannot bring themselves to believe that the fundamental principles of gravity were suspended for a few brief seconds on the morning of a fateful and traumatizing day in world events. as for the tin foil hat insults i refer you to a study by your highly esteemed MIT in boston who have performed exhaustive research into the ability of aluminium foil headwear in blocking emf frequencies which concluded that they actually increase exposure to said frequencies(and yes i read it in full cos im like that and my idea of pornography is a copy of performance motorcycles). be patriotic and stop inferring that you speak for the american people cos you are just enforcing the stereotypes that a lot of ignorant people around the world have of your (once and hopefully again)great country. and after 3 you can start your insults again 1... 2....3.....[/b]

[eightyape]

one question that your smart little article neglects to mention (from a magazine with familial connections to the bush crime syndicate i might add) how did a building (wt7) with no aircraft fuel inside it, anywhere near it or even on its fascias drop at freefall speed too, was it metal fatigue from burning papers? heres some more facts for ya the molten metal at ground zero three weeks later - still white hot in all three basements(wtcbig,wtcbigger and wtc7) the debris flung out sideways, the visible squibs, the steel cores of the building completely destroyed, the video with the thermate pouring out the side, the chemical sulphourous residues (evidence of thermate) on the beams, the slant cut supports photographed immediately after the fact (telltale evidence of demolition shape charges), the specific insurance cover for terrorist attack taken out and increased 2 months before) the security standdown, the familial contract involving bush's brother for the security at the towers, the amazing precognition of the bbc in predicting wt7 collapsing 20 mins before it did the lack of doppler effect seen in amateur video footage of the blast being heard as the collapse began from more than half a mile away the fact that the probability of a terrorist exercise being conducted in the same moment as a real attack occuring amounts to winning the lottery twice in a week or similar. i give up if you aint sold on this your either deluded, remarkably stupid or your in on it. damn you may be good but im better.

[wasup]

I suggest that you do some research. I don't think it's my job to do that for you...

[tyrantt23]

Like I mentioned on the other post, Loose Change is indeed full of fallacies and hoaxes. There is a very good outline on this website. The film does have a few valid points, like the free-falling speed, the squibs, the wtc 7 falling down for no reason... but all of those are buried under the rest of the fallacies and forgotten since the movie has already lost its credibility. It would be much better if the film tried to separate fact from fiction... 9/11 Mysteries does a better job at keeping its credibility and sticking to facts. If anyone has a link with arguments to disprove anything from that movie, then that's something I'd like to see... because the movie is solid and true. how did a building (wt7) with no aircraft fuel inside it, anywhere near it or even on its fascias drop at freefall speed too, was it metal fatigue from burning papers?[/b] That is another one of the best-selling points. Wtc 7 was, I believe, (correct me if I'm wrong) the newest building in the wtc complex. It was the furthest one away from wtc 1 and 2. Yet, it was the first large building in history to have fallen from fire alone (and very little fire at that). Also, a German (if I remember correctly) company was hired to restore data back from the hard drives of wtc 7. After restoring the data, they found that there was evidence of insider stock trading in the days before 9/11. Another eye opener: Larry Silverstein, the man who leased the World Trade Center five months before its collapse, had signed a 3.6 billion dollar contract specifically covering acts of terrorism. After the towers had fallen, he claimed he shouldn't get 3.6 billion, but instead, 7.2 billion, since there were two acts of terrorism performed. But that isn't science, and you can't prove anything with that... it may just be said that it was one big coincidence, and he simply happened to win a 7.2 billion dollar lottery ticket when he leased the world trade center... That aside, the argument regarding the big (EDIT: lie) that was wtc 7 falling is pretty irrefutable. It bends all the laws of physics... it's just not possible.

[eightyape]

"That aside, the argument regarding the big BS that was wtc 7 falling is pretty irrefutable. It bends all the laws of physics... it's just not possible". get that man a drink

[tyrantt23]

"That aside, the argument regarding the big BS that was wtc 7 falling is pretty irrefutable. It bends all the laws of physics... it's just not possible". get that man a drink[/b] lol... I was trying to come up with a good word placement there, but the only thing that came to my mind was bs. lol. *cheers*

[eightyape]

lol... I was trying to come up with a good word placement there, but the only thing that came to my mind was bs. lol. *cheers*[/b] the term ive heard most often is the big lie if you want to use that one in polite company it should suffice, but the more you look at the big picture its not that much of a big lie, think about it "world trade centre" was used to "trade" the "world" using the "collateral" damage of human life which scarily fits in with the symbology/masonic/ritual human sacrifice theories put forward by the more outspoken opponents of the "new world order" such as david icke (whos latest headlines page is surprisingly lucid and a very good resource) and alex jones etc. yep i like that i does, the powers that be "ordered" their "new world" at where else but the "world trade centre" with a 3000 lives + loose change deposit, it appears to have been despatched and is just waiting on the final downpayments in iraqi blood for a final signature at the white house steps, or is the usa just a "shell (oil) company" and the delivery is to be made elsewhere like an offshore tax haven? and the usa just had to get their "commission" report for the sale! hidden from view maybe? uk? germany? weird that i didnt have to stretch my metaphor much did i? wonder if theres more? i do hope david ickes wrong i really do, reptilian aliens enslaving humanity doesnt sound much fun. terrorism "sells" thats the real world e"con"omy, "con"sumerism is actually "capital" punishment. the real wealth is power not money

[tyrantt23]

the term ive heard most often is the big lie if you want to use that one in polite company it should suffice[/b] Thank you! I honestly couldn't think of another word at the time... lol. I edited my post accordingly.

[Neruo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI Unfastened Coins...the TRUTH about the titanic.

[bluefinger]

This conspiracy is retarded. At least Roswell seems credible, but this is just weak. Miniature nukes, and all that? Controlled explosions or whatever... If it was miniature nukes, then those who witnessed the WTC collapse should have irradiated to the point they would have been suffering from radiation sickness. Nukes that small don't make a big bang, just a hell of a lot of radiation. (this is from a very retarded tangent on this conspiracy... can't remember the link any more) Controlled explosions? Bah... If the government really did this, then the guys who 'figured' it out would have been silenced pretty quickly. If a government can sacrifice several thousand people in order to blanket the nation in fear, then they would have no qualms in killing everyone who knew what was 'really' going on. Steel isn't as sturdy as most people think, especially when at high temperatures. Bolts fail due to losing their mechanical strength, girders bent as they fail to hold any wait, and in localised areas, may even melt. And perhaps the WTC just weren't as sturdy as most people might have wanted to believe. Plus, since both planes which crashed into the WTC were laden with jet fuel from literally taking off an hour beforehand, it isn't surprising so much damage was done. No laws of physics were bent, no big conspiracies, just a bunch of people failing to understand that if a plane laden with jet fuel hits a building, one should be surprised that it doesn't fall in the first place. I did physics for A-levels, I still read into a lot of science publications, so in my mind, this is just stupid.

[Spinseeker]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

[tyrantt23]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07[/b] Like I said before, Loose Change is full of hoaxes and fallacies. If you want to watch a reliable film on the subject, watch 9/11 Mysteries. If you don't like watching movies, even better, take the time to read the even more reliable and credible 9-11 Research website. I was smart enough to do my own research on the subject of 9/11, separate fact from fiction, and come to the conclusion that there are some shady things about the official story of 9/11. If you can't see the most obvious facts (namely, WTC 1 and 2 falling down at free fall speed and WTC 7 falling down for no reason) then its not my job to knock some sense into anyone. This conspiracy is retarded. At least Roswell seems credible, but this is just weak. Miniature nukes, and all that? Controlled explosions or whatever... If it was miniature nukes, then those who witnessed the WTC collapse should have irradiated to the point they would have been suffering from radiation sickness. Nukes that small don't make a big bang, just a hell of a lot of radiation. (this is from a very retarded tangent on this conspiracy... can't remember the link any more)[/b] Miniature nukes? That's retarded. And a waste of my time. Controlled explosions? Bah... If the government really did this, then the guys who 'figured' it out would have been silenced pretty quickly. If a government can sacrifice several thousand people in order to blanket the nation in fear, then they would have no qualms in killing everyone who knew what was 'really' going on.[/b] No. Here are two reasons: 1. That would be extremely obvious... example: A few guys make films questioning the truth of the official 9/11 story. All the authors of said films suddenly get shot or disappear from the face of the planet. At least a few people would find that to be a little more than a coincidence. which brings me to number 2. If the general public is so brainwashed already, there's no need to silence anyone. To the huge majority of people, the official story is exactly what happened and they don't bother to do their own research into the facts. For them, the official story somehow seems plausible, and anyone who tries to contradict it is a nut who hates their own country. People refuse to question the most obvious aspects of 9/11. The brainwashing is already done... Steel isn't as sturdy as most people think, especially when at high temperatures. Bolts fail due to losing their mechanical strength, girders bent as they fail to hold any wait, and in localised areas, may even melt.[/b] Even a very slight resistance from the floors below would cause the collapse time to be much higher than 10 seconds. Your claim that steel isn't sturdy "especially" at high temperatures is really naive. Take a look at some other cases of high-rise fires; buildings that withstood true infernos that spread to dozens of floors and lasted many hours. All of those buildings remain standing to date. And perhaps the WTC just weren't as sturdy as most people might have wanted to believe. Plus, since both planes which crashed into the WTC were laden with jet fuel from literally taking off an hour beforehand, it isn't surprising so much damage was done. No laws of physics were bent, no big conspiracies, just a bunch of people failing to understand that if a plane laden with jet fuel hits a building, one should be surprised that it doesn't fall in the first place. I did physics for A-levels, I still read into a lot of science publications, so in my mind, this is just stupid. [/b] Oh... really? Then how come the Empire States building didn't fall when a B25 hit it in 1945 due to a foggy weather? And before you go on to mention that a B25 is smaller than a Boeing 767, keep in mind that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand airplane crashes. It's easy to debunk a film like Loose Change... so don't tell me that it is full of lies, because I already know that. If you want to debunk something, then try and do so to the valid points I made, but please, at least do your research first.

[Universal Mind]

I'm not an engineer or a demolition expert, so I cannot even begin to debate the mechanics of building collapse, but I am philosophical enough to ask why you guys are able to see whatever it is but hundreds of thousands of American engineers are not. If the quirks are so obvious to lay people like you, why are the average engineer and demolition expert not noticing this? Also, who all do you think was involved in the conspiracy? Were the airplanes projector images? Were victims' family members paid off? Did the FAA and air traffic controllers huddle up and decide to get in on it? What specifically do you think happened, and exactly how do you think the conspiracy was pulled off? Meanwhile, here's some food for thought... http://queers.ytmnd.com/

[bluefinger]

Like I said before, Loose Change is full of hoaxes and fallacies. If you want to watch a reliable film on the subject, watch 9/11 Mysteries. If you don't like watching movies, even better, take the time to read the even more reliable and credible 9-11 Research website. I was smart enough to do my own research on the subject of 9/11, separate fact from fiction, and come to the conclusion that there are some shady things about the official story of 9/11. If you can't see the most obvious facts (namely, WTC 1 and 2 falling down at free fall speed and WTC 7 falling down for no reason) then its not my job to knock some sense into anyone. Miniature nukes? That's retarded. And a waste of my time. No. Here are two reasons: 1. That would be extremely obvious... example: A few guys make films questioning the truth of the official 9/11 story. All the authors of said films suddenly get shot or disappear from the face of the planet. At least a few people would find that to be a little more than a coincidence. which brings me to number 2. If the general public is so brainwashed already, there's no need to silence anyone. To the huge majority of people, the official story is exactly what happened and they don't bother to do their own research into the facts. For them, the official story somehow seems plausible, and anyone who tries to contradict it is a nut who hates their own country. People refuse to question the most obvious aspects of 9/11. The brainwashing is already done... Even a very slight resistance from the floors below would cause the collapse time to be much higher than 10 seconds. Your claim that steel isn't sturdy "especially" at high temperatures is really naive. Take a look at some other cases of high-rise fires; buildings that withstood true infernos that spread to dozens of floors and lasted many hours. All of those buildings remain standing to date. Oh... really? Then how come the Empire States building didn't fall when a B25 hit it in 1945 due to a foggy weather? And before you go on to mention that a B25 is smaller than a Boeing 767, keep in mind that the World Trade Center was designed to withstand airplane crashes. It's easy to debunk a film like Loose Change... so don't tell me that it is full of lies, because I already know that. If you want to debunk something, then try and do so to the valid points I made, but please, at least do your research first.[/b] The Empire State Building and the WTC have(had) very different internal structures, so if anything, its like compared oranges to apples. I've seen enough on the WTC, and to think a tragedy like this is being used as a conspiracy just to undermine a certain government? If anything, its this conspiracy that only induces more fear of the government, so if anything, they may let it be spread so people take them more seriously, even though they had no involvement in it. Al f***ing Qaeda admit to being the mastermind behind the attacks, so why would they let people think it was the government instead? They made a message, and yet the world is just as stumped as before. If you want to go into detail, fine, I can just as easily go through google and bring up a bunch of links to prove me otherwise. It's all about reasoning, not link bombing. Steel starts to lose its structural integrity as soon as it hits 540 degrees C, and any higher, it just softens up even more. This is why steel needs to be fireproofed when used for structural purposes. Note, 540C... well within burning temperatures. Empire State building has a very sturdy internal structure, consisting of a cubic lattice of steel supports (best way to describe it). That's why it took a hit from a plane so well. Plus, the WTC not only had a different internal structure (a solid core tower which held up the exterior part through a system of girders), but in the collisions, a lot of the fireproofing that was put onto the girders, were blown away. So immediately, the situation for the WTC was on a completely different area. Without the fireproofing, the steel absorbed all the heat that was given to it. In other cases where the fireproofing survived, then even with a raging inferno, the building survived. Lose the fireproofing, and things get from bad to worse. This isn't about brainwashing... this is about using a tragedy to scare people into either being for or against a government... in principle, its just disgusting. I suppose one's going to come up with a conspiracy on how Pearl Harbour wasn't actually done by the Japanese, but by the Government wanting to crystallise the public opinion on war, just so they could bomb the shit out of Japanese and Nazis... turning a tragedy into mere gossip...

[tyrantt23]

I'm not an engineer or a demolition expert, so I cannot even begin to debate the mechanics of building collapse, but I am philosophical enough to ask why you guys are able to see whatever it is but hundreds of thousands of American engineers are not. If the quirks are so obvious to lay people like you, why are the average engineer and demolition expert not noticing this?[/b] There are college professors, physicists, engineers, trying to get the word out. I'm too lazy to search up on the names, but there is indeed a group of scholars that have been doing unfunded research and are still trying to spread the knowledge. Also, who all do you think was involved in the conspiracy? Were the airplanes projector images? Were victims' family members paid off? Did the FAA and air traffic controllers huddle up and decide to get in on it? What specifically do you think happened, and exactly how do you think the conspiracy was pulled off? Meanwhile, here's some food for thought... http://queers.ytmnd.com/[/b] For me to answer any of these questions, would require me making assumptions, making up stories, and say things which have no proof and are probably wrong. Yes, planes did hit the two towers, but that is as far as I know. What I'm questioning are the things that can actually be analyzed, and that strike out as impossible. As far as what happened to the people on the planes, or who pulled it off, those questions are outside the scope of what I'm trying to argue. Funny link by the way, but... what the hell is that??? Are they putting fertilizers, or fornicating the soil??? lol. The Empire State Building and the WTC have(had) very different internal structures, so if anything, its like compared oranges to apples.[/b] Yes, right, especially considering WTC was designed to withstand airplane impacts. If you want to go into detail, fine, I can just as easily go through google and bring up a bunch of links to prove me otherwise. It's all about reasoning, not link bombing.[/b] I put up those links for reference. As in, "I'm not making those facts up, and there's more to read there if you're doubt me." I didn't just google up a bunch of links and put them up. I linked places that have good credibility and that stick to the facts. The internet is full of absurd explanations, and I stay away from those. Steel starts to lose its structural integrity as soon as it hits 540 degrees C, and any higher, it just softens up even more. This is why steel needs to be fireproofed when used for structural purposes. Note, 540C... well within burning temperatures. Empire State building has a very sturdy internal structure, consisting of a cubic lattice of steel supports (best way to describe it). That's why it took a hit from a plane so well. Plus, the WTC not only had a different internal structure (a solid core tower which held up the exterior part through a system of girders), but in the collisions, a lot of the fireproofing that was put onto the girders, were blown away. So immediately, the situation for the WTC was on a completely different area. Without the fireproofing, the steel absorbed all the heat that was given to it. In other cases where the fireproofing survived, then even with a raging inferno, the building survived. Lose the fireproofing, and things get from bad to worse.[/b] Funny how you completely dodged the WTC 7 falling. It wasn't hit by an airplane, there was no raging fire, and it was the building furthest away from WTC 1 and 2 in the WTC complex, and it also fell in near-free fall speed (7 seconds). Here are a couple of Googled images to remind you to explain to me what happened: This isn't about brainwashing... this is about using a tragedy to scare people into either being for or against a government...[/b] That's interesting you say that. Isn't that pretty much how the propaganda of War on Terror worked in the early days? Didn't it go something like "You're either with us or against us"? Weren't you either for America, or a terrorist?

[bluefinger]

There are college professors, physicists, engineers, trying to get the word out. I'm too lazy to search up on the names, but there is indeed a group of scholars that have been doing unfunded research and are still trying to spread the knowledge. For me to answer any of these questions, would require me making assumptions, making up stories, and say things which have no proof and are probably wrong. Yes, planes did hit the two towers, but that is as far as I know. What I'm questioning are the things that can actually be analyzed, and that strike out as impossible. As far as what happened to the people on the planes, or who pulled it off, those questions are outside the scope of what I'm trying to argue. Funny link by the way, but... what the hell is that??? Are they putting fertilizers, or fornicating the soil??? lol. Yes, right, especially considering WTC was designed to withstand airplane impacts. I put up those links for reference. As in, "I'm not making those facts up, and there's more to read there if you're doubt me." I didn't just google up a bunch of links and put them up. I linked places that have good credibility and that stick to the facts. The internet is full of absurd explanations, and I stay away from those. Funny how you completely dodged the WTC 7 falling. It wasn't hit by an airplane, there was no raging fire, and it was the building furthest away from WTC 1 and 2 in the WTC complex, and it also fell in near-free fall speed (7 seconds). Here are a couple of Googled images to remind you to explain to me what happened: That's interesting you say that. Isn't that pretty much how the propaganda of War on Terror worked in the early days? Didn't it go something like "You're either with us or against us"? Weren't you either for America, or a terrorist?[/b] Firstly, let me put it this way. Yes, its strange, but instead of stooping into conspiracies which involve government plots and such, why not question the actual structural design of the bloody buildings? WTC 7 may have collapsed to due to its foundations getting damaged in the whole mess. I dunno, I'm speculating, but either way, its just as valid if not more than saying its government involvement. All it takes is for something to give way, and then the whole thing comes down. I'll be willing to accept there was something off with the whole thing, but I just don't buy the government conspiracy thing. That's just getting into silliness. Secondly, as far as I'm concerned, I didn't buy the propaganda. I was neither for the US or the terrorists, regardless of what people said. I knew that the way they were going about things was wrong, but that didn't mean I supported the terrorists. I have my own perspective on things, and people won't change it, simply because of some 'propaganda' or scare tactic. Finally, I see things as this. I doubt a government would do such a thing... there's low, but then there's low... the US government may be somewhat dodgy, but I doubt its got the balls to pull off such a risky stunt. Al Qaeda are perfectly capable of pulling something off like that, and I wouldn't be surprised if they did some extra work in regards to WTC 7's collapse.

[Neruo]

I think it is a bad thing that crap like 'loose change' drives the attention away from more likely things, like how some (highly placed) people in America and other countries knew about the attacks before they happened, and about the still rather big mystery of WTC7, that fell like a controlled demolition would cause it too, totally unlike the WTC towers themselves.

[eightyape]

retarded? mini nukes? roswell? planes that damage foundations in adjacent buildings? are you mad?

[bluefinger]

I'm aware of thermite, but you'll need to rig a lot of it into specific parts of the WTCs where the planes hit, and even then, you'll have to hope they survive the initial explosion. Why can't people accept that two planes laden with jet fuel can do the necessary damage to take down a building? As for the whole mini-nukes thing, it was some spin-off from the loose change conspiracy which I read somewhere. And to finish off, I never said that people were stupid, just the conspiracy. I'll have to agree that the collapse of the WTC 7 building was a bit wierd, but I doubt it has anything to do with government involvement. *sigh*

[tyrantt23]

Why can't people accept that two planes laden with jet fuel can do the necessary damage to take down a building? Because in the case of both WTCs, it couldn't. At least not in the way that the buildings fell. And to finish off, I never said that people were stupid, just the conspiracy. I'll have to agree that the collapse of the WTC 7 building was a bit wierd, but I doubt it has anything to do with government involvement. *sigh* You find the collapse of WTC 7 weird, but you simply brush it off thinking that it must be normal and that there must have been something wrong with the building to begin with. I have no proof of who had anything to do with the attacks, so I'm not trying to argue on who did it. What I can argue is that WTC 7 falling goes against the laws of physics. I found that incredibly suspicious, did a lot of research through credible sources, weeded out the dumb conspiracy theories, and know there's a lot more suspicious things that happened that day that the government never bothered to explain. The fact that they never did extensive research on what exactly happened to WTC 7, is suspicious to say the least. The fact that most people don't see anything wrong with the collapse of WTC 7 is extremely annoying. You at least think it's a little weird, so you're at least not closing yourself up completely.

[Oneironaut Zero]

One of the (many) things that bother me about that whole incident is how the government made it a point to clear all the debris out before a proper investigation could be done. Any other accident/incident/whatever, in history, and they would have closed off the area to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Within days, the entire site had been packed up and shipped off, overseas, to be sold as scrap. They didn't wait long enough to investigate the type of damage that was done to the I-beams and support colums that held up the towers. It was so (arguably) rushed that, even today, seven years later, they are still finding the body parts of unidentified dead in the manhole-covers lining the streets. I'm sorry...so many others may just be cool with that...but that bothers me...a lot. To see that there was no proper investigation done into the greatest 'terrorist attack' on U.S. soil EVER, is not something over which I'm willing to just so "Oh...well...I'm sure they had a good reason for it." To say that (even) the conspiracy is stupid is to say something like "The American Government would never engineer Crack and sell it to the streets of its own country." - Whether or not you believe it to be true, to say that honest inquiry into the matter is anywhere near 'idiotic' is to hinge an argument on your own ignorance.

[bluefinger]

Because in the case of both WTCs, it couldn't. At least not in the way that the buildings fell. To be honest, the reports already done on the WTCs have shown sufficient evidence on how the two WTC towers fell, so as far as that concerns, there was nothing wierd about the two WTC collapsing. The only building not to fit in right is the WTC 7. You find the collapse of WTC 7 weird, but you simply brush it off thinking that it must be normal and that there must have been something wrong with the building to begin with. I have no proof of who had anything to do with the attacks, so I'm not trying to argue on who did it. What I can argue is that WTC 7 falling goes against the laws of physics. I found that incredibly suspicious, did a lot of research through credible sources, weeded out the dumb conspiracy theories, and know there's a lot more suspicious things that happened that day that the government never bothered to explain. The fact that they never did extensive research on what exactly happened to WTC 7, is suspicious to say the least. The fact that most people don't see anything wrong with the collapse of WTC 7 is extremely annoying. You at least think it's a little weird, so you're at least not closing yourself up completely. So you admit at least that all the evidence you do have does not link the collapse of the WTC to the government or some other agency. That's why I am sceptical of the whole "Loose Change" and similar conspiracies. I just don't see how the evidence points towards being government involvement. I'd rather question the series of events upto and during the whole event, so to really figure out what could have caused WTC 7 to collapse in the way it did. One of the (many) things that bother me about that whole incident is how the government made it a point to clear all the debris out before a proper investigation could be done. Any other accident/incident/whatever, in history, and they would have closed off the area to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb. Within days, the entire site had been packed up and shipped off, overseas, to be sold as scrap. They didn't wait long enough to investigate the type of damage that was done to the I-beams and support colums that held up the towers. It was so (arguably) rushed that, even today, seven years later, they are still finding the body parts of unidentified dead in the manhole-covers lining the streets. I'm sorry...so many others may just be cool with that...but that bothers me...a lot. To see that there was no proper investigation done into the greatest 'terrorist attack' on U.S. soil EVER, is not something over which I'm willing to just so "Oh...well...I'm sure they had a good reason for it." To say that (even) the conspiracy is stupid is to say something like "The American Government would never engineer Crack and sell it to the streets of its own country." - Whether or not you believe it to be true, to say that honest inquiry into the matter is anywhere near 'idiotic' is to hinge an argument on your own ignorance. Well, as for the investigation on the debris of the WTC, I see it as the government screwing up big time. To be honest, I reckon they were just as surprised as the rest of us. They were shocked, and then they made some snap decisions which have cost them dearly, both in understanding the whole event, and in helping those who lost someone in the tragedy. If they should be guilty of anything, it should be then exploiting the tragedy afterwards for their own goals. I just don't think they could pull off the whole WTC attack themselves without suspicions being aroused beforehand. Logistically, it just won't happen. Of course, you can argue otherwise, but that's my point of view on the whole matter.