Loose Change

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by canthetuna

HAHAHAHAHA

My own personal "Scientician" assures me that cigarette smoking is the best way to cure "lung fever".

[pdid5000]

Originally Posted by Buster

You're an idiot if you believe this propaganda. No other way to say it.

Here's a few facts and refutations of this piece of trash film and the rest of the loony dreams. Then come back to reality.

I guess Spain, France, England and the rest of the world are all faking their terrorist attacks too? If the Bush administration took the Towers down, then I also guess that Clinton should have hired better bombers in 1993 since the government is obviously trying to kill us.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Loose Change - JREF Forum

agree 100%, if people believe this crap I feel really sorry for them.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

A little fairy came to me and told me that George Bush is Elvis and Barak Obama is Christopher Columbus...pass it on.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

A little fairy came to me and told me that George Bush is Elvis and Barak Obama is Christopher Columbus...pass it on.

George W. or George HW? I want answers you damn conspiracy theorist!!!

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

A little fairy came to me and told me that George Bush is Elvis and Barak Obama is Christopher Columbus...pass it on.

I also heard that Hillary is just two midgets in a Clinton suit.

True stuff.

[SmootSmack]

(From the Wikipedia article)

One of the many aspects focused on by these critiques is the collapse of the World Trade Center analysis by Loose Change. The comparison to other notable high-rise fires which did not collapse ignores differences in building design, significant WTC structural damage and compromised fireproofing;[48] as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F).[49] Internet Detectives also found firefighters during those fires were pulled back for fear of collapse and that Madrid's Windsor Building comparison does not mention its steel supported perimeter floors collapsed during the fire. Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories (UL) was actually employed in a water testing subsidiary,[21] UL does not certify structural steel,[21] and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires.[49] UL found no evidence of any firm conducting tests on WTC materials in the past.[49] Another expert quoted, Van Romero, has clarified that he was misquoted by the Albuquerque Journal and he had said it "looked like" explosives took down the WTC. When the misquote was printed he felt like his "scientific reputation was on the line."[49]

And there is this:

World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down

"No evidence of any explosives were ever found, but the conspiracy theory states that this is because the government took away all the debris before it could be independently tested. Since it's normal for debris to be removed following any such destruction, this particular piece of information is too ambiguous to be given serious weight as proof of a conspiracy."

"None of the videos of Building 7's collapse show any minor explosions. They simply show the top of the building begin to gracefully sag, as if it's made of clay, and then the whole thing drops. So while the manner of collapse may look superficially similar to a controlled demolition at first glance, a more careful examination shows critically important (and non-ambiguous) differences."

"Could a building with such little apparent external damage collapse like this? The photos and videos on the conspiracy theory web sites are from other angles, and show only relatively minor, superficial damage to the building; and even the NIST has said the fire alone would probably would not have destroyed the building. But, let's not forget that Building 7 did have damage: Severe damage, a deep gouge cutting a quarter of the way through the building, ten floors high. Yet even if there was such extensive damage, argue the conspiracy theorists, that fact alone would invalidate the government report. Also from WTC7.net:

"The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically — toward the south."

This claim forgets that nobody has said the damage alone was responsible for the collapse. According to the NIST report, the initial loss of the columns served only to transfer the building load to the remaining columns, thus exceeding their load bearing capacities, which then gave way after being adequately softened by the fire. In such a condition, the building would have insufficient support throughout. The east side, already sagging, dropped first and pulled the rest of the building down in a slightly diagonal collapse. The conspiracy theorists are correct in that the fall was not entirely symmetric, as it strayed enough to do the aforementioned damage to the Verizon and Manhattan Community College buildings. The conspiracy theorists have hardly proven that explosives are the only possible explanation for the collapse."

And I'll repost this again:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

And there's this:

9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory Debunked

[JoeRedskin]

I dunno, I don't smoke any rocks and, somehow, being scientifical appeals to me.

"It's like actual like actual logic and evidence but it's not. It's scientifical."

"Wow - Danny sure took a scientifical approach to hiring a new coach"

"I'd explain it to you, but then I'd have to get scientifical on your ass"

"You'd have to be obtuse not to see that it's purely scientifical"

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I dunno, I don't smoke any rocks and, somehow, being scientifical appeals to me.

"It's like actual like actual logic and evidence but it's not. It's scientifical."

"Wow - Danny sure took a scientifical approach to hiring a new coach"

"I'd explain it to you, but then I'd have to get scientifical on your ass"

"You'd have to be obtuse not to see that it's purely scientifical"

While people are speaking of grammatical errors.....

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JGisLordOfTheRings

While people are speaking of grammatical errors.....

JoeRedskin did that on purpose. He doesn't make mistakes

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

JoeRedskin did that on purpose. He doesn't make mistakes

Obv....lol

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Wow.....you guys must be cool. Let's rag the guy who watched a video, thought it had some truth to it, and typed an "al" on the end of scientific. Man, you guys must be the coolest ever!

[EternalEnigma21]

I'm not gonna go off on a tangent about the govt being behind 9-11, but I've been appalled that GW did not take any responsibility for the lax security... and then that they had the audacity to use it as a scare tactic for their next election... as if we would only be safe if he were re-elected (even though it happened the first time under his watch). Using the terror for his own political gain sickened me to my core.

Also, United 93... I have friends who are close to the situation that lead me to believe that it was in fact shot down. I've seen the movie and it is a romantic story of heroism that I really want to believe and don't want to take anything at all away from it, but at one point Rumsfeld mentioned it inadvertently in a presser: (I understand the context... im not a moron. just saying the choice of words was peculiar)



I know the 911 commission "debunked" that theory a year later with NORAD tapes, and other evidence, but I still wonder if we had shot it down how exactly it would have been handled...

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by canthetuna

I'm not gonna go off on a tangent about the govt being behind 9-11, but I've been appalled that GW did not take any responsibility for the lax security... and then that they had the audacity to use it as a scare tactic for their next election... as if we would only be safe if he were re-elected (even though it happened the first time under his watch). Using the terror for his own political gain sickened me to my core.

Also, United 93... I have friends who are close to the situation that lead me to believe that it was in fact shot down. I've seen the movie and it is a romantic story of heroism that I really want to believe and don't want to take anything at all away from it, but at one point Rumsfeld mentioned it inadvertently in a presser: (I understand the context... im not a moron. just saying the choice of words was peculiar)



I know the 911 commission "debunked" that theory a year later with NORAD tapes, and other evidence, but I still wonder if we had shot it down how exactly it would have been handled...

See? At least you can be civil and question what was said, most others just question the guy that brought it up. Lol

[JoeRedskin]

Hey hey - stop raggin on the guy who watched the video.

Let's just sit around be the coolestical we can be.

[SmootSmack]

Tough crowd