| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Loose Change 9/11 | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 18 2006, 11:19 AM (677 Views) | |
| Post #1 Jun 18 2006, 11:19 AM | 2BCano |
|
At first i was reluctant to watch this, i thought that it would be another no good useless, same old thing that tried to pin 9/11 on the US Administration, and to some extent i was right, but this evidence from goverment documents, media outlets, share's etc show a whole big picture. To watch the whole thing you will need over an hour of your time, i think the actual time is 1:21:06, so only start to watch it when you ahve plenty of time on your hands, of course as usual im stuck with what to believe, looking at some of the things that they present, it is ver suspicious. Anyway take a look for yourselves, see what you think: Loose Change 9/11 Scientific evidence to suggest that something doesnt add up is just not right, people changing there story's quickly, FBI confiscating the video tapes of anythign that could of caught it on tape and then failing to release them, it doesnt add up <_< |
Newbie
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #2 Jun 18 2006, 08:18 PM |
|
| Link to just one site debunking loose change. Click here. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #3 Jun 18 2006, 08:35 PM | Son N Law |
|
EDITED TO ADD: Dangit, Poppa Bear beat me to it, and did it a lot more concisely. Thanks for the link, Eye. Unfortunately, I sat through this video at the recommendation of a friend. Needless to say, I won't be taking any of his recommendations seriously again! ;) You know, the thing is, I have to give credit to the makers of Loose Change for making something that at least seems internally consistent. It’s persuasive; I’ll give you that. Then again, so are most conspiracy theories -- if they weren't persuasive, people wouldn't buy into them. The problem is, that "film" is so riddled with factual errors and leaps of faith that, given a bit of serious thought, it's hard to take seriously. As I said in this post, to believe that we don't have the entire story about 9/11 is one thing. To actually believe that the Bush administration had any hand in orchestrating it is another entirely. Yes, the government is still holding on to a lot of secrets about what happened on that horrible day, and even people on the 9/11 Commission have called their report a farce, but just because they're being secretive doesn't mean they fabricated the attacks. If you want my honest opinion about why I think they're being so secretive -- and please note, this is purely conjecture on my part -- I think it's so they can dole out a new piece of info every once in a while (like the recently released tapes of the Pentagon attack, which clearly show an airplane hitting the building, not a missile or some other such silly notion). And why would they trickle out information, one five-frame video at a time? Again, purely conjecture on my part, but it seems reasonable to me to believe that it's so they can keep the fear of those attacks fresh in people's minds. Fear is a powerful tool for controlling the populous. Again, though, I feel the need to stress that not only is it unreasonable to think that 9/11 was Operation Northwoods for real, the belief that the U.S. government actually had any part in the attacks themselves simply doesn't fit the facts. Those towers fell because their structural support was devestated by the heat of burning jet fuel; not because of controlled demolition -- whoever supposedly would have or could have planted the explosives. I'm going to reject that notion even if someone tries to claim it was terrorists themselves who planted the explosives. The fall of the towers, including Tower 7, is completely consistent with massive structural failure, the likes of which the designers of the building never could have anticipated. Structural engineers have testified as much. Not a single structural engineer that I know of has said otherwise. Now, granted, they've got some other engineers and physicists who claim to know that the buildings couldn't have fallen in such a manner without controlled demolition, but I ask you this: whose testimony bears more weight? Who, in the case of a falling building, is likely to understand the situation better? I'm going to place my money on the structural engineer. The list of Loose Change's other fallacies could fill a good-sized book. Just for example: they try to claim that the Osama who claimed responsibilities for the attacks was wearing a gold ring and watch, which are forbidden by Islam -- implying quite strongly that the US government used an Osama impersonator to claim responsibility. It's true that natural gold is forbidden in the case of men under Shari'ah, but I ask this: can you positively identify the jewelry he's wearing in that video as gold, and not silver (which is permitted)? And even if so, how do you explain that several videos of Osama show him wearing the exact same watch and ring? Videos, I might add, that were photographed clearly and broadcast on Al-Jazeera. I could go on and on, but suffice to say, Loose Change has about as much credibility as the Moon Hoaxers (who also put up a persuasive argument) and the Flat Earthers (who are amongst the most skilled debaters the world will ever know). I can't recall where I saw it, and couldn't remember the link to save my life, but if you do a Google search for "Scr*w Loose Change" (replace that asterisk with an e), and dig around for videos, you'll find an annotated version of the film that rips every logical fallacy and flat-out fib to shreds. I also encourage you to visit this thread, as well as this one on the James Randi Educational Foundation's forums for a lively discussion about Loose Change. Beware, though -- we don't have a lot of tolerance for woo-woo or gobbledygook over there, so despite the fact that it's one of the friendliest, most civil online communities I've ever been a part of, folks tend to get a tad nasty at the sight of a bad conspiracy theory. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #4 Aug 2 2006, 04:25 PM | Knight_Of_The_St_Georges_Cross |
|
i watched this a while ago and it does raise questions and point out inconsistencies but America is knwon for its paranoia and love affair with conspiracy theories still its got me wondering |
Newbie
|
|
|
|
| Post #5 Aug 3 2006, 01:17 PM |
|
This should answer those questions. Link to just one site debunking loose change. Click here. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #6 Sep 25 2006, 08:47 PM |
|
|
Wow, I saw Loose Change a long time ago. I - along with many people in the 9/11 Truth Movement - distanced myself from Loose Change a while ago too, because of the time it wastes making claims about the Pentagon. It's better to focus on the more likely, believable, and evident controlled demolition that took place in the 3 Towers. 9/11 Truth has been making great strides. If I'm not mistaken, many polls are showing that we have a majority of New Yorkers convinced that 9/11 was allowed to happen with help by elements of the U.S. government. Alex Jones and many of the 9/11 Truth professors & intellectuals have been on C-Span - including Gore Vidal, Howard Zinn, Peter Dale Scott, Richard Falk, Paul Craig Roberts, Morgan Reynolds and Peter Phillips. We're still a long way from convincing most of those 80% of Fox "News" watchers who blamed Iraq for 9/11. I mean, that is even sillier than the official conspiracy theory that 19 amateur hijackers (most of whom have turned up alive) conspired without being noticed and carried out a successful attack against America, hitting 75% of their targets. Those gullible Fox "News" watchers believe anything I guess. Like I said though, we should forget about Loose Change. Focus instead on the controlled demolition at the 3 WTC towers, because we have such a solid case for that, such as these talking points: - The towers fell at free-fall speeds, rebuking the absurd "pancake collapse" theory of most less-informed people. - Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt the steel. - Building 7 wasn't hit by a plane. - No steel frame building has ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. - The temperature at the core of "the pile" was nearly 500F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses. - Thermite was found in samples from the towers. - The towers were made to withstand plane strikes. They were built much like the screen on a wind-door, in which you can cut out a huge chuck, but the rest still holds shape. Additionally, had this structure been broken, then the towers wouldn't have fallen in a "pancake collapse", but would have fallen like a tree. We must not stand outrageous conspiracy theories from gullible loyalists who believe that 19 conspiring hijackers are solely responsible for bringing down the towers in some outlandish "pancake collapse". (More importantly, regardless of whether you blame Islamic fundamentalists Saudi Arabia or domestic forces - we shouldn't let these wealthy southerners send blue-state troops to their non-Saudi wars over this, namely those wars against secular dictators.) |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #7 Sep 25 2006, 09:36 PM | Son N Law |
|
Scott, I'm sorry, but there was no controlled demolition. There just wasn't. As for whether or not 9/11 was allowed to happen? Okay, we can have a discussion about that. Do I believe it? No. Am I open to the possibility? Yes. It's within the realm of possibility, which is a far cry better than any controlled demolition theory. That argument has been torn to shreds time and again, and yet it keeps popping back up. Find me a structural engineer who has studied all the facts, and still believes there was a controlled demolition. That, the so-called temperature problem, and so much more is handled beautifully here by a writer who detests Bush as much as you and I do. I ask that you read it thoroughly. No matter how much we cannot stand the man and his administration, we must not resort to wild speculation in attacking him. And this controlled demolition hypothesis is so out in left field it barely even counts as wild speculation. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #8 Sep 27 2006, 08:04 AM |
|
Do you have any specific evidence of your position (or from that link) that you'd like to point out? I've already given my main talking points. Let us remember that most of the world agrees with me. I don't say that as an argumentum ad populum, but just to deny my appearance as being on the fringe of this particular issue. The LIHOP theory may seem better to you than the MIHOP controlled-demolition theory. Nonetheless, both are better than the official conspiracy theory to me. The official conspiracy theory being that 19 amateur hijackers successfully attacked America hitting 75% of their targets, all without domestic help. The official conspiracy theory also entails believe that those in power - who I see as big money-holders and international mega-corporations more than elected officials (who are their pawns) - did all they could to prevent 9/11 despite the clear positive effects for them by 9/11. All in all, though, I'm not a fan of the 9/11 issue. It's too divisive for my tastes. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #9 Sep 27 2006, 10:16 AM | Son N Law |
And I'm open to exploring this. Everyone should be. We know of memos and intelligence ignored. For what reason? Let's let someone who knows all the facts, for and against, lay them on the table. Then let's see which facts weigh more. I have to admit to being predisposed to believing that someone, somewhere, stood by and let it happen. That's predispositition, though. Let's see where the evidence takes us. As for your talking points, though: most of these can be dismissed out of hand by people who understand the mechanics of what happened that day:
The argument falls apart from the get-go. The towers did not fall at freefall speeds. I don't need to Google this. We can ignore any citations. All that's needed to rebutt this argument is the very best sort of science there is; the science that anyone can participate in: direct observation. Find any video of the collapse of either tower you wish. I won't even point to one, becuase I don't want it to appear that I selected data that backs up my claim. In any and every clear video of the collapse, you'll see jettisoned material falling faster than the structure of the tower itself. If anything is falling faster than the tower, the tower did not fall at freefall speeds. You can see this with your own eyes.
From the article to which I linked before: "Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F. Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse."
No one ever said it was. I think I'm missing a point here somewhere.
Show me another steel-framed building with the same structural design as the WTC, one third of a mile tall, struck by massive airplanes filled with fuel, before or since, and we'll have something to discuss here.
It stands to reason that the insulating action of a pile of building materials would create, in effect, a furnace of sorts. Basic physics. Again, this doesn't even require a Google search (and it's not covered, as far as I recall, in the article to which I linked).
As far as I know, chemical traces indicative of thermite burn were found in samples, with sulfur being the strongest so-called "smoking gun." Thermite itself, as far as I know, wasn't found. Are you aware that a chemical reaction between plaster and aluminum burns just as energetically as thermite, and leaves nearly the same chemical fingerprint (namely, lots of sulfur)? This is an experiment you can do in your backyard.
Built to withstand a crash, yes -- of planes smaller than those we have today. Additionally, they were built to withstand a crash -- not a crash, plus a tank full of burning jet fuel.
From the article to which I linked: "Additionally, footage of the collapse of the South Tower, or Building 2 reveals that the tower did not fall straight down, as the North Tower and buildings leveled by controlled demolitions typically fall. Instead, the tower tilted toward the direction of the impact point, and then began to pancake downward with the top part of the building tilted at an angle. The difference between the two collapses can be explained by the different way each airplane struck the buildings. The first plane struck the North Tower (Building 1) between the 94th to 98th floors and hit it head on, burrowing almost directly toward the core of the building. The second airplane struck the South Tower between the 78th and 84th floors, but sliced in at an angle, severely damaging the entire northeast corner of the building. Compared with the North Tower, the South Tower sustained damage that was both less evenly distributed and significantly lower on the building’s frame, requiring the weakened point to support more upper building weight than the corresponding crash site on the North Tower. This explains both the tilt of the building as it fell toward the weakened corner, and the fact that the South Tower fell first despite being struck after the North Tower was struck. Again, this scenario makes good sense if the buildings fell due to damage inflicted by the plane crashes, but makes very little sense if the buildings fell due to a planned demolition."
I understand that and will try to respect it, but the points you mentioned are categorically wrong and totally debunked. We share the same goal: finding out what really happened. The problem is, when I express any doubt at all about the official story, I'm automatically lumped in with people who believe things such as those you've stated here: things that simply aren't and can't be true. By merely asking the question, "Did someone inside the U.S. stand to profit or gain from letting the attacks happen?" most reasonable people are going to assume that I fall into the same demographic as the loudest people asking the same question -- and the loudest are those who posit these same wildly speculative (and incorrect) conspiracy theories. I want to know the answer to that question -- whether it's yes or no (because no one has yet given a yes or no that satisfies me) -- and I don't want to be lumped in with the tinfoil-hat-wearers by association the minute I ask it. Those of us who count ourselves as skeptics must take the skeptical approach to its logical end, which means disgarding our own suspicions when they're disproven. So please, Scott, look into the overwhelming evidence that stands contrary to the so-called "9/11 Truth" movement. The truth is that planes hit those towers, and they fell as a result. There was no controlled demolition. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| Post #10 Oct 12 2006, 05:52 PM |
|
That happens in controlled demolitions. Son N Law, I've watched the video, and I did not see anything fall faster than the towers. I saw things start to fall before the towers. I also took out a stop-watch and timed the video, and saw it fall at free-fall speeds. I don't see how a "furnace" of sorts could make temperatures higher than the max-temperature the jet-fuel burns, let alone for days afterwards. I find your alternate theory with its alternative explanations uncompelling. I also doubt the possibility still (of such things as the temperature, free-fall speeds, straight-collapse, etc.), even if it's possible (most conspiracy theories are possible), I find your conspiracy theory implausible and uncompelling. I understand you don't want to be lumped in with people who you consider crazy. (I recommend you change who you talk to if this happens.) However, that's bound to happen if you're not crazy, because most people are really stupid. I don't think it is to important to find out what happened on 9/11. There's to many cover-ups - whether to cover-up incompetence or treason - in the way to make it worthwhile. Also, as you point out, there's too many different and allegedly nutty theories: - The Pat Roberson crowd blames the gays. - Fox News watchers blame Iraq. - I blame corporate interests, government compliance, and pseudo-Islamic* nutjobs. - Some people just blame our government or the psuedo-Islamists. No matter what happened on 9/11, we'll never convince all these people of it. Yet the problems of our world - I'm sure you and I agree - extend much farther than 1 day and a few thousand deaths. We need to forget this moot 9/11 issue, and actually worry and talk about issues that we can use to change all the problems plaguing our society. We don't need 9/11 to show that our government is corrupt or that terrorists kill. If we focus on this divisive issue, we'll forget to stop our government and stop terrorists. Too many women are raped. Too many innocent people are murdered. Too many civilians die in wars. Too many hungry children starve to death. Too many people are robbed and assaulted (by both pirates and emperors). Look at these numbers: 16,000 child die from hunger everyday. 14 million children in the United States live in food insecure households. 12 to 27 million people are estimated to be in forced labor or slavery in the world today; most are female sex workers. More Americans have died in Iraq than on 9/11. Over 40,000 Iraqi civilians have died in Iraq. In the U.S. over 5.2 million people are victims of violent crime every year. Over 220,000 rapes and sexual assaults occur every year in the US. Let's put our different theories about 9/11 aside, and fix these problems. Let's not waste our time speculating on unprovable theories to condemn groups - Islamic terrorist and Western governments - when we can instead convict them of other crimes and protect ourselves from current dangers. Thanks, Scott *I call them pseudo-islamists for the same reason I call the KKK pseudo-Christian: The commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" is rather clear, among other things. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #11 Oct 12 2006, 11:25 PM | Son N Law |
|
Scott, I'm not trying to compel you, man. I'm trying to talk some sense into you. When there's no hard proof available, speculation and predisposition have their place. But in the face of rock-hard evidence, we must let go of any hypothesis, no matter how well it previously fit our theory. The towers didn't freefall. They simply didn't. Compare freefall rates (with transfer of momentum factored into the calculations) in this image to actual rates of fall of both towers. Posted Image Check out this paper for more in-depth (and technical) analysis. As for the pile of rubble creating temperatures hotter than that of burning fuel, consider that the reaction between iron and steam is exothermic. Add insulation to that and you have the recipe for a whole dang lot of heat. None of this is conspiracy theory. It's staight-up physics and chemistry. I also don't agree that 9/11 is a moot issue. Whether we like it or not, the events of that day will shape American foreign and domestic policy for years. Not to mention the fact that people died. I can't think of any way in the world by brain would possibly let me consider the deaths of 3000 innocent humans as moot. Would I like to see us focus our attentions on making real changes in the world? Absolutely. Would I love to end violent crime, poverty, and hunger? Oh, heck yes. Would I much rather see us focusing our efforts on CHANGING the foreign policies that led to 9/11 in the first place, rather than cranking them to 11 and daring it to happen again? You bet. I wish everyone had your enthusiasm for making change in the world. It's encouraging. But the fact is, the events of 9/11, and their poltical ramifications, are something we have to live with. I'm all for putting any disagreement aside to work on issues we can affect. All the same, I don't agree that these are unprovable theories. A theory, by definition, is testable. The idea of controlled demolition has been put to the test. It failed. Why is this important to me? Because I value truth above almost all else. I've been accused, in recent years, of being overly-obsessed with reality. It was intended as an insult. I took it as a compliment. Like I said before: the whos and whys of this we can discuss. The hows and whats are settled, though, and it pains me -- it tears me up -- to see people clinging to the belief that there was a controlled demolition in any way, shape, or form connected with 9/11. Planes flew into those buildings. They caused them to fall. There was no controlled demolition. There's nothing to discuss in regard to those facts. |
Fool, apparently
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community. |
|
| « Previous Topic · The War on Terror · Next Topic » |
2:57 PM Feb 6