loose change in fodder's pants

[darknation]

if you have a spare hour, give this a watch.

very interesting.

[Job]

Wow. I'm about 50 minutes and I have to say this explains a lot and also provides a valid perspective. But in documentaries like this, I always wonder how the people making it get a hold of communications that you'd think are top secret or difficult to obtain.

[Bucket]

2nd edition? Am I to believe that it has different information than the ones already floating out there? I'll watch it later.

[Technician]

America scares me.

[Bloodshedder]

Very interesting. I'm sure my dad will like this.

[Belial]

After watching 'Painful Deceptions', 'In Plane Site' and 'The Road to Tyranny' this didn't really have any surprising new info for me. I find it hard to believe that even with such unquestionable proof of a conspiracy some people still defend the 'official' story.

[Technician]

That and old people still supporting the moon landing. Although America couldn't let the Russians have that.

[Doom Marine]

Interesting conspiracy theory, made me think twice about 9/11.

[Nightmare Doom]

It was Bush & Cheny who orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 (and Al-Quida is an Fake organsation that Bush himself created) so he would attack the Middle East for corrupt buiseness purpeses.

[Bloodshedder]

Technician said:

That and old people still supporting the moon landing.

Except there's some very convincing arguments against the claims that it was a hoax.

[Regen]

Christ i had to catch myself, you really have to watch what you say in a thread like this (everything on the net go's thru goverment filters is what i understand- "key words") as i had to edit out pretty much my entire post rendering it "moot" if you will.. dont want the fbi knocking at my door tommorow lol.

[Belial]

Technician said:

That and old people still supporting the moon landing. Although America couldn't let the Russians have that.

Comparing these two cases makes no sense. On one hand you have eye-witness testimonies, opinions and reports from experts, and other undeniable evidence (like examples of how the official story breaks the laws of physics), with the added bonus of some common sense reasoning; on the other you have a very questionable (as shown in Bloodshedder's link) product of logic and deduction only, which is further limited by the pool of data that it's based on.

[Ralphis]

The video tries to make the point that the Empire State Building withstood a plane crash and did not fall.

It also makes the claim that those three buildings are the only three buildings to ever fall because of a fire.

However, what he fails to mention is that the Empire State Building was built in a time where buildings were lined with pure brick. Nothing is ever going to knock that building down short of a 10.0 earthquake.

On top of this, he then cites other buildings that did not collapse due to fires. Of course, these are all steel buildings like the trade towers so he's surely made a point here. What he fails to mention is that when a plane rips through the center of a building it has a crippling effect that destroys the supports of an oddly designed building to begin with. When your top 5+ floors don't have support and fall straight down on a laced structure, it's a pancake effect straight to the bottom.

Some of the video is interesting, but this is just the worst argument of the video by far.

[Bloodshedder]

when a plane rips through the center of a building it has a crippling effect that destroys the supports of an oddly designed building to begin with.

On one of the towers, the plane did not rip through the center of the building. It was almost a glancing blow.

[Bucket]

And WTC 7, which imploded before either tower fell. Surely the white-hot burning debris floating down onto the roof caused that.

[Job]

Ralphis said:

The video tries to make the point that the Empire State Building withstood a plane crash and did not fall.

It also makes the claim that those three buildings are the only three buildings to ever fall because of a fire.

However, what he fails to mention is that the Empire State Building was built in a time where buildings were lined with pure brick. Nothing is ever going to knock that building down short of a 10.0 earthquake.

On top of this, he then cites other buildings that did not collapse due to fires. Of course, these are all steel buildings like the trade towers so he's surely made a point here. What he fails to mention is that when a plane rips through the center of a building it has a crippling effect that destroys the supports of an oddly designed building to begin with. When your top 5+ floors don't have support and fall straight down on a laced structure, it's a pancake effect straight to the bottom.

Some of the video is interesting, but this is just the worst argument of the video by far.

You can say what you like about the details of the buildings in question and their sustained damage, but one aspect I find particularly convincing is the flashes on the sides of the towers, indicating strategic blasts. In the movie, they suggest that these blasts are indicative of the use of demolitions charges as well as the "crackle" sounds that were heard. Having witnessed a building demolition before, I can safely say that this looks identical to a planned series of blasts meant to destroy the infrastructure and base of the building (minus the existing damage to the areas struck by the planes). This is physical evidence that seems to indicate deliberate demolition - aside from the series of weird coincidences of evacuations, warnings, insurance policies taken and shares that were traded at an alarming rate before the tragedy occurred.

[Ralphis]

Yea, this is a somewhat convincing video. I'm definitely going to watch it again when I'm a bit more awake.

[darknation]

having seen controlled demolishions in action (thanks dundee!), yes, it is amazingly like the towers were taken down that way.

Then again, I've never seen a building come down in a manner that wasn't controlled... maybe that's just the way gravity works. I personally would have expected one of the corners to give and the building to tumble sideways. That was yousef's plan when he parked that van full of explosives in the trade center garage, to topple one tower into the other.

After watching that video and knowing what I do about al queda etc, I'm pretty sure the terrorists did it off their own back. I'm also pretty sure the government knew exactly what was coming (and coming soon) so, rather than try to prevent it, they just cashed their chips and made the most of it.

rotten library, as always, has excellent information on the subject, especially on the terrorist masterminds themselves. I'd link, but mordeth would squash me like a bug. Look them up yourself if you are interested.

[Snarboo]

Wikipedia also has a large page detailing the various theories and other suspsicious activity for those interested. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia article takes a fairly neutral stance, so it's up to you to make your own decisions.

[myk]

mallis said:
After watching that video and knowing what I do about al queda etc, I'm pretty sure the terrorists did it off their own back. I'm also pretty sure the government knew exactly what was coming (and coming soon) so, rather than try to prevent it, they just cashed their chips and made the most of it.

I don't see how the video helps such a hypothesis. Here's a story of how you deal with "terrorists", negotiating with their ways to further your interests. Similar characters, whether they be (or they have been) some of the ones that appear on the media (if and when they aren't fabricated) would work very well directly in 9/11.

The US (it's elite and main administration) has a media campaign demonizing and exposing extremist muslim groups of power and terror, but that doesn't mean it's at war with that kind of thing, since it's often very useful in the political and military games played out in the Middle-East.

[Sharessa]

I haven't watched the video yet, but I've been reading Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right and it goes into detail about how the Bush administration continuously (and seemingly purposefully) ignored warnings of an impending terrorist attack. The head of the CIA kept (increasingly franticaly) pleading that they should do somehting and they never did. Instead the administration turned around after 9/11 and blamed the head of the CIA who was forced to resign. So much for placing the blame where it belongs. All this I'm reading basicaly reinforces my theory that it was done by foreign terrorists, but the administration purposefully let it happen so they could gain support.