Loose Change the video.. wake up or hype?
I watched theis loose change 2nd edtion last night found in google video ( and link ). I'm a Canadian and am worried that if even half the stuff they talk about in this is true that America is in a lot of trouble... Should I be worried? what do my neighbours to the south think?
has anyone else watched this?
flick.
has anyone else watched this?
flick.
Comments
I only managed to get half of it, but what I saw had me convinced. This was the movie that I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was going to be. I'm glad someone made it.
Unless they are doctoring the videos for those flashes - which was the most convincing part - it is pretty big on evidence, but not on following a trail (mind you, I didn't see the end). Heard about the disappearing airplane in the Pentagon before and I always thought that was fishy...
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Did you get the whole thing downloaded?
I only managed to get half of it, but what I saw had me convinced. This was the movie that I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 was going to be. I'm glad someone made it.
Unless they are doctoring the videos for those flashes - which was the most convincing part - it is pretty big on evidence, but not on following a trail (mind you, I didn't see the end). Heard about the disappearing airplane in the Pentagon before and I always thought that was fishy...
I want to make sure every one is watching the 2nd edition. In this version they gtherd more evidence and had more comentary from eye witnesses ect..
I just watched it online.
flick.
I'm still really shocked that we were ment to believe what they were telling us.
flick.
It's a dorm-room bull session (dude, I bet the CIA did it, they also started AIDS!) made into a video.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, the plane shot a missile into the building 1/10 of a second before it hit.
It's a dorm-room bull session (dude, I bet the CIA did it, they also started AIDS!) made into a video.
Though i don't support this idea, it doesnt mean that i'm not open to it.
But refering to the comment about the plane shooting a missle into the building 1/10 of a second before it hit, I don't recall the video ever saying that the plane shot a missle into the building before it hit.
I think that that is YOUR dorm-room bull session and not the video's.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, the plane shot a missile into the building 1/10 of a second before it hit.
It's a dorm-room bull session (dude, I bet the CIA did it, they also started AIDS!) made into a video.
It's immaterial whether a missile was fired (or not) into the South Tower. There is no way of knowing now. All we have is video footage to look at from a variety of angles; this can be interpreted in different ways. I've seen the footage on a number of occasions and it could be tricks of light and shade, sunlight reflection flashing etc, and it could be something else. And since all the steel was rapidly sent to China for recycling (and to local landfills, under armed guard), one of the grossest ever cases of tampering with a crime scene, and unpunished (!)... none of the steel was available for forensic analysis.
There are anomalies featured in Loose Change that have been taken up by BYU Professor of Physics and Astronomy Steven E. Jones in a recently published paper, dealing with the nature of the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC#7, and the unexplained pools of molten steel (2,850ºF+) in the foundations of all 3 buildings that collapsed, and the (1500ºF+) hotspots that remained there for many weeks after the collapses. More on this site:. The paper deals with how the official "pancake" explanation of the collapses runs afoul of the law of conservation of momentum; the Towers and WTC#7 collapsed at "freefall" acceleration and velocity, meaning that if one was to drop a rock from the top of the building at the same time the collapses started, the rock would hit the street at the same time as the top of the building. This implies that the 80 or so undamaged floors of these buildings below the impact zone, together with the massive central supports offered zero resistance.
B. Russell: Any explanations here please? Or are you comfortable with the notion that a former CIA asset allegedly living in a cave 10000 miles away together with 19 other guys, (7 of whom were alive and interviewed in the days following the attacks) were capable of not only suspending the laws of classical physics at will, but rendering the entire US Defense establishment inoperative for some 2 hours that morning? If this really is the case, then we really are in trouble.
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, former director of the Star Wars program put it best:
"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason"
I don't know anything about the physics of buildings collapsing (or the physics of anything, really), but I don't understand why someone would fire missiles or place charges in the buildings. We know that planes hit the buildings, so why would they need extra bombs and missiles? It just doesn't make sense, even from the point of view of a government conspiracy.
So much of the rest of the video contains either true information that doesn't prove anything about 9/11 (operation Northwoods), or information that would prove something but is completely unverified (some eyewitness saw a military plane rather than a passenger plane hit the building).
Sorry, I like a good case that challenges conventional wisdom as much as the next person, but this doesn't do it for me.
Any cursory reading of history will tell you that the Muslim world, whether it's projecting a natural animus, or whether it is the pawn of tin-horn dictators, is on a collision course with the West, for a variety of reasons. Projecting the X-Men IV screenplay onto current events is foolishness.
Originally posted by BRussell
SJ: We know that planes hit the buildings, so why would they need extra bombs and missiles? It just doesn't make sense, even from the point of view of a government conspiracy.
The theorized reason for extra explosives in this video is to guarantee to collapse of the towers.
Originally posted by Cato988
The theorized reason for extra explosives in this video is to guarantee to collapse of the towers.
Yeah, I get what they're saying, but does it make sense? Wasn't hitting planes into them bad enough? And if they weren't sure that the planes alone would bring down the towers, how did they know that the extra bombs/missiles would do it? It sure took quite a while for them to come down, even with these alleged extra bombs. That part just doesn't make it on my plausibility meter. I could understand why they'd fly drone aircraft or switch out passengers or things like that - not that I believe it, but at least it's internally consistent with this whole government-conspiracy idea. But this missile thing? Come on.
Originally posted by BRussell
Yeah, I get what they're saying, but does it make sense? Wasn't hitting planes into them bad enough? And if they weren't sure that the planes alone would bring down the towers, how did they know that the extra bombs/missiles would do it? It sure took quite a while for them to come down, even with these alleged extra bombs. That part just doesn't make it on my plausibility meter. I could understand why they'd fly drone aircraft or switch out passengers or things like that - not that I believe it, but at least it's internally consistent with this whole government-conspiracy idea. But this missile thing? Come on.
Well as the video said, it is extremely unlikely on the border of theoreticly impossible to make the buildings collapse because of the two planes. With this in mind, they placed explosives in the building to bring it down (we do this all the time with controlled implosion). Maybe they were ment to come down an hour later. If you watch the whole video, it explains alot of ur questions.
(P.S. I'm not saying I believe this consperacy theory at all, but am simply playing devil's advocate. The "facts" that are presented in the video are very interesting regardless of if they are true or not. No one can deny that)
Nobody expected that the damage from the impacts of the planes would bring down the Twin Towers. As far as the perps were concerned, had the Towers remained standing, there would have remained plenty of evidence embedded on the impacted floors, which could have helped law enforcement in identifying the perps (in theory). Demolishing the towers covered the two main items the perps needed to do; first, it was a back-up to ensure that all the evidence was obliterated, and second, it served as a spectacular media show that was watched by a mass audience in America and all over the world, with the news-cameras trained on the World Trade Center, to get the anger and fear factors rolling. Once the powers that be had those in the can,... it was a case of "lets roll"... and we are still rolling.
To all of those people who still give the 'official conspiracy theory' credence, is there anyone around who can present evidence that refutes the premise of "Loose Change"? By evidence, I mean real, tangible hard facts, as opposed to the infantile stuff, like retorting in terms of "tin foil hats and black helicopters", etc.
Can anyone here explain how a steel framed building that was not hit by a plane and was just sort of standing there for quite a while after the towers fell would manage to collapse into its own footprint precisely in the manner of a controlled demolition?
I'm not saying I think it was foul play, I just don't understand. Has anyone come across a credible explanation or is it just sort of a "it happened so it must be possible" sort of thing?
Originally posted by addabox
For some reason I had never heard about building 7 pancaking, which I do find extremely puzzling.
Can anyone here explain how a steel framed building that was not hit by a plane and was just sort of standing there for quite a while after the towers fell would manage to collapse into its own footprint precisely in the manner of a controlled demolition?
I'm not saying I think it was foul play, I just don't understand. Has anyone come across a credible explanation or is it just sort of a "it happened so it must be possible" sort of thing?
The twin towers fell (pancaked) not because they were struck by the airplanes (which they clearly were) but because of a prolonged high temperature fire... presumably something similar happened at 7.
Originally posted by addabox
For some reason I had never heard about building 7 pancaking, which I do find extremely puzzling.
Can anyone here explain how a steel framed building that was not hit by a plane and was just sort of standing there for quite a while after the towers fell would manage to collapse into its own footprint precisely in the manner of a controlled demolition?
I'm not saying I think it was foul play, I just don't understand. Has anyone come across a credible explanation or is it just sort of a "it happened so it must be possible" sort of thing?
check this link out addabox, PM got a punch of Scientists together and took a look at this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
The Green Goblin, however, could not be reached for comment.
Originally posted by BRussell
What would have happened to the WTC if the Bush administration had really been behind it.
If Bush were really behind this, they would have blown up the wrong building.