Loose Change

[MetFanL]

Has anyone watched this documentary? Wow...

http://www.metroland.net/features.html

[spokes]

this seems intereseting i'll have to check it out toght at home.

last night on the CBC (the canadian gov't answer to PBS) the ran a british doc called the "Falling Man" that centred on 9/11 and specifically an AP shot of a guy falling/jumping out of one of the upper floors - I only caught part of it, but it seemd interesting.

perhaps i am morbid, but i really "enjoy" (I don't know what other term to use) wathing all of the shows about this event and readiin some of the stuff - although for the most part i have ignored the "conspiracy theory" angle because I can't beleive that any gov't would orchestrate something like that given the loss of life - but i could be wrong.

[CTGirl]

perhaps i am morbid, but i really "enjoy" (I don't know what other term to use) wathing all of the shows about this event and readiin some of the stuff - although for the most part i have ignored the "conspiracy theory" angle because I can't beleive that any gov't would orchestrate something like that given the loss of life - but i could be wrong.

Oh please, do you really think our government is all sweet and innocent and would never do something that crazy?

Clearly you've never seen this one or all the others like it:

http://www.policestateplanning.com/loose_change_ii.htm

I wouldnt say it was a "conspiracy" for sure, but there's certainly something awfully fishy about the whole thing.

Edit: Oops, shoulda read the rest of the thread before posting, but this is just a related link to the one at the top, this one goes right to the documentary.

[cheshrcarol]

Met, I read that Metroland article too. I've been meaning to watch the documentary, but I haven't had time. I don't really think there's much merit to the idea that 9/11 was a gov't conspiracy, but I know they cite a lot of inconsistencies (architects say no way could buildings have fallen just from plane crash) so I'd like to check it out.

[cheshrcarol]

for the most part i have ignored the "conspiracy theory" angle because I can't beleive that any gov't would orchestrate something like that given the loss of life - but i could be wrong.I agree, although the quote about needing a Pearl Harbor-like incident to bring the country together was disturbing.

[CTGirl]

After you watch this video, you'd be a fool to believe that it was exactly as the government said. I'm not saying that our governement necessarily caused the whole thing themselves, but they certainly aren't telling us the truth about it.

[spokes]

(architects say no way could buildings have fallen just from plane crash) so I'd like to check it out.

there was a show on disocvery that showed that the building started to fall because the heat from the fire weakend the steel structure of the building and the floors started dropping. i suppose that a cynic would say that it was very neat and convieinet how the buildings dropped straight down it was almost like a demolition job.

it would ahve been horrible if the buildings had both tipped over (maybe if it had been hit much lower) - although perhaps it would have been impossible for a building to tip over.

[CTGirl]

there was a show on disocvery that showed that the building started to fall because the heat from the fire weakend the steel structure of the building and the floors started dropping. i suppose that a cynic would say that it was very neat and convieinet how the buildings dropped straight down it was almost like a demolition job.


In this video, they have steel experts who say that the heat required to bend them is pretty much impossible to have occurred.

[SunnyCee]

I don't want to insult anyone, but I have to say, five years later, if you still think that this was unknown to the government prior to its happening, you need to seriously take your head out of the sand.
It frusterates me because there is no one specific thing to believe...it could be a conspiracy, it could have been a gross oversight, it could have been unpreventable. I just hope that some truth--absolute truth--will someday be found.

[rocket333d]

The operative words are "in this video." The video says a lot of things. I have seen this video and many others like it all pointing out the same "evidence." I'm no expert, but even just thinking through all the points made, I can see reasons why these theories can be wrong.

My favorite bit is the one where they take quotes from people who were around the Pentagon when the planes flew overhead and all these people are saying things like, "It didn't sound like a plane! It sounded more like a missile!" Okay, say something comes flying over your head at several hundred miles per hour, and it's pretty much gone or hard to see by the time you get a chance to look. Would you, at that moment, be able to say "it wasn't a plane, it was a missile?"

Some people say the government did this so we could go to war. Why, in that case, did we say it was orchestrated by the Taliban of Afghanistan, but focus most of our military support on Iraq? That makes no sense, otherwise the government would've made the attacks come from Iraq. And if we could've faked 9/11, we could fake finding WMDs too.

Also, the people who made this, are they still alive? Are they in prison or forced into mental institutions? No? There you are then. You think if our government found out that crimes it has committed were now being outed to the public, that they would do everything in their power to stop this information from being released. If the government is supposedly able to fake a terrorist attack with the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks, what would keep them from stopping some college kids from making a movie or distributing it, even on the internet?

And why was it a dinky little internet movie? You'd think for a matter as important as this, they (or someone whose job this is...) would do some actual investigating and release it to the American or international press.

No, I don't trust our government, especially in this matter (because if we hadn't screwed up somehow, it wouldn't have happened), and I am a Fa-LAAAAAMING liberal, but I need to see some actual proof before I believe something like this.

[CTGirl]

The operative words are "in this video." The video says a lot of things. I have seen this video and many others like it all pointing out the same "evidence." I'm no expert, but even just thinking through all the points made, I can see reasons why these theories can be wrong.

My favorite bit is the one where they take quotes from people who were around the Pentagon when the planes flew overhead and all these people are saying things like, "It didn't sound like a plane! It sounded more like a missile!" Okay, say something comes flying over your head at several hundred miles per hour, and it's pretty much gone or hard to see by the time you get a chance to look. Would you, at that moment, be able to say "it wasn't a plane, it was a missile?"

Some people say the government did this so we could go to war. Why, in that case, did we say it was orchestrated by the Taliban of Afghanistan, but focus most of our military support on Iraq? That makes no sense, otherwise the government would've made the attacks come from Iraq. And if we could've faked 9/11, we could fake finding WMDs too.

Also, the people who made this, are they still alive? Are they in prison or forced into mental institutions? No? There you are then. You think if our government found out that crimes it has committed were now being outed to the public, that they would do everything in their power to stop this information from being released. If the government is supposedly able to fake a terrorist attack with the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks, what would keep them from stopping some college kids from making a movie or distributing it, even on the internet?

And why was it a dinky little internet movie? You'd think for a matter as important as this, they (or someone whose job this is...) would do some actual investigating and release it to the American or international press.

No, I don't trust our government, especially in this matter (because if we hadn't screwed up somehow, it wouldn't have happened), and I am a Fa-LAAAAAMING liberal, but I need to see some actual proof before I believe something like this.

Yeah, like I said before, this is hardly convincing me that the government planned this whole thing out, all I'm saying is that it's fishy, and things don't quite add up, no matter what story you choose to believe.

[rocket333d]

there was a show on disocvery that showed that the building started to fall because the heat from the fire weakend the steel structure of the building and the floors started dropping. i suppose that a cynic would say that it was very neat and convieinet how the buildings dropped straight down it was almost like a demolition job.

it would ahve been horrible if the buildings had both tipped over (maybe if it had been hit much lower) - although perhaps it would have been impossible for a building to tip over.

Again, not an expert, but I don't think it could've possibly fallen to one side. If the force from the plane was enough to knock the whole building over like a domino, it would've happened within moments, minutes even, of impact. It must not have been. The plane sliced right through, that impact alone breaking a lot of steel supports on those few floors. Now the weight of the upper part of the building which used to be held up by a whole set of supports, is now being suspended on much less, fire or no. The top floors then collapsed straight down, taking the lower portion of the buildings with it.

[CTGirl]

The plane sliced right through, that impact alone breaking a lot of steel supports on those few floors. Now the weight of the upper part of the building which used to be held up by a whole set of supports, is now being suspended on much less, fire or no. The top floors then collapsed straight down, taking the lower portion of the buildings with it.

The part of the video where they talk about other buildings that have had planes crash into them was interesting to me on this topic. I'd never really thought much about it, but it just doesnt make physical sense that a plane on striking on an upper floor would cause the building to implode like that.

[SunDevil]

The part of the video where they talk about other buildings that have had planes crash into them was interesting to me on this topic. I'd never really thought much about it, but it just doesnt make physical sense that a plane on striking on an upper floor would cause the building to implode like that.

There was a lot of weight on the top 20-30 floors that once it's momentum is going down, it will take the rest of the floors out below it. Or if the weight was off just a little bit(the first tower was hit at an angle), I could see just the top falling over like if you took an ax to a tree.

I can see why many people think that it might be a government job, since the defense dept would be 1/2 the size it is today if we had years and years of peace. The current administration has benefited from this attack more than the guys who carried it out(if they actually did it).

There are a few videotapes that the government has that I wouldn't mind seeing. But they haven't released them for some reason. There had to be cameras at the airport, do the videos show all 19 getting onto the planes? What about the cameras around the pentagon that should have shown some evidence of a plane.

[pisces2473]

Fa-LAAAAAMING liberal
You need to make this your user title. :huge:

[rocket333d]

There was a lot of weight on the top 20-30 floors that once it's momentum is going down, it will take the rest of the floors out below it. Or if the weight was off just a little bit(the first tower was hit at an angle), I could see just the top falling over like if you took an ax to a tree.

Well, it didn't fall straight down neat as a pin. I do remember that the top of one of the towers twisted and did tilt on its way down. Just not a lot. A tree is pretty much solid through and through. You cut some support from the middle and there is nothing to crumble, so the only logical solution is for the tree to completely tilt in the direction where there is less support. However, a building is very hollow, much moreso than a tree. If you cut supports in the middle, everything starts to crumble, and the upper weight does not tilt as such. It didn't just fall down neatly, though. Besides, an axe chopping repeatedly at a tree had more effect on the tree than a plane flying once into one building, so the plane didn't really generate enough force for it to fall in a certain direction.

The part of the video where they talk about other buildings that have had planes crash into them was interesting to me on this topic. I'd never really thought much about it, but it just doesnt make physical sense that a plane on striking on an upper floor would cause the building to implode like that.

Loose Change cites that in 1945 a small bomber plane flew into the Empire State Building and there wasn't as much damage. Okay, how big is a bomber plane and how big is a 767? Also, how fast does a WWII-era plane go and how fast does a commercial jet go? The mass and the velocity of the commercial planes that flew into the WTC could easily cause much more damage.

And lastly, the one fact that I have heard in pretty much every argument is that steel melts at a much higher temperature than the jet fuel could burn. Actually, steel only turns into a complete liquid at that temperature. The steel supports for the building didn't have to be completely reduced to liquid before they couldn't hold the weight.