Loose Change 9/11

[24]

I never said that i trust every single fact on that movie, i simply argued that it presents evidence which in itself looks very logical. Please point me towards this book as i would be quite interested in reading it. And would like to know some of the errors you have found. I am extremely open to evidence/facts/points from every side of the argument.

[TheLastShadow]

Incredible. I watched it. It was just simply...amazing. To find out why they did all this, why was there no evidence etc it was just amazing. I just have one question...Why was there massive ammounts of gold stored under the WTC?

And the WTC should be left alone? Who cares if it happend 6 years ago. Your little bombings found in the trains in london what was found a terror act, im sure people still talk about that? Yet that still happend a few years back also. Plus, only like 10 ppl died in the bomb. 9/11 thousands died.

[RedStratocas]

I never said that i trust every single fact on that movie, i simply argued that it presents evidence which in itself looks very logical. Please point me towards this book as i would be quite interested in reading it. And would like to know some of the errors you have found. I am extremely open to evidence/facts/points from every side of the argument.

[Link to book]

Well for one, the whole "twin towers on the reports" thing: The twin towers were attacked once before, so they were an obvious symbol for terrorism. Second, I looked this one up myself, steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C, which is lower than jet fuel burning. And if you notice the articals Loose Changes posts, they're all from one or two days after 9/11, the time in which the least amount of information was known. So they're trusting things that are very questionable.

And you can debunk it with simple logic:

1) If the government could plan an attack with "military presision" on it's own people and get away with it, why is the war in Iraq a huge disaster?
2) Why would the government say that the terrorists were from Afghanistan and other nations if they wanted to attack Iraq? Wouldnt they say they were all from Iraq if they wanted to get the country behind the war?
3) If the government has no problem killing nearly 3000 people, why dont they just kill the people who came out with these conspiracies?

Inform yourself:
[Link][Link][Link]

[TheLastShadow]

3) If the government has no problem killing nearly 3000 people, why dont they just kill the people who came out with these conspiracies?

Because the reason why they blew up the WTC was because of all the gold underneath..But if thats the only reason why they did it, why did they go to the Pentagon and do it in the feild of pennsylviania

[RedStratocas]

Because the reason why they blew up the WTC was because of all the gold underneath

But according to Loose Change, the owner of the WTC was in on the whole plot, so why would he allow the government to steal all the money?

[24]

Well for one, the whole "twin towers on the reports" thing: The twin towers were attacked once before, so they were an obvious symbol for terrorism. Second, I looked this one up myself, steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C, which is lower than jet fuel burning.

Isnt that for unprotected steel? Whereas the steel in the WTC was protected with thermal insulation which meant it could withstand higher temperatures. Plus wouldnt the steel have to be exposed to that sort of temperature for a long period of time before it would have any serious affects on it. The South tower collasped 56 mins after impact.

Found something else about steel:

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

[RedStratocas]

Isnt that for unprotected steel? Whereas the steel in the WTC was protected with thermal insulation which meant it could withstand higher temperatures. Plus wouldnt the steel have to be exposed to that sort of temperature for a long period of time before it would have any serious affects on it. The South tower collasped 56 mins after impact.

Found something else about steel:

Well first off, if you notice, there was a plane that knocked out a good portion of the building. About 1/4 or so of the steel inside was knocked out just because of that. If there happened to be burning fuel inside the building-- but no plane that hit it-- you might have a a point. But there was a 747 that hit the side of a fairly unstable building in the first place, and if that doesnt do significant damage to it, I dont know what does.

And why are you asking me? I posted 3 links, look them up.

[Mrs.McCall]

Some of the arguments are really really flawed. However there are a few that bring up some questions.

For example, is it simply coincidence (sp?) that the owner of the WTC Complex insured the buildings just prior to the attacks?

Why haven't they released the CCTV from the garage outside the Pentagon?

What were these extra explosion noises heard?

There is explicit arguments for both sides of the spectrum. You must admit, the Loose Change movie is VERY interesting compared to the usual documentaries you get.

[24]

Well first off, if you notice, there was a plane that knocked out a good portion of the building. About 1/4 or so of the steel inside was knocked out just because of that. If there happened to be burning fuel inside the building-- but no plane that hit it-- you might have a a point. But there was a 747 that hit the side of a fairly unstable building in the first place, and if that doesnt do significant damage to it, I dont know what does.

And why are you asking me? I posted 3 links, look them up.

I have looked at 2 out of 3 of the links you provided. I think that as much as they provide the answers, they too can be just as easily questioned in regards to their validity as the conspiracy theories.
Sorry it wasnt a general question aimed at you it was more of a retorical anwser to what you posted earlier :rolleyes:.

[RedStratocas]

Some of the arguments are really really flawed. However there are a few that bring up some questions.

For example, is it simply coincidence (sp?) that the owner of the WTC Complex insured the buildings just prior to the attacks?

Actually there is an extremely good reason for that. The world trade center was bombed once before in the 90's and has had numerous threats to it in the past. Its only logical for them to put terrorist insurance on it. And 2001 was a new decade, so a lot of big businesses were renewing their insurance.