Loose Change... The 9/11 Conspiracy...

tadpole256 · 04-07-2007, 12:24 PM

Watch these three videos... They are long, but well worth the watch. After you watch them, post comments here. These are sure to make you think...

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDx1GLqvBO8"]Part 1[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJZlZP0vbCE"]Part 2[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J7ipvgBLGc"]Part 3[/YOUTUBE]

I think there is something to this...

Katczinsky · 04-07-2007, 12:34 PM

I believe this video was posted here before.

9/11's definitely something that should be independently re-investigated.

Lincoln · 04-07-2007, 12:46 PM

There are so many holes in that bull shit story. The government is full of a bunch of lying bastards but shit, if your going to make up a conspiracy theory make it a good one. I might be wrong but didn't the loose chang video win an award somewhere?

garysher · 04-07-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Watch these three videos... They are long, but well worth the watch. After you watch them, post comments here. These are sure to make you think...

I think there is something to this...

One major question after watching Part 1 - if those planes didn't fly into those buildings, what happened to them and their passengers?

I think it's a wild conspiracy theory

tadpole256 · 04-07-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysher

One major question after watching Part 1 - if those planes didn't fly into those buildings, what happened to them and their passengers?

I think it's a wild conspiracy theory

They are not denying the planes flew into the buildings, just that the planes could not have done enough damage alone to bring the buildings down. Watch the other two parts, and they clear it up some more.

Lincoln · 04-07-2007, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

They are not denying the planes flew into the buildings, just that the planes could not have done enough damage alone to bring the buildings down. Watch the other two parts, and they clear it up some more.

What they are saying is complete bull shit. The other two parts won't clear it up because they pulled that story out of their ass.

baloney_detector · 04-07-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tadpole256

Watch these three videos... They are long, but well worth the watch. After you watch them, post comments here. These are sure to make you think...

I think there is something to this...

I certainly don't feel the same way for the simple fact that using bombs to force the collapse of the two twin towers would be entirely redundant when considering the effects from the uncontrolled burning of thousands of gallons of jet fuel within an already-damaged structure.

In fact, all carbon and high strength steel lose over half of their effective yield strength around 1,100 degrees F and their strength diminishes even more dramatically above 1,100 degrees F. (There yield strength is lowered by almost 2/3rds at 1,200 degrees F.) And, the temperatures that were produced by the uncontrolled burning of this jet fuel could easily have reached 1,500 degrees F...if not hotter.

And, even if most of the structural steel fire proofing that was used on the Twin Tower's columns and other structural steel pieces actually survived the initial impact of the airplanes, structural steel fire proofing is only effective over a certain period of time at a certain temperature...and not for all time and at any temperature. (Engineers even evaluated the fire-proofing that was used and how it was applied on the structural steel of the Twin Towers after the fact and determined that it's application was somewhat at fault because it was likely to have been inclined to simple fall off the steelwork during the impact of the airplane(s) within the buildings.)

So, the Twin Towers' collapse was a mathematical certainty based on the conditions within the structures after the airplanes had crashed into them...without even some need for addition "bombs" in order to force the collapse of the towers.

And I think there is only a conspiracy here for people who want to see a conspiracy since structural engineers, who are the very same people who "design" controlled building demolitions, would much more than likely say bombs would not be necessary to force the collapse of the Twin Towers if these other conditions are met.

tadpole256 · 04-07-2007, 11:04 PM

How do you explain this fact?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&mode=related&search="]Coincidence 1[/YOUTUBE]

tadpole256 · 04-07-2007, 11:06 PM

Need more?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7BSt9jhxPQ"]Coincidence 2[/YOUTUBE]

tadpole256 · 04-07-2007, 11:10 PM

Should we ignore testimony such as this?

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk"]Coincidence 3[/YOUTUBE]