permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/528176494
indestructible Posted on 11/9 12:53
loose change - 9/11

Anyone seen this? I saw a comment on the other thread which was along the lines of "Bin Laden is a monster created by the Bush administration". This film DEFINITELY backs that up. In fact, of all the different pictures/videos of Bin Laden that Fox/CNN have shown, no two "Bin Laden's" look the same at a second glance!

Loose Change is quite adamant that the reason the buildings collapsed was a controlled explosion and gives countless examples of burning/impacted buildings not collapsing - some of it may be going a bit far, but the theory about Bin Laden being a fictitious/exagerrated character I have to say made me think. Anyone have any thoughts?

captain5 Posted on 11/9 12:58
re: loose change - 9/11

I'm generally of the opinion that conspiracy theorists are the way they are not because they are suspicious of a particular event, but that they are generally suspicious or have their own agenda.

If he doesn't exist a lot of people are in on the act.

As for exaggerated; probably but no more than other leaders of factions, armies etc going back through centuries of history.

SmogOnTheRhine Posted on 11/9 13:00
re: loose change - 9/11

Loose Change - its a very well made film and on first viewing you could almost be taken in by it, but alas, every claim they made can be rubbished quite easily, there are plenty of reputable websites out there that do this

nasty_pasty Posted on 11/9 13:01
re: loose change - 9/11

i thought everyone knew that Al-Qaeda doesn't actually exist, and was a concept invented by american neo-conservatives so they could invade whatever country they liked

Corcaigh_the_Cat Posted on 11/9 13:01
re: loose change - 9/11

Including this one. Have you read the match reports?

Doctor_Mick Posted on 11/9 13:02
re: loose change - 9/11

Shall we discuss this at the appropriate time? ie. on 9th November :(

Boro_Owl Posted on 11/9 13:02
re: loose change - 9/11

Trod linked this yesterday. Fookin hilarious

Link: 9/11 conspiracy bullshmidt.

indestructible Posted on 11/9 13:04
re: loose change - 9/11

I would agree that they maybe have their own agenda. For instance, the makers of this film will have made more than "loose change" by releasing it.

However, apparently Bin Laden denied that he was involved in 9/11 as murder was against islamic beliefs, and then "confessed" live on Al Jazeera or whatever a few weeks later.

This "confession tape" certainly isn't conclusive and as I said, "bin Laden" looks nothing like the "bin laden" in other photos, but it seems to be what about 99% of the world's population have based their opinions on over the last 6 years.

Also, it notes that on America's ten most wanted website, it states that Bin Laden is left handed. On the "confession tape" he is seen writing with his right hand. Either the FBI have made a major f00kk up with this declaration or the tape was filmed in president Bush's garage!

captain5 Posted on 11/9 13:07
re: loose change - 9/11

I think I'll start learning to write with my left hand so any future crimes I commit I can get away with.

Doctor_Mick Posted on 11/9 13:07
re: loose change - 9/11

No Arab will right with his left hand even if left handed. The left hand dirty as it is only used for wiping one's Islamic ar­se.

indestructible Posted on 11/9 13:08
re: loose change - 9/11

I know what you're saying, but it's bl00dy difficult writing with your left hand!

Also, what about the big casio watch?????

Doctor_Mick Posted on 11/9 13:10
re: loose change - 9/11

Tell you what. Try wiping your ar­se with your left hand. If you can master that then writing with the wrong hand is a piece of
pi­ss.

Doctor_Mick Posted on 11/9 13:12
re: loose change - 9/11

Tha casio watch is Islamic. A normal analogue watch has arms - BARE arms which is contrary to the teachings of the profit

Saudi_Ian Posted on 11/9 13:14
re: loose change - 9/11

Osama, Al Qaeda, Islamic Terrorists etc call them what you will did not see the WTC bombings as murder though. Non-Muslim westerners and even westernised non / semi practising Muslims are seen as infidels and are therefore legitimate targets in their Jihad.
The WTC was designed to withstand an impact from a small aircraft, not a fully fuelled Jumbo!

trodbitch Posted on 11/9 13:15
re: loose change - 9/11

Why thank-you, Mr Owl

Boromart Posted on 11/9 13:21
re: loose change - 9/11

if that wasn';t the real OBL the other day then the Islamic extremists of the world have just as much to gain by using a stooge as the yanks.

regarding loose change, it's rubbish, made by kids who dn't want to believe the simple truth. Farenheit 9/11 is a far better movie, admitting that a bunch of mad saudi's did it, but instead focusing on the relationships between the Bin Laden family and the Bush family who have many shared business interests.

Doctor_Mick Posted on 11/9 13:26
re: loose change - 9/11

Bin Laden was financed by the CIA in Afghanistan when fighting the Russians in the 80s. That's well understood but not talked about a lot in Washington these days.

Just as they financed and supplied arms to Saddam when fighting Iran after the American Hostage Crisis. Millions or Iranians died when Saddam invaded Iran. So now why are they not suprised when Iran is stirring the sh­it in Baghdad?

indestructible Posted on 11/9 13:31
re: loose change - 9/11

Fair enough Boromart, I'm not disagreeing with you, but the loose change guys have done their physics and have presented a pretty interesting argument.

Some of it seems too far fetched to believe (though that isn't necessarily a reason not to) but to sum up, I think that we know VERY little about what really happened that day, who did it and why.

captain5 Posted on 11/9 13:34
re: loose change - 9/11

Yeah, but the premise of what they're suggesting is wrong.

Are you saying that some of their (since disproved) points are actually true??

Saudi_Ian Posted on 11/9 15:43
re: loose change - 9/11

"Done their physics"??
According to who?
Steel looses its structural integrity at 700degrees, jet fuel burns at 980 degrees, plus there were all the carpets, furniture etc in the offices plus high pressure gas lines running throughout the structures which could push the temps up to 1500 – 2000 degrees.
A fully fuelled, high speed Jet most certainly could and did bring them down.

Borofandownsouth Posted on 11/9 16:00
re: loose change - 9/11

captain 5 - which points would you say have been proved incorrect?

as far as I know - nothing has invalidated 99% of the points in Loose Change and before you mention the Popular Mechanics article I would suggest you research who owns popular mechanics and why their answers are full of more lies

9/11 was a government false flag operation which resulted in the Zionist lobby and oil cartels staging a coup de tat in order to invade the Middle east and usher in the new world order (a facist police state based on a one world government)

anyone who doesnt see this is either too scared to admit to whats happening or simply has done no research

--- Post edited by Borofandownsouth on 11/9 16:01 ---

Borofandownsouth Posted on 11/9 16:02
re: loose change - 9/11

Hitler burnt down the Reigstag and blamed it on the communists - however our government would never do such a thing

trodbitch Posted on 11/9 16:05
re: loose change - 9/11

Borofandownsouth, what in the fook are you jabbering on about?

Fooking crackpot conspiracy theorists. Get your tin foil hats on man!

littlejimski Posted on 11/9 16:14
re: loose change - 9/11

I don't believe it was a false flag coup de tat (sic), because this kind of cover up stretches credibility just too far. However, I do have suspicions that the attacks may have been allowed to happen. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Bush administration knew it was on its way, and it is widely known that the PNAC had called for a "New Pearl Harbour" to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

Boromart Posted on 11/9 16:43
re: loose change - 9/11

there would have had to be several 1,000 people involved in the conspiracy theory version of events and to think that no one would object and that no one would leak it stretches the realms of possiblity.

I am 100% certain in my mind that a bunch of Islamic fundamentalists did it, I am also 100% certain that once Bush got over the shock he and his Daddy cracked open a couple of Buds. This is the chance we've been waiting for Junior, get in the middle-east and put our best men in charge of those countries, I want to own the oil fields of Iraq and the Afghan pipeline within 5 years.

I would go so far as to say that the Bush's may have purposely invited anti-american feelings, from the arab world, through there foreign policy, in the hope that something like 9/11 would happen.



--- Post edited by Boromart on 11/9 17:18 ---

Borofandownsouth Posted on 11/9 16:54
re: loose change - 9/11

great answer Trodbitch

so are you saying Hitler didnt burn down the Reichstag and blame it on the communists or that our government would never do such a thing

the fact that you say 1,000 would be in on the conspiracy and you dont hear anything from them .... well ask marconi employees why you keep your mouth shut

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marconi_Scientists

or even Dr David Kelly

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly

the truth is most of the 1,000 people (although likely to be much less - around 200 at most) earnt alot of money and power from 9/11 so they have no reason to expose what happened.

those who know things that have come forward are either dismissed as being wrong (such as the firefighters hearing bombs exploding in the towers) or called crackpots (mel gibson - whose father is one of the most respected authors on the NWO - no wonder the zionist wanted to label him anti semetic)

Saudi_Ian Posted on 11/9 17:01
re: loose change - 9/11

When concrete is heated to extreme temperatures rapidly it can explode, also when gas lines are heated to beyond the insulations 'safe operating temperature' they too will explode along with hundreds of other items within the building from florescent light tubes to the giant HVAC Coolant vessels stored in the roof of the building, which would sound like a bomb going off (compressed gas).

Boromart Posted on 11/9 17:24
re: loose change - 9/11

"the truth is most of the 1,000 people (although likely to be much less - around 200 at most) earnt alot of money and power from 9/11 so they have no reason to expose what happened."

I said several 1,000 people not 1,000, and that is closer to the truth because you would need so much involvement from so many areas to do what these conspiracy theorists have cited. Many of these people would not be government employes some would not even be american citizens, depending on which conspiracy theory you believe.

The worst is the controlled explosion. to start with you would have to source huge amounts of explosive, that would lead a paper trail back to the manufacturers. then you would need a specialist contractor to wire it such to give the desired effect. Then you have to get the explosives into the building undetected and installed, a huge job and not one that could be done without someone raising a question.

Marconi - 1,000s of people didn't know what was going on, or to what extent. The people that did kow were high powered, high payed employees. To pull of any of the conspiracy theories around 9/11 would need people all across the pay ladder, from differant organisations, not a good analogy to be honest.



--- Post edited by Boromart on 11/9 17:30 ---

St_Petersburg Posted on 11/9 17:40
re: loose change - 9/11

Anybody that pays attention to this shoddy piece of tosh deserves a slap.

Senor_Chester Posted on 11/9 19:35
re: loose change - 9/11

Borofandownsouth surely on a wind up?

Senor_Chester Posted on 11/9 19:37
re: loose change - 9/11

"Shall we discuss this at the appropriate time? ie. on 9th November :("

11/9 in my household! Not buying into this yank bo11ocks.

Fake_ID Posted on 11/9 20:35
re: loose change - 9/11

Saudi_Ian Posted on 11/9 15:43
re: loose change - 9/11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Done their physics"??
According to who?
Steel looses its structural integrity at 700degrees, jet fuel burns at 980 degrees, plus there were all the carpets, furniture etc in the offices plus high pressure gas lines running throughout the structures which could push the temps up to 1500 – 2000 degrees.
A fully fuelled, high speed Jet most certainly could and did bring them down.





Steel looses its integrity and begins to melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). The added "fuel" you mentioned (i.e. carpets, furniture etc) would NOT push the temperature above the melting point of steel. This is why so many independant structural engineers have doubts about the official line given out by the whitehouse in regards to the real reason the WTC collapsed.

Also, how do you explain the collapse of WT7? A 42-story building that had one solitary fire on the 12th floor?

In the history of sky-scrapers and steel structures not one single building has ever collapsed due to fire alone. Not one. Yet on 11-9-01 three collapsed, and one of them wasn't even hit by a jet liner!

Its also interesting how all three of the buildings that collapsed were insured for billions of dollars 6 weeks before 9/11. Possible coincidence?

I'm not saying there's a full-blown conspiracy like some would have us believe, but I certainly don't believe the "official" version of events as stated by the American government either.

--- Post edited by Fake_ID on 11/9 20:36 ---

Senor_Chester Posted on 11/9 20:44
re: loose change - 9/11

The steel didn't have to be heated up to the temperature so it would melt just enough for it to loose it's strength and bend, which I think is about half the temperature of it's melting point(?).

WT7 was damaged to an unknown extend by falling debris from the towers and then burnt all morning. The firemen even had to declare it a lost cause for safety reasons. The building also had cache's of diesel beneath, I believe as a reserve for generators or something for the area.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 11/9 21:06
re: loose change - 9/11

I beliebe it was definately a controlled explosion, Ive watched a rise rise demolition for work and it was exactly the same, speaking to a few lads I know proffessionaly they all think it was too. A nice neatish pile.

But the towers were coming down anyway, damage limitation in my opinion. A lot more people would have died if they hadn't.

Its not popular with the conspracy theorists as its not a big evil conspiracy, it doesn't settle well with the official line because its a dark thing to do, even if it was probably the right thing to do.


Incidently buildings like the WTC in the US were built with the charges in place (until the Oklahoma City bombing where they caused more damage then the bomb) so it can easily be done. I'm
not sure how they'd set it up in practice.

Currently the official view on it is being challenged in the courts by two top structural engineers. As Fake_ID says Steel just does not behave like that, and a fire wouldn't. If it did, there wouldn't have been large sections of the plane recovered on site. When steel stretches and bends it wouldn't behave that like, it would have to shear and steel doesn't. No matter what the temperature.

Thats my 2 cents.

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 11/9 21:07 ---

Fake_ID Posted on 11/9 21:07
re: loose change - 9/11

RE: WT7

An interesting fact. Did you know that the BBC reported the collapse of WT7 1 hour before is actually did collapse! There's footage of a BBC reporter stood in New York going on about a "third" building just having collapsed (WT7) when in fact you can still see it the actual building over her shoulder in the background! It fell about an hour later. The conspiracy theorists reckon the "official press release" on WT7's fate got fooked up and was announced before the would-be demolition team had blown it up.

I'll try and dig up the link of the footage and post it here if anyone's interested.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 11/9 21:11
re: loose change - 9/11

Not seen it myself but....

Link: Easy enough to find it.

trodbitch Posted on 11/9 21:15
re: loose change - 9/11

I've seen that, it's hilarious. People seemed to think the bbc on site where just standing dumbly being told what was happening in front of them by press release? Crazy!!!

moxzin87 Posted on 11/9 21:20
re: loose change - 9/11

"it is widely known that the PNAC had called for a "New Pearl Harbour" to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq."

Its not widely known by those who have widely read the widely distributed paper entitled - 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' - the paper that was the source of this incredibly dangerous urban myth.

Have a look see. Its quite long but see if you can justify that above quote afterward.

Link: The big bad Project for a NAC

Fake_ID Posted on 11/9 21:20
re: loose change - 9/11

"The 47 story Salomon Bothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed."



Errr... no it hasn't love, its right there, behind you! Give it another 20 minutes, come back and try again

Boromart Posted on 12/9 9:43
re: loose change - 9/11

Fake_ID, what happens in these cases, and is proven to happen is that information gets garbled. I suspect it was nothing more than a senior fire officer stating that the building was going to collapse, and then that was reported as it had actually collapsed.

Ask anyone who has served in the armed forces about how information gets garbled in the heat of battle, and they will confirm this.

littlejimski Posted on 12/9 9:56
re: loose change - 9/11

OK, I'll retract "called for", which is probably a bit strong, but it says on Page 51:

"Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."

Coincidence? Most probably, but it can't be denied that 9/11 was the kind of event that helped them put their plans into action.

The very tone of that whole policy document is quite telling. It basically says that "we need to keep policing the world with military force and secure our strategic and economic interests".

Oh, and it came out in September 2000.



--- Post edited by littlejimski on 12/9 10:04 ---

jd76 Posted on 12/9 13:14
re: loose change - 9/11

WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire. It was destroyed by demolition charges - this was even admitted (by mistake) by the WTC owner in a documentry made a few months later.

Link: Alex Jones re: WTC7

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 13:57
re: loose change - 9/11

Jesus, people need to stop getting reeled in by these crackpots.

jd76 Posted on 12/9 14:17
re: loose change - 9/11

"Jesus, people need to stop getting reeled in by these crackpots."


As opposed to being brainwashed by our governements and media?

Borofandownsouth Posted on 12/9 14:29
re: loose change - 9/11

am I on a wind up? er, no?

I have various degrees/masters in history, politics and work for the FCO

Many intelligent people agree with me so Im not bothered what people like Trodbitch think .... his ignorance is clear

“”All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.”

Trodbitch is at stage one whilst the majority of the western world has reached the end of stage two

as for the building that fell after the BBC reported it, it has nothing to do with a fireman saying its going to fall and they reported as fallen - the process took 8 seconds from start to finish - the problem was the BBc were on page 6 of the script but the false flag operators on ground zero were on page 5


the truth is Israel and the US had more to gain from 9/11 than any muslim - but no one would say Israel were responsible because all our media is owned by pro zionist jews in the western world. the story of the jewish spy ring and the absence of jews in the world trade centre that day coupled with the warning sent out on a jewish text service prior to the planes hitting the towers have all been buried ...... along with Trodbitches head in the sand!!!!

as Mossad would say - through the art of deception we do war and trust me, you have been decieved

http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/09/jewish-control-of-british-media.html

current belief is that another false flag attack will happen in the next few weeks as Israel try to force the US into attacking Iran and that the 14/9 and the 27/9 are possible dates

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 14:36
re: loose change - 9/11

You seem to have an unhealthy obsession with me.

Evidence of people benefiting from it is not evidence of them staging it. Thatcher benefited from The Falklands but it wasn't British troops in Argie uniforms marching into Port Stanley.

Secondly,

"as for the building that fell after the BBC reported it, it has nothing to do with a fireman saying its going to fall and they reported as fallen - the process took 8 seconds from start to finish - the problem was the BBc were on page 6 of the script but the false flag operators on ground zero were on page 5"

You actually believe that the bbc had a script to follow at the start of the day and skipped ahead? I'm sorry you can't see how pathetic that is.

Two words:

Occam's razor

captain5 Posted on 12/9 14:39
re: loose change - 9/11

Were the BBC on the right page during rehearsals, or was it just when it happened that they cocked up??

jd76 Posted on 12/9 14:43
re: loose change - 9/11

Trod can I ask you a simple question?

Do you believe the official version of events of 9/11?

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 14:48
re: loose change - 9/11

jd, of course I do. The US government couldn't keep a burglary and a intern's blowjob a secret, there's no way such a huge secret could be kept as one.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 14:50
re: loose change - 9/11

WTC7s collapse makes no sense regardless of whether it was a fire or scripted.

Buildings don't collapse like that.

Towell Posted on 12/9 14:51
re: loose change - 9/11

Flight thingy (united 93?) that the film was made about was blatantly shot down by fighter jets.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 14:52
re: loose change - 9/11

"Buildings don't collapse like that."

Buildings that are structurally damaged and on fire don't collapse? Yes they do.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 14:53
re: loose change - 9/11

What makes you think that Towell? Bit of a stretch of the word 'blatantly' considering you have 0.0 evidence of it.

Stepper_T Posted on 12/9 14:54
re: loose change - 9/11

Trod will know, he is an ex arsonist.

Beelzeebub Posted on 12/9 14:55
re: loose change - 9/11

"I have various degrees/masters in history, politics and work for the FCO"

Thanks, that gave me a good giggle

By now all the allegations fomr "Loose Change" and elsewhere have been rubbished in various Scientific journals but still those who love a conspiracy theory cling to it. Let it go. Sh-t happens

marcus_the_carcass Posted on 12/9 14:56
re: loose change - 9/11

trodbitch, how do you explain that there we no Arab names on the flights' passenger lists.

Link: No arab names

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:00
re: loose change - 9/11

Easily. That list was copied from a list published on cnn.com of the VICTIMS and that would not have the hijackers' names in, would it?

Link: cnn list

the_broken_fridge Posted on 12/9 15:01
re: loose change - 9/11

I do love a good debunk.

Link: here

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 15:03
re: loose change - 9/11

"Buildings don't collapse like that."

"Buildings that are structurally damaged and on fire don't collapse? Yes they do."

Thats not what I said though, I said they don't collapse like THAT. No matter how they are built, but especially steel framed buildings.

They shear/bend, that just disintegrates, its too quick.

Thats a proffessional opinion too.

Beelzeebub Posted on 12/9 15:04
re: loose change - 9/11

If you boarded a flight from Boston to Los Angeles how many arabs would normally be onboard?

How do you know the list is accurate?

Might a potential hijacker use an assumed name?

Borofandownsouth Posted on 12/9 15:06
re: loose change - 9/11

broken fridge

not really debunked anything - all you have done is repeat the party mantra

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/110907_pancake_theory.htm

so where do you stand now?

guyb Posted on 12/9 15:06
re: loose change - 9/11

It's nonsense.

Entertaining Nonsense, I'll grant you but nonsense all the same.

jd76 Posted on 12/9 15:06
re: loose change - 9/11

"jd, of course I do. The US government couldn't keep a burglary and a intern's blowjob a secret, there's no way such a huge secret could be kept as one."


But they didn't keep it as a secret did they? They made mistakes - lots of misakes. It hasn't been a secret from day 1 - hence all the "crackpots" as you call them bringing up all this new information day after day.

Did you also beileve the official line given out by Bush and Blair in regards to Iraqs WMD's? Guess what, there weren't any and never were. More lies.

Unfortunaltey you're in the majority. These politicians and government agencies will continue to spin their lies and propaganda because the vast majority of joe public like yourself are nothing but brainwashed sheeple ruuning blindly with the rest of the herd.

People need to be woken up. Luckily there's a few "crackpots" out there dedicated to doing just that.

Borofandownsouth Posted on 12/9 15:08
re: loose change - 9/11

Beelzeebub - show me some of these scientific theories which debunk the 9/11 "conspiracy theories"

i have yet to see any .....

join Trodbitch in the retard corner please ........

Borofandownsouth Posted on 12/9 15:10
re: loose change - 9/11

"jd, of course I do. The US government couldn't keep a burglary and a intern's blowjob a secret, there's no way such a huge secret could be kept as one."


oh dear .... they couldnt keep them a secret because they didnt want to - both double crossed by teh zionist (jewish) lobby groups for not towing the line

Lewinsky = Mata Hari

marcus_the_carcass Posted on 12/9 15:11
re: loose change - 9/11

Trodbitch, your wrong...

The flight manifesto...a list containing the naems of the passengers taking the flights...had no arab names. NOT the victims list.

Link: the flight manifesto

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:15
re: loose change - 9/11

And here we have it, the real root of the conspiracy theorist. You can't stand the idea that you are seen as sheep or just believing what you are told so you have to cling to these theories. Why bring up Iraq? Proof they were wrong doesn't mean they were wrong on every single count.

We keep coming back to the fact that no-one who was directly involved in this massive deception has come forward, out of the thousands that would have had to be involved to make it happen. Yet you still insist on believing the home-made theories of a kid based on nothing more than a couple of puffs of smoke and evidence generally along the lines of "it just wouldn't happen like that".

Sorry lads, but you aren't as smart as you think you are if you continue to believe in this. In fact, you are as gullible and sheep-like as those you have been mocking.

theboydom Posted on 12/9 15:16
re: loose change - 9/11

so, to sum up, some people find it very suspicious that a building which has had a large plane flown into it, then a large fire burning in it, collapsed?

great conspiracy.

would be good if the suspicious folk could point us to the pictures of all the tall buildings still standing after the same thing happened to them..........

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 15:18
re: loose change - 9/11

What a silly post Trod.

Stepper_T Posted on 12/9 15:18
re: loose change - 9/11

Did Sky and BBC get different scripts?

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 15:20
re: loose change - 9/11

theboydom

Link: heres one

Beelzeebub Posted on 12/9 15:22
re: loose change - 9/11

OK, collapse of WTC7. Currently under investigation by (amongst others) the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in answer to the conspiracy theory that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition he said "NIST has found no evidence of a blast" In truth they still do not know why WTC7 collapsed but they have ruled out your pet theory.

Other silliness often quoted such as the spread of debris from the flight that came down in a field (93) is that the spread indicates that plane had disintegrated before impact with the ground (except it doesn't) the numpty who produced LC used road distances from a route planner to measure the distance from the impact point when there was a lake between the points which greatly exagerated the distance by road than as the crow flies.

Are there other point you would like to specifically debunked? They all have been you know? Read around the subject and try to do so with an open and inquisitive mind.

Beelzeebub Posted on 12/9 15:25
re: loose change - 9/11

Sorry the "he" I mentioned is Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator Building and Fire Safety Investigation of WTC Disaster.

jd76 Posted on 12/9 15:31
re: loose change - 9/11

People HAVE come forward. They're right there in some of those links provided. You just don't want to hear it. I guess some people simply prefer living in their own scripted world and simply won't look outside the box.

Eveyone unto themselves I suppose.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:35
re: loose change - 9/11

"What a silly post Trod."

My god, the irony.

As for the 'manifest' linked to above, I'm sorry but it isn't a manifest? It's a list of bodies identified via autopsy. There were 64 people on the plane, 5 were hijackers and that list has 58 name son it. They failed to ID a toddler called "Dana Falkenberg" so 58 identified + 1 toddler + 5 hijackers = 64. The cover note of the list given to him clearly states it is a list of 'victims'.

Anything else?

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:38
re: loose change - 9/11

"I guess some people simply prefer living in their own scripted world and simply won't look outside the box."

There you go again, you are all obsessed with proving that you are somehow enlightened and someone who will not agree with you is some sheep happy to live life in the dark. Yet all the evidence you keep throwing out there to support you is consistently shown to be flawed (see above). You say I don't want to know but I just went and read all that 'evidence' and you know what? It supports my viewpoint more than the theorists. At least I am reading the evidence.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:43
re: loose change - 9/11

"Borofandownsouth Posted on 12/9 15:08 Email this Message | Edit | Reply
re: loose change - 9/11
Beelzeebub - show me some of these scientific theories which debunk the 9/11 "conspiracy theories"

i have yet to see any .....

join Trodbitch in the retard corner please ........"

How big of you to call me names alluding to me being in some way mentally handicapped. You are a fool and I'm not spending any more of my time trying to convince you of that fact. Same goes for the rest of you. Try reading the evidence that you think supports you.

Boromart Posted on 12/9 15:43
re: loose change - 9/11

"“”All truth passes through 3 stages: First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident.”" -- or put it another way, how many times do you have to repeat a lie before the common populous believe it to be true?

jd76 Posted on 12/9 15:46
re: loose change - 9/11

Beelzeebub Posted on 12/9 15:22 Email this Message | Edit | Reply
re: loose change - 9/11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, collapse of WTC7. Currently under investigation by (amongst others) the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in answer to the conspiracy theory that the building was destroyed by controlled demolition he said "NIST has found no evidence of a blast" In truth they still do not know why WTC7 collapsed but they have ruled out your pet theory.



Do you know who Larry Silverman is?

He was the owner of all the world trade centre buildings on 9/11. In december 2001 he was interviewed in a documentry called "Rebuilding America" by CBS and in it he ADMITTED WTC7 was brought down deliberatly on his orders as to prevent the further loss of life. It was brought down by a controlled explosion. The official government inquiry categorically denied it because it would have meant demolision charges would have had to have been in place days before 9/11.

Look at the interview, its linked in a post above.

--- Post edited by jd76 on 12/9 15:53 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 15:50
re: loose change - 9/11

trodbitch, never had a problem with you before, but your ignorance towards me is astounding.

No point discussing anything with you, you have flat out ignored everything put to you.

jd76 Posted on 12/9 15:52
re: loose change - 9/11

"Yet all the evidence you keep throwing out there to support you is consistently shown to be flawed (see above)."


This sentence here sums you up perfectly. Flawed? so why did the building's owner admit on camera he gave the order to demolish WTC7? Or did you simply read someone elses post that happened to agree with you and take it as the gospel truth without looking it up yourself? My remark about you being a sheeple still stands

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:53
re: loose change - 9/11

"trodbitch, never had a problem with you before, but your ignorance towards me is astounding.

No point discussing anything with you, you have flat out ignored everything put to you."

Yes, sorry for ignoring brilliantly made points such as "what a silly post trod"

Boromart Posted on 12/9 15:54
re: loose change - 9/11

I'm amazed to what lengths people will stretch their imagination to generate a conspiracy., The concept that some bbc media reporter and therefore his camera and sound man are in on this conspiracy is ludicrous. If that is the case there are 1,000s of people in on hte conspiracy, and by now some truth would have come to light, rather than some mad theories that are based on thin air and don't hang together after even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 15:57
re: loose change - 9/11

jd, "Do you know who Larry Silverman is?"

No, but I know who Larry Silverstein is.

He didn't say "demolish it" did he? He really didn't ever say that. He did say "pull it" and that's supposed to be jargon for demolition. Well, I've heard "pull it" used in other ways such as abandoning or giving up on something eg, pulling an article from a newspaper or a television news report.

Let's just say, I'm not convinced. It's hardly cast-iron proof one way or the other but it doesn't seem to matter as my 2 debunkings of the "no arabs on flight 77" seem to be getting ignored as you all scramble around looking for more pseudo-evidence to throw at me.

jd76 Posted on 12/9 15:58
re: loose change - 9/11

"The concept that some bbc media reporter and therefore his camera and sound man are in on this conspiracy is ludicrous."


Thats your concept and no one elses.

Show everyone reading this exactly were thats stated in this entire thread. Its not even implied!

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 16:00
re: loose change - 9/11

jd,:

"This sentence here sums you up perfectly. Flawed? so why did the building's owner admit on camera he gave the order to demolish WTC7? Or did you simply read someone elses post that happened to agree with you and take it as the gospel truth without looking it up yourself? My remark about you being a sheeple still stands"

I've looked things up for myself on this very thread. Did someone not question the "arab names on flight 77" and twice post proof that they weren't there? On both occasions I went directly to the links presented as evidence to clearly prove that it did not in any way support the conclusion the people using that evidence said it did.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 16:01
re: loose change - 9/11

"Yes, sorry for ignoring brilliantly made points such as "what a silly post trod""

It was a silly post trod, it was a personal attack on a load of people just because you don't disagree with them.

Personally I felt "evidence generally along the lines of "it just wouldn't happen like that" was pointed at me.

The fact that you don't understand how steel as a material works isn't my problem. I have a working understanding of it in building and a degree to back it up. Don't believe me though, look around and read up on it yourself, You brought up Occams Razor, I suggest you use it.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 16:02
re: loose change - 9/11

jd, it's implied here:

"There's footage of a BBC reporter stood in New York going on about a "third" building just having collapsed (WT7) when in fact you can still see it the actual building over her shoulder in the background! It fell about an hour later. The conspiracy theorists reckon the "official press release" on WT7's fate got fooked up and was announced before the would-be demolition team had blown it up."

Now I said this earlier, reporters on the scene were not stood around a fax machine while ignoring the buildings collapsing around them. It is far easier to simply stand there and watch what is happening yourself. No-one is issuing press-releases in the middle of chaos like that.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 16:07
re: loose change - 9/11

If it wasn't for a press release how did they know it was going down though? Because you can't see anything from where they are.

I think they just got it wrong, they were told the building was to be collapsed and instead said it had, but they got that info from somewhere trod, they couldn't see anything from where they were.

jd76 Posted on 12/9 16:07
re: loose change - 9/11

Sorry for the typo!

I respect your views Trod, but as someone who was very skeptical about all these conspiracies a few years ago I've re-educated myself over the last few years and some things just don't add up. But that doesn't mean I believe everything I've read or been told by the conspiracy theorists either.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 16:08
re: loose change - 9/11

"Personally I felt "evidence generally along the lines of "it just wouldn't happen like that" was pointed at me."

No, but you are included in it. I know one thing about steel and that is it does not have to melt to have it's structure compromised. Is that wrong? You tell me.

Also, I find your Occam's Razor statement confusing. To paraphrase it:

"All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one,"

And a massive inter-agency government plot involving many thousands of civilians and (apparently) jewish groups is never, ever the most simplest of explanations.

As for insulting people, well I was called gullible and sheep like and I'm afraid that works both ways. Also, being called a 'retard' wasn't much fun either so let's not all start taking the moral high-ground as no-one's white than white here.

moxzin87 Posted on 12/9 16:08
re: loose change - 9/11

The 9/11 Truthers are obstinate people who won't debate and will silence any opportunity to have their views tested and challenged. Its almost religious in its dismissal of dissenting opinions. Anyone who doesn't agree is either a blind sheep brainwashed by the corporate media (that means me and you btw) or are in on the act (Popular Mechanics, every serious journalist, even Noam Chomsky FFS). All this stuff about 'we don't know, we're only asking questions' is pure nonsense because there's a profound fear of debate around all the Truthers - they have their rigid set of views and anyone else who disagrees is either a dolt or an insider.

Its just not to be taken seriously, and I don't think many people away from 'the internets' actually do. I feel sorry for the people who lost loved ones on 9/11 who have to come in contact with this vile stuff in real-life though. And its a common trajectory from 9/11 Truthing to much, much more darker stuff. Its cryptofascism and remarkably, in this reasoned age, its triumphing over reason and gaining currency. Reason is our best weapon against it, but if that doesn't work...? I really don't know what we can do.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 16:10
re: loose change - 9/11

Ok gents, there's no point going on and on. I've said enough. Continue to post if you wish, it's been fun but don't take my lack of response to any more of your posts as an admittance that you were right!

Boromart Posted on 12/9 16:16
re: loose change - 9/11

ok so if the bbc reporter wasn't in on the conspiracy, then someone somewhere providing the information to the bbc reporter WAS in on the conspiracy. Either way it's an absurd suggestion.

Like I said in battle information becomes garbled, lots of miscommunications happen. That day in New York resembled a battle ground and the majority of the people involved were not able to cope with an event of that scale. Thus miscommunications and confusion happened. Of course this explanation is far too simple for some people, oh well.

I can only assume they were getting information from quite busy firemen and policemen. These same fire and policeman are involved in the investigation into the collapse of WTC7. If there was a conspiracy these people would not be in on it as they lost colleagues that day

There is a nice entry on wiki with several citations that gives a far more plausible explanation than the 'controlled detonation' theory.

Link: WTC7

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 16:17
re: loose change - 9/11

trodbitch did I insult you personally? No? Well I'd ask you to in the future withold from implying "you are as gullible and sheep-like as those you have been mocking." Eh? As I was the about only person on this thread who said that about steel.

"No, but you are included in it. I know one thing about steel and that is it does not have to melt to have it's structure compromised. Is that wrong? You tell me."

You're right but unless it just 'disappeared' it would bend first, so the chances of it coming down in straight collapse would be impossible. Shear failure to one side of the building.

Even in engineering people disagree and you always get people trying to prove the impossible, i.e. the pancake theory. But they don't hold up to experience or academic enquiry.

This quote:

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What if a similar call had been made on all three buildings?

Boromart Posted on 12/9 16:23
re: loose change - 9/11

smogmonster it would take days to wire up the world trade centre, and someone somewhere would have noticed. It was a controlled building due to the previous attempt to blow it up. A previous attemp that didn't work and proved that muslim fundamentalists WHERE actively intent on bringing it down by the way. Are we now suggesting the security firm(s) involved in all 3 buildings were also in on the act to allow thousands of pounds of TNT to be setup in the building in the days leading up to 9/11.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 12/9 16:34 ---

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 16:26
re: loose change - 9/11

Ok, my LAST post on this:

"trodbitch did I insult you personally? No? Well I'd ask you to in the future withold from implying "you are as gullible and sheep-like as those you have been mocking." Eh? As I was the about only person on this thread who said that about steel."

The "it wouldn't happen like that" quote was yours but is one I've heard over and over about everything from the size of the hole in the pentagon to the lack of substantial wreckage in Pennsylvania. The gullible and sheep like comment was not aimed exclusively at you but simply saying "it wouldn't happen like that" is hardly convincing, is it?

"*No, but you are included in it. I know one thing about steel and that is it does not have to melt to have it's structure compromised. Is that wrong? You tell me.*

You're right but unless it just 'disappeared' it would bend first, so the chances of it coming down in straight collapse would be impossible. Shear failure to one side of the building."

Well it didn't seem to come straight down to me. Granted, it didn't topple over to one side but it certainly didn't come down in a controlled explosion. A huge chunk of the top section of one of the buildings broke away and collapsed to the side. Also debris seemed to fall off in a fountain pattern, rather than imploding. It looked anything BUT controlled. Looking at the ground zero pictures, there was plenty of twisted, bent steel.

"Even in engineering people disagree and you always get people trying to prove the impossible, i.e. the pancake theory. But they don't hold up to experience or academic enquiry."

Fair enough but I think we can both agree that we don't have enough history of what happens to such large structures with such violent fires?

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What if a similar call had been made on all three buildings?"

Pull could mean evacuate? Apparently we have to assume that it meant "demolish" and it could mean nothing else. Ok then, if that is true, what about "we watched the building collapse" - strange language to describe a building you are deliberately destroying in a controlled manner. I doubt any building demolition crew would describe their work as a 'collapse' ever.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 16:32
re: loose change - 9/11

"smogmonster it would take days to wire up the world trade centre, and someone somewhere would have noticed."

In America a lot of public/large buildings are (or at least were pre 1995) built with demolition systems in place inside.

Take the Oklahoma city bombings, they've been questioned as being a contributing factor in how successful the bomber was there, as the initial bomb set off the embeded charges

They don't bang on about it, but the simple fact is that when putting up a building of that size, you have to have a plan to take it down quickly.

Its not exactly forbidden knowledge, and its that system that was suggested to be used to 'pull it' in the above quote.

How they pulled this off on the ground is another thing, but it wouldn't have needed to involve too many people.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 16:39
re: loose change - 9/11

Trod I think pull it was in reference to the building in context. I see what you are saying though.

"A huge chunk of the top section of one of the buildings broke away and collapsed to the side."

Very important that, if you watch that section of the building its the only part that lists at all and in theory, should pull the rest of the structure with it. Plus it doesn't collapse the same 'method', although that would be in keeping with the 'pancake' theory too.

"The gullible and sheep like comment was not aimed exclusively at you but simply saying "it wouldn't happen like that" is hardly convincing, is it?"

Well I'm glad it wasn't exclusively at me, but as for me saying that, I'm not going to write an essay that you won't properly understand on how steel works as a material. Other people have done a better job then me before.

Boromart Posted on 12/9 16:43
re: loose change - 9/11

I suggest the theory of buildings pre-rigged with explosives is a nothing but an urban myth. A small fire could bring the whol building down. Have you got any links to respectable websites that declare categorically that either the Oklahoma building or any of the WTC buildings were pre-rigged with explosives?

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 16:46
re: loose change - 9/11

Would the explosives not deteriorate or degrade over time? Surely the danger is that they become unstable and just go-off?

--- Post edited by trodbitch on 12/9 16:48 ---

Boromart Posted on 12/9 16:46
re: loose change - 9/11

"Very important that, if you watch that section of the building its the only part that lists at all and in theory, should pull the rest of the structure with it."

and by listing to the side it surely then put extra stress on the other 3 corners and the structurely weak metal holding those corners up. then gravity takes over....gravity goes down not sideways!

--- Post edited by Boromart on 12/9 16:47 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 16:57
re: loose change - 9/11

"Oklahoma building or any of the WTC buildings were pre-rigged with explosives?"

I got that from a PBS documentry in the states from a few years ago, just after 9/11 in fact, I have heard it since but its so off the wall even the conspiracy theorists haven't got hold of it.

I've never seen anything about either on the web truthfully, not even on crapy websites, the waters are sullied, you can't find anything not linked to 9/11 and WTC7 if you try.

Read a few things in books though, mostly in regard to concrete though like. But its not exactly you give public access to.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 17:06
re: loose change - 9/11

Boromart, the steel would pull and pivot mate before it buckled as the weight wouldn't be directly over the rest of the building, unless the collasping floor didn't hit the floor below.

There are lateral forces too you know, not just gravity. [:p]

I don't feel the need to convince anyone of this by the way, I'm not 100% evangelical behind it. Its just a topic that came up at work recently and I thought it was a possiblity.

I'm not a big one for conspiracy theories really, I just think they would have done it if it would had saved more lives.

Boromart Posted on 12/9 17:12
re: loose change - 9/11

"PBS documentry" -- every crackpot has access to the media in the states!

radiogaga Posted on 12/9 17:12
re: loose change - 9/11

Borofandownsouth




You're David Shayler aren't you?

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 17:18
re: loose change - 9/11

""PBS documentry" -- every crackpot has access to the media in the states!"

Damn straight.

I was in a log cabin for 2 months with only PBS for company, it takes some will power to keep going.

Boromart Posted on 12/9 17:42
re: loose change - 9/11

I lived in Sioux City for 6 months, can you imagine what PBS in the midwest is like! It was worse than what you have imagined.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 12/9 17:43 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 17:47
re: loose change - 9/11

You've trumped me there, I was in Maine, well off the beaten track building a farm with an old uni mate.

The 3-5 Clifford the Big Red Dog marathon was the highlight of the day. Keeping up apperances on for an hour a day - no wonder the locals were suprised when I told them I was English.

Boromart Posted on 12/9 17:53
re: loose change - 9/11

I lived in Baltimore for a couple of years also, PBS was much more civilized they had a Red Dwarf marathon on one weekend . Which was fine but they would only show the next episode when people had rung up and pledged enough money for them to purchase the next episode off the BBC. I hope you were building that farm in summer, it's effing freezing up that way in winter.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 12/9 17:54 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 18:02
re: loose change - 9/11

Haha Boromart, thats cracking, would have killed for a Red Dwarf marathon, I'd have been pledging like there was no tommorrow.

I've spent a winter out there and a summer, the winter was amazing, 6ft of snow on christmas eve. Was a good laugh if nothing else.

boroborob Posted on 12/9 18:14
re: loose change - 9/11

There was no American Government led conspiracy to cause 911.

"In America a lot of public/large buildings are (or at least were pre 1995) built with demolition systems in place inside."

Absurd. Provide something to back this nonsense up.

--- Post edited by boroborob on 12/9 18:17 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 18:36
re: loose change - 9/11

"There was no American Government led conspiracy to cause 911."

I concure, if you think i suggested that, I suggest you check again.

""In America a lot of public/large buildings are (or at least were pre 1995) built with demolition systems in place inside."

"Absurd. Provide something to back this nonsense up."

Don't take orders sorry, but if you don't think they think about decommissioning when designing a building you're wrong.

I've already mentioned one thing. Theres a number of textbooks I can point you towards happily if you ask very nicely. Are you some kind of expert?

Senor_Chester Posted on 12/9 18:51
re: loose change - 9/11

Borofandownsouth is like one of these people who will talk about this in a pub and get angrier and angrier as the people around him are laughing at the nonsense he talks.

To recap a couple of things: page 5 and page 6 of a 'script' being read at the wrong time! Jewish text service warning Jews in advance!

Comedy gold.

boroborob Posted on 12/9 22:05
re: loose change - 9/11

"I concure, if you think i suggested that, I suggest you check again."

That wasn't directed at you in particular.

"Don't take orders sorry, but if you don't think they think about decommissioning when designing a building you're wrong."

It's not an 'order' but if you're going to make outlandish claims without any way of backing it up with evidence or a source then be prepared to get laughed at.

If you think that 'designing a building for decommissioning' involves planting tonnes of high explosive in a populated area then you're mental. Seriously.

"Theres a number of textbooks I can point you towards happily if you ask very nicely. Are you some kind of expert?"

Please, pretty please, point me to a text book (or better yet, a web page I can read right now) that confirms your belief that buildings are rigged with explosives when they are built.

Of course I'm not an expert, I just have a bit of common sense.

trodbitch Posted on 12/9 22:13
re: loose change - 9/11

I can appreciate that there is thought into how a building could be disposed of but I doubt that it involves packing it with explosives with primer cord because the explosives would deteriorate and become unstable.

Just to clarify, more thought goes into how cars can be disposed at the end of their natural life but they don't have an inbuilt destructive mechanism.

Senor_Chester Posted on 12/9 22:19
re: loose change - 9/11

TheSmogMonster, how do you know building don't fall like that? You seem to have hinted your in the business.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 22:30
re: loose change - 9/11

"Just to clarify, more thought goes into how cars can be disposed at the end of their natural life but they don't have an inbuilt destructive mechanism."

A car is a fair bit easier to depose of though Trod. Plus some modern explosives like say RDX are very stable (although that wouldn't be used for this). Only very very small amounts are needed too. Its the timing thats the key. Plus theres also the possibity that it was a thermobaric, or Aluminothermic Reactions apparently.

Incidently, after a bit of a google I found that in a recent interview one of the designers of the WTCs says that it was designed and built like I described with the explosives built in. But I'm not doing the leg work for you boroborob.

He's a bit of nutter though, he thinks the Saudi's may have set it off 'somehow'.

Like I said I'm not 100% behind this, I just think its a possibility that I've not heard other people talk about, it makes more sense to me then the uber conspiracy or the pancake theory.

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 12/9 23:54 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 22:36
re: loose change - 9/11

I work in engineering Senor, I'm not an expert, but I've worked on a job where its been done albeit on a smaller scale. (Amazing to see it in person)

One thing I will say is that if buildings DID fall like that, controlled demolition teams would be out of work.

Steel will always bend as it's tensile strength is too high, its nigh on impossible to pull steel apart, so basically that'd have caused a pivot on one of the corners forcing a large section of the building outwards, but the momentum still goes directly down.

boroborob Posted on 12/9 22:40
re: loose change - 9/11

"One thing I will say is that if buildings DID fall like that, controlled demolition teams would be out of work"

Yes because the fall of the WTC is a great demonstration for inner city demolition, what with the tonnes of rubble in the street, debris scattered over a widespread area and weeks of disruption.

Get real. You don't know what you're talking about.

"But I'm not doing the leg work for you boroborob."

Yep. Utterbollocks.

Senor_Chester Posted on 12/9 22:44
re: loose change - 9/11

Apparently it's because of the design of the buildings that they fell like that. How do you know they aren't built to fall like that because of their location anyway?

You say your not an expert, neither am I, but I've seen the opinions of experts that explain how and why it happened the way it did, but then again you could probably come back to me with another expert opinion.

indestructible Posted on 12/9 23:02
re: loose change - 9/11

Ok, well clearly this has been debated a lot. I am not sure what I think to be honest and will continue to read up on 9/11. I am not generally into conspiracy theories but it's true about bin Laden looking completely different in every picture you see him in. I do wonder.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 23:08
re: loose change - 9/11

"Apparently it's because of the design of the buildings that they fell like that. How do you know they aren't built to fall like that because of their location anyway?

You say your not an expert, neither am I, but I've seen the opinions of experts that explain how and why it happened the way it did, but then again you could probably come back to me with another expert opinion"

Oh I agree its up for debate, I don't see how that could have designed the frame to behave like that, I'm not '100% this is a fact' despite what people like boroborob say, just a personal theory based on snippets I've picked up on over the years, my time at uni and a conversation at work with someone in the know.

boroborob not my fault if you're fooking lazy I found it in less then 5 minutes and didn't know it was there. Personally I don't give 2 fooks because like I say its just an opinion on what could have happened, not my defacto "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED" can you not tell the difference or owt?

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 12/9 23:09 ---

moxzin87 Posted on 13/9 0:55
re: loose change - 9/11

"I am not generally into conspiracy theories but it's true about bin Laden looking completely different in every picture you see him in. I do wonder."

Why is it impossible, why, that the explanation could be that he is as vain and irrational as the rest of us mammals and would, in the space of 6 years, grow his beard long, maybe trim it a bit, put on a bit of bulk, roll it back in the gym (or running away from the USAF, whichever it is), maybe dye that beard to appear more dashing. Why not the simplest explanations? Why do we have to leap from - OBL looks a bit different each time = there must be no OBL!! More a case of OBL looks a bit different each time = OBL is a Homo sapien like the rest of us, subject to the same laws, processes and vain desires.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 1:23
re: loose change - 9/11

"Personally I don't give 2 fooks because like I say its just an opinion on what could have happened, not my defacto "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED" can you not tell the difference or owt?"

"In America a lot of public/large buildings are (or at least were pre 1995) built with demolition systems in place inside."

You're back peddling. You must have sobered up.

craig_pancrack Posted on 13/9 2:37
re: loose change - 9/11

I am always amazed at those who are jump to quick to attack the doubters while seeming very comfortable with the official version.

We will probably never know what really happened but the US Govt or elements within pulling off such a stunt isnt so far fetched when you get your head around the bigger picture of the astronomical benefits to be gained from controlling the middle east oil.

Timboi Posted on 13/9 5:18
re: loose change - 9/11

Has anyone (who's obviously not insane) actually come forward and said or even hinted that they were even in a small way part of any sort of conspiracy?
The trouble with this whole thing is there are apparent facts to backup either side, so who's actually correct?
The other question is how could you possibly contain a conspiracy that big (it may not have been contained which is why I asked the first question)?
There's obviously some sort of cover-up but I have to seriously doubt the feasibility of the whole thing being staged. It's just too big.
Getting untainted facts on this is almost impossible.

--- Post edited by Timboi on 13/9 5:20 ---

zaphod Posted on 13/9 6:11
re: loose change - 9/11

I don't understand why anyone thinks the US Government would need the collapse of the Twin Towers to justify overthrowing the Taliban and invading Iraq.

The Taliban was largely overthrown by the US backing the internal Afghan opposition. Previous Al-Qaeda attacks (e.g. US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam) provided adequate justification for action against them.

The invasion of Iraq was supposedly justified by the (fraudulent) WMD claims, not 9/11.

craig_pancrack Posted on 13/9 8:30
re: loose change - 9/11

But what about the PNAC document and its desire for 'a catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbour' ?

Also just saw this on the Guardian site.

Link: Guardian 911 the big cover up

Borofandownsouth Posted on 13/9 8:33
re: loose change - 9/11

just about to post the same

my favourite bit is this

perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members


it seems that high ranking officials are trying to get the truth out - which would invalidate a few points on here at a stroke of a brush

littlejimski Posted on 13/9 9:04
re: loose change - 9/11

It seems that the craziest theories by the maddest conspiracy-loons are the ones getting the air time, and they make the perfect straw man for people who unequivocally support the official version. Anyone who brings up any doubts or asks any legitimate questions now is dismissed as being a nutjob. Or they are accused of being unpatriotic or disrespectful to the memory of those who died (emtional blackmail of the cheapest kind).

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 9:25
re: loose change - 9/11

"Getting untainted facts on this is almost impossible"

Very true

boroborob

"You're back peddling. You must have sobered up."

Do you act like this much of a tool at work/school? I suggest you have a little read further up the thread, you're not the first person I've said that to.

Very interesting link craig_pancrack.

The "Patriots Question 9/11" link is very interesting.

The site on the link below is pretty objective, it blows several conspiracy theories out of the water, the analysis section on how buildings behave is pretty good Trod (if you are still reading).

Link: 9/11 research

Boromart Posted on 13/9 9:48
re: loose change - 9/11

just one small problem with the controlled demolition theory. The building was insured, the destruction of the building therefore triggered a payout by the insurance company. But before a payout of that magnitude the company would check the facts. IF the bulding was built with a pre-installed destruction system and if it was detonated then the insurance company would look for a way out of paying :-

a) the pre-installed detonation system wasn't publically declared and therefore no payout or
b) the building wouldn't have fallen down and could have been repaired, however the owners decided to bring the building down, so we won't pay.

None of this happened, the insurance companies paid out. Unless of course the millions of tons of evidence was tampered with and all traces of explosive where removed! That would involve another couple of hundred, even thousand people to join in the conspiracy!

Then there is the safety certificate side of things a building like that, built in the middle of a populated part of town would surely not get a safety certificate if pre-installed with explosives.....and the actual proof, records for the safety certificate application, would exist and be in the public domain.

Again the fact that this doesn't exist would implicate 35 years worth of building contractors, fireman, architects, health and safety officers, building maintenance managers, building maintenance personel, building safety cirtificate officers, even electricians and comms cabling companies would need to know about the eistance of these pre-installed explosives, otherwise they could accidently drill into them. Thousands of people would need to know that it existed, and if they existed the insurers would have wormed there way out of paying. The list of people implicated for this conspiracy theory to work goes on, and on and on.



--- Post edited by Boromart on 13/9 9:55 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 10:00
re: loose change - 9/11

Very true Boromart, I thought it was stupid when I saw it. I don't think the public knowledge part of what you are saying holds up though. You wouldn't be drilling in at these points in construction, as you'd wipe out the superstructure. Plus the US government has been rather selective in what its put forwrd into the public domain regardless of a conspirasy or not.

A VERY BAD/VERY GOOD source but; Paul Lafforely one of the architects behind the design of the WTC insists the WTC was constructed like that, although he claims it was the Bin Laden company who set them off, see what I mean about good/bad?

Its very interesting if you look around to see what the arhitects of the building say about it, before, not after 9/11 regarding its chances of surviving an aircraft impact.

After reading that 9/11 research link I don't think I'm right now, I think something must have been used to produce the neat pile effect, but it wasn't traditional charges apparently.

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 13/9 10:02 ---

Boromart Posted on 13/9 10:10
re: loose change - 9/11

I agreee 100% that the building will have been designed with demolition in mind, but i would have to be strongly suspicious of any supposed explosive mechanism, it;s just too risky, and would never pass safety laws. The planks are sticklers for that kind of thing.

I agree that it is right that people attempt to disprove the events as portrayed in the media, and by the US government. But I feel too many people just come up with now unprovable hypothesis. These hypothesis are also impossible to prove wrong if you start with a base that 9/11 is a conspiracy and therefore any previous facts are to be ignored. So I guess throughout the rest of my life people will come out with even more bizarre theories, which over time will gain credance because they will be repeated by more and more people. I don't doubt that the Bush family have gained a lot of money due to the events that happened after 9/11, but there would have been much simpler ways to do it.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 13/9 10:12 ---

jd76 Posted on 13/9 10:11
re: loose change - 9/11

Timboi Posted on 13/9 5:18 Email this Message | Reply
re: loose change - 9/11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble with this whole thing is there are apparent facts to backup either side, so who's actually correct?



You need to do your own thinking. You either take the official line and believe what the media and governement tells you (which the vast majority of people do without question). Or you do your own bit of research, read up on what is already out there in the public domain (some of it is over the top and put there by crackpots yes), but there is also a hell of a lot of stuff from independant sources, people in official places, people on the ground, who's version of events put massive holes in to what the government wants us to beleive.

I have no problems with people who's opinions differ from mine. They can believe what they like. I mentioned earlier that I had no intereset in "conspiracy" theories after 9/11. But my skeptism began to dissapear little by little when I began doing my own reading into it over the last few years. Again I don't beleive everything I read, you make your own judgment and decide for yourself at the end of the day.


The first thing I asked myself was why would the US government be behind such an horrific set of events?

Its called problem-reaction-solution

And I'm not going to go into this here because I firmly believe people need to do their own research into stuff like this. Its the only way they'll get an objective viewpoint and make up their own minds. I'm not the government nor am I some crackpot conspiracy theorist. I've made my own judgements on 9/11 and everything else thats gone on since that day based on looking at BOTH sides. And imho it stinks.

--- Post edited by jd76 on 13/9 10:27 ---

Boromart Posted on 13/9 10:11
re: loose change - 9/11

it wasn't really a neat pile though as debris was strewn around 4 city blocks in either direction and many surrounding buildings had some form of damage. If it was a controlled explosion it was a very poorly designed one.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 13/9 10:13 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 10:21
re: loose change - 9/11

Boromart

A building that size was never going to come down without a big mess because of its height and the amount of material ejected.

If you ever see a controlled demolition it too creates a big mess, and thats why its not overly done. I dont think it can be done with adjacent buildings in this country.

But if you look at the pictures on the 9/11 research of how buildings collapse, you can see how smaller buildings behaved, then just imagine that on a building 400m high.

An interesting thought though.

jd, I can't really understand how people can make up their minds so easily either way. But most people did on day 1 and haven't changed it significantly since.

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 13/9 10:23 ---

Boromart Posted on 13/9 10:43
re: loose change - 9/11

"But if you look at the pictures on the 9/11 research of how buildings collapse, you can see how smaller buildings behaved, then just imagine that on a building 400m high."

I guess the issue is that there are no significant points of reference, for the collapse of 100 story buildings due to very high temperature fire. Other than in hollywood movies, and they have never collapsed in this manner. People subliminaly take the only references tehy have and believe that instead, it's human nature.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 13/9 10:47 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 10:50
re: loose change - 9/11

As is my understanding.

Once you get onto the temperature issue though the fire couldn't actually have possibly been high enough, at most 800 degrees running through 320,000 tonnes of a heat conducting material is some way off the energy and temperature required to create an instant melt in such a pattern.

Theres a misconception that steel is fireproofed for its own good, its not, its so that the heat transfer doesn't take place and make fire break out at another point in the building.

I think the signifance of those pictures show that in a relatively short fall, they don't fall into themselves, greater distance, greater drift.

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 13/9 10:51 ---

moxzin87 Posted on 13/9 13:27
re: loose change - 9/11

"Its called problem-reaction-solution"

No its called David-Icke-sells-more-books.

banPigbag Posted on 13/9 13:51
re: loose change - 9/11

hmmm interesting but no mention of purple shellsuits or alien lizards in site!... a link for the lazy...

Link: 2 seconds on google

trodbitch Posted on 13/9 13:56
re: loose change - 9/11

Those examples in that website do not prove that every event in the future that a government benefits from means they caused it though.

Did the government stage the bombings of the embassys in Africa of the bombing of the Cole? Because they were launching attacks on sovereign nations before 911 based on those incidents.

trodbitch Posted on 13/9 13:59
re: loose change - 9/11

In fact, that person seems to have a theory for everything that has ever happened. From the stock market crash to smallpox.

theboydom Posted on 13/9 14:30
re: loose change - 9/11

TSM
"A VERY BAD/VERY GOOD source but; Paul Lafforely one of the architects behind the design of the WTC insists the WTC was constructed like that, although he claims it was the Bin Laden company who set them off, see what I mean about good/bad?"

reading some of the stuff on his website, VERY BAD/VERY GOOD source doesn't even begin to cover the depth and breadth of his lunacy

Link: hyperspace cartographer?

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 14:36
re: loose change - 9/11

theboydom what the fook do you mean, the guys a fooking visionary , its not my fault you don't understand a "Zeitgeist of Human History" theory.



Yeah you're right, complete nut job, but was rather amazingly part of the design team on the WTC.

Scary innit?

"By Laffoley's account, he spoke his first word ("Constantinople") at the age of six months, and then lapsed into 4 years of silence, having been diagnosed with slight Autism."

Ok I admit it, he was a terrible source!

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 13/9 14:38 ---

jd76 Posted on 13/9 14:45
re: loose change - 9/11

theboydom Posted on 13/9 14:30
re: loose change - 9/11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSM
"A VERY BAD/VERY GOOD source but; Paul Lafforely one of the architects behind the design of the WTC insists the WTC was constructed like that, although he claims it was the Bin Laden company who set them off, see what I mean about good/bad?"

reading some of the stuff on his website, VERY BAD/VERY GOOD source doesn't even begin to cover the depth and breadth of his lunacy




I agree. The bloke is a complete nutcase Just like that painter guy from the 1600's, you know the one who drew pictures of things called helicopters? What a nutter he was. Same as the Wright brothers thinking they could build a machine that could actually fly in the air with people on board! All of them, nutcases of the highest order

--- Post edited by jd76 on 13/9 14:46 ---

Link: leonardo the nutter

trodbitch Posted on 13/9 14:47
re: loose change - 9/11

Poor comparison.

Why not compare him to David Icke or David Shayler(sp)?

jd76 Posted on 13/9 14:52
re: loose change - 9/11

Because Paul Lafforely is a visionary artist and designer - just like Leanardo.

Icke and Shayler are neither (well perhaps Icke is a sort of visonary when he's smoked some bad shitt I suppose).

--- Post edited by jd76 on 13/9 14:53 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 14:53
re: loose change - 9/11

I think we should get the 3 of them on 'call my bluff' personally.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 15:11
re: loose change - 9/11

"Do you act like this much of a tool at work/school?"

If some guy at work made a ludicrous claim like you did, then when asked to provide any kind of evidence to back it up they smugly claimed 'do your own research' then i'd tell them to fook off. If you think people who swallow your bullshlt without questioning are 'tools' then sure, call me one.

To clarify, I'm not talking about anything to do with 911 that you might be posting, just specifically this nugget:

"In America a lot of public/large buildings are (or at least were pre 1995) built with demolition systems in place inside."

I won't bother asking you to prove it, because you cannot.

--- Post edited by boroborob on 13/9 15:14 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 15:16
re: loose change - 9/11

boroborob further to that if some fooker came up to me at work and acted like a tool I'd tell him to fook off and go have a look himself.

Its not my fault that you seem to not understand the simple words:

"my opinion on what could have happened"

besides I have given a couple of pointers to the info, one completely stupid one too.

I also don't even know whether to point you in the direction to where I said I didn't think thats exactly what the situation was anymore.

--- Post edited by TheSmogMonster on 13/9 15:19 ---

boroborob Posted on 13/9 15:36
re: loose change - 9/11

"my opinion on what could have happened""

"In America a lot of public/large buildings are (or at least were pre 1995) built with demolition systems in place inside."

You don't know what the word opinion means and/or how to express yourself in words.

Also, I love the way you're trying to pass yourself off as a repuatble source of information on demolition, building construction and even concrete with inside information, when it's clear from your posts you know nothing.

--- Post edited by boroborob on 13/9 15:49 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 15:51
re: loose change - 9/11

So I didn't write 'as is my understanding' front of it, what do you want a medal? I did say not long afterwards, before you stumbled into the thread it was only an opinion and I didn't 100% believe it.

Look above your first comment:

"I don't feel the need to convince anyone of this by the way, I'm not 100% evangelical behind it. Its just a topic that came up at work recently and I thought it was a possiblity."

Like I said, I got it from a PBS documentry from about 2002 which implied it was done, and I've read something in a book about how it can be done. I've also mentioned a nutjob from the WTC design team who claimed it was the case.

Anything else?

boroborob Posted on 13/9 15:57
re: loose change - 9/11

No you're ok, now you've stopped pretending you know anything.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 16:01
re: loose change - 9/11

"No you're ok, now you've stopped pretending you know anything."

Nah seriously look up and tell me that you don't see where I posted all that (with the exception of the Paul Lafforely nonsense) before you joined in.

I didn't realise before but it kind of renders you're entire 'point' immaterial doesn't it?

Boromart Posted on 13/9 16:05
re: loose change - 9/11

I think this puts Mr Laffoleys allusions about explosives pre-wired into the WTC into context, it's from his website biography -- "He was also hired for the design team of the World Trade Center, but was soon after fired by the chief architect, Minoru Yamasaki, for his unconventional ideas."

Mr Laffoley's first day on the job, .......

Mr Yamasaki - "We need a good way to safely bring the WTC down if there is a catastrophic event, any one got any ideas?"
Mr Laffoley - "I know lets pre-wire the building with explosive"
Mr Yamasaki - "Get out. Get out and don't ever come back".





--- Post edited by Boromart on 13/9 16:10 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 16:09
re: loose change - 9/11

He's a visionary boromart I tells you!

theboydom Posted on 13/9 16:12
re: loose change - 9/11

actually boromart, it's worse than that. according to the wiki (which he probably wrote) "Following his suggestion that bridges be constructed between the two towers for safety, he was summarily fired by Yamasaki and returned to Boston"

what a visionary

all those poor people could have been saved if they had been able to use those bridges

i wonder if he got the idea for the bridges from watching the tv when nothing was on for andy warhol?

Boromart Posted on 13/9 16:12
re: loose change - 9/11

he certainly is a visionary, unfortunately his vision is impaired by the fact he is completely and utterly bonkers.

Azedarac Posted on 13/9 16:15
re: loose change - 9/11

Forgive me for being stupid here, but if it WAS a conspiracy why bother wiring up/exploding the World Trade Centre? Did they think flying a couple of Jumbo Jets into the side of it wasn't dramatic enough to get US citizens angry? Could they only justify a war if it looked more dramatic than Independence Day?

I remember quite soon after this happened, there was an engineer on the TV saying that it looked like whoever built the WTC had scrimped on some of the building materials and done it on the cheap, hence the discrepancies in the pattern of destruction. I haven't heard any more on this since, but it sounds more plausible to me than having the buildings rigged with explosives.

--- Post edited by Azedarac on 13/9 16:16 ---

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 16:22
re: loose change - 9/11

One last try.

He was a visionary!:

Link: Work goddamnit!

Boromart Posted on 13/9 16:23
re: loose change - 9/11

yeah it's interesting that he his wiki talks about bridges, of course that was written post-911 and may not resemble the truth at all. It may just be some egotistical rubbish to make it sound like he could have saved someone, or it could be a wiki entry by someone having a 'laugh'. I doubt an architect would be fired for suggesting a bridge between two buildings. You don't get sacked for having a concept, you get sacked for gross misconduct, personality issues, that kind of thing.

Anyway I love his time machine idea. Absolutely brilliant.

Boromart Posted on 13/9 16:31
re: loose change - 9/11

of course the towers in KL obviously come to mind with that statement.......but did those towers come up then when he wrote his wiki on himself he decided that it would massage his enough ego to say that he thought of that idea?

It would have been much harder, and very expensive to do that from the WTC, the buildings were not side-by-side, I would expect that the cost would have been prohibitive in early/mid-70s when it they put WTC up.

TheSmogMonster Posted on 13/9 16:43
re: loose change - 9/11

Completely agree Boromart.

I think I read on another source he was fired for 'design divergance.' Which basically would mean I suppose he was adding stuff like time machines and hypercube workstations.

Azedarac: I think if that was true someones head would have rolled, I don't think its impossible though that if the temperature loading quality of the steel was closer to pure iron that it could have melted (thats about 800 degrees I think - don't quote me). But on a building that size such a soft material would have led to failure earlier I'd guess.

indestructible Posted on 14/9 23:32
re: loose change - 9/11

Bush was behind it all! Face facts!