Posted: 23-06-2006 01:19
i watched the loose change movie like 1 or 2 months ago and i must say some things are real suspicious.
watch the movie, i had my doubts too when i started watching it but it totally convinced me.
Notpron Forums
911 In Plane Site
Page 3 of 5
Posted: 23-06-2006 01:32
Posted: 23-06-2006 01:37
"loose change" is a bit loose at some points imo. but "911 in plane site" was convincing all the way to me.
Posted: 23-06-2006 03:18
David, i dont refuse to watch anything, i said i already know some of the theories, i just gave my opinion. Im trying to be reasonable.
You cant even explain why they would forge something like 9/11
all that "what they want you to believe" crap...
ur sounding like The Truth from San Andreas, geez...
is it that hard to accept that American Intelligence and Administration can be just incompetent? Americans are human beings too, you know? O_o
[sarcasm]I guess it makes sense, y not destroy a building that represents some much for the economy of the country, paralise manhattan for some days, and spend the money to rebuild everything, and while we are at it, y dont we destroy our own Defense HQ, and paralise air traffic for sometime, OMG i can see so much benefit from doing this and all it takes is destroy some expensive airplanes, some expensive missiles and bombs, ruin some aviation companies and kill thousand of ppl WOW what an extraordinary idea.
im the silly one, i know. i should just be accepting "facts" given to me by some anonimous person on the internet or some documentary producer and dont question them, because they are telling me something that "Bush doesnt want me to know".
And we never landed on the moon, btw.
and, of course, there is a mount shaped like a face in Cydonia, Mars. but NASA is trying to hide it from us, yeh i know they are the ones providing the pics of the "face" but they are hiding it from us somehow, do not question whats being told to you by the internet people, mmkay?[/sarcasm]
couldnt help it, this is idd getting too silly...
You cant even explain why they would forge something like 9/11
all that "what they want you to believe" crap...
ur sounding like The Truth from San Andreas, geez...
is it that hard to accept that American Intelligence and Administration can be just incompetent? Americans are human beings too, you know? O_o
[sarcasm]I guess it makes sense, y not destroy a building that represents some much for the economy of the country, paralise manhattan for some days, and spend the money to rebuild everything, and while we are at it, y dont we destroy our own Defense HQ, and paralise air traffic for sometime, OMG i can see so much benefit from doing this and all it takes is destroy some expensive airplanes, some expensive missiles and bombs, ruin some aviation companies and kill thousand of ppl WOW what an extraordinary idea.
im the silly one, i know. i should just be accepting "facts" given to me by some anonimous person on the internet or some documentary producer and dont question them, because they are telling me something that "Bush doesnt want me to know".
And we never landed on the moon, btw.
and, of course, there is a mount shaped like a face in Cydonia, Mars. but NASA is trying to hide it from us, yeh i know they are the ones providing the pics of the "face" but they are hiding it from us somehow, do not question whats being told to you by the internet people, mmkay?[/sarcasm]
couldnt help it, this is idd getting too silly...
Posted: 23-06-2006 03:46
See now DavidM, that is what I keep trying to tell you: There were no bombs! I have seen loose change video, and I've seen hundreds of camera angles. We in the engineering department considered the possibility that there were bombs in the building, and we considered that possibility because we saw the same thing you saw: a chain of explosions proceeding in series down the building as it collapsed.
The reason we discounted this possibility years ago, however, is because the explosions are actually explained by the same mechanisms I outlined in my previous post. I'll spare you the details (no need to post them twice) but the combination of the tremendous thermal energy traveling down the steel beams being transferred to surrounding combustible material and the simple kinetic energy of the building itself crashing down were more than sufficient to create a series of rapidly expanding pockets of pressure down the length of the building as it collapsed.
Remember Occam's razor? The simplest of two solutions...
What is more likely, that what we saw is actually what happened (and it just happens to be very easily explained by classical physics and thermodynamics), or that there was a series of bombs lined up and down the building to perform the useless task of blowing up pieces of a building that were already blowing up themselves by the processes set into motion by the fire the plane started?
If there really was a vast American conspiracy to blow up the towers, why in the world would the conspirators waste time setting up these bombs if the building would easily come crashing down due to the liquification of the steel support structure?
By the way you can't say that "obviously nobody really does." have any idea about what you call "the heat stuff anc collapsing physics etc"
This is actually a very simple problem in thermodynamics. I assigned problems such as these, and some that were much harder, to my first-year physics students when I was a teaching assistant getting my PhD! You can't say that nobody has any idea!
The people who made "9/11 In Plane Site" had no idea. I agree with you that the government and media have both participated in a massive cover-up, but that was merely to conceal their own criminal negligence in the months/years leading up to the attacks.
I know that at first glance it looks like there were bombs. We all thought that at first, and we all went rushing off to prove it. Beleive me, I would like nothing more than for there to have been bombs! But after a few months of careful and painstaking examination of the evidence, we could no longer avoid the simple fact that the explosions were caused by rapidly expanding pockets of pressure that exploded due to the thermal and kinetic energy of the crashing building. By the way, if you look at videos of other skyscrapers that have collapsed as a result of huge fires, you will see the same thing happens almost all of the time.
God I wish you, and the people who made this video, were right. I hate Bush for what he has done to this country for the simple purpose of making himself and his cronies fat and wealthy, but we also have an obligation to stick to the facts. In this case, the facts are that one plane is more than enough to bring a tower like the WTC down, and planting bombs would have been a redundant thing to do.
The reason we discounted this possibility years ago, however, is because the explosions are actually explained by the same mechanisms I outlined in my previous post. I'll spare you the details (no need to post them twice) but the combination of the tremendous thermal energy traveling down the steel beams being transferred to surrounding combustible material and the simple kinetic energy of the building itself crashing down were more than sufficient to create a series of rapidly expanding pockets of pressure down the length of the building as it collapsed.
Remember Occam's razor? The simplest of two solutions...
What is more likely, that what we saw is actually what happened (and it just happens to be very easily explained by classical physics and thermodynamics), or that there was a series of bombs lined up and down the building to perform the useless task of blowing up pieces of a building that were already blowing up themselves by the processes set into motion by the fire the plane started?
If there really was a vast American conspiracy to blow up the towers, why in the world would the conspirators waste time setting up these bombs if the building would easily come crashing down due to the liquification of the steel support structure?
By the way you can't say that "obviously nobody really does." have any idea about what you call "the heat stuff anc collapsing physics etc"
This is actually a very simple problem in thermodynamics. I assigned problems such as these, and some that were much harder, to my first-year physics students when I was a teaching assistant getting my PhD! You can't say that nobody has any idea!
The people who made "9/11 In Plane Site" had no idea. I agree with you that the government and media have both participated in a massive cover-up, but that was merely to conceal their own criminal negligence in the months/years leading up to the attacks.
I know that at first glance it looks like there were bombs. We all thought that at first, and we all went rushing off to prove it. Beleive me, I would like nothing more than for there to have been bombs! But after a few months of careful and painstaking examination of the evidence, we could no longer avoid the simple fact that the explosions were caused by rapidly expanding pockets of pressure that exploded due to the thermal and kinetic energy of the crashing building. By the way, if you look at videos of other skyscrapers that have collapsed as a result of huge fires, you will see the same thing happens almost all of the time.
God I wish you, and the people who made this video, were right. I hate Bush for what he has done to this country for the simple purpose of making himself and his cronies fat and wealthy, but we also have an obligation to stick to the facts. In this case, the facts are that one plane is more than enough to bring a tower like the WTC down, and planting bombs would have been a redundant thing to do.
DavidM wrote: I have no idea about the heat stuff anc collapsing physics etc! And obviously nobody really does.
But in the loose change video you really obviously see the chain reaction of the bombs as the building collapses.
Anyway.... the true story is far away from what media and government want people to believe.
So the question is if they are trying to hide that
a) they did it by themselves
or b) that people could install bombs and fire missiles without being noticed.
meep, the movie is nothing like that at all. join the discussion when you are beyond your personal likes and dislikes. thats useless.
Posted: 23-06-2006 04:11
this is part of my opinion relative to the whole 9/11 follow-up also.I agree with you that the government and media have both participated in a massive cover-up, but that was merely to conceal their own criminal negligence in the months/years leading up to the attacks.
Its all politics, tbh. They made an huge negligent mistake, and didnt got proper punishment for it. the possible problems in the reports and commissions, blah blah blah, are related to this.
Bad info from Secret Services, ignoring the threat that later proved to be real, there were lots of ppl that didnt do their best to prevent the attacks, and i feel most didnt suffer the consequences like they should, including the ppl close to Bush and maybe even himself.
this is very common in every country in the world, this is way more believable than some silly conspiracy, and above everything else, is pretty much a well known public thing. (this is where i dont agree) sure the government would want to conceal their incompetence, but the media are not that controlled by them. Of course, there are networks and networks, there are reporters and reporters, every one with his very own opinion and that affects the information we get always, and thats is exactly why we must be critical, and dont accept things to lightly, even if we think they are an appealing truth. and that goes for ALL sources of information.
i know my english sucked here, but its 4:18AM here and i cant be arsed
Posted: 23-06-2006 04:16
I'm fluent english and my english often sucks at just 2:00 in the afternoon.
No worries
No worries
Posted: 23-06-2006 09:37
i haven't seen 911 in plane site yet, but i will as soon as possible. thanks for the link btwDavidM wrote: "loose change" is a bit loose at some points imo. but "911 in plane site" was convincing all the way to me.
Posted: 23-06-2006 10:08
Interesting material David.
I think that most people underestimate the great influence journalists have on politics and vice versa.
I think that most people underestimate the great influence journalists have on politics and vice versa.
Posted: 23-06-2006 10:19
Although I thought the documentary was not very well done, it certainly raised some interesting points. I don't believe the stories about the "pod" beneath the planes, or missiles being fired into the WTC, and I think these points are distracting from the real facts.
The WTC towers (1,2 and 7) were the only buildings ever to collapse as a result of fire. Especially building 7 which had limited fire damage, but fell nonetheless, and which Silverstein (the owner) said that he 'pulled'... Look for example at the fire that burned in a Madrid skyscraper for days, and didnt fall down. As well, there were first hand reports of bombs going off in the WTC by the firefighters themselves, not to mention many other eye-witnesses who heard explosions.
It is very interesting that before 9/11, the 'Project for a new american century', described the necessity of an event on the scale of a 'new pearl harbour' to achieve 'progress' in american foreign policy. Some people made a ton of money on this day (and as a result of the war designed to never end that follows). The put options that we bought on sept. 10, for only United and American airlines (!) generated millions of dollars for someone. There is now reason for an aggressive american foreign policy, there is now reason for a crackdown of american civil liberties...
And Bin Laden has never admitted to organising the attacks. In the first Bin Laden video after the attacks, he even denies any role in 9/11. The video that resurfaced after, where he 'admits of his crime' was very suspicious. The translation from arabic is misleading, and it doesn't even look like bin laden in the video. When asked why that in the FBI most wanted poster for bin laden, there is no mention of 9/11, a spokesman for the FBI said himself that there was no conclusive evidence to implicate him in these attacks. However, there was, according to bush, enough evidence to attack afghanistan and iraq (?), even though these war plans were drawn up well in advance of 9/11.
Not to mention that, apparently, Bin Laden has visited the US under the CIA code name Tim Osman...
The real terrorists are in the White House.
The WTC towers (1,2 and 7) were the only buildings ever to collapse as a result of fire. Especially building 7 which had limited fire damage, but fell nonetheless, and which Silverstein (the owner) said that he 'pulled'... Look for example at the fire that burned in a Madrid skyscraper for days, and didnt fall down. As well, there were first hand reports of bombs going off in the WTC by the firefighters themselves, not to mention many other eye-witnesses who heard explosions.
It is very interesting that before 9/11, the 'Project for a new american century', described the necessity of an event on the scale of a 'new pearl harbour' to achieve 'progress' in american foreign policy. Some people made a ton of money on this day (and as a result of the war designed to never end that follows). The put options that we bought on sept. 10, for only United and American airlines (!) generated millions of dollars for someone. There is now reason for an aggressive american foreign policy, there is now reason for a crackdown of american civil liberties...
And Bin Laden has never admitted to organising the attacks. In the first Bin Laden video after the attacks, he even denies any role in 9/11. The video that resurfaced after, where he 'admits of his crime' was very suspicious. The translation from arabic is misleading, and it doesn't even look like bin laden in the video. When asked why that in the FBI most wanted poster for bin laden, there is no mention of 9/11, a spokesman for the FBI said himself that there was no conclusive evidence to implicate him in these attacks. However, there was, according to bush, enough evidence to attack afghanistan and iraq (?), even though these war plans were drawn up well in advance of 9/11.
Not to mention that, apparently, Bin Laden has visited the US under the CIA code name Tim Osman...
The real terrorists are in the White House.
Posted: 23-06-2006 11:51
tbh i think your opinion in the matter is quite a reasonable one. But why "silly"?.. i mean if you think logically the presence of a conspiracy is as possible as any other "explanation", and there are no reasons to just refuse it, no? Instead, as many documentaries show, there ARE reasons to beleive it, of course these reasons are always questionable and not always 100% (or even 50%) proven, but still they clearly introduce a doubt, and get u to at least consider the possibility of the presence of such a conspiracy. And to not to refuse it that easily.Cenotaph wrote: this is part of my opinion relative to the whole 9/11 follow-up also.
Its all politics, tbh. They made an huge negligent mistake, and didnt got proper punishment for it. the possible problems in the reports and commissions, blah blah blah, are related to this.
Bad info from Secret Services, ignoring the threat that later proved to be real, there were lots of ppl that didnt do their best to prevent the attacks, and i feel most didnt suffer the consequences like they should, including the ppl close to Bush and maybe even himself.
this is very common in every country in the world, this is way more believable than some silly conspiracy, and above everything else, is pretty much a well known public thing. (this is where i dont agree) sure the government would want to conceal their incompetence, but the media are not that controlled by them. Of course, there are networks and networks, there are reporters and reporters, every one with his very own opinion and that affects the information we get always, and thats is exactly why we must be critical, and dont accept things to lightly, even if we think they are an appealing truth. and that goes for ALL sources of information.
i know my english sucked here, but its 4:18AM here and i cant be arsed
PS: i would love to see this "911 in plane site" film but unfortunately my connection is not fast enough..
Posted: 23-06-2006 13:24
Apphex:
You talk about other buildings that collapsed due to fire. I keep hearing that these towers were the very first buildings to collapse due to fires..... I dunno, what's up with that?
I said nobody can have a clue about the temperature stuff...because nobody was having a thermometer in there to check temperatures. I just keep hearing with different explanations that it could never have reached the required heat and that most exploded in the huge fireball on the impact.
I also thought the smoke puffs coming out of the buildings could be due to pressure from above...but then it wouldnt only come out of 1 or 2 windows (and that very symetrically)...then it would steam out all the way.
Sure, what you say is possible...but who can prove wrong either way?
Also when it comes down, the stories should being delayed by each other when falling down, but the thing is falling with full free fall speed
Also I'm not saying Bush was planting bombs...could have been the terrorists, and they try to hide that it was so easy for them to get in there and do it.
But I also doubt that it was terrorists.
Also funny that the FBI is NOT wanting bin laden for the 911 thing... because they see no relevant relation. Just Bush pointing at them to have someone to attack.
It's like when a kid at school shoots his friends and teachers, and all media immediately talk about Doom and Counterstrike.
And what kind if plane was that? They clearly deny that it was a commercial airliner...and then what IS this thing attached to it?
edit: btw, there have been explosions long before the collapse...explain that then?
You talk about other buildings that collapsed due to fire. I keep hearing that these towers were the very first buildings to collapse due to fires..... I dunno, what's up with that?
I said nobody can have a clue about the temperature stuff...because nobody was having a thermometer in there to check temperatures. I just keep hearing with different explanations that it could never have reached the required heat and that most exploded in the huge fireball on the impact.
I also thought the smoke puffs coming out of the buildings could be due to pressure from above...but then it wouldnt only come out of 1 or 2 windows (and that very symetrically)...then it would steam out all the way.
Sure, what you say is possible...but who can prove wrong either way?
Also when it comes down, the stories should being delayed by each other when falling down, but the thing is falling with full free fall speed
Also I'm not saying Bush was planting bombs...could have been the terrorists, and they try to hide that it was so easy for them to get in there and do it.
But I also doubt that it was terrorists.
Also funny that the FBI is NOT wanting bin laden for the 911 thing... because they see no relevant relation. Just Bush pointing at them to have someone to attack.
It's like when a kid at school shoots his friends and teachers, and all media immediately talk about Doom and Counterstrike.
And what kind if plane was that? They clearly deny that it was a commercial airliner...and then what IS this thing attached to it?
edit: btw, there have been explosions long before the collapse...explain that then?
Posted: 23-06-2006 13:29
slimshady
you know the definition of a "theory"?
people always say "oh look, it's just a theory"...not knowing that a theory is a very advanced state.
Like the evolution theory...which is 99,9999% right.
But American creationists like to say "oh, it's just a theory...god DID create the world in 6 days....10000 years ago...end of story".
A "theory" means, that a former hypothesis could not be proven wrong a lot of times. And the more it fails to prove it wrong, the more possible it becomes. And it's undenyable a conspiracy... just the word makes it sound like less.
you know the definition of a "theory"?
people always say "oh look, it's just a theory"...not knowing that a theory is a very advanced state.
Like the evolution theory...which is 99,9999% right.
But American creationists like to say "oh, it's just a theory...god DID create the world in 6 days....10000 years ago...end of story".
A "theory" means, that a former hypothesis could not be proven wrong a lot of times. And the more it fails to prove it wrong, the more possible it becomes. And it's undenyable a conspiracy... just the word makes it sound like less.
Posted: 23-06-2006 13:36
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... iaries.htm
some evidence that the towers were brought down with the help of thermite...
and it is very strange how the steel from the WTC cleanup was taken very very quickly for recycling, under HIGH security!
some evidence that the towers were brought down with the help of thermite...
and it is very strange how the steel from the WTC cleanup was taken very very quickly for recycling, under HIGH security!
Posted: 23-06-2006 14:16
you have a <br /> in your hyperlink
but yes, this is all very suspicious too -_-
but yes, this is all very suspicious too -_-