Pakage Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Fire Fighter in Impact Zone Molten Metal Free Fall Speed Plane Missile Pods Pentagon Attack Ground Level Smoke Bush's Brother interesting few watches Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzp Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Youve seen 'loose change 2'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Good videos, but WOW, read the comments on them, holy shit some people are desperate to cling to their conspiracy theories, no matter how much the evidence is stacked against them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzp Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I cant access them due to work computers, but, theres just too much evidence against it to beleive it was 'terriost attacks'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I cant access them due to work computers, but, theres just too much evidence against it to beleive it was 'terriost attacks'. That's a pretty big call considering most of the conspiracy theorists "evidence" is either wild speculation, or based on completely false statements (like the towers taking 9 seconds to fall... complete garbage... each one took 14+ seconds). Seriously, not trying to tell you you're wrong or stupid or anything like that, but yea, just watch those videos when you can and you may just find you change your mind. They make some damned good points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Yeah, well while these specific "theories" have been debunked given the specific set of conditions set out in the video there I still don't believe that you can deny that the US knew about the attacks long before they occurred, yet did nothing to stop them. Giving themselves some ammo, rallying the troops so to speak. The whole thing was a fucking abortion from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 USA has been pissing all over the middle-east for decades and there's a lot of fucked off people over there who with all the resources and know-how to pull off large-scale terrorist attacks - why is it so hard for people to believe that? Most of the "evidence" I've heard about the conspiracy theories has been debunked by more credible sources to be honest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Awesome Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 USA has been pissing all over the middle-east for decades and there's a lot of fucked off people over there who with all the resources and know-how to pull off large-scale terrorist attacks - why is it so hard for people to believe that? Most of the "evidence" I've heard about the conspiracy theories has been debunked by more credible sources to be honest +1 I doubt it was state sponsored though; this is going to turn into another moon landing thing. srlsy people learn2science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 It's not inconceivable that the CIA is capable of something of this nature either... if not orchestrating it, then funding/supporting it. it's at least possible however potentially far-fetched it may seem. *Edit There is definitely motivation... one could argue that post 9/11 the US is more secure... funding has increased, border security, Terrorism Laws in place (Wiretapping, Police Power), Defense Funding, Weapons R&D Funding... is it not sense for US Officials in charge of security in the US to recommend action to influence public opinion to 'Strengthen' the United States? Or you could mention Oil. most of the conspiracy theorists "evidence" is either wild speculation, or based on completely false statements Have to disagree.. there's good evidence... such as the Put options put onto Airline Stocks being at 5 to 11 times their daily average before the attacks... Video testimonials of witnesses smelling Cordite at the towers... structural engineering reports of the Building and the unlikely event of Jet Fuel causing collapse (The building was built to withstand a plane hitting it. The interview with a member of the initial design team is very interesting)... Over all the videos don't really seem to address all of the arguments which made me initially stop dismissing the conspiracy theories as garbage... it will be interesting to see them answer more of the conspiracy theories but to be honest... I can't be fucked any more... it gets to a point where the nut jobs are too wrapped up in their point of view and become fanatical and it's painful to watch the videos coming out of either side.... PAINFUL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 It's not inconceivable that the CIA is capable of something of this nature either... if not orchestrating it, then funding/supporting it. it's at least possible however potentially far-fetched it may seem. most of the conspiracy theorists "evidence" is either wild speculation, or based on completely false statements Have to disagree.. there's good evidence... such as the Put options put onto Airline Stocks being at 5 to 11 times their daily average before the attacks... Video testimonials of witnesses smelling Cordite at the towers... structural engineering reports of the Building and the unlikely event of Jet Fuel causing collapse (The building was built to withstand a plane hitting it. The interview with a member of the initial design team is very interesting)... More examples of wild speculation, misinformation and false statements... Witnesses "smelled cordite"??? oh come on. You mean to tell me there were explosives experts hanging around sniffing the air at the WTC right before the collapse? Come on man, a 5yr old would be able to pick holes in that one. And it's actually been EXTENSIVELY proven that the jet fuel would, most definitely have caused that collapse, if combined with all the other factors of the crashes AND the building was built to withstand a hit from a LIGHT aircraft, not a 767 travelling at full speed. This is what I'm talking about, REAL experts have studied the events, been to and actually physically examined the sites and totally debunked all the conspiracy theory crap, yet some people are more willing to believe some computer geek conspiracy theory nut who makes all of these crazy claims based on some grainy video footage and their high-school physics textbooks. Over all the videos don't really seem to address all of the arguments which made me initially stop dismissing the conspiracy theories as garbage... it will be interesting to see them answer more of the conspiracy theories but to be honest... I can't be fucked any more... it gets to a point where the nut jobs are too wrapped up in their point of view and become fanatical and it's painful to watch the videos coming out of either side.... PAINFUL Agreed, it's painful to watch the conspiracy theory crazies and their completely off-the-wall ideas, and it's just plain annoying that the real experts have to waste their time debunking this crap. Like Grind said, WHY is it so hard to believe that a bunch of religious crazies from the middle east hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings? WHY do you have to try and prove that the "CIA did it" or some such other rubbish. A hell of a lot of people need to learn about OCCAMS RAZOR ffs. I think whether or not the intelligence agencies knew about these attacks in advance is a completely different argument to whether they actually carried out these attacks themselves. And I think that it's MUCH more likely that they had a vague idea of what the plan might be, but certainly didn't know exact dates/times etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 I can't be fucked any more... it gets to a point where the nut jobs are too wrapped up in their point of view and become fanatical and it's painful to watch the videos coming out of either side.... PAINFUL Painful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 And it's actually been EXTENSIVELY proven that the jet fuel would, most definitely have caused that collapse, if combined with all the other factors of the crashes AND the building was built to withstand a hit from a LIGHT aircraft, not a 767 travelling at full speed. Yeah, not to mention the fact that it was a 767 with a full tank of gas. There's a really good video about all this, I will try to find it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html "Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires." "Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Don't you love how we're all experts on a subject we know absolutely nothing about. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm willing to bet there are no structural engineers in the room qualified to talk about the construction of the WTC, or any demolition experts with an indepth knowledge of heat effects on skyscrapers. I'm also willing to bet nobody here has much of an idea of what is going on in upper level US government / CIA etc. In fact, when you look at it all of us here DON"T KNOW ANYTHING. So what the fuck are we talking about. We are arguing based on "FACTS" GIVEN TO US by both sides. Anyone could feed us false information, skew the investigation and make their theories seem the most plausible. I'm sorry but this just seems like a futile discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzp Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Videos from every angle show explosions many floors below where the building is actualy collapsing, all in consecutive timing. I aint no expert but there is just way to much shit against this. Way to much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard M Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Don't you love how we're all experts on a subject we know absolutely nothing about. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm willing to bet there are no structural engineers in the room qualified to talk about the construction of the WTC, or any demolition experts with an indepth knowledge of heat effects on skyscrapers. I'm also willing to bet nobody here has much of an idea of what is going on in upper level US government / CIA etc. In fact, when you look at it all of us here DON"T KNOW ANYTHING. So what the fuck are we talking about. We are arguing based on "FACTS" GIVEN TO US by both sides. Anyone could feed us false information, skew the investigation and make their theories seem the most plausible. I'm sorry but this just seems like a futile discussion. Word Nato... You Schooled Us All!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grind Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Don't you love how we're all experts on a subject we know absolutely nothing about. It's a 9/11 debate Nato, as long as you have Google, Wikipedia and Youtube, you've got all the "facts" you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Awesome Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 At last conclusive proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakage Posted October 30, 2007 Author Share Posted October 30, 2007 At last conclusive proof. LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Don't you love how we're all experts on a subject we know absolutely nothing about. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm willing to bet there are no structural engineers in the room qualified to talk about the construction of the WTC, or any demolition experts with an indepth knowledge of heat effects on skyscrapers. I'm also willing to bet nobody here has much of an idea of what is going on in upper level US government / CIA etc. In fact, when you look at it all of us here DON"T KNOW ANYTHING. So what the fuck are we talking about. We are arguing based on "FACTS" GIVEN TO US by both sides. Anyone could feed us false information, skew the investigation and make their theories seem the most plausible. I'm sorry but this just seems like a futile discussion. Meh, I was gonna write a whole bunch of shit, but I decided to just give up and agree with Nato on this one, none of us know shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_weazel Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 At last conclusive proof. THAT is fucking GOLD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Known One Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 If you claim to know your ignorance, then how can you conclude one way or the other? I never pretended to know the truth about what actually happened... not once did I say I thought that it was Terrorists or the US Government (certainly evidence to support both arguments)... sounds like you made up your mind. I'm with Nato however I'm skepties you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nato Posted October 30, 2007 Share Posted October 30, 2007 Lets ask the experts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Gunn Posted November 1, 2007 Share Posted November 1, 2007 Don't you love how we're all experts on a subject we know absolutely nothing about. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm willing to bet there are no structural engineers in the room qualified to talk about the construction of the WTC, or any demolition experts with an indepth knowledge of heat effects on skyscrapers. I'm also willing to bet nobody here has much of an idea of what is going on in upper level US government / CIA etc. In fact, when you look at it all of us here DON"T KNOW ANYTHING. So what the fuck are we talking about. We are arguing based on "FACTS" GIVEN TO US by both sides. Anyone could feed us false information, skew the investigation and make their theories seem the most plausible. I'm sorry but this just seems like a futile discussion. Nato is the winner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pakage Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 911 debunked - debunked check out this dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now