Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

[Kire]

Very interesting stuff. I don't believe it all, but the points it brings up are very intriguing, especially concerning the Pentagon's explosion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...q=loose+change

[Roneatek]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

I watched it and shook my head most of the way through. The Left (by and large) are just plain paranoid. Computer programs that mimic a airline passenger's voice so they can call their loved ones? Wow.

[Gustaff 13]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

"The Left are just plain paranoid "
Says the one toting hatefuly paranoid, self-serving, Neo-Con porn in his sig.
IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

The Left (by and large) are just plain paranoid.

We don't need to start an ad-hominem ******* match, but that statement by and large would do it.

It has no rational basis. Those who made this documentary or believe its contents aren't necessarily 'right' or 'left'.

[Owl of Parliament]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

The left - Paranoid of the government.

The right - Paranoid of god and the devil.

Not all of them but it's fun to generalize. Seriously, your just gonna get nut jobs no matter where you look. I've heard left wingers claim that George W, the British royal family and others were acctually lizard aliens called Sumerians(sp?). Also there are right wingers that think dinosuars are a conspiracy perpetrated by the devil. If I had to say whether it came from a left or right perspective, it's pretty obvious, but it doesn't really matter it's just some dumb video and I've already heard all of that stuff already but it really jarred my memory cause I forgot a lot of it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there are nut jobs, they are everywhere. So things like this are gonna pop up every now and then.

[Roneatek]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

Yeah, there are some major nut-jobs on the Right. I get into tiffs with them all the time. Friends from my old church think I am too "radical" and that I'm far too secular. Friends from my college here at the University of Washington think I am a Bible-toting "your all gonna dai in hell-fire!!!" nazi neo-con Michel Savage wanna-be. And I get into major, major tiffs with them.

But I do think that the paranoia gold star goes to (by and large) the Leftist elite. I'm actually considering doing a piece on paranoia in the Left for a campus magazine I write for, if my editor will give me the all-clear. I loved the Truman show, but if you watch the celebrity interviews in the special addition they actually believe they are being watched. And then there is this whole NSA wiretapping where the left things Bush is listening in on your conversation with your grandma about how much money you get for your birthday. And then threes the crowd that thinks the patriot act is taking away your personal freedoms. The list goes on and on.

Of course, I suppose one doesn’t have to be a "leftist" or a "right-wing fanatic" to believe in all that silly "the WTT was a controlled demolition!" nonsense. But I would suggest that half these people just love conspiracies and believe that we never landed on the moon and that the USA is being controlled by some sort of rich oligarchic intelligentsia with eyes all over the place watching us.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

I loved the Truman show, but if you watch the celebrity interviews in the special addition they actually believe they are being watched.

Some actually are. A few musicians and actors have actually been placed on the no fly list without ever being told why. One example is the case of Cat Stevens.

Further, even co-authoring an unflattering book about Karl Rove got James Moore on the federal no-fly list and plenty of harassment and wiretapping from the FBI.

And it's not just celebrities and the 'leftist elite', but ordinary people as well. Peace activitists in the thousands have been thrown on that list as soon as their names were discovered, and the FBI has repeatedly shown up at the doors of those attempting to organize a demonstration.

Even children, too young to pose any threat, have been monitored, and needlessly placed on no fly lists.

These are people that pose absolutely zero threat to the safety of others.

The fear is not entirely unfounded. There are specific examples of it occuring, both ordinary people and relative celebrities alike. These aren't isolated cases.

And then there is this whole NSA wiretapping where the left things Bush is listening in on your conversation with your grandma about how much money you get for your birthday.

Indeed for some people that is actually occuring.

One Texas man, Walter Soehnge, had his credit purchases monitored by the homeland security department. Countless professors have had their mail intercepted and opened by the government.

Mind you there are thousands of examples aside from these.

And then threes the crowd that thinks the patriot act is taking away your personal freedoms.

It is.

There are two things you must understand about it to see how it is helping to erode our personal freedoms:

1) How it violates the rights explicitly garunteed in the U.S. Constitution
2) Examples of misuse

How it violates our rights:

The Patriot Act allows the government to classify dissenters committing an act that may be meant to influence government policy as terrorism, without even proof that the act in question is harmful.(Section 802) This abridges the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. This is a 1st amendment violation.

The Patriot Act gives the Federal Government the authority to confiscate your personal records or property without your permission ranging from medical and academic records to your library records, all WITHOUT a warrant or probable cause(Section 215 of Patriot Act amending Section 501 of the FISA Act). Violating the right of the people to be secure in their persons and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant violates the 4th amendment.

The Patriot Act allows the government to wiretap your computer, tap your phone, put cameras anywhere in your home, tag your car, ect. ALL without a warrant or probable cause(Section 216, 217). Violating the right of the people to be secure in their persons and papers against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant violates the 4th amendment.

The Patriot Act allows the government to detain without court order or a warrant any immigrant within American borders if they deem necessary. Also, it has provisions that allow no judicial oversight, and has provisions that suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus(Section 412). This violates the right of the people to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant, meaning, it violates the 4th amendment. This can apply to American citizens, in the case the government strips the citizenship of the person in question via Homeland Security Act. Far fetched, but a legal possibility(and add to that unlawful detention of American citizens that has occured, even referenced by amnesty International).

The Patriot Act allows the government to try a non-military American citizen in a military tribunal. The Act allows the government to force prisoners to incriminate themselves. Also, it allows the government to designate people as enemy combatants without allowing them to prove their innocence(President Bush's Military Order, part of the PATRIOT Act). Allowing the government to force people to incriminate themselves, or trying them via land or naval forces when they are not in service and depriving them of liberty or life, or depriving them of liberty or life without due process is in violation of the 5th amendment.

The PATRIOT Act under the previously mentioned Section 412 allows the government to detain immigrants or people stripped of their citizenship, denying them a speedy and public trial. This is in violation of the 6th amendment.

The PATRIOT Act leaves no oversight for those tried in a military tribunal(Section 236). This leaves open the possibility of an 8th amendment violation, in the case torture or some other coercive but unconventional means is used. Without oversight, little can be done to prevent such an abuse.

Examples of misuse

911 detainees abused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

Crime database misused for purposes outside the jurisdiction of the legislation:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1217-04.htm

Journalists unlawfully detained:

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs...2130159&Ref=AR

It has been reported that the White House keeps dossiers on over 10,000 political opponents:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artma...cle_7625.shtml

Freetrade protestors unlawfully detained via PATRIOT Act:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1122-04.htm

There are hundreds of examples that can be listed.

Of course, I suppose one doesn’t have to be a "leftist" or a "right-wing fanatic" to believe in all that silly "the WTT was a controlled demolition!" nonsense.

Insofar as an explanation for the WTC7 building, it seems to be the most rational of them all. The former owner of the building, Larry Silverstein even admitted it. Nothing hit that building, and it was engineered to be able to withstand the low level vibrations it was subjected to by the collapse of the larger towers(Enough to cause an Earthquake of roughly 2.5 in magnitude, which is quite small.).

That doesn't mean it's true or factual, but it is telling that the government's explanation is filled with obvious holes that appear to defy sound engineering and physical principles. This will drive the conspiracy people crazy until a sound, honest explanation is given.

and that the USA is being controlled by some sort of rich oligarchic intelligentsia with eyes all over the place watching us.

Google search the term 'power elite'. A basic sociological fact is that this entity exists.

[SalsaShark]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

I really dont see how any person who actually watched that video can call the conspiracy theories surrounding september 11th silly nonsense. There is sooooo much evidence to support and scientifically prove it was a cover up, and NO legitimate evidence supporting the official story. Anyone who still believes the officially story seriously needs to wake up and observe what is happening in our world.

PAX OUT

[Valkysas]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

the conspiracy theories are nonsense. planes hit the towers, people saw it, its on video tape. people died on those planes. this cant be fabricated.

saying nothing hit those buildings? bullshit. I have friends who saw it in person.

I do believe that the government knew about the attacks (which has been proven true) far in advance, and simply ignored the threat. thats the only part of the conspiracy theories I believe.

as for the pentagon, a plane hit there too. it went inside the pentagon, wings likely being carried with it where it exploded a few layers in. people complain that there isnt a realistic amount of damage to the surrounding area, and that plane crashes are big, messy affairs.

they're basing this on plane crashes that happened in open areas. we have very few cases of planes crashing into reinforced buildings to compare it to. exploding inside a building is definately going to lessen the damaged area, and with a steel-enforced building surrounding the plane, the wreckage has no where to fly off to when it explodes, and WILL disintigrate, or break up into much smaller fragments as a result of a big explosion with nowhere to go.

some people are just so hell bent that the government is out to get us that they're completely ignorant of anything that doesnt fit their "opinion" that was fed to them via some other wackjob's website.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

I'm afraid there's plenty of nonsense to go around on both sides of this issue. To say there is absolutely no legitamate evidence to support the official story is ignorant of many facts of the matter. But the 'official' explanation leaves a lot to be desired, that given the information that is usually obtained from such disasters, one with less inconsistencies should have been given. But it wasn't. That's where the evidence of a coverup comes into play. The thing is, the mainstream conspiracy theorists(ie. Alex jones contingent) like to jump to conclusions and speculate until their theories are no more based on fact than the government's explanation.

What we do know is that a plane hit each of the two main towers. Caught on tape. what is unknown is just what happened to the WTC7 building. Buildings don't merely collapse on their own(even if a resonant frequuency necessary to collapse the building was generated, it didn't have enough amplitude to do the job, otherwise the shockwave would have been strong enough to take down other nearby buildings, destroy sewers and underground powerlines for miles around), and certainly not in such a controlled, organized manner. So the official ruling that it collapsed as a result of the previous towers falling is very unlikely. So where does that leave us?

The admission by the building's former owner that he agreed to blow it up to collect insurance money is a start, but it's no factual basis to work from. He could be lying for all we know, but it certainly seems to fit better than a spontaneuos collapse.


***edit

I do believe that the government knew about the attacks (which has been proven true) far in advance, and simply ignored the threat.

Indeed. I can even link the documents to those interested.

[Valkysas]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

What we do know is that a plane hit each of the two main towers. Caught on tape. what is unknown is just what happened to the WTC7 building. Buildings don't merely collapse on their own(even if a resonant frequuency necessary to collapse the building was generated, it didn't have enough amplitude to do the job, otherwise the shockwave would have been strong enough to take down other nearby buildings, destroy sewers and underground powerlines for miles around), and certainly not in such a controlled, organized manner. So the official ruling that it collapsed as a result of the previous towers falling is very unlikely. So where does that leave us?

Things rarely work out in the real world the same way they do in simulations, mathematical equasions, and scientific theory.

case in point: all the buildings they've tried blowing up for demolition jobs that by theory SHOULD go down, and yet the explosives do absolutely nothing to the building. aside from making it really dusty.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

But there are also limits to what can occur in practice. A gentle 5 mph breeze will never be able to lift you off the ground 200 feet into the air and hurl you to your death. Likewise, a building engineered to sustain a quake of 7.0 magnitude is not going to collapse due to a shockwave that is 1/30,000th the size.

(10^7)/(10^2.5) = 31,623

I can assure you that building had repeatedly experienced forces larger than that just from the wind brushing up against it each and every day.

[Valkysas]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

that wind wasnt a solid object slamming into the side of it. was THAT ever tested? shockwaves and force coming from a massive object traveling a few hundred miles an hour into the side of the building? no? okay then.

A gentle 5 mph breeze will never be able to lift you off the ground 200 feet into the air and hurl you to your death.

Microscopic Kite-Man would like to argue with that.

[The Toecutter]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

that wind wasnt a solid object slamming into the side of it. was THAT ever tested? shockwaves and force coming from a massive object traveling a few hundred miles an hour into the side of the building?

Take a course in civil engineering and advanced fluid dynamics(or even talk to experts in that field, you'd specifically be interested in the subject of geophysical flows) and you will find that the forces experienced by small amounts of wind across such a wide surface area is far more than the shockwave generated from the WTC collapse or a plume of dust rushing to its side...

This building had 58 columns around its perimeter, 25 at the core. The side exposed to the debris was facing south, with roughly 17 columns exposed. In order to collapse a building immediately and sink into its footprint, all the columns have to be destroyed at once. This is often why controlled demolitions don't achieve desired results and leave pieces of building remaining.

Even the airplanes smashing into the two main towers, far more force than what the WTC7 building would have experienced, did not cause the two towers to actually sink in such an organized manner. Their collapse was less organized due to uneven distribution of damage in the towers. The heat from those planes destroyed some of the columns outright while leaving others intact long enough to delay collapse, with a plane being one of the only ways to create that amount of heat(aside from high grade explosives).

Further, the WTC7 building collapsed at approxamately freefall speed. The official explanation is that the collapse was caused by a pancake effect on the upper floors, but if this were true, then free fall acceleration and terminal speed would not be attainable due to the deceleration caused by the floors below those that have collapsed. Watch a video from the start of collapse to finish, and calculate the change in time from fall to rest, using a gravitational acceleration constant of (9.8m)/(s^2). The antiderivative of the acceleration rate gets you the velocity, antiderivative of the velocity the position. You will find that the WTC7 tower collapsed virtually unimpeded, again mostly nullifying one of the 'official' explanations(best case making that explanation extremely unlikely).

Then there's that whole issue with the violation of conservation of momentum...

The Building Performance Assessment Team also could not find out HOW the WTC7 building collapsed.

The odds of this building collapsing from this are lower than me ever winning the lottery, and I never buy lottery tickets.

It sure leaves a lot to the imagination. Doesn't prove the destruction was caused by explosives, even if what is available may suggest that as a strong possibility, but it does exemplify that the ''official explanation in regards to this instance is unlikely to be true. One argument against the explosives one is that a group of experts would magically have to set all the charges within 7 hours and go unnoticed. Far fetched, but it appears much more likely than what would otherwise amount to a spontaneuous collapse.

Choose to believe an unlikely scenario if you wish. What actually caused the destruction of that specific building is by and large unproven.


One professor you may want to get in contact with on this issue is Dr. James Fetzer of McKnight University. Another is Dr. Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. Both understand the dynamics of this fairly in-depth.

Kiteman would like to argue with that.

Kiteman uses a shape intentionally designed to induce large amounts of lift(ie. a kite), so much lift that a human body alone unequipped with the necessary materials could ever experience unless there were hurricane force winds in the F3 or F4 category(Drag = 1/2 * Rho * Cd * Frontal area * Velocity^2).



***EDIT***

Correction, it wasn't a 2.5 magnitude caused by the WTC collapse, but a 2.1 magnitude. So that puts the shockwave at 1/79,000th the level the building was designed to handle.

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publicati...11pentagon.pdf

Look at the data yourself.

[Sampson]

Re: Loose Change: the 9/11 documentary

Generally, the left is paranoid of the government only when its being controlled by the right, and vice versa.

But I do think that the paranoia gold star goes to (by and large) the Leftist elite. I'm actually considering doing a piece on paranoia in the Left for a campus magazine I write for, if my editor will give me the all-clear. I loved the Truman show, but if you watch the celebrity interviews in the special addition they actually believe they are being watched. And then there is this whole NSA wiretapping where the left things Bush is listening in on your conversation with your grandma about how much money you get for your birthday. And then threes the crowd that thinks the patriot act is taking away your personal freedoms. The list goes on and on.

If you support the NSA wiretapping or the patriot act in general you are (to borrow one of 'their' terms) un-American. The framers are rolling over in their graves right now.