911 Loose Change-- ? - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

GrouchyAdmin · 07-29-2008, 11:08 PM

Bill Murray as the world's most annoying clown.

MediaGuy · 07-29-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Its that simple.

Also there are sound recordings, which i heard on tv and which are public of a guy who was involved on a high level with the wtc towers, who knew a lot about its structure etc. After the plane hit it he went up to those levels to see if he could rescue people. You hear him saying in that recording (hes on the phone with a ground crew) that hes afraid that the building might collapse because of the huge damage.

And then stupid pricks like Mediaguy come here with their "evidence" saying there wasnt much damage..

I also heard one guy say he'd "pull" the building.

I also heard detonations and explosions in the raw footage.

So did firefighters:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html...stories&st=cse

According to studies, there's proof of not "Bombs" in the buildings but cutter charges and steel-melting compounds which after doing their work would have caused the creaking you could sense in the lower floors minutes before the collapse. Fires that were starting to go out sixty stories above couldn't have caused that.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...1/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Then there's corroded steel which couldn't happen with a fire. New York Times, even FEMA reported on that http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm.

The NIST reported ignored the topic.

In fact NIST presented facts and made statements which wouldn't lead most readers to the same conclusions it reached; they were separate from the report. As if they knew people would read either the facts or the conclusions. Read both and see.

MediaGuy · 07-29-2008, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie

Why does your mind make you ignore obvious evidence about what really happened to Building 7 and harp on the fire angle. Is that being honest and objective. I mean just look under the collapse section of this wikipedia page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center - and all the footnotes provided. Yet you still blather about fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie

MediaGuy, what, no love or time to look at this obvious and rational explanation for building 7 - http://debunking911.com/pull.htm - or are you too busy cherry-picking what to talk about that supports your cause.

I read those. I don't blather about fire. No one blathers about WTC7 - what caused it to come down straight and purfect.

Neither commission reports or NIST or FEMA talk about the collapse. They talk about what "lead" to it.

If there was such damage on the south face, why did it not fall backwards. Have you seen the footage? It's near one of the most perfect demolitions recorded. Ever.

Every truss, beam and girder would have to fail absolutely and simultaneously for it to go down the way it did. No one addresses this.

Actual physical damage leading to collapse would have lead to toppling determined by the measure of the damage. That didn't happen. It went down like a house of cards, with nothing but air inside apparently.

hershie · 07-29-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

I read those. I don't blather about fire. No one blathers about WTC7 - what caused it to come down straight and purfect.

Neither commission reports or NIST or FEMA talk about the collapse. They talk about what "lead" to it.

If there was such damage on the south face, why did it not fall backwards. Have you seen the footage? It's near one of the most perfect demolitions recorded. Ever.

Every truss, beam and girder would have to fail absolutely and simultaneously for it to go down the way it did. No one addresses this.

Actual physical damage leading to collapse would have lead to toppling determined by the measure of the damage. That didn't happen. It went down like a house of cards, with nothing but air inside apparently.

OK, so even though the links I posted provide a pile of obvious evidence as to what brought building 7 down from hundreds of leading experts, you refuse to buy it because of how it fell like a controlled demolition. Hmm, guess after reading this you are all out of reasons to hang onto your true believer beliefs:

from structure magazine -
this sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact facade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a controlled collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC7. - from http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Dirty F · 07-30-2008, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

According to studies, there's proof of not "Bombs" in the buildings but cutter charges and steel-melting compounds which after doing their work would have caused the creaking you could sense in the lower floors minutes before the collapse.

Show us the PROOF man

Fucking retard. Youre insane.

Dirty F · 07-30-2008, 05:28 AM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Anybody who wonders why this building collapsed isnt too bright. Even a kid can understand why after seeing this.

Dirty F · 07-30-2008, 05:37 AM

I dont get it man, in one posts nutjobs like you say explosions were reported, detonations, before it came down (in the basement and lower levels) and then the next moment you say the building pancakes down which is only possible if every level has bombs going off, starting on top...shouldnt we hear a shitloads of bombs when the building goes down then? And the next post you're mumbling about evidence of charges and steel-melting compounds and not bombs.

You know there are people locked up in mental hospitals who talk like you right?

bronco67 · 07-30-2008, 06:29 AM

Controlled demolition is just as the name implies. It is in a controlled enviroment with unfettered access to the building. The largest recorded CD is 2.2 million square feet and took an army of technicians a month to rig.

In contrast, the WTC was abou 13 million square feet and in one of the busiest sites in the world. It's not about a bunch of commandos throwing some bombs behind a few desks. This job would take unrestricted access for an army of engineers with miles of wiring and tons of explosives, drilling equipment, and lots of time. Hardly possible in downtown New York without it being a major public event.

Then avoiding damage to the rig by the "fake" airplane crashes with fake non-existant souls onboard.

You truthers are idiots, plain and simple.

Dirty F · 07-30-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Controlled demolition is just as the name implies. It is in a controlled enviroment with unfettered access to the building. The largest recorded CD is 2.2 million square feet and took an army of technicians a month to rig.

In contrast, the WTC was abou 13 million square feet and in one of the busiest sites in the world. It's not about a bunch of commandos throwing some bombs behind a few desks. This job would take unrestricted access for an army of engineers with miles of wiring and tons of explosives, drilling equipment, and lots of time. Hardly possible in downtown New York without it being a major public event.

Then avoiding damage to the rig by the "fake" airplane crashes with fake non-existant souls onboard.

You truthers are idiots, plain and simple.

Nutjobs like Mediaguy dont bother thinking about this. All he does is search the net for vague records of someone saying "i heard a bomb go off" and then he comes here screaming there is evidence...

tranza · 07-30-2008, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Loose Change The Final Cut is the best because it's most resourced and documented.

The first two versions have a little too much conjecture, but some of the ideas are much more provocative.

The situation needs to be re-investigated (or just investigated, since they don't seem to have been in the first place), no doubt; and from my point of view, those buildings never collapsed.

So far, it's cost billions to fight what the Bush administration says cost a couple bucks a box cutter to achieve; they're pointed in the wrong direction if they're just yucks and idiots who messed up on 9/11.

I totaly agree!

cykoe6 · 07-30-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Controlled demolition is just as the name implies. It is in a controlled enviroment with unfettered access to the building. The largest recorded CD is 2.2 million square feet and took an army of technicians a month to rig.

In contrast, the WTC was abou 13 million square feet and in one of the busiest sites in the world. It's not about a bunch of commandos throwing some bombs behind a few desks. This job would take unrestricted access for an army of engineers with miles of wiring and tons of explosives, drilling equipment, and lots of time. Hardly possible in downtown New York without it being a major public event.

Then avoiding damage to the rig by the "fake" airplane crashes with fake non-existant souls onboard.

You truthers are idiots, plain and simple.

The voice of reason speaks. Great post.

Dirty F · 07-31-2008, 07:39 AM

Let's go on some more. Mediaguy, please post some more idiot theories. I'm enjoying this thread.

MediaGuy · 08-01-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hershie

OK, so even though the links I posted provide a pile of obvious evidence as to what brought building 7 down from hundreds of leading experts, you refuse to buy it because of how it fell like a controlled demolition. Hmm, guess after reading this you are all out of reasons to hang onto your true believer beliefs:

from structure magazine -
this sequence of events, with roof elements sinking into a building with an intact facade, suggests an interior failure. An interior failure would explain the appearance of a controlled collapse with a relatively small debris field, as seen with WTC7. - from http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

Your quotes, links and references don't provide proof of the government theory of a natural collapse in any of the buildings. Read them before posting them. Actually in all the literature there are no "proofs" of the official conspiracy theory.

Even weirder, you can go to the FBI website and Osama who's one of the most wanted doesn't have 9/11 in his pedigree because, according to the FBI, there's no proof connecting him and Al Qaeda to 9/11.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

I dont get it man, in one posts nutjobs like you say explosions were reported, detonations, before it came down (in the basement and lower levels) and then the next moment you say the building pancakes down which is only possible if every level has bombs going off, starting on top...shouldnt we hear a shitloads of bombs when the building goes down then? And the next post you're mumbling about evidence of charges and steel-melting compounds and not bombs.

You know there are people locked up in mental hospitals who talk like you right?

There's lots of types of explosives. I never claim or state the buildings pancake. While thermate and other cutter charge types may have cut the core beams, explosives would actually have to displace them on the way down. Raw footage of the buildings from close up do reveal the boom-sounds of explosives. During the collapse, mind you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bronco67

Controlled demolition is just as the name implies. It is in a controlled enviroment with unfettered access to the building. The largest recorded CD is 2.2 million square feet and took an army of technicians a month to rig.

In contrast, the WTC was abou 13 million square feet and in one of the busiest sites in the world. It's not about a bunch of commandos throwing some bombs behind a few desks. This job would take unrestricted access for an army of engineers with miles of wiring and tons of explosives, drilling equipment, and lots of time. Hardly possible in downtown New York without it being a major public event.

Then avoiding damage to the rig by the "fake" airplane crashes with fake non-existant souls onboard.

You truthers are idiots, plain and simple.

I'm not a "truther". I said nothing about fake or non-existent people or planes or crashes.

Yeah it would be an exceptional job to wire all those charges. Unrestricted access to the two towers was created weeks before the event. The buildings were closed and security closed and no one allowed in for two weeks prior to the collapse. After the event if seems bomb-sniffing dogs, once part of the permanent security detail, were also restricted from the building.

Take it as you want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Let's go on some more. Mediaguy, please post some more idiot theories. I'm enjoying this thread.

So am I. I don't get off calling people names, but as long as one reads and responds, it can prove fruitful. I don't just mean that in the sense that I can "convince" people. I don't know what happened, who did what, I don't care. My initial reaction and understanding of what happened live while I was eating breakfast on a farm job, watching this shit on tv, was that it was all deliberate - I thought, to protect people from random collapse. My friends don't agree with me. I don't want to believe the implications of what I think happened at the world trade center. But I can't make my head work in directions contrary to logic.

:D

07-29-2008, 11:08 PM	#151
GrouchyAdmin Now choke yourself! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 12,085	Bill Murray as the world's most annoying clown. __________________ AIM: GrouchyGfy

07-30-2008, 05:37 AM	#157
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	I dont get it man, in one posts nutjobs like you say explosions were reported, detonations, before it came down (in the basement and lower levels) and then the next moment you say the building pancakes down which is only possible if every level has bombs going off, starting on top...shouldnt we hear a shitloads of bombs when the building goes down then? And the next post you're mumbling about evidence of charges and steel-melting compounds and not bombs. You know there are people locked up in mental hospitals who talk like you right? Last edited by Dirty F; 07-30-2008 at 05:38 AM..

07-30-2008, 06:29 AM	#158
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,032	Controlled demolition is just as the name implies. It is in a controlled enviroment with unfettered access to the building. The largest recorded CD is 2.2 million square feet and took an army of technicians a month to rig. In contrast, the WTC was abou 13 million square feet and in one of the busiest sites in the world. It's not about a bunch of commandos throwing some bombs behind a few desks. This job would take unrestricted access for an army of engineers with miles of wiring and tons of explosives, drilling equipment, and lots of time. Hardly possible in downtown New York without it being a major public event. Then avoiding damage to the rig by the "fake" airplane crashes with fake non-existant souls onboard. You truthers are idiots, plain and simple. Last edited by bronco67; 07-30-2008 at 06:30 AM..

07-30-2008, 05:28 AM	#156
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	https://youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c Anybody who wonders why this building collapsed isnt too bright. Even a kid can understand why after seeing this.

07-31-2008, 07:39 AM	#162
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Let's go on some more. Mediaguy, please post some more idiot theories. I'm enjoying this thread.