ClumsyMonkey.net

Controversial 9/11 Documentary - "Loose Change"

Serious discussion area.
You realize that sometimes you're not okay, you level off, you level off, you level off...

Postby Neil » 5/18/2006, 2:03 pm

starvingeyes wrote:it is the EXACT SAME footage you've all already seen. they released 2 camera angles, both do not show a plane. CNN has it up.

however, if you look at stephen riskus' photos from the day of the attack, you WILL see a NINETY FOOT HOLE across the 1st story of the building, where the plane went in. you will also see damage to a fence and a generator (~40 ft apart), presumably caused by engines, which COULD NOT have been caused by a missile or a truck bomb.

the pentagon WAS hit by a plane. the no-plane theory is likely disinformation put forth by the US government.

and korzic - well, they did do it, and nobody has spoke up so far. i think now would be a good time for you to start looking at some of that evidence, such as the paper i posted earlier.


Dude...as much as I generally seem to agree with you on topics; this is one I definitely do not. There is still no hardened proof that a plane struck the building. Nothing.

That new video released by the Administration, is beat.
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. - Niccoló Machiavelli
User avatar
Neil
Oskar Winner: 2010
Oskar Winner: 2010
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: 9/27/2002, 8:26 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby lora » 5/18/2006, 5:01 pm

i forgot how much i loved political discussion on this board

in agreement with chris, alex & co
User avatar
lora
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: 3/14/2002, 2:34 pm
Location: halifax, ns

Postby Hope » 5/19/2006, 5:33 pm

apparently some evidence that was shown in Loose Change (like the destruction of the pentagon buliding seeming to be done by a non-commercial airplane) was in yesterday's Vancouver Sun.. i really should have bought a copy, but i forgot, because my family gets the Globe and Mail instead.. i'm going to see if i can get it from my friend and read it
turn your head
come back again
to here knows when

last.fm
User avatar
Hope
 
Posts: 8898
Joined: 5/13/2004, 10:56 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby starvingeyes » 5/20/2006, 4:00 pm

Dude...as much as I generally seem to agree with you on topics; this is one I definitely do not. There is still no hardened proof that a plane struck the building. Nothing.

That new video released by the Administration, is beat.

we could all learn a valuable lesson from this post, ESPECIALLY when dealing with 9/11 truth. the lesson being, never say anything until you have FIRST DONE THE RESEARCH:

Image

http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/damage_comp.jpg - complete compilation of all eyewitness reports from that day. a 757 is confirmed by over 100 different, independant corrorborating reports.

Rob - that PM article you posted is total bullshit from start to finish. for a complete listing of the lies, errors and omissions in that article, you may check

http://www.911review.com

in fact, 911review.com has a comprehensive, totally scientific break-down and rebuttal to EVERY coincidence theory put forward to explain these events. it is the most exhaustive 911 website on the net. absolutely EVERY LIE the us government or one of it's lacky's has made is on this page and defeated.

the information on this website is total conclusive proof.
Image
User avatar
starvingeyes
Oskar Winner: 2007
Oskar Winner: 2007
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
Location: california's not very far

Postby Neil » 5/20/2006, 5:38 pm

starvingeyes wrote:http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/damage_comp.jpg


None of the pictures prove there was a commerical airliner. Perhaps a plane, I did notice that same 'ol recycled picture of shrapnal, but again; nothing proving a commercial airliner.

I'm not shocked....and I'm not stupid either.
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. - Niccoló Machiavelli
User avatar
Neil
Oskar Winner: 2010
Oskar Winner: 2010
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: 9/27/2002, 8:26 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby Neil » 5/20/2006, 5:42 pm

starvingeyes wrote:
http://www.911review.com

the information on this website is total conclusive proof.


Proof eh? Dude......who did this site?

"Most originally, 9-11 Review exposes disinformation and sloppy research which allow all questioning of the official story -- including as the careful work of serious 9/11 researchers -- to be marginalized as "conspiracy theories" not worthy of being taken seriously" (911review).

Nothing listed? Shocking....I cant call this site conclusive proof.

I respect you so much, Chris. But seriously.....its ok to lighten up and respect other peoples views besides your own.
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. - Niccoló Machiavelli
User avatar
Neil
Oskar Winner: 2010
Oskar Winner: 2010
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: 9/27/2002, 8:26 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby naseoj » 5/20/2006, 5:50 pm

starvingeyes wrote:its ok to lighten up and respect other peoples views besides your own.


oh snap
naseoj
 
Posts: 194
Joined: 9/10/2004, 7:56 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Axtech » 5/20/2006, 8:22 pm

starvingeyes wrote:Rob - that PM article you posted is total bullshit from start to finish.


haha, yeah. there was a long Fark thread that I was reading through on the pentagon video release. essentially people randomly arguing and throwing out "proofs".
- -
Image
Every now and then I fall out into open air just to feel the wind, rain and everything.
And though the hum and sway gets me down
, I'll find the way to peace and openness.

Image
"Robbo" - © Alex (happeningfish)...^5 ^5 v v
User avatar
Axtech
Oskar Lifetime Achievement Award: 2004
Oskar Lifetime Achievement Award: 2004
 
Posts: 19796
Joined: 3/17/2002, 5:36 pm
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Postby starvingeyes » 5/21/2006, 9:01 am

didn't say you were stupid, i also used to believe there was no plane at the pentagon. google steven riskus' pictures, i can't find them at the moment. there are at least 3 in which you can see the HUGE hole across the face of the building. and somewhere, 911review.com has a mirrored article by some other guy that shoes a composite of all the damaged columns.

it had to be a plane. there is no way a missile could've spread damage over the entire wedge that way. and what about the generator and the fence? both were struck and badly damaged before impact, and they were like 80 feet apart. how could a missile do that?

and http://www.911review.com is pretty much conclusive proof. between that site and 911research, they have analyzed and broken this thing down from every angle. it's the most comprehensive investigation of september 11th ever conducted. i'm not sure how anybody could read the information on that website and still believe the official account of the story.
Image
User avatar
starvingeyes
Oskar Winner: 2007
Oskar Winner: 2007
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
Location: california's not very far

Postby pit_girl1 » 5/21/2006, 10:53 am

Also I'm pretty sure a woman I know saw the plane go in on her drive through DC/VA that day.
~Hannah

Let the bare feet be the last sounds that they hear...

Image
(yes, I have succumbed to the addiction that is last.fm)
User avatar
pit_girl1
 
Posts: 1855
Joined: 5/26/2003, 9:31 am
Location: MD / CT for college

Postby Neil » 5/21/2006, 1:53 pm

starvingeyes wrote:didn't say you were stupid, i also used to believe there was no plane at the pentagon. google steven riskus' pictures, i can't find them at the moment. there are at least 3 in which you can see the HUGE hole across the face of the building. and somewhere, 911review.com has a mirrored article by some other guy that shoes a composite of all the damaged columns.

it had to be a plane. there is no way a missile could've spread damage over the entire wedge that way. and what about the generator and the fence? both were struck and badly damaged before impact, and they were like 80 feet apart. how could a missile do that?

and http://www.911review.com is pretty much conclusive proof. between that site and 911research, they have analyzed and broken this thing down from every angle. it's the most comprehensive investigation of september 11th ever conducted. i'm not sure how anybody could read the information on that website and still believe the official account of the story.


Chris -

I know you didn't say I was stupid, but dude; that's how that previous post came across :lol:

Anyways.....I do give the sites you posted, credit, but I still do NOT believe it was a commerical airliner.

I'll agree......perhaps a plane. I guess I shouldn't completely dissapprove of the plane theory. You are right......how in the hell would a missile or a truck bomb do THAT particular type of damage. (?)

I dunno......I guess I have such a low amount of faith-in-truth of our government; I can't seem to allow myself to fully accept the general story.
Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. - Niccoló Machiavelli
User avatar
Neil
Oskar Winner: 2010
Oskar Winner: 2010
 
Posts: 8405
Joined: 9/27/2002, 8:26 am
Location: Minnesota

Postby AnnieDreams » 5/21/2006, 2:27 pm

Korzic wrote:If you try hard enough, you can convince anyone of anything.

The 1 thing that convinces me that this is was not a conspiracy is the fact I'm not naive enough to believe that the govt could orchestrate this, then carry it out, then cover it up and not have someone singing from the rafters like a damned canary. It's just not plausible. Someone somewhere inevitably has enough moral judgement to stand up and say THIS IS NOT RIGHT and go public. You only have to look at Watergate for that.

But I think this point has most likely been made in the past.

Honestly, if you stop looking through jaded glasses and cut through the belief that the current administration is the devil and the source of all evil, you have to realise that some things about these conspiracy theories just don't add up properly, namely my above point.


Korzic, this is my perspective on the situation exactly. I just can't bring myself to believe that something this huge was covered up, and the only people who "know the truth" appear to be university and high school students, film-makers who can profit off the idea, and the same rational people who were abducted by aliens last month. Not a single person with first hand knowledge has a big problem with the government's story, just unrelated civilians who did some research and interpreted facts. (or, in other's opinions, lies.)

It just doesn't seem logical to me. Maybe I'm young and silly and naive, or maybe I'm sensible and unjaded. Whichever it is, that (combined with my general belief in humankind) is keeping me from believing that this was an "inside job".


Also, Chris, something you said confused me a little.
"the pentagon WAS hit by a plane. the no-plane theory is likely disinformation put forth by the US government."
Why would the US government want us to think they lied?
-Annie (Whee! boring signature!)
Member of the Pokémon League
Image
User avatar
AnnieDreams
 
Posts: 4028
Joined: 8/16/2003, 12:08 pm
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland

Postby faninor » 5/21/2006, 8:45 pm

Because the no-plane theory sounds absurd and can pretty much be proven wrong. The more incorrect conspiracy theories about it there are, the less likely any will be taken seriously.
-Josh
I <3 Kiwi Image

"The fundamental thing about music is its destiny to be broadcast or shared." -Colin Greenwood of Radiohead
Image
User avatar
faninor
Oskar Lifetime Achievement Award: 2006
Oskar Lifetime Achievement Award: 2006
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: 4/30/2002, 6:57 pm
Location: The OC

Postby Korzic » 5/22/2006, 5:09 am

AnnieDreams wrote:
Korzic wrote:If you try hard enough, you can convince anyone of anything.

The 1 thing that convinces me that this is was not a conspiracy is the fact I'm not naive enough to believe that the govt could orchestrate this, then carry it out, then cover it up and not have someone singing from the rafters like a damned canary. It's just not plausible. Someone somewhere inevitably has enough moral judgement to stand up and say THIS IS NOT RIGHT and go public. You only have to look at Watergate for that.

But I think this point has most likely been made in the past.

Honestly, if you stop looking through jaded glasses and cut through the belief that the current administration is the devil and the source of all evil, you have to realise that some things about these conspiracy theories just don't add up properly, namely my above point.


Korzic, this is my perspective on the situation exactly. I just can't bring myself to believe that something this huge was covered up, and the only people who "know the truth" appear to be university and high school students, film-makers who can profit off the idea, and the same rational people who were abducted by aliens last month. Not a single person with first hand knowledge has a big problem with the government's story, just unrelated civilians who did some research and interpreted facts. (or, in other's opinions, lies.)

It just doesn't seem logical to me. Maybe I'm young and silly and naive, or maybe I'm sensible and unjaded. Whichever it is, that (combined with my general belief in humankind) is keeping me from believing that this was an "inside job".


Also, Chris, something you said confused me a little.
"the pentagon WAS hit by a plane. the no-plane theory is likely disinformation put forth by the US government."
Why would the US government want us to think they lied?


I'm glad there's someone who is still on the same page with me :/

BTW... I cannot believe that the no plane theory was spread by the US Govt... WHY would they want to spread such crap?
Image
User avatar
Korzic
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 7/7/2004, 3:29 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby faninor » 5/22/2006, 10:21 am

faninor wrote:Because the no-plane theory sounds absurd and can pretty much be proven wrong. The more incorrect conspiracy theories about it there are, the less likely any will be taken seriously.
-Josh
I <3 Kiwi Image

"The fundamental thing about music is its destiny to be broadcast or shared." -Colin Greenwood of Radiohead
Image
User avatar
faninor
Oskar Lifetime Achievement Award: 2006
Oskar Lifetime Achievement Award: 2006
 
Posts: 6936
Joined: 4/30/2002, 6:57 pm
Location: The OC

Postby starvingeyes » 5/22/2006, 2:59 pm

you guys keep repeating how things "seem" to you and making assumptions based on what you think an operation of this nature would require to pull off. personnel requirements for this type of OP are not NEARLY as high as you'd think because military and intelligence personnel are USED to doing shady things without asking why. that's their JOB.

not you, nor i, nor anybody else that's here, has ANY idea whatsoever about what DID happen on september 11th. what we do know is what DID NOT.

so let's talk about what DID NOT happen on 9/11/01. 3 high rise steel frame buildings DID NOT collapse as a result of a fire. the united states government and their lackys say otherwise.

one of us, either the government or me, is lying. who do you believe? setting aside for a second all the implications of the government lying for a second - with respect to the total collapse of 1WTC, 2WTC and 7WTC, what do you believe?

ask yourself why you think those buildings fell, and then tell me. i possess information that easily and conclusively defeats every gravity driven collapse theory every put forth by anybody, including the NIST, FEMA, the 9/11 Comission, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, NOVA and others.

it is interesting to note that FEMA and the NIST DISAGREE on what caused the towers to collapse. FEMA originally embraced the "column failure theory", but when it was defeated by scientists, the NIST switched to the "truss failure theory". however, that theory has also since been defeated. at present, i believe it is some combination of the "hat truss theory" and the "pile-driver" theory that they are putting forth.

at present, no intellectual, academic, government agency or other entity has been able to supply a theory that explains the collapse of those three buildings in terms of fire and gravity.
Image
User avatar
starvingeyes
Oskar Winner: 2007
Oskar Winner: 2007
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
Location: california's not very far

Postby Korzic » 5/27/2006, 11:27 am

IRCC didnt the buildings collapse above the POE? And as such simply pancaked?

From what I've seen of highrise demolitions, it seems unlikely that they could detonate the buidings from above the POE with such precision. If the explsovies were there before, again it seems unlikely that it could have been so precise without there being some damage to the demolition set up and having it go wrong.

Even the "explosions" that happened lower down did nothing to encourage the collapse of the building as the buildings pancaked from top to bottom and not in 2 places.

Ignoring all arguments about who said what. Explain why or how this happened.
Image
User avatar
Korzic
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 7/7/2004, 3:29 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby starvingeyes » 5/27/2006, 11:54 am

obviously the demolition set up used in this affair would have to have been reasonably complicated. it is not difficult however, with existing technology, to time the detonation sequence to start at or around the point of impact.

there are a number of problems with the pancake theory. firstly, the law of conservation of momentum, one of the inviolate fundamental laws of physics. bluntly, any attempt to explain the collapse in terms of gravity is challenging this law. it states, in laymans terms, that energy can only be spent once, a fact that was up until this point, observed to be accurate.

as such, how is it possible for the concrete floor slabs to have fallen down on each other and crushed the building, when they were VISIBLE AS POWDER during the explosion? the floor slabs had enough energy to either push down on the floor beneath them, or break into dust, not both. not to mention how incredibly unrealistic it is to assume that a collapse of that nature could pulverise hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete in powder as fine as flour. not to mention how impossible it is for this to have happened as a result of gravity ABOVE the impacted floors.

the towers fell at nearly a rate of free fall. in fact, debris falling alongside them acts as a GREAT freefall reference. if the total progressive collapse theory were true, how is this possible? bottom floors would have offered at least SOME resistance to the upper ones. i mean, look at the core structures of those buildings!

furthermore, there are only four examples of total progressive collapse of a building: 1WTC, 2WTC, 7WTC and the murrah building in OK city. and, building a structure with the same scaled dimensions as the towers that collapses on itself is impossible.

i could go on...
Image
User avatar
starvingeyes
Oskar Winner: 2007
Oskar Winner: 2007
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
Location: california's not very far

Postby Korzic » 5/27/2006, 12:08 pm

I beg to ask the question as to how you determined the state of the concrete slabs moments before and after the fall. There was plenty of burning material to produce the plumes seen from the moment of collapse.
Image
User avatar
Korzic
 
Posts: 627
Joined: 7/7/2004, 3:29 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby starvingeyes » 5/27/2006, 1:16 pm

concrete does not burn. the only gravity driven explanation for the pulverisation of the concrete must be the falling mass of the impacted floors. but if this is true, what pushed the building down? the floor slabs were the only concrete used in the building, everything else was steel.
Image
User avatar
starvingeyes
Oskar Winner: 2007
Oskar Winner: 2007
 
Posts: 2009
Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
Location: california's not very far

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 6 hours • PHPBB Powered

Serving Our Lady Peace fans since 2002. Oskar Twitch thanks you for tasting the monkey brains.

cron