Loose Change.

[Wom 0]

South Park - S10E09 - Mystery of the Urinal Deuce

[Cale 36]

A BIG one! Anything else is reasonably irrelevent, becasue she saw a big, jet powered passenger plane heading directly toward the pentagon. With her own two eyes!

Is she sure it wasn't a BIG grey one with a USAF symbol on the side?

heh

[Shady 0]

Now, I havent said this, but I dont neccessarily blame "George Bush" for the attack or setting it up. I say Govt cos that brings in pretty much anybody to do with running America. I didnt watch "loose change" I watched "lets roll 911". Probably the same as 'loose change', but I bought mine like 1 year after it happened. In this DVD, I cant remember them trying to blame Bush, but the agencies that run the Country.

Must go put it back in the player & have a look...all I remember, is there was no evidence showing it was Terrorists.

However, I'd never beleive the Aliens bullsh-t, that IS a joke

Edited September 11, 2009 by Shady

[bellicose 9]

I'm a firm believer in the fact that it wasn't Bush who was pulling the strings. Simple fact is ANY US president is just the cover for the book that is government, there are so many OTHER people that actually RUN the country.

Another problem i have is.......where was the wreckage of flight United 93 that "crashed" into the paddock?, never before has a plane that size just simply dissapeared on impact, the FBI released pic's of some wreckage of a United plane BUT they NEVER specified where that wreckage came from.

More food for thought.

[kiwi535 538]

the US govt blow up the world trade centre to create an excuse to go to war?They dont need to do that,just the failed hijack attempt would have been enough.

Conspiracy theories are just that,there is no way that the moon landings were staged,all the people involved would have to be have been silenced...i said silenced,not paid a few dollars to stay quiet..sheesh,as someobe has already said they couldnt bloody plan a burglary....

The political turmoil resulting from a government planning such an event would rival the civil war.Americans are just like you and me they just have a much more HOME centred view of the world.They look in rather than out.

[Shady 0]

By doing such a thing such as this, would simply help get the World & their own People to back them up to go to War. So many people against War, what better way than to say "hey they killed 3000+ of YOUR people, should we go kill them!?", the reply "YES f--king destroy them!"...

You cant just go start a War and hope everyone backs you up. But if you blowup your own Country, then yep, you will definitely get the rest of World to back you up to go "fight terrorism". Just saying "they wont give us their oil" is not a good enough reason to have thousands of soldiers killed & maimed. But fighting "terrorists" is a good enough reason in the eyes of the people who believe it was a "terrorist attack"...but this time, the terrorists is their own people.

[Shady 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkT5yAlmDoA...feature=related

[kiwi535 538]

By doing such a thing such as this, would simply help get the World & their own People to back them up to go to War. So many people against War, what better way than to say "hey they killed 3000+ of YOUR people, should we go kill them!?", the reply "YES f--king destroy them!"...

You cant just go start a War and hope everyone backs you up. But if you blowup your own Country, then yep, you will definitely get the rest of World to back you up to go "fight terrorism". Just saying "they wont give us their oil" is not a good enough reason to have thousands of soldiers killed & maimed. But fighting "terrorists" is a good enough reason in the eyes of the people who believe it was a "terrorist attack"...but this time, the terrorists is their own people.

You are kidding.The Americans dont need a plausible excuse,any excuse eill do,and if it was about the oil why didnt they do it last time they invaded iraq? ....the world trade center houses a lot more than just a few civilains...I contend the Americans would NEVER choose such a target.

[deane30 30]

I agree with this guy:

David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. According to Phoenix New Times, "Icke is part of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism that runs throughout the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

In 1999, Icke wrote and published The Biggest Secret: The Book that Will Change the World, in which he identified the extraterrestrial prison warders as reptilians from the constellation Draco. They walk erect and appear to be human, living not only on the planets they come from, but also in caverns and tunnels under the earth. They have cross-bred with humans, which has created "hybrids" who are "possessed" by the full-blooded reptilians. The reptiles' hybrid reptilian-human DNA allows them to change from reptilian to human form if they consume human blood.

[huff3r 347]

This whole fighting for oil thing confuses me...

In the fighting they actually ended up destroying, or causing the destruction of thousands of barrels of oil!!

And if anyone actually knows how it works over there would know a lot of it is already reasonably well under Americas control. Case in point, Chevron (gigantic American oil company) is the ONLY foreign oil company allowed to operate in Kuwait. No-one else is allowed to even think about opening up shop.

[kiwi535 538]

This whole fighting for oil thing confuses me...

In the fighting they actually ended up destroying, or causing the destruction of thousands of barrels of oil!!

And if anyone actually knows how it works over there would know a lot of it is already reasonably well under Americas control. Case in point, Chevron (gigantic American oil company) is the ONLY foreign oil company allowed to operate in Kuwait. No-one else is allowed to even think about opening up shop.

not to mention the extra oil they consume in fighting the war in the first place!

[Cale 36]

War = money. And besides, everyone loves the smell of napalm in the morning.

[dickhead 0]

I think I will remain undecided. Anyone with an open mind should come to the conclusion that there are many serious issues that the US govt for some reason choose to ignore, presumably because they have no plausible explanation. Lets not forget they should have to defend themselves to justify the actions in retaliation. The towers were surely not brought down by a plane, ask any structural engineer or demolition expert. That is not necessarily pointing blame at the govt.

if anyone can provide an alternative argument to that I would love to hear it.

also please explain;

where the plane went that crashed into the field

why the pentagon will not release any footage of the plane (or do they have not surveillance cameras?)

what happened to WTC building 7? (admittedly I got that straight out of loose change)

there are so many holes in the story I dont think anyone can be blamed for being suspicious

If it was an inside job someone would probably have stumbled upon some sort of paper trail by now, and surely there would be too many people involved in such a scheme to keep all of them quiet.

great thread by the way

[huff3r 347]

Would it not depend on the structure of the building as to wether or not an impact such as a plane would have caused it to fall either straight down or otherwise?

Do you know how the building was structured? If you don't then all i can say is this is pure speculation.

It is entirely possible that because of the way the building was constructed, when subjected to a large force in such a direction it simply collapses straight down. It is even possible the building was designed this way, so that if ever it was placed under extreme stress it would not cause mass damage to surrounding buildings.

[Cale 36]

I agree that there are too many unanswered questions not addressed by the 9/11 report. I think if the US government is innocent, they should have done a better job of addressing the real issues. They are not helping themselves. I do hope that the current petition is successful in getting another report done.

It was the kerosene fueled fires that weakened the joints that connected the horizontal beams to the vertical beams. It was not the impact of the planes that brought down the towers but the fires.

I have heard theorists say that there was molten steel found in the remains of the buildings, and the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel. And why did the buildings fall so quickly, as if in freefall. I think that if a 500,000 tonne building collapses in on itself, it will appear to fall quickly creating huge amounts of energy and heat energy.

Quarter of WTC7's side was ripped apart as the building were only 150 meters or so apart. As for the controlled collapse, who knows. Perhaps there was fires in that building aswell.

Maybe the leaseholder just wanted his multi-billion dollar insurance payout?

[bmw.maniac 1]

The towers were surely not brought down by a plane, ask any structural engineer or demolition expert.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.â€

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

[huff3r 347]

You mean me, a first year engineer picked that this was entirely possible

Does this mean that its such a basic engineering principle that all those "conspiracy" people must clearly not have done any decent unbiased research?

I'd say so

[Mike 1]

The towers were surely not brought down by a plane, ask any structural engineer or demolition expert.

haha I've got a Civil/Structural BE and I'm quite convinced it was a plane that brought them down.

[dickhead 0]

re the last few comments, it sounds like you know more than i about this and i will take your word for it, although i still have doubts about the nature of the collapse but this could be unfounded. I am sure you will agree that the nature in which the 3 towers collapsed is suspect to say the least. I will concede the tower collapse point though, but still I have never heard a sensible reason as to explain what happened to the pentagon, or where the plane from flight93 is.

What really surprises me though, is that if it IS a conspiracy, why couldn't the govt. make a fake video featuring the plane hitting the pentagon? Its almost like they enjoy entertaining the conspiricy theorists.

Using NISTs "findings" as evidence is like using the loose change documentary as evidence. NIST have proven themselves self serving or at the very least incompetent.

[crazyarab 6]

haha I've got a Civil/Structural BE and I'm quite convinced it was a plane that brought them down.

No plane hit WTC 7 yet it still fell in exactly the same fashion as WTC 1 & 2?

Edited September 13, 2009 by crazyarab

[deane30 30]

re the last few comments, it sounds like you know more than i about this and i will take your word for it, although i still have doubts about the nature of the collapse but this could be unfounded. I am sure you will agree that the nature in which the 3 towers collapsed is suspect to say the least. I will concede the tower collapse point though, but still I have never heard a sensible reason as to explain what happened to the pentagon, or where the plane from flight93 is.

What really surprises me though, is that if it IS a conspiracy, why couldn't the govt. make a fake video featuring the plane hitting the pentagon? Its almost like they enjoy entertaining the conspiricy theorists.

Using NISTs "findings" as evidence is like using the loose change documentary as evidence. NIST have proven themselves self serving or at the very least incompetent.

They found 95% of United 93. It was just in very small pieces.

[dickhead 0]

They found 95% of United 93. It was just in very small pieces.

fair enough, 2 out of 3 "plausible." (mythbusters should do a piece on this?)

anyone want to explain the pentagon?

Edited September 14, 2009 by loose36

[huff3r 347]

No plane hit WTC 7 yet it still fell in exactly the same fashion as WTC 1 & 2?

No plane hit it, but as explained already... the JET FUEL fires caused the most damage, and WTC 7 got them as well, they've identified a critical column on the 13th floor which failed, all it took was one column and bam, same thing happens. Try taking out a critical column in the skytower whilst raging fires weaken all the structural steel. Same would happen.

[Cale 36]

Flight 93 was hit by a missile fired by a USAF plane, because fragments of the plane were found over a large area. Also, it is said that the engine was found 2 miles from the crash site, and heat seaking missiles will aim for the engines. And also, eye witnesses say there was fire and smoke coming from the plane before it hit the ground. They also say they saw a military aircraft in and around the area the time the plane went down. A cellphone call from the plane confirms this it was shot down.

I am not sure how trustworthy all that is, but I have read it in many places. Apparently it all came from an article posted on many news sites, but were all very quickly removed, but can be found on internet archive sites.

As for the Pentagon, surely they would have security cameras that filmed at more than 5 fps or whatever rate it is. Not sure why the government would be hiding that one if it was a terrorist hijacked plane. Too many people say it was a plane, and to keep the amount of people in that area quiet, and for that matter, have that many people lie, would be nearly impossible for the US government.

But as has been said, it is the US Government and look at what they have, and what they already are keeping hidden from its country and the world today.

[Guest FrantiC]

I just got my hands on Zeitgeist. Dun Dun Dun.