Tenth Anniversary

[daws101]

it was one of the socks on your side that brought up loose change. So you are claiming what? That loose change is wrong? Hell, we know that; it's what we've been trying to teach you for years. You are wrong...........

loosechange...has some inaccuracys

Some?

all.... How accurate is the documentary, "Loose Change Not very accurate,the film's main claims have been refuted by journalists,independent researchers,and many others.

 

[daws101]

Journalists,[42][43][44] researchers,[8][45] as well as scientists and engineers,[10] and members of the 9/11 Truth movement have spoken out against the film's claims about the September 11 attacks.[9]

Loose Change has been subject to criticism from a variety of different sources. In March 2007, the United States Department of State published an article called "Loose Change Debunked" in which it says that the movie makes "sloppy mistakes".[46] The article is highly critical of the evidence cited to support the claim that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and it criticizes the controlled demolition hypothesis of the World Trade Center claiming that "Demolition professionals say controlled demolition of the Towers that day would have been impossible." The article goes on to say:

"It treats statements made at this time as if they represent reasoned judgments, not impromptu, often poorly thought-through misimpressions and uninformed speculation... In sum, Loose Change is researched very shoddily, making numerous mistakes of fact and judgment. Nevertheless, this has not prevented it from becoming extraordinarily popular."[46]

It goes on to note that Loose Change has also been criticized by other members of the 9/11 Truth Movement, referring specifically to the critique Sifting Through Loose Change.[9] Michael Green, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, has analyzed the film and is critical of many of its claims and methods.[47] Several independent researchers have also written critiques of the film. The Loose Change Guide,[48] created by Mark Roberts, features the whole transcript of the show, along with his comments and criticisms. Roberts also compiled a lengthy selection of interview quotes in which the Loose Change creators elaborate on the claims made in the film.[49]

In May 2006, the blog Screw Loose Change was created to criticize the claims in the film.[50] In collaboration with the creators of the blog and drawing upon the work of Mark Roberts, an edited version of Loose Change which was created with subtitled criticisms.[51] Another analysis of the film has been created by the Internet Detectives.[52] Many of the critiques argue that Loose Change quote mines, uses unreliable or out-of-date sources, and cherry-picks evidence to claim that there are serious problems with official accounts of the events of September 11.[41][47][50][51][52]

One of the many aspects focused on by these critiques is Loose Change's analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center. The comparison to other notable high-rise fires which did not lead to collapse ignores differences in building design, significant WTC structural damage and compromised fireproofing;[41][53] as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F).[54][55] The comparison with Madrid's Windsor Tower fails to note its steel-supported perimeter floors that collapsed during the fire.[56] Kevin Ryan, described by Loose Change as working for Underwriters Laboratories (UL), was actually employed in a water-testing subsidiary.[41] Furthermore, UL does not certify structural steel,[41] and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires.[57] The NIST found no evidence of any firm having conducted tests on WTC materials in the past.[58] Another expert quoted, Van Romero, has clarified that he was misquoted by the Albuquerque Journal; he had actually said that it "looked like" explosives took down the WTC. When the misquote was printed, he felt his "scientific reputation was on the line."[55]

On September 11, 2006, the public-TV network program Democracy Now! broadcast a discussion between two Loose Change creators and two editors from Popular Mechanics, where they debated at considerable length various aspects of the documentary.[41] Jason Bermas claimed United Flight 93 did not crash into the field, and classified Popular Mechanics as a publication in the spirit of Hearst's yellow journalism. "There’s no plane in this open field at all. There’s a ten-foot crater by 16-foot, and there’s just smoke there. So where is this plane?" The opposing argument, also citing specifics, was equally emphatic. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone wrote that the 9/11 Truth Movement: "gives supporters of Bush an excuse to dismiss critics of this administration."

George Monbiot, political activist and columnist for the Guardian, wrote an article on the improbability of the conspiracies cited in Loose Change,[59] and then wrote a follow-up article in response to negative comments from some of his readers.[60] On SModcast, Kevin Smith discussed Loose Change and other conspiracy videos about aliens and various things. However, he maintains that he enjoys the film purely as entertainment, and does not believe or agree with the theories presented in the film.[61] Popular satirical site, The Best Page in the Universe, parodied the movie with a short video "Unfastened Coins",[62] which "exposed" a Titanic-sinking conspiracy, and an article mocking the logic of conspiracy theories in the film.[63] The History Channel aired a two-hour episode on August 20, 2007, entitled "The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction?" featuring interviews with the creators of Loose Change.[64]

In Britain, BBC's documentary television show The Conspiracy Files aired two documentaries focused on 9/11 and the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Several claims made by Loose Change were investigated and specifically rejected. Dylan Avery was interviewed for the program, which cast him in a negative light.[65]

 

[daws101]

They get enough of these guys together and they can peer review the findings....

a true peer review is done by objective groups not by proponents of a theory in an attempt to minimize bias !

 

[daws101]

No shit, he actually thinks he's put up evidence worthy of debunking.

If a guy comes into a conspiracy theory thread and he is a non believer than what could his motivation be?

1. To cause shit
2. To cause derision
3. To get paid as a shill

I am taking the answer that is not listed. "All Of The Above".

I have NEVER seen you once debate anyone with intellect. If you have than copy/paste that for us here.

If your boyfriends want to challenge my statement than they can copy/paste that for us here too.

I know you won't because you can't.

Shill​

Shill​

LMAO!

What, do you think this is our first rodeo with this loony conspiracy BS on this board?

We've fully debunked all this crap many times in the past....You've added nothing that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked up here.......It's the same tired crap with you people, over and over again.

I just come on these stupid threads to remind you people that you're all a bunch of friggin' asshats, nothing more.

And, it's quite disgusting that you cartoon characters would use the anniversary of the attack to further shit on the memories of those who died that day.........You people are disgusting, period...........Let 'em rest in peace, and knock off the bullshit.

couldn't have said it better

 

[daws101]

Actually YOU need more solid evidence, or you'll be stuck in a conspiracy thread forever.

No shit, he actually thinks he's put up evidence worthy of debunking.

If a guy comes into a conspiracy theory thread and he is a non believer than what could his motivation be?

1. To cause shit
2. To cause derision
3. To get paid as a shill

I am taking the answer that is not listed. "All Of The Above".

I have NEVER seen you once debate anyone with intellect. If you have than copy/paste that for us here.

If your boyfriends want to challenge my statement than they can copy/paste that for us here too.

I know you won't because you can't.

Shill​

Shill​

the point of these threads is to debate the merits of the topic.
it is not for you assholes to advertise your products....
if you and your belief cannot stand up to hard scrutiny then stfu..

 

[daws101]

Wait a minute it was 9 after all. LOL!

Read'em and weep!

Tracking the 19 Hijackers - web of lies

Fuckin' LMAO!

So, where are these hijackers?

You really think that not one of 'em would come out and make big bucks doing the media circuit in the US, with such explosive info.
You've proven nothing.

Try again.



Christ, you people are friggin' gullible.

It is up to you to disprove it. I'll wait right here for you to do so.

once again you guy's have it ass backward....you are the plaintiffs it's incumbent upon you to prove your allegations.."we" are under no such obligation.

 

[wihosa]

It is astonishing that those who hold themselves up as the greatest patriots (those on the extreme right, also now know as Republicans) are afraid to respond to this with anything close to rational arguments.

Look, I suspect the Bush/Cheney Administration, but it is entirely possible that rougue elements within the government were operating without their (Bush Admin)knowledge. What is not possible is that Building 7collapsed soley as a result of an office fire. The point is that the only way to find out is with a new investigation conducted by any independent invetigator armed with subpoena power

 

[SFC Ollie]

It is astonishing that those who hold themselves up as the greatest patriots (those on the extreme right, also now know as Republicans) are afraid to respond to this with anything close to rational arguments.

Look, I suspect the Bush/Cheney Administration, but it is entirely possible that rougue elements within the government were operating without their (Bush Admin)knowledge. What is not possible is that Building 7collapsed soley as a result of an office fire. The point is that the only way to find out is with a new investigation conducted by any independent invetigator armed with subpoena power

There is zero physical evidence that there were any controlled demolitions at the WTC complex on 9-11-01.

There is zero audio evidence.

There is zero video evidence.

Unless you've got something the world has never seen or heard before..........

 

[saveliberty]

It is astonishing that those who hold themselves up as the greatest patriots (those on the extreme right, also now know as Republicans) are afraid to respond to this with anything close to rational arguments.

Look, I suspect the Bush/Cheney Administration, but it is entirely possible that rougue elements within the government were operating without their (Bush Admin)knowledge. What is not possible is that Building 7collapsed soley as a result of an office fire. The point is that the only way to find out is with a new investigation conducted by any independent invetigator armed with subpoena power

You would have been a hoot in Salem during the witch trials.

 

[wihosa]

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, it only had superficial damage caused by falling debris from the twin towers.

WTC7 Damage


Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

OK, I've seen all this before and so have over one thousand Architechs and Engineers at AE911 Truth. The damage seen in these videos IS superficial damage, at most only a couple of the multitude of load bearing columns were damaged. The exterior walls of steel frame buildings are called "curtain walls" because the only purpose is to enclose the structure like a curtain, so regardless of the fact that these glass curtain walls were damaged to the height of the eighteenth floor, the building had only minor structural damage. There have been documented fires in steel frame office towers before, many which were more "involved" and which burned for much longer times yet never ended in the total collapse of the building.

I've also seen the "debunkers" trying desperately to explain away the obvious - this is the first documented occurence of a steel frame building totally collapsing at free fall speeds into it's own footprint other than by controlled demolition.

Engineers call it an impossibility.

Over 1000 Engineers and Architects? Wow, so many... That must be close to .01% of them.

I don't know what percentage of Architect and Engineers are represented by the over one thousand (by the way, it's up to over 1500 now!) but each one is a Professional with a reputaion to protect.
For people like you who are too vested in the mythology of the 911 attack, even if 100% of all Architects and Engineers said they doubted the official story, you would still believe.

 

[Wicked Jester]

It is astonishing that those who hold themselves up as the greatest patriots (those on the extreme right, also now know as Republicans) are afraid to respond to this with anything close to rational arguments.

Look, I suspect the Bush/Cheney Administration, but it is entirely possible that rougue elements within the government were operating without their (Bush Admin)knowledge. What is not possible is that Building 7collapsed soley as a result of an office fire. The point is that the only way to find out is with a new investigation conducted by any independent invetigator armed with subpoena power

There is zero physical evidence that there were any controlled demolitions at the WTC complex on 9-11-01.

There is zero audio evidence.

There is zero video evidence.

Unless you've got something the world has never seen or heard before..........

Funniest thing is, there is not one witness who worked in that building who has EVER come forward saying that they witnessed any demolition experts rigging the building to explode at anytime.........It takes days to rig a building for demolition. Parts of the building would have had to have been dismantled. It would have been painfully obvious that the building was being prepped for demolition, and NOT ONE WITNESS HAS EVER COME FORWARD.

These loon's are out of their friggin' minds.

 

[wihosa]

It's been tens years and we've all come to accept as fact the story of Muslim extremists pulling off the worst terrorist plot in history. These same "master minds" now can't even blow up their own underwear. Makes one wonder how they were able to be so "succesful" on 9-11.

If it smells like I'm talking conspiracy here, let me assure you, I AM!

Save you tin foil hat comments, I didn't come to this position easily. I have wound up here because it is the only way to explain the facts.

Oh, you think you know the facts? OK, let's start with this one. I stumbled upon it about a year and a half ago and have been researching it ever since. Question: How many office towers collapsed into their own footprint on 9-11? Answer: THREE!
More than 6 hours after the twin towers had collapsed, Building 7, a conventionally built steel frame forty seven story office tower collapsed completely in seconds into it's own footprint.

Building 7 was not hit by an airplane, it only had superficial damage caused by falling debris from the twin towers. There was a moderate office fire of mysterious origin which firemen stopped fighting because somehow it was known that Building 7 would collapse.

This is the first time in the history of steel frame structures that one has completely collapsed into it's own footprint, except by controlled demolition. Even office towers which were completely involved in flames have not collapsed, only Building 7 which only had moderate fires on limited floors.

There is an orgnization called AE911 Truth, it is made up of over one thousand Registered Architechs and Engineers who have disputed the official story and are asking for a real investigation with subpoena power.

I won't try to convince those who refuse to see, I can't make you open your eyes. But if you have the courage of you conviction I suggest you Google 'Building 7' and watch the video of Building 7 collapsing. There are several views, take a look and see if you think this looks like the result of accident or careful planning.

After having researched this extensivley I can say without doubt that Building 7 was no accident, and by extension the Twin Towers destruction was not the result of a "Lucky Strike" by Al Queda.

So now we are supposed to believe without a shred of evidence that 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition?....

A Conspiracy of biblical proportions and we haven't had one person in ten years time come forward to give an interview?

Can a few of you guys put your pointy heads together and explain to us how much explosive material,when and by who was it placed?...Give us something.

Instead these guys say,conspiracy,Haliburton,black ops,thermal nuclear thermite charges...

What a joke.Too bad it's at the expense of over 3,000 dead Americans and their families.

It's a shame actually.

What a shame fools like you check you political bent before you check the facts.

The fact, FACT!!! that not one steel frame building has ever collapsed into it's own footprint in seconds except by controlled demolition is not evidence to you? What do you want, those who were involved to stand up and admit it? To send you an engraved admission? This has never happened before and you don't think anyone should be put under oath in an investigation?

As for the joke, and a sad joke it is, it is that for tens years we have been wasting lives and treasure chasing figments in the desert while those responsible remain un-investigated. If you really cared anything about the 3000 you would demand an investigation by and independent investigator.

 

[wihosa]

True, but it's not only unsportsmanlike to make fun if the mentally ill, it's a bit unChristian.

so what are saying is you are mentally ill and that's why you cant address the facts of wtc 7...so we should not make fun of you ?

Here's the facts:

2 big buildings fall down and go boom right next to it. Pieces of big building fall down and go boom on little building. little building catches on fire. Little building falls down and goes boom.

There ya' have it......Those are the facts.

You're welcome!

And there you have the answer to the question :Could America really be fooled with a conspiracy?

 

[Rat in the Hat]

They get enough of these guys together and they can peer review the findings....

They started their own journal so that they could peer review each other.

 

[saveliberty]

They get enough of these guys together and they can peer review the findings....

They started their own journal so that they could peer review each other.

"So What if Our Metals Expert is a Chemist Times?"

"The One Thingy Couldn't Have Fallen Down Without the Whatsit"

"Blowing Up Buildings, Without Tell Tale Predemolition"

"Finger Pointing for Dummies"

"Just Wait Until We Start Manipulating Data and Video"

 

[SFC Ollie]

OK, I've seen all this before and so have over one thousand Architechs and Engineers at AE911 Truth. The damage seen in these videos IS superficial damage, at most only a couple of the multitude of load bearing columns were damaged. The exterior walls of steel frame buildings are called "curtain walls" because the only purpose is to enclose the structure like a curtain, so regardless of the fact that these glass curtain walls were damaged to the height of the eighteenth floor, the building had only minor structural damage. There have been documented fires in steel frame office towers before, many which were more "involved" and which burned for much longer times yet never ended in the total collapse of the building.

I've also seen the "debunkers" trying desperately to explain away the obvious - this is the first documented occurence of a steel frame building totally collapsing at free fall speeds into it's own footprint other than by controlled demolition.

Engineers call it an impossibility.

Over 1000 Engineers and Architects? Wow, so many... That must be close to .01% of them.

I don't know what percentage of Architect and Engineers are represented by the over one thousand (by the way, it's up to over 1500 now!) but each one is a Professional with a reputaion to protect.
For people like you who are too vested in the mythology of the 911 attack, even if 100% of all Architects and Engineers said they doubted the official story, you would still believe.

Vested in the mythology....... Really? Truth is I have a few disagreements with what the official investigations said. And I have listened to way too many versions of alternate conspiracy theories. Fact is that the official investigations hit all the main points right on. Sorry but there is still no evidence of any controlled demolitions......

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Seriously, these clowns decided that they are qualified to peer review each other.

Journal of 9/11 Studies

 

[saveliberty]

Glad all that Global Warming stuff could be applied to other "science". lol

 

[wihosa]

Over 1000 Engineers and Architects? Wow, so many... That must be close to .01% of them.

I don't know what percentage of Architect and Engineers are represented by the over one thousand (by the way, it's up to over 1500 now!) but each one is a Professional with a reputaion to protect.
For people like you who are too vested in the mythology of the 911 attack, even if 100% of all Architects and Engineers said they doubted the official story, you would still believe.

Vested in the mythology....... Really? Truth is I have a few disagreements with what the official investigations said. And I have listened to way too many versions of alternate conspiracy theories. Fact is that the official investigations hit all the main points right on. Sorry but there is still no evidence of any controlled demolitions......

You've got disagreements? Would one of them be that no one was put under oath during the 911 hearings? When a disaster is blamed on an occurence that has never happened before would you consider that to be evidence of something? I would and anybody who understands the scientific method would also.

Again, no steel frame building has ever collapsed into it's own footprint by any cause other than controlled demolition. That is evidence, so the question is why would you not want a real investigation?

 

[wihosa]

It is astonishing that those who hold themselves up as the greatest patriots (those on the extreme right, also now know as Republicans) are afraid to respond to this with anything close to rational arguments.

Look, I suspect the Bush/Cheney Administration, but it is entirely possible that rougue elements within the government were operating without their (Bush Admin)knowledge. What is not possible is that Building 7collapsed soley as a result of an office fire. The point is that the only way to find out is with a new investigation conducted by any independent invetigator armed with subpoena power

There is zero physical evidence that there were any controlled demolitions at the WTC complex on 9-11-01.

There is zero audio evidence.

There is zero video evidence.

Unless you've got something the world has never seen or heard before..........

Funniest thing is, there is not one witness who worked in that building who has EVER come forward saying that they witnessed any demolition experts rigging the building to explode at anytime.........It takes days to rig a building for demolition. Parts of the building would have had to have been dismantled. It would have been painfully obvious that the building was being prepped for demolition, and NOT ONE WITNESS HAS EVER COME FORWARD.

These loon's are out of their friggin' minds.

If you are so sure why not have a real investigation by an independent investigator armed with subpoena power. You keep repeating that there is no evidence but the evidence is recorded on video... a steel frame building (Building 7) collapsed into it's own footprint and it was caused by something other than controlled demolition (supposedly) for the first time in history.

Why are you afraid of an investigation? Afraid of what we might find out?