SD on 15/3/2006 at 20:39
Fair enough, I apologise for any offence caused. I do find it a little off that fett is allowed to stereotype us all as nutty conspiracist theories for our beliefs though, when he's so willing to jump down our throats at the merest hint of a slight on his beliefs.
Agent Monkeysee on 15/3/2006 at 23:45
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
I've noticed a few people itt saying things like this; would it be too much for you guys to refute the evidence presented in this documentary, rather than snidely dismissing it out of hand?
They have been refuted by numerous studies, by numerous articles, by numerous websites, by numerous television documentaries, by numerous experts over the last 5 years and if you've never heard of them then you simply haven't been paying attention. I'm not doing your goddamn research for you and to keep throwing the same crap around after it's been shot down again and again is just willful ignorance.
Shug on 15/3/2006 at 23:47
Monkeysee: I'm not coming out here and saying US GOVERNMENT KILLED EVERYONE, QUICK ARM YOURSELVES SECOND AMENDMENT GOD DAMN GOD BLESS AMERICA
But honestly, some of the shit in that doco was very dodgy. It doesn't bear offhand dismissal. Even the "cell phone calls from family UNDER ATTACK" were quite :o :o :o
Agent Monkeysee on 15/3/2006 at 23:48
Quote Posted by Shug
But honestly, some of the shit in that doco was very dodgy. It doesn't bear offhand dismissal.
Very nearly all of them do and they have been refuted elsewhere.
Also half this shit doesn't even stand up if you just remember what you watched on TV. That day. AS IT HAPPENED. Did you all get hit on the head since 2001?
dvrabel on 15/3/2006 at 23:48
Heh. The video does a pretty good job of rebutting itself. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to establish how. I'll just say they found some really clueless demolitions people to quote.
A few other points:
1. The flame temperature for hydrocarbon fuel/oxygen mixes is significantly higher than the melting point of steel.
2. How did the 'cruise missle' that the video claims blew up the pentagon knock over all those lamp posts?
3. Wikipedia says there was $1.6 billion in gold stored in the World Trade Centre. Gosh. That must be true then.
I'm sure I could think of some more if I thought for more than 30 seconds.
steo on 15/3/2006 at 23:56
I think 'Loose Change' would have a lot more credibility if it didn't waste time trying to put forward ridiculous ideas such as the 757 that supposedly crashed actually landing and being evacuated and that it wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon. If it wasn't, then where the hell did the plane go? what about the countless eye witness reports that claim it was a 757.
Having said that, a lot of what was mentioned in the video was very puzzling such as the spotaneous collapse of WTC7, the gold, the training exercises and the lack of any action on behalf of the air-defence.
Shug on 16/3/2006 at 00:57
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Also half this shit doesn't even stand up if you just remember what you watched on TV. That day. AS IT HAPPENED. Did you all get hit on the head since 2001?
How does watching a couple of planes fly into the building completely clear: stripping security off the building in the week beforehand, suspicious phonecalls made from supposedly multiple aircraft, and the possibility that there were more explosions other than the aircraft initially blowing apart on impact? When they slow down the footage of the buildings collapsing, you could certainly explain what appear to be mini explosions as simply debris flying out the side under the pressure of the collapse - that is, until you get reports from firefighters who were right there that they heard a series of loud explosions occurring all the way up and down the building, and had their own people caught in later blasts. Didn't the fire department have a lot of people inside because they thought it would be fine to send men in? Surely they'd have a pretty good idea of what should and shouldn't fuck a building right up
I do agree though, that a lot of material in there is simply conjecture and statements from clueless "eyewitnesses". It's rather useless having a bunch of civilians telling you that "it was definitely a missile that hit the pentagon".
But by all means, if someone has links to DECENT sites that refute at a level higher than opposing those trashy 9/11 flash videos, please link.
edit: I found this (
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html) which looks a bit better than your average "no u" debunking, I'm giving it a geeze
edit2: pretty authorative, and they have a list of their sources - shame nothing was mentioned about the phone calls, though
jprobs on 16/3/2006 at 01:01
Quote Posted by Nicker
So anyone who raises an eyebrow at logical inconsistencies or suppressed evidence or unexplained data are all automatically members of the Apollo Landings Deniers Club or believe that George Bush planned 9-11? This guilt by association makes your opinion remarkably similar to those of the “kooks” you deride and of even less worth since supposedly you know better.
How about contributing a little light to the discussion instead of smoke and heat? Flaming doesn’t count.
Raising an eybrow at inconsistencies or suppresed evidence has obviously turned many into "kooks" .... My evidence is the story/video that the original post is pointing to and to the hundreds of websites that have concluded that the US Government has to have done this. Yep, KOOKS.
There is my "little light" contribution.
Ko0K on 16/3/2006 at 01:28
So, if possibilities are refuted everywhere, than they can be automatically dismissed, whereas the more accepted explanation is automatically indisputable, right? :erm:
Seriously, I'm not trying to start any shit. I just had this understanding that the purpose of this discussion was to allow us to think aloud without being called crazy or stupid.
Furthermore, I don't think any of us here is really confused enough not to believe that the real answers will eventually come from the right people at the right time.
