EPTBush Conspiracy Video - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
Mr.Testie
973 Posts
| ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On March 01 2006 20:18 Mr.Testie wrote: Well the explosive shit just reminds me of the homeless bastards who were like "i heard a mark IV rav tomahawk missile go over head, that was no jet!" Anyone here ever heard a missile fly by? In fact, tomahawk missiles are actually described to sound like a low flying jet. As for explosions, maybe it was steel girders buckling or something. Large chunks of metal snapping in two makes a tremendous pop. Metal does snap rather than bend sometimes. You may not have been convinced but many people heard more explosions, even FOX news. | ||
|
rpf289
United States3524 Posts
On March 01 2006 22:55 NewbSaibot wrote: The metal uses in the WTC was rated to withstand a plane hitting it. Plus, the jet fuel exploded, which is why there was a huge fireball when the planes hit. The amount of fuel still left in the building wouldn't have been enough to do any structural damage past what the plane itself did.Well the explosive shit just reminds me of the homeless bastards who were like "i heard a mark IV rav tomahawk missile go over head, that was no jet!" Anyone here ever heard a missile fly by? In fact, tomahawk missiles are actually described to sound like a low flying jet. As for explosions, maybe it was steel girders buckling or something. Large chunks of metal snapping in two makes a tremendous pop. Metal does snap rather than bend sometimes. The building does not collapse on itself; it implodes. The building was in free-fall, which means the building did not collapse from the top floors where the planes hit, but rather from the base. Take a Jenga set, build it up really high, now take some pieces out of the top. It falls over, right? It takes longer than if you just pull out the corner piece on the bottom. The WTC was imploded. It's been proven. Jet fuel in the top 20 floors doesn't cause the base to give way. The metal would not have melted anyhow. It was fireproofed and rated to withstand those temperatures for hours on end. Twenty minutes and it causes the structural integrity of the towers to give out entirely? I don't think so. You're right that metal will sometimes just snap instead of bend, but I don't see how a fire not burning hot enough nor long enough to even cause any disformation in the metal used in the WTC will cause metal to buckle and snap. The towers imploded, with the planes being used as a mere diversion. There's more than enough evidence to prove other detonations took place. The seismic activity caused by those detonations, shown with the tripod of the video used to tape the collapse of the first tower shows that it wasn't a steel beam buckling because the beams wouldn't have snapped anyhow. They were rated to withstand such conditions. A beam snapping wouldn't have caused that kind of shockwave, but a bomb would have. | ||
|
BlueShift
United States334 Posts
But even if all that is "BS" the visual evidence speaks for its self. I even remember myself thinking when I first saw the footage (right after it happened in chemistry class, my teacher put on the news) "why are they collapsing so neatly?" At the time I was just too shocked by the whole thing and easily bought the govt's story w/o question. Scared people will believe anything to alieviate their fear. It's just much simpler to believe that terrorists attacked the US than our own govt. Further, what about all the shit of those stock options bieng traded at levels many times higher than they normally are in the weeks and days up to 9/11? Why did mayor Juliani recycle the debris before it could even be examined? Why does the FBI claim that they couldn't find the black boxes of the planes, and yet were able to find a paper pasport? Why doesn't the govt want to release the video footage of the security cameras that caught the jet that hit the pentagon? What about those cell phone calls from the planes and the guy who did an experiment showing a 1/100th chance of success of a cell phone working at the planes altitude? What about the flights that hit the WTC not even bieng scheduled to fly that day? Why were there random drills and evacuations of the WTC prior to 9/11? Why were all the bomb sniffing dogs removed from the WTC prior to 9/11? These and the myriad of other unanswered questions cause me to remain skeptical. Furthermore there is no actual proof that the hijackers were on the planes (the FBI even admitted to this). In fact 9 of the supposed hijackers are confirmed to still be alive and doing fairly normal jobs in other countries. Finally, there is soooo much political reason for GWB and company to stage this thing. IIRC before 9/11 Bush was a lame duck president trying to get shit passed in a divided congress (the Democrats controlled more seats at the time). 9/11 doesn't happen, Bush doesn't get shit done, republicans lose power, gg democracy works. But after 9/11 not only did he unite congress in a could of fear, but he was able to boost his approval rating because he was percieved as "defending America from terrorism". Futher he was able to pass laws and create a new department which basically have no other use except to spy on people. Not to mention a free pretext to start a war in basically any islamic country, or any country that "harbors terrorists". If you want to debunk this conspiracy theory answer all these issues first. But I have a feeling many of them are unanswerable. (Though I would honestly love nothing more than for this to be debunked. It's not easy to stomach the idea that your government would kill thousands of it's own citizens. And yet here I am, quite convinced of not only the possibility, but the probability of this exact event.) Now I have refrained from any "personal attacks" and "bias" up till now. I'm simply paraphrasing some of the issues the video brought up. But I am an opiniated person so the following is a biased statment which you may ignore if you don't dig that type of thing. I don't understand how logical, thinking, educated people could so easily refute these issues as a stupid conspiracy theory. These people (you know who you are) seem like brainwashed conservative monkey's rather than the open minded individuals they claim to be. It's very sickening to read some of that, but really that's why our country is in this horrible state. Why we're fighting an unjust, unprovoked war, and why the government has basically a free pass to spy on the private lives of any individual. Why people are bieng held in prisons w/o any formal charge, simply because they are labeled as "terrorists". It's because of people like you, who are too afraid to even question the majority opinion, much less bring about any change. You claim to be be open minded and unbiased? Please. | ||
|
rpf289
United States3524 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On March 01 2006 17:13 matamata wrote: I understand your concern, and although it was true, was there any real, justifiable evidence for people to consider arguments of this? Maybe you unintentionally phrased that wrong, but considering arguments means hearing them out, so ignoring whether or not you agree, yes. I don't like classifying anything as foolish without understanding the arguments, but when the bullshit starts to pile up, and the same type of hand-wavy, focus your attention here while ignoring this, arguments are used, with bad, debunked "facts", wouldn't you say that it is actually on the level of a moon hoax? Was the "support" for the northwoods thing ever debunked or not? Being open to possibilities is one thing, but jumping to conclusions, out of a well established norm, is another. Even though I didn't see this video, I saw others and can imagine that the video was ignoring somethings. That is to be expected by all independent videos, and on a topic this big, covering all sides will take weeks, probably. You're link surely didn't cover every issue completely. Lots of imperfections are to be expected in that type of production anyway. I'm skeptical of you claiming the facts are debunked because these sort of facts take extensive time for that. Additionally, I think it's a bit odd to criticize -_- without actually seeing the video yourself. Although it may seem that he's treating this with a "just a moon hoax" mentality from the get-go, couldn't he have actually thought this through, maybe not before, but in a previous argument? This would not be surprising at all, as the same old arguments are being trotted out again and again. Perhaps you missed his comment on my initial post? The same one you first responded to where I was commenting against '"just a moon hoax" mentality from the get-go'. Although I guess I should be above responding and just ignored him. But how could I when he also called Mynock an idiot, who is clearly intelligent, and did so by making as insubstantial of a point as possible followed by an incredibly naive and useless comment. Especially when Mynock made one of my top ten favorite posts right there! "Too difficult to comprehend :/ Head hurts. Let's just el oh el and go eat a hamburger!" | ||
|
Paragon
United States295 Posts
1) the flight instructor who actually met one of the alleged suicide pilots. He didn't seem like an idiot to me, he didn't say too much, apart from that the person in question had average or below average piloting skills and that his english was poor. The flight instructor didn't seem like he knew his shit to me. The building does not collapse on itself; it implodes. im·plode Audio pronunciation of "implode" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pld) v. im·plod·ed, im·plod·ing, im·plodes v. intr. To collapse inward violently. v. tr. 1. To cause to collapse inward violently. 2. To demolish (a building) by causing to collapse inward. BlueShift, firefighters found three of the four black boxes. The U.S. government just told everyone they weren't found. You know this how?... | ||
|
HowitZer
United States1610 Posts
Historically I have went against my instincts and bought the gov't's story, but after finally sitting down and watching a video all the doubt was removed. I think any rational person would agree the towers were demolished and also that the pentagon was not crashed into by a plane. If you're looking for a rehash of the video you won't get it. You need to watch it on your own especially if you're still unsure about the whole thing. My Dad is a diehard supporter of our gov't, but he listens to what I have to say. I can imagine his reaction to the overwelhming evidence supporting a self inflicted attack. It's hard to comprehend how people could do this, but the evidence is just too strong. I'm going to do what the maker said and spread this around. I want the truth to come out and for people to be held accountable. And MyLostTemple I feel the same way you do man. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
And as a student my self in physics...There is no fucking way in hell, not a chance that a massive building like the WTC would "fall" in such a way, in just 10 seconds, and in a way like that. another funny thing is that the first wtc that got hit lasted longer then the second one, even though the second one got hit higher up and later then the first one???? now tell me wtf to belive? and this isnt even shit near of what is presented in the video | ||
|
Gunni
Iceland17 Posts
 how the hell did ppl know this was gonna happen beforehand?? | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
You have facts that this was faked? Undisputable facts? Even things which could be facts? Some believable eyewitnesses? SEND THEM TO THE MEDIA IN YOUR COUNTRY. They'll be all too happy to believe that it was a big hoax. And even if they're just believable rumors, they'll get air time, and print space, and coverage. And if it's true, YOU'LL BE FUCKING FAMOUS. Probably rich too. SO DO IT. But you won't, because it's supid. And more people believe that the goverment has done alien autopsies than believe this shit. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
On March 02 2006 07:37 -_- wrote: You guys are ridiculous. When strafe talks about koreans like you do about americans, he's flamed to hell, because it's a starcraft forum, and everybody loves koreans. But since you all hate americans, you're all too eager to believe something STUPID, IDIOTIC, RIDICULOUS, UNBELIEVABLE, RETARDED, MORONIC, NONSENSICAL, INSANE AND 100000000X LESS BELIEVABLE THAN A FAKED MOON LANDING. You have facts that this was faked? Undisputable facts? Even things which could be facts? Some believable eyewitnesses? SEND THEM TO THE MEDIA IN YOUR COUNTRY. They'll be all too happy to believe that it was a big hoax. And even if they're just believable rumors, they'll get air time, and print space, and coverage. And if it's true, YOU'LL BE FUCKING FAMOUS. Probably rich too. SO DO IT. But you won't, because it's supid. And more people believe that the goverment has done alien autopsies than believe this shit. http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=308 http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=291 http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=282 also download these torrents: http://static.thepiratebay.org/downloadtorrent/3416484.torrent/[911]_-_Fox.News.40.presents.the.911.documentary.Loose.Change.2n.3416484.TPB.torrent http://static.thepiratebay.org/downloadtorrent/3417670.torrent/[911]_-_Fox.News.40.part.two.of.the.911.documentary.Loose.Change.3417670.TPB.torrent they're features where excerpts of the films are shown on Fox 40. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
A WEBSITE GOT HITS A BUNCH OF STUDENTS MADE "LOOSE CHANGE" OR SOME SHIT OH SNAP YOU GOT ME!!! | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
| ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
On March 01 2006 23:12 rpf289 wrote: No, it was not rated to just withstand any ole plane hitting it, it was rated to withstand the largest plane at the time, something like a 717 or 727, a much smaller version of what really did hit it. The 757 did not even exist at the time of the buildings design or creation. The metal uses in the WTC was rated to withstand a plane hitting it. Plus, the jet fuel exploded, which is why there was a huge fireball when the planes hit. The amount of fuel still left in the building wouldn't have been enough to do any structural damage past what the plane itself did. Well that's what we keep hearing, but as the video points out, experts on both sides of the argument disaggree. One says that titanium cannot melt at less than 3000 degrees, and that jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees, end of story. But this wasnt just jet fuel burning in the air, it was an oven of jet fuel, reheating itself. Now they say they "recorded temperatures" as high as 2200 or something, not quite sure how they could have recorded any such thing.The building does not collapse on itself; it implodes. The building was in free-fall, which means the building did not collapse from the top floors where the planes hit, but rather from the base. This part confused me, if the building was in free fall, then it would not have collapsed from the top, but that is exactly what we all observed with our own eye's. The building did not begin to disintegrate at the bottom and drop strait to the earth, which is what a building in free fall does. The entire base was completely stationary. In not one controlled demolition video do we see a building fall from the top to the bottom. They all shift and waver about in the air as the bottom drops and the whole thing being an inward collapse. While i find it highly strange a building like the WTC could collapse the way it did from jets hitting it, i definately dont think it would collapse like that from explosives. Plus, there are aerial videos which show the tv antenna on the 1st tower drop strait into the building as the top begins to crumble. The obvious and even scientific explanation for the buildings unusually clean destruction is that the weight above collapsing on the building beneath caused a chain reaction of destruction. As more and more of the building began to topple in on itself it just aided it's own collapse that much more easily. Imagine you take your jenga set, put your hand strait on top of it, and push down, as you begin to bust it up, add weights to your arm, now you are pushing down even harder, and harder, and harder, the thing didnt have a chance. Finally, if the goverment wanted a "realistic" demolition of the building, why make it controlled at all? Why not just let the fucker tip over sidways and smash down accross half the city? Who gives a fuck? Youre killing thousands of your own people anyway, so what if the building crashes down on 5 others in its path, why this need to make a nice neat tidy little controlled crash, especially when it's obvious people will doubt the believability of it. Take a Jenga set, build it up really high, now take some pieces out of the top. It falls over, right? It takes longer than if you just pull out the corner piece on the bottom. Take a jenga set, and ram your fist through it, then light it on fire. Bad example rpf. The WTC was imploded. It's been proven. Jet fuel in the top 20 floors doesn't cause the base to give way. The metal would not have melted anyhow. It was fireproofed and rated to withstand those temperatures for hours on end. Twenty minutes and it causes the structural integrity of the towers to give out entirely? I don't think so. They say the impact of the plane blew all the fireproofing material off of the metal, because again, they did not even conceive of a plane of that size hitting it at that speed. It was even admitted during a previous fire that a decision was made to add sprinklers. What kind of building doesnt have sprinklers? They dropped the ball during design, cut costs, etc. This is exactly their expalantion towards the fire proofing not working worth a shit, poorly built. The towers imploded, with the planes being used as a mere diversion. There's more than enough evidence to prove other detonations took place. The seismic activity caused by those detonations, shown with the tripod of the video used to tape the collapse of the first tower shows that it wasn't a steel beam buckling because the beams wouldn't have snapped anyhow. They were rated to withstand such conditions. A beam snapping wouldn't have caused that kind of shockwave, but a bomb would have. The tripod thing is the worst science ever. Sound travels slower than the speed of light, yes? So if explosions caused the building to collapse, and a shockwave from the explosions caused her camera to shake, we would have seen the building collapse BEFORE the blast was felt by the camera, not the other way around. Not to mention the fact it could have been a gust of wind, or if any explosions like that took place everyone and their grandma would claim they heard it, windows would be shattered for blocks, etc etc. | ||
|
NewbSaibot
3849 Posts
| ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On March 02 2006 09:26 distant_voice wrote: exactly ... I hate it when people try giving a bunch of links because it makes them look they posted something worthwhile, but in reality their stuff is shit. The onion is a better source for news than the crap you gave me. | ||
|
distant_voice
Germany2521 Posts
and about the collapse: you're right in that the building didn't go down because of one big explosion somewhere in the basement. However the video doesn't claim that and I don't think that's the way a controlled demolition works. Else the various small explosions they highlight in the videos of the collapsing building wouldn't make sense. I guess what they suggest is that at some point in time the previously planted bombs in say the 95th storey are set off. The antenna and the topmost part of the building start falling at nearly free fall speed. Seconds later the bombs in the 90th storey go off. Then in the 85th and on and on. That what I make of it, and I guess their footage backs this up. Whatever you think about that, a fact is that lots of people (firefighters, bystanders) reported several explosions, not just the impact of the plane and the downfall of the building. And why are the window panes on the bottom floor blown out if it weren't for bombs? | ||
| ||
