It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"Screw Loose Change" video

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11


Btw, sagging is what's expected. This is no breakthrough in structural engineering. What floors don't do, is fail across the board in a single instant and fall straight down and begin to knock out every single floor below without losing momentum the whole time. This is while most of the mass (important variable) is being chucked outwards and IS NOT falling straight down onto lower floors. That's a type of collapse that, without acknowledging explosives, deserves a place on library shelves next to Peter Pan and Cinderella.


Howard, he is arguing an honest point.




posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Yeah, Too bad the WTC towers were not designed like a conventional building.


I know. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to use this great excuse every time someone tries to make a valid comparison to illustrate what fires actually do to steel.

The steel in the Meridian building was subjected to intense fires for 19 hours and didn't fail, but only warped and bent like steel has always been known to do.

On the other hand, there's absolutely no precedent for what happened at the WTC complex on 9/11.

And I guess I should point out that the plane impacts themselves knocked out less than a fourth of what the fires would've had to have done by NIST figures, before you start using the impacts as another great way of avoiding logical discussions on the way the structures responded to fires. Still absolutely no precedent for that.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Be serios please, from terorist like Hani Hanjour geting on the plane with out a ticket to the autopsy that show there were no arabs it's all clear.
the official report is a joke.


Do we have to go through it again?


1) The autopsy report was of identified remains (again it clearly says it on the report, but we only read the bits we want to huh?), as the remains are identified by comparing them to known samples donated by family members of the victims. Without reference DNA they mean nothing.


CBS) Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of Sept. 11 are those of nine of the hijackers.

The FBI has held them for months, and no one seems to know what should be done with them. It's a politically and emotionally charged question for the government, which eventually must decide how to dispose of some of the most despised men in American history.
[....]
Four sets of remains in Pennsylvania and five at the Pentagon were grouped together as the hijackers - but not identified by name - through a process of elimination.

Families of the airplanes' passengers and crews and those who died within the Pentagon provided DNA samples, typically on toothbrushes or hairbrushes, to aid with identification. The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes.

Without reference samples from the hijackers' personal effects or from their immediate families to compare with the recovered DNA, the remains could not be matched to individuals.
www.cbsnews.com...


You'll note that all this is explained by someone from the AFIP, who released the lists under the FOIA a year later, which is what the debate centres on? www.sierratimes.com...
So what you, and some others, are trying to say is that the AFIP are lying when they explain that the Hijackers remains are present but unidentified (due to lack of reference material), but they are not lying when they oh so conveniently "forgot" to include the names on the list a year later right?
Even though they clearly explained previously the situation, it being (I'll repeat it because it seems to have trouble sinking in) that the list is of identified remains?
How exactly do you think DNA testing works? Do you think the persons name comes up on a computer screen with a photo or something?
I guess Dana Falkenberg wasn't on the plane either because they didn't have any identifiable remains of her, right? Why don't you find any remaining family and tell them the good news and see what they say?
I don't understand how this is difficult for some people to grasp? It's not exactly rocket science.

2) Hani Hanjour not buying a ticket is again a myth, or is the testimony of the people that sold it to him just another pesky hurdle to be overcome in the quest for the truth?


Employees at Advance Travel Service in Totowa, N.J., told The Star-Ledger of Newark that Hanjour and Moqed bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 on Aug. 31. Hanjour spoke little English, the employees said, so Moqed did most of talking.

The two tried to pay with a credit card, but it did not get an authorization. They then tried to pay with a check, but were refused. A short time later, they returned with $1,842.25 in cash.

At the men's request, Hanjour was given a seat in the front row of first class.
www.boston.com...


Vague mutterings and rumours are evidence, and solid testimony, science and common sense are just pesky hurdles right?

Exuse my impatience, but it's one thing not understanding or not knowing something - but to keep arguing the point when it's obvious to, well anyone really, that it's wrong seems pretty ignorant to me. And I thought we were about Denying Ignorance.
There's nothing wrong with Freedom of Speech, there's nothing wrong with being open minded, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion. But to keep arguing something that has no founding and evidence proves is wrong goes beyond cute or funny into a very dark and lonely place indeed. Don't you feel a bit guilty seeding and spreading lies which are effectively disinformation?
Don't you feel guilty knowing that some people will read what you say and go away believing it, even though it's grossly inaccurate and false?
What about if a civil war starts up because enough people have been rallied together, does it matter if the majority of the reasons they are acting on are lies, or is that a pesky detail that can be easily overlooked because you've got what you wanted?
This isn't to you personally by the way, this is everyone that continues to seed disinformation based on lies without a care in the world.

[edit on 7-6-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

The steel in the Meridian building was subjected to intense fires for 19 hours and didn't fail, but only warped and bent like steel has always been known to do.


I guess I mised the part where an airplane hit the Meridian Plaza building.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by bsbray11


Btw, sagging is what's expected. This is no breakthrough in structural engineering. What floors don't do, is fail across the board in a single instant and fall straight down and begin to knock out every single floor below without losing momentum the whole time. This is while most of the mass (important variable) is being chucked outwards and IS NOT falling straight down onto lower floors. That's a type of collapse that, without acknowledging explosives, deserves a place on library shelves next to Peter Pan and Cinderella.


Howard, he is arguing an honest point.


No, he is ignoring the struture of the towers. The exterior walls failed in the collapse. that failure caused them to detach from the floors as the buckles in the walls progressed downward.

You can not compare these collapses to any other building



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I guess I mised the part where an airplane hit the Meridian Plaza building.


I'm a psychic!

I knew you would respond with this. That's why I included this in my post:


And I guess I should point out that the plane impacts themselves knocked out less than a fourth of what the fires would've had to have done by NIST figures, before you start using the impacts as another great way of avoiding logical discussions on the way the structures responded to fires. Still absolutely no precedent for that.


But you seem to have just ignored that part.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The exterior walls failed in the collapse. that failure caused them to detach from the floors as the buckles in the walls progressed downward.


Again, do you know how many buckled perimeter columns it would've taken to collapse a single floor?

Answer: For WTC1, something equivalent to about 75% loss of integrity to gravity loads on any one of the impact floors by NIST's own figures. You assert (probably incorrectly) that the gravity loads were divided 50/50 between the perimeter and core columns. So tell me then, what would happen if all of the perimeter columns buckled? That would only be a 50% loss of integrity at most to gravity loads, wouldn't it? The core would have still held the building up, short of 1/2 of it also being knocked out completely. And again -- that's with NO plumb perimeter columns, assuming your gravity load division of 50/50.

And how many perimeter columns buckled on any one floor?

Answer: not nearly enough. Only a handful on any given floor are shown by NIST.


That's a pathetic excuse for global collapse.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Btw, sagging is what's expected. This is no breakthrough in structural engineering. What floors don't do, is fail across the board in a single instant and fall straight down

And unless your seeing something others are not, that's not what happened with the towers


and begin to knock out every single floor below without losing momentum the whole time.

Again, if you watch the videos you would see that's not what happen. I have yet to see any vid where it shows the towers falling at this so called "free fall" speed.
If you look at the building itself (not focusing on all the debris from the outer walls) you will see how the building falls (I know it's a bit hard but...)
far view of north tower
www.youtube.com...
another view
www.youtube.com...

south tower
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

Just a few videos...there are dozens more

Yeah the debris fell at free fall, but the building itself didn't.


This is while most of the mass (important variable) is being chucked outwards and IS NOT falling straight down onto lower floors. That's a type of collapse that, without acknowledging explosives, deserves a place on library shelves next to Peter Pan and Cinderella.

lol, have you ever in your life seen a demo like that with the debris falling like it did? Ever?
Demo explosives would have caused it to fall inward as they are stratigically placed. Unless the explosives were placed somewhere else (outside of the inner core) and in that case, how in the world did they hide them?????

I'd like to see what evidence you have to suggest airplanes being used as explosives wouldn't cause that.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
And unless your seeing something others are not, that's not what happened with the towers


Didn't happen so much with WTC2 at first, but it did with WTC1. Symmetrical from the start.

Watch a video:

www.911research.com...

If you still disagree, then go ahead and disagree. The video is there for everyone to watch for themselves, and decide whether or not that is symmetrical, and whether or not it would necessitate an even column failure across the whole floor to prevent lopsiding.


Again, if you watch the videos you would see that's not what happen. I have yet to see any vid where it shows the towers falling at this so called "free fall" speed.


Please direct me to where I have stated that the towers fell at free fall.

Since I didn't say that, this whole part of your post is irrelevant.


lol, have you ever in your life seen a demo like that with the debris falling like it did? Ever?


Have you ever seen any natural building collapses in the history of the world like that? Ever?

Then we're on the same page here. (The correct answer is "no.")


Demo explosives would have caused it to fall inward as they are stratigically placed.


Not necessarily. Implosion is a general term for demolitions, and not all demolitions are actual implosions.


Strictly speaking, an implosion is an event where something collapses inward, because the external atmospheric pressure is greater than the internal pressure. For example, if you pumped the air out of a glass tube, it might implode.

A building implosion isn't truly an implosion -- atmospheric pressure doesn't pull or push the structure inward, gravity makes it collapse. But the term implosion is in common use for this sort of demolition. In this article, we use the word this way.


Source: How Stuff Works: Implosions

And I could show you many demolitions in which the buildings don't "fall inward" but rather just fall straight down upon their own footprints, or are even blown over sideways when there's enough room.


Unless the explosives were placed somewhere else (outside of the inner core) and in that case, how in the world did they hide them?????


Are you going to argue that the buildings definitely weren't demolitions just because I can't tell you for a fact just how the charges were placed?


I'd like to see what evidence you have to suggest airplanes being used as explosives wouldn't cause that.


Easy: the impacts resulted immediately in fireballs and yet the towers remained standing for about 102 and 56 minutes each if I'm remembering those figures correctly.

If it were the jets acting as explosives that knocked the buildings over, then they would have had to have been magical airplane explosives that wait for about at least an hour before taking effect.

Fires is what you're trying to argue brought them down. I guess I'll just save you some time and frustration there.


[edit on 7-6-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Didn't happen so much with WTC2 at first, but it did with WTC1. Symmetrical from the start.

Watch a video:

www.911research.com...

lol, I showed a long shot for a reason. With a close up of the top you can't see anything!! Nice try though.
(even in that video you can see that the top part almost completely falls into the lower part before the lower part finally begins to collapse)



Please direct me to where I have stated that the towers fell at free fall.

Since I didn't say that, this whole part of your post is irrelevant.

lol, I'll find it in a sec.
But that wasn't just for you


Have you ever seen any natural building collapses in the history of the world like that? Ever?

Then we're on the same page here. (The correct answer is "no.")

So if you've never seen a demo like that ever, then why are you so sure it was a demo??

And I've also never seen planes being used as missiles before. You obviously have as you know exactly what it does to buildings and how the buildings will react. You're special.


Not necessarily. Implosion is a general term for demolitions, and not all demolitions are actual implosions.

I know that. The goal of demos though is to minimize debris. That's not what happened at the WTC.



Are you going to argue that the buildings definitely weren't demolitions just because I can't tell you for a fact just how the charges were placed?

I asked a question.
Since the explosives weren't placed in a way which would stop debris from flowing outward, where were they? Were they placed on the outer walls? They had to be right? How come they weren't noticed?


Fires is what you're trying to argue brought them down. I guess I'll just save you some time and frustration there.


No I'm not. Fires did not bring the towers down (alone). It was a combo of the planes crashing into the buildings, along with the resulting explosions and fires. You have yet to show that planes couldn't do that, so why should I believe you?

[edit on 8-6-2006 by ThatsJustWeird]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
lol, I showed a long shot for a reason. With a close up of the top you can't see anything!! Nice try though.
(even in that video you can see that the top part almost completely falls into the lower part before the lower part finally begins to collapse)


That's what I'm referencing anyway. x.x

All of the support columns on the first floor to fall would've had to have given out at about the exact same time for the floor to fall straight down. Do you understand this? Otherwise, the building would have tilted like WTC2 did from uneven resistance from intact columns.



Please direct me to where I have stated that the towers fell at free fall.

Since I didn't say that, this whole part of your post is irrelevant.

lol, I'll find it in a sec.


Still waiting.



Have you ever seen any natural building collapses in the history of the world like that? Ever?

Then we're on the same page here. (The correct answer is "no.")

So if you've never seen a demo like that ever, then why are you so sure it was a demo??

And I've also never seen planes being used as missiles before. You obviously have as you know exactly what it does to buildings and how the buildings will react. You're special.


I could redirect all of this back upon you. Just drop it.


I know that. The goal of demos though is to minimize debris. That's not what happened at the WTC.


That's because it wasn't a goal at the WTC. The ultimate goal of a demo is only to bring a building down.

People don't demolish buildings because they want to minimize the debris. Makes no sense. Buildings are demolished because people want to bring them down. Thus the point of demos.



Are you going to argue that the buildings definitely weren't demolitions just because I can't tell you for a fact just how the charges were placed?

I asked a question.


And I can't comfortably answer it at the moment. So there you go.


No I'm not. Fires did not bring the towers down (alone).


Of course not, but they main factor according to the theory you're trying to defend. Read NIST. Try to find any major defender of your theory arguing that the planes were equivalent to demolition charges, and not that the fires were ultimately the culprit.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
This is my first post on these boards, been a long time lurker. Now the Screw loose change video makes some great points, while the loose change video really stretched to make points, it seemed more like a Moore film. People keep saying " no building that size has ever fallen due to fire" but why cant these people understand that its internal structure had failed due to a plane being flown into the side of the building. All the physical evidence such as the towers falling and a plane hitting the pentagon I beleive is on the up and up. What you guys need to concentrate on is how the terrorists were able to get on the flight. This is the issue that I feel needs to be looked at. This is where i feel that something is being covered up. This would of been the easiest part of the operation for the government to have their hand in, not planting explosives thousands of pounds of explosives in a building without raising any eyebrows.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
This is my first post on these boards, been a long time lurker. Now the Screw loose change video makes some great points, while the loose change video really stretched to make points, it seemed more like a Moore film. People keep saying " no building that size has ever fallen due to fire" but why cant these people understand that its internal structure had failed due to a plane being flown into the side of the building. All the physical evidence such as the towers falling and a plane hitting the pentagon I beleive is on the up and up. What you guys need to concentrate on is how the terrorists were able to get on the flight. This is the issue that I feel needs to be looked at. This is where i feel that something is being covered up. This would of been the easiest part of the operation for the government to have their hand in, not planting explosives thousands of pounds of explosives in a building without raising any eyebrows.


It wasn't necessarily directly caused by the plane impact however the plane did cause minimal damage to the inner core and substaintial damage to the columns/trusses it initially impacted.

Also, I don't think it was necessarily explosives that could of brought down the building, just key pieces of cutter charges in certain key points (mostly the core), causing the upper portion to become unstable and implode upon itself.

Something you could look at also blue skies that's peculiar is how did one of the terrorist's passports find its way to the ground almost untouched.



posted on Jun, 9 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Loose change was an actual video. Screw loose change was not. It was an infantile attempt to debunk a serious attempt to fathom an irrational act. Screw loose was like Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter going off. Screw Loose used Loose Change completely. Real low budget, snipes about music and making money etc.
In fact Loose Change can and is being downloaded free just to get the word out. Look at the numbers people don't believe it was a coincidence that certain people made trillions of dollars on 9/11 or the follow up war in Iraq. You can try to limit free speech and debunk to your hearts content. The people aren't buying it. If regime change is OK for Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuala, Indonesia, Somalia et. al. why not the US of A.



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
This is my first post on these boards, been a long time lurker. Now the Screw loose change video makes some great points, while the loose change video really stretched to make points, it seemed more like a Moore film. People keep saying " no building that size has ever fallen due to fire" but why cant these people understand that its internal structure had failed due to a plane being flown into the side of the building. All the physical evidence such as the towers falling and a plane hitting the pentagon I beleive is on the up and up. What you guys need to concentrate on is how the terrorists were able to get on the flight. This is the issue that I feel needs to be looked at. This is where i feel that something is being covered up. This would of been the easiest part of the operation for the government to have their hand in, not planting explosives thousands of pounds of explosives in a building without raising any eyebrows.


It wasn't necessarily directly caused by the plane impact however the plane did cause minimal damage to the inner core and substaintial damage to the columns/trusses it initially impacted.

Also, I don't think it was necessarily explosives that could of brought down the building, just key pieces of cutter charges in certain key points (mostly the core), causing the upper portion to become unstable and implode upon itself.

Something you could look at also blue skies that's peculiar is how did one of the terrorist's passports find its way to the ground almost untouched.
There's still the fact that they have to plant explosives without people noticing. How do you propose they went about doing that?



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by XB70

Originally posted by Masisoar

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
This is my first post on these boards, been a long time lurker. Now the Screw loose change video makes some great points, while the loose change video really stretched to make points, it seemed more like a Moore film. People keep saying " no building that size has ever fallen due to fire" but why cant these people understand that its internal structure had failed due to a plane being flown into the side of the building. All the physical evidence such as the towers falling and a plane hitting the pentagon I beleive is on the up and up. What you guys need to concentrate on is how the terrorists were able to get on the flight. This is the issue that I feel needs to be looked at. This is where i feel that something is being covered up. This would of been the easiest part of the operation for the government to have their hand in, not planting explosives thousands of pounds of explosives in a building without raising any eyebrows.


It wasn't necessarily directly caused by the plane impact however the plane did cause minimal damage to the inner core and substaintial damage to the columns/trusses it initially impacted.

Also, I don't think it was necessarily explosives that could of brought down the building, just key pieces of cutter charges in certain key points (mostly the core), causing the upper portion to become unstable and implode upon itself.

Something you could look at also blue skies that's peculiar is how did one of the terrorist's passports find its way to the ground almost untouched.
There's still the fact that they have to plant explosives without people noticing. How do you propose they went about doing that?

bush brothers was incharge of the security,plus I remember some drils going on if I'm not mistaking, security cameras were not working either, when you think of it , it all makes sence.

[edit on 10-6-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
You have any proof of that Pepsi?

Marvin Bush left the security company in fiscal year 2000, and he was on the board of directors, not "in charge of security."

www.911myths.com...



posted on Jun, 11 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   
ok so lets assume that the cameras were off...did they make the security guards on site leave too??? or are the security guards in on it??? these are just simple questions that none of the conspriracy lovers can answer....how did the explosives get into the building with no one seeing them??? our government isnt all that great at keeping secrets and to beleive that now all of a sudden there are no leaks seems kind of strange. Now here are some facts i do know and am certain about. Flight 93 was shot down, i have talked to eye witness's who saw 3 "fighter" planes around the flight. I live in the pittsburgh area so i have first hand accounts of that day. It just seems to me that the a majority of the "truth" seekers focus on the wrong things and give the rest of them a bad rap



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
ok so lets assume that the cameras were off...did they make the security guards on site
leave too??? or are the security guards in on it???


Who knows?

Just because some people look at the collapse footage and feel that it was a controlled demolition, then that doesn't mean they automatically know how it was carried out.

How about demoliton experts disguised as workmen carrying out 'routine maintenance'?



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueSkyes
ok so lets assume that the cameras were off...did they make the security guards on site leave too??? or are the security guards in on it??? these are just simple questions that none of the conspriracy lovers can answer....how did the explosives get into the building with no one seeing them??? our government isnt all that great at keeping secrets and to beleive that now all of a sudden there are no leaks seems kind of strange. Now here are some facts i do know and am certain about. Flight 93 was shot down, i have talked to eye witness's who saw 3 "fighter" planes around the flight. I live in the pittsburgh area so i have first hand accounts of that day. It just seems to me that the a majority of the "truth" seekers focus on the wrong things and give the rest of them a bad rap

There were drils, every one evacuated the buiding, on drils every one leaves.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join