Good Video About The Towers Falling
Abookamongstthemany
Posts: 8,209
I'm putting this out there for us to discuss. Could we actually discuss the video and not each other? Even if you disagree with it's theories, it's still very interesting and worth watching.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-6708190071483512003&hl=en
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
But You Might Die Trying
Let's say that there WERE explosives planted in the WTC buildings....the planes alone weren't enough to bring them down.
How can anyone be 100% sure that the bombs weren't planted by terrorists?
No one has stepped up and said "we hit your buildings with hijacked planes AND detonated bombs we had planted".
Instead, a huge chunk of American citizens are believing that their own government is somehow involved.
It's almost funny when you think about it.
To this day I stand by that thought/idea.
They fuck up everything they get their hands on...the conspiracy people give them way to much credit.
Someone, or a very affluent group of someones, are counting on the fact that the vast majority of American's have no idea what a put is, or what all of that activity meant for the people who invested in what would become 9/11. There are people who made EXTRAORDINARY amounts of money from those puts...people who had to know what was about to happen well enough in advance to invest in it, and then just let it happen.
The money tells the story. It is an irrefutable fact that someone with a lot of money knew what to put their money on, and when, just hours before 9/11.
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
I know what a put is. I know what a call is. I'd love to see a link to more info and/or specific stock symbols. This angle isn't well known.
http://killtown.911review.org/oddities/2001.html
• June 2001 - WTC janitor William Rodriguez claims to have been approached in the building by one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.
Janitor tells 9/11 panel of brush with WTC thug
"A hero janitor who helped victims escape from the World Trade Center's north tower before it collapsed told the 9/11 panel that he came across one of the hijackers in the building a few months before the attack.
William Rodriguez, 43, of Jersey City met with the commission for the first time last week.
A 20-year Trade Center employee who swept stairwells, he swears he saw United Airlines Flight 175 hijacker Mohand Alshehri in June 2001 and told an FBI agent in the family center at Ground Zero about it a month after the attacks. He never heard back from the bureau.
Rodriguez said he was working overtime one weekend cleaning rest rooms on the concourse and mezzanine levels when Alshehri approached him.
"I had just finished cleaning the bathroom and this guy asks me, 'Excuse me, how many public bathrooms are in this area?'" Rodriguez told the Daily News.
"Coming from the school of the 1993 [Trade Center] bombing, I found it very strange," Rodriguez said. "I didn't forget about it."
After Al Qaeda's attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Rodriguez recognized Alshehri's mug in newspapers.
"I'm very certain, I'll give it 90%" that Alshehri was casing the towers before the attacks, the WTC ex-porter said." - New York Daily
There are plenty of smart, wealthy and powerful people with their hands in the government. It isn't as simple as Bush is an idiot and Iraq is a fucking mess. Iraq is a mess because they don't have to spend a dime if they don't want to to make it better. They are getting what they want out of the situation just fine the way things are going now. The things this admin has fucked up is due to negligence not stupidity. They will spend money on what they want to spend money on. It's about what is on and off of their agenda not about how corny Bush is. And everyone in the govt or even this admin is definitely not involved in this, this is a group of powerful people.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Secrets cannot be kept forever.
Where I'm not ugly and you're lookin' at me
If our government did it or just had a part in it, and I believe more happened on 911 than just what has been reported, it would have to be the biggest con in world history.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=265576
40:33
I also watched a debate between the Loose Change guys vs. Popular Mechanics editors on democracy now.
from http://www.democracynow.org/article..../09/11/1345203
Go to the site and watch or listen to the segment.
EXCLUSIVE...9/11 Debate: Loose Change Filmmakers vs. Popular Mechanics Editors of "Debunking 9/11 Myths"
Today, a debate about 9/11. Ever since the attacks took place, many people across the country have raised a number of questions about what actually happened on that day in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. Websites, articles, books and documentaries have put forward a variety of alternate theories to the government's account of what happened.
The most popular of these is a documentary called "Loose Change." The 80-minute film first appeared on the web in April 2005. Since then, it has had at least 10 million viewings and is described by Vanity Fair as "the first Internet blockbuster." As the popularity of "Loose Change" has soared, a book dealing with the questions it and others have raised about 9/11 has been published. It's called "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" put together by the editors of the magazine, Popular Mechanics.
Today, we talk about some of the 9/11 theories and the arguments against them.
Dylan Avery, writer and director of "Loose Change."
Jason Bermas, researcher for "Loose Change."
James Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics. Part of the editorial team that produced "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."
David Dunbar, executive editor of Popular Mechanics. Part of the editorial team that produced "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts."
Hear what they have to say for themselves before you read the article in
Popular Mechanics and assume that it is truth.
Here's the main point I got out of it:
JAMES MEIGS: "Yeah. We didn't fact check every detail of Loose Change, but what we did do was look at the broad cross-section of conspiracy theories. There are photographs of the plane in the building of wreckage wrapped around reinforced concrete columns, and there is a map of the path of destruction that plane tore through that area."
Every time these guys were backed into a corner (the transcript does not do the interview justice) they said, oh...these conspiracy theorists... They stayed on message. They did not have much to say when presented with specific evidence presented by the Loose Change guys. I'm not too much into reading one person's point of view, but rather taking many pictures of the same puzzle. Makes for a clearer picture. Why wouldn't you want to entertain one of these theories as plausible. When you shut out other opinions, when you accept as truth, knowledge that is offered to you without doing your own research, the only disservice that happens is that you deny yourself from learning/understanding about other people.
If we entertain the idea that there was a conspiracy of some kind, then what is the big picture? That's what I want to know.
Peace
http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html
old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf
look at page 499, item 130
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines [UAL] on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC [Security and Exchange Commission] and the FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation], aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
Not exactly a smart business move, is it? American airlines was trading around 29.00 a share on sept 10th. (x 115,000 shares= 3,335,000.00)
and from the link you posted...
“… October series options for UAL Corp. were purchased in highly unusual volumes three trading days before the terrorist attacks for a total outlay of $2,070; investors bought the option contracts, each representing 100 shares, for 90 cents each. [This represents 230,000 shares]. Those options are now selling at more than $12 each. There are still 2,313 so-called “put” options outstanding [valued at $2.77 million and representing 231,300 shares] according to the Options Clearinghouse Corp.”
Isn't that a loss overall?
The Puts make sense. Buying the shares doesn't. I haven't thought it through all that much though. Maybe there is a reason they wanted to take a loss. Who knows.
that is really disturbing,...
~Ron Burgundy
naděje umírá poslední
My point remains the same, in that:
A - I'm not saying that the US government was involved.
B - I'm not saying that bombs were smuggled in after the planes hit.
C - I'm not saying that I know everything.
D - All I'm saying is that there is enough 'evidence' out there to suggest, that something else may have happened. And from all the stuff I've seen and read (both sides of the argument), I am 99.99% convinced that the towers would not have fallen just because of the planes hitting them. Its impossible. It'd be easy to prove that its impossible too if we build a scale model of the two towers, scaled down the planes and fire, and see how our models fell.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
A: It wouldn't be ... the holocaust and its post-denial by German and Polish citizens quite easily is a bigger con on those people.
B: Is it really that far-fetched that a modern government would execute its own people for political ends? Nearly every modern society has done so why not the US?
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
contradiction alert.... its not impossible if you have 00.01% uncertainty
are you a structural engineer?
~Ron Burgundy
It is entirely possible that the towers fell without any explosives planted. "Something else" could mean steel being weakened and breaking along said weak points, post-strike.
Um, presumably not on purpose, though!
I am a structural engineer. I don't think there is any reason for suspicion regarding the sequence of events and the way the towers collapsed based on engineering journals I've read and what I see with my own eyes. This is what I recently posted:
1) WTC may have been designed for an accidental plane hitting it in the 1960's, but not a large plane, going full throttle with all that fuel. The building failed because of a gaping whole left the steel structure half of what it was for many floors. The remaining steel left in that area was subject to the temperatures that further compromised it. The weight of the levels above collapsed down, creating momentum and impact loads that the building lower levels could not withstand (pancake effect).
4) The 2 main towers that collapsed created vertical vibrations in the ground that may have effected the 3rd WTC tower. Earthquakes are generally horizontal motion. The vertical vibrations may have caused the 3rd building to spring up and down creating additional stresses to an existing building that was also on fire.
_________________________________________________________________
1) steel impacted and weakened by an explosion has its ultimate failure limit.
2) steel weakened by high temperatures has its ultimate failure limit.
3) steel under both 1 and 2 has an ultimate failure limit that is less than either 1 or 2.
Engineers cannot fully accurately predict how a building will behave under such an event. They can come up with theories and approximations. But they cannot accurately 100% predict how a building will perform under such conditions. There are too many variables. Many assumptions are made, even with computer analyses.
We can't even predict earthquakes yet.
I'll give you an example. A known common steel called A36 has a tensile capacity of 36,000 pounds per sqaure inch.
This means if you pulled on a 1" X 1" steel bar, it would take about 36,000 pounds to stretch it such that if the force is released, the bar would not shorten back to it's original length. Therefore, it has yielded. This is not ultimate failure where it would break in two pieces. That would take about twice the load.
My point is that if you do this test dozens of time in a lab, the actual yield and failure loads would vary significantly - plus or minus 15% would be a guess for talking purposes. That is for one simple piece of steel in a controlled load test.
Think of what the WTC complex steel framing was like, in conjunction with all issues such as connection strength, welds, plating, bolts, strength from secondary elements (partitition walls, window frames, exterior wall system, etc) - then you add in a plane impact, explosion forces, variable heat from a fire. It is beyond science. I'm sure that PHDs, research engineers, chemists, scientists and academia will refute that this is not an unsolvable problem. But those engineers who have real world experience in building design know better.
- Mr. Edward Vedder 7/11/03
http://www.freepressinternational.com/wtc_11152004_manager_88888.html
A Boeing 707:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_707
A boeing 767 (plane that hit the Towers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
Difference in length: 4 - 16 metres
Difference in wingspan: 8 - 12 metres
Difference in weight: Roughly 13000 Kg.
Make your own mind up.
"Behave like rock stars - not like the President." (live - Noblesville, IN - 8/17/98)
--Ed
"Yeah, I was gonna learn to play it (Breath) but somebody slipped me a bottle of viagra and was busy doing something else six times last night" (live - New York, NY - 9/10/98)
--Ed
at about 49 min 50 sec. why does that column look like it was cut at a perfect angle and what is that cooled (once melting) metal running down it? forget the plane for now,...
~Ron Burgundy