Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stealth on August 13, 2006, 12:08:24 pm
-
Anyone seen this documentary/movie? version 2 i mean.
i thought it was amazingly done. brings up some points that are just undisputed.
anyone?
-
No, but I enjoyed Maddox's response (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) to said documentary.
-
Bah, the first part of Maddox's argument doesn't take into consideration how stupid the people are.
ex:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,41565.0.html (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,41565.0.html)
Edit: Ok, just finished watching most of the movie, then firefox crashed.:mad: I am going to strongly reccomend watching the movie before deciding that it is incorrect.
-
I always have and still do feel Loose Change is bollocks. It's easy to make any major event look like a conspiracy.
Also, what Ford posted pretty much sums it up. BULL****.
-
I'll throw this in with JFK. Actually, no, JFK at least had Tommy Lee Jones in it to spice it up. Maybe if Loose Change actually cited some sources rather than just highlighting some sections of what are supposed to be news articles and combining with a Deep Throat mystery voice doing an interview, I would actually believe it.
-
BTW, is it "Loose Change" or "Loose Chance"? ::) I've seen it, but I don't remember which it actually was...
I don't think there's anything weird with WTC collapsing. Certainly it was not a controlled demolition... The "bursts" that were mentioned were most likely windows popping because of air pressure inside the collapsing building.
And, just like Maddox said, steel doesn't need to melt to lose its integrity quite significantly. When you add the gaping big holes through both towers, which naturally cut away great part of supporting structures, I'm more or less impressed that the towers kept up that long...
About WTC 7 collapse: It has been said to be the first time when a steel structured building collapses just because of a fire.
Firstly, there's first time to everything; that's not a proof or evidence to any direction.
Besides, I bet multiple tons of steel and concrete were dropped on top and side of the mentioned building...
Then there's the Pentagon's "lost plane" conspiracy. I don't know what people think will happen to a plane that hits and pierces multiple stone walls (they were not actually concrete but some stone, don't remember the name but it's harder than reinforced concrete)? There's not much behind after that in any case. Take a look at this:
Phantom F4 hits a wall at 800 km/h (500 mph) (http://www.jokaroo.com/extremevideos/plane_vs_wall.html)
I'm not the slightest bit surprized that there was "no plane" found at site... The hull material did punch a hole through many of the Pentagon's... pentagons. But it wasn't intact at that point. Instead it was more like a cavity-based explosive, which accelerates a copper cone material into high velocity with an explosive. The plane disintegrated, but the matter still had sufficient momentum to penetrate the walls. It's simple mechanics, really; there's nothing much weird about it.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Factual_inaccuracies
A documentary so inaccurate that 9/11 conspiracy theorists disowned it?
-
It was the TRAINS, I'm telling you the truth.
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/ (http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/)
-
I saw the Loose Change a looong time ago, thought it was pretty good until I read that Maddox' reply some time ago. There's too many conspiracy theories about 911 out there and I've lost interest in it.
-
there are definantly problems with the government explaination, and the entire fact that the government actively ignored the threat that the previous administration warned them about, but without even seeing loose change I call bullocks
[edit]
oh.. and the structural design of the WTC was HIGHLY HIGHLY favorable to it spontaneously coming down like a controlled demolition.. it was a beautiful structural design in that way
-
Gotta agree with Kazan about that. The WTC towers were designed to collapse like that...more or less. They more envisioned some sort of catastrophic fire from inside than someone ramming a plane loaded with fuel into it but they did plan for these sorts of things. The WTC represent the very best in engineering minds really. Yes the buildings collapsed and with that knowledge you could probably build a better building today...but given what they anticipated and knew...they did pretty much what they were supposed to.
For the conspiracy idea to hold weight with me...and I love a little conspiracy theory now and again (anyone read "A Man Called Intrepid"?) you'd have to convince me of why you would want to set charges anyways? The sheer impact of the planes colliding did the psychological damage. The buildings collapsing was I think viewed by many (myself included) watching the TV totally awestruck over the event. When both buildings collapsed I was already resigned to the possiblity that this is what would happen.
The Pentagon conspiracy theory held some more weight behind it because details were so scarce and there were a few unusual bits and pieces to it. And then we started having things come out like ancient symbols on the lawn a few days prior and so forth and I was pretty closed to it from there on. I understand that there are tapes being released from the security cameras anyways.