Loose change

Remove all ads!

Rabbit: Sure, it's weird, but what was the motive, should our government have blown them up? Why? Because the terrorists had a pretty believable reason, and our government doesn't.

Captain: I think a large steel object flying into the building can blow it up pretty easily. Yep.

 

The problem with this it that the government never can be trusted with the complete truth if it is something that it won't find to its advantage. There is probably more to the story of 9/11 than we really know about. And data about the events of what happened that day that the government refuses to share, especially this particular government.

Most everyone here knows that George II and the administration has used 9/11 for completely unrealated events (like the war in Iraq) and that a lot of people have accepted this on face value at the time (although it has worn thin, even for some supporters). It has been quite shameful, and it only draws more suspicion upon them. It is not surprising that some people are willing to ask the questions raised in the video link - they are worth asking, although what we may be seeing is not accurate.

 

1. "Compells"?
2. We already know the government isn't trustworthy, from far more concrete things than conspiracy theories.
3. I'm not watching a huge video which will not have anything I haven't seen before. It's a waste of time, when I already know the arguments and agree with a couple of them (if not the majority). Clip out the main points into smaller videos and I might watch.
4. Don't be so defensive. Just because I won't watch the video does not mean I am trying to discredit it. It probably has a couple good points; the only thing is that it's highly likely I've seen them elsewhere. Loose Change does not have a monopoly on 9/11 "possibilities", by any stretch of the imagination.

 

there is nothing better then a good conspiracy theory, and when given the history of the CIA the US government is the perfect place to look

 

Since I have dial-up it is extremely difficult for me to load a large video. So I cannot comment on it.

Anyone reading the posts in the Alley will quickly see how many of us don't trust the current government of the USA. How ever if there is a suggestion that our government was involved in the actual destruction of the WTC I find that very hard to believe. If there is concrete proof it should be published. Then let the revolution begin.

Covering up things that the government can't explain or doesn't want to explain is not unusual. Any government.

For many of us this a painful and emotional subject. Of course questions should be asked but let us not get hysterical about it. When the subject was brought up before I did some research and found that there were arguments by experts both for and against.

 

Which is more believable? That the government wired the building with explosives and the jihadis flying the aircraft just happened to crash into the right floor......and that no one noticed the building being wired for demolition? Or that crashing airplanes into buildings tends to knock them down?

Ford had a recent debacle in which it was discovered that, due to faulty design, the Pinto actually exploded in certain types of collisions (the debacle aspect was actually due to the fact that they already knew that and did nothing since "lawsuits would be less expensive than a recall" for anyone who's curious).

Automobiles are subjected to a great number of crash tests before any model is allowed to be released to the public, and poor designs still manage to slip through the cracks from time to time. Aircraft, however, are not put through the same rigorous testing. If there were such "soft" points in an Aircraft design regarding collisions, it would likely go completely undetected due to the utter infeasibility (due to the expense) of actually testing for it in the first place.....and the unlikelihood of a plane ever colliding with a building at full speed in which there would be even a snowball's chance in hell of a single passenger or building occupant actually surviving the collision in the first place.

[ June 13, 2006, 03:24: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Everyone loves a conspiracy theory. Why do you think the Da Vinci Code sold so many copies?

 

i would like to repeat that:

i am interested in peoples take on fringe beliefs and conspiricy theories and how they justify there agreement/disagreement with it

i did not say that i believed this video. also, i am fairly surprised that people already passed judgement before they watch it, and continued not to watch it and make obviously ignorant statements that this video says a plane didn't crash into the WTC... that is not what it's argueing for at all...

 

Of course that isn't what the video states. What they did say, however, was more than a little goofy. The buildings collapsed because aircraft crashed into them at top speeds.....their fuel tanks exploding didn't help either. Who says that the crash would have had to melt beams from the WTC in order to make it collapse? Who said an Aircraft couldn't explode on impact in the manner in which these aircraft did? Who says that two powerful impacts to 2 nearby buildings would not, in fact, shake the foundations of other nearby buildings causing a building which was not hit by an aircraft to collapse? Do those making these assertions have any credible tests to cite? Any legitamate scientific research? Any testimony about foul play within the WTC before the accident occurred? What they are asking us to (dis)believe requires a much greater mountain of evidence (or lack thereof as the case may be) than what was presented in order for me to even begin to take such absurd assertions seriously. These groups are "fringe groups" because what they have to say is completely absurd....and not backed up by real science.

[ June 13, 2006, 06:13: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

no offence Drew, but i personally find it more believeable that the US government carried out these attacks to gain support for bush's own jihad rather then believe that terrorists masterminded a perfect plan to hijack 3 planes in US airspace and then proceed to fly them off course for many miles before ramming them into and destroying buildings in newyork and the seat of the US millitary, the pentagon

 

5 planes, actually. The fourth was crashed into CIA Headquarters, IIRC, and the fifth was the famous flight where the passengers rebelled, preventing it from being flown into the White House.

 

Since I am one of the people who has not watched the video I add my .

I repeat I cannot watch the video. I have not commented on the video itself. Any comments I make are based on our prior thread on this subject. I did do research and as I said there were a variety of viewpoints. One so called expert says one thing and another counters it.

People will believe what they want to believe but as a citizen of the USA I can assure you that if there is valid, concrete proof that the USA Government was in any way involved in the attacks there would be a rebellion.

A bit of sarcasm here. Of course the government crashed planes, blew up our own government buildings.

Drew is correct. If anyone wants this theory taken seriously prove it. Don't just toss out random theories.

I do not need to justify my disagreement anymore than someone agreeing with it has to justify his.

Neither am I a unbiased party. I know people who were killed. I know of a family where children lost both parents. This is not an armchair topic but a real life tragedy. Proof not theory is needed.

 

People can say "Because of the way the buildings were made, they wouldn't have collapsed" and so on, and so forth. However, at the end of the day, Nobody built a tower and crashed a plane into it to test it.

The entire world saw what happened that day. The government had nothing to do with it.

 

I was working for one of the major blue-chip building consultancy companies at the time. NONE of the Civil/Structural engineers were surprised that the towers colapsed after having a plane flown into them. It was actually a surprise that they stood as long as they did.

 

I also work with engineers, and I remember that on 9/11 (prior to either of the WTC Towers actually falling) one of our engineers said, upon seeing the news, "Those towers are going to collapse."

But to finally answer Picard's request:

I am of the opinion that nearly all conspiracy theories are complete rubbish. The reason why these theories are considered "fringe" beliefs is for the precise reason that there exist, other more plausible explanation(s) for what has happened. Such is the case here. I think it is far more logical to believe that planes loaded with jet fuel flying at high speeds into buildings can cause them to collapse more readily than any other cause that can be sited. To think that it was something else is an incredible claim, and as Carl Sagan said, "Incredible claims require incredible evidence."

The other thing that causes me not to believe conspiracy theories (and I'd certainly lump the JFK assassination in here as well) is what others have already mentioned - the huge number of people that would have to be privy to the secret and keep their mouths shut years after the incident took place. I'll leave you with one other saying: "Two men can keep a secret if one of them is dead."

 

Its unlikely (actually highly unlikely) that the government authorised it.

However on 13th May, 1985, Philadelphia police dropped a bomb which missed its target but left 250 people homeless and killed 11 (including 5 children). Apparently a decision was made to let the bulidings burn, which inspired the lyrics (as used by a variety of bands):

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire / We don't need no water / Let the mother****er burn

Okay so the Philadelphia bomb to disarm (or kill) MOVE activists was completely different to 11 September, but it just goes to show that the government is not above blowing up buildings with its people inside.

 

Oh, come on, get real. It is not like most people haven't heard countless conspiracy theories about 9/11 (most of which are complete BS, not worth 5 minutes of your time). Now you want me to go watch an hour and a half movie about the same. Yeah, right.

Also, if you think the new (or old) theories presented in this movie are so fascinating, why do not make a summary of them (which would help the discussion, I'm sure). I think this is a good idea even in the case of people posting about short articles (after all, not all can be bothered to follow the link and RTFA), even more so when we are talking about a freaking hour long movie.

 

I'm with khaavern here. Post the points you feel were revelations. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect us to waste an hour and 21 minutes of our lives for the sake of arguement.

Post what you feel is important within all that drivel and we'll tear it apart for you.

 

I don't care what to believe personally; what's happened has happened. No one would ever be able to prove a conspiracy theory, and if the government was involved, it would have been so well planned out that probably no evidence exists that it did. Anyone involved is bound by the National Secrets Act and I believe that in the US one can be executed for breaching the oath.

All I will say is this:

From my experience with the RAF regiment, and the general workings of security operations, I find it amazing that a plane leaving Boston for LA, flying so far off course (to New York) flew unhindered and unescorted through US airspace to carry out these attacks - in the UK if a plane was flying from Glasgow to London, but was tracked heading for Manchester, regardless of whether it responded to communication, 2 harriers would be scrambled within minuites - even before Sept. 11th this was policy.

[ June 13, 2006, 17:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]