[jigglyspider] Yet another 9/11 conspiracy video

Raxmei · Post by **Raxmei** » 2006-03-01 02:22am

On Google Video
Over an hour long and one of the better quality presentations I've seen. Repeats the familiar Pentagon missile and WTC controlled demolition theories from years ago. It tries to explain missing plane problem (ie, if the plane didn't hit the Pentagon, what did happen to it), which I haven't seen before. Also insinuates the government took over the planes by remote control, makes accusations of insurance fraud, insider trading, secret gold, and more.
This video is a great deal more sophisticated than the pamphlets and flash animations the conspiracy theorists were putting out way back when. Not only are they not giving up, they're trying harder. I saw this one posted in the wild and people did fall for it.
The video link leads back to the site http://www.loosechange911.com/

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2006-03-01 02:44am

Sophisticated crap is still crap.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2006-03-01 03:01am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Sophisticated crap is still crap.

'tis more ammusing when they actually try though.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2006-03-01 03:02am

I thought that I shold waste some of their bandwith and cost them some money, but they use BT so there is no need to dl their crap.

Damn nuts those sort of people disgust me.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-03-01 06:47am

Here ya go folks... More Tinfoil then at Reynolds Wrap

+http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... &forum=125

It will make your eyes and brain bleed

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-03-01 07:47am

theski wrote:Here ya go folks... More Tinfoil then at Reynolds Wrap

+http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... &forum=125

It will make your eyes and brain bleed

You know, I'm not sure if we're supposed to hotlink there.

Hillary · Post by **Hillary** » 2006-03-01 08:06am

theski wrote:Here ya go folks... More Tinfoil then at Reynolds Wrap

+http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... &forum=125

It will make your eyes and brain bleed

They would make great Fundies with the scale of their self delusion. It is staggering that people allow themselves to believe such tripe. Then they accuse YOU of being naive.

Many, many ordinary people saw these planes slam into the towers in real life - not by watching videos, studying pictures - they were actually standing there watching this happen.

How the fuck can anyone dispute this? Do they think David Blaine performed a mass-hypnosis trick or something? Morons.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-03-01 08:19am

Surlethe wrote:
theski wrote:Here ya go folks... More Tinfoil then at Reynolds Wrap

+http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... &forum=125

It will make your eyes and brain bleed
You know, I'm not sure if we're supposed to hotlink there.

Really.??? since when?

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2006-03-01 12:18pm

For a long time, especially with DU.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-03-01 12:26pm

Hotlink broken. We need neither DU nor it's Right Wing sister in lunacy, Free Republic, storming the gates with retards.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-03-01 12:40pm

SirNitram wrote:Hotlink broken. We need neither DU nor it's Right Wing sister in lunacy, Free Republic, storming the gates with retards.

Understood.. Thanks..

I didnt see that rule anywhere

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-03-01 12:42pm

theski wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Hotlink broken. We need neither DU nor it's Right Wing sister in lunacy, Free Republic, storming the gates with retards.

Understood.. Thanks..

I didnt see that rule anywhere

I don't think we've ever published it, but there's a few sites that are flat out no-nos to link to. Including the sources of our jock-retards and nazi-wannabes that invaded in the days of old.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2006-03-02 08:03am

Forgot to break the one in Hillary's post.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-03-02 08:55am

+http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... eyewitness

Here they are implying that since we saw helicopters flying around the disaster area, they must have been responsible for the collapse of the towers. Moreover, since we heard "booms" from the burning buildings and smoke coming from their bases, there must have been explosives involved.

No argumentarion. Just several minuites of helicopters buzzing around, being pointed to by whoever did the editing, several messages like "another boom -- explosives?" and then "Chopper 4: mission accomplished" when the building came down.

I guess these asstards have never heard of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" being a fallacy, nor that jumping to conclusions is bad form.

Then: "new fire six floors above crash zone - dun dun dun". Like fires don't spread.

After 15 minuites, I had enough.

Tin foil hatter wrote:Scientific analysis is presented in an easy to understand manner.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2006-03-02 09:20am

The second edition. Evidently there's more footage in that one; haven't watched it, so I don't know what's changed.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-03-07 04:10pm

Rogue 9 wrote:The second edition. Evidently there's more footage in that one; haven't watched it, so I don't know what's changed.

Hope I'm not necromanting by too much. Been less than a week, and a coworker directed me to this one today.

I'm trying to ascertain exactly why the various points they're stringing together are...viewed as false. They seem to make a pretty compelling case. The only rebuttal (which I initially saw here on SD.net and accepted as damning to the notion of a conspiracy) was with regard to the steel still losing structural integrity despite not reaching its melting point (which this video does rehash). They do, however, point out that it was certified to retain its strength up to 2000 degrees. Furthermore, they also make a good point in that no highrise in history has ever come down due to a fire. Then again, no highrise in history has ever had jet fuel inside it either. But buildings have burned for nearly 24 hours in the past with fire teams trying to put them out and not fallen. Yet WTC falls within an hour? That just doesn't sound right.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-03-07 04:13pm

IIRC, much of the fireproofing of the steel was stripped away in the impact. And yes, buildings have stood for quite awhile without failing ... but not after large impacts via airliner nor a bunch of extra fuel added to the mix.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-03-07 04:14pm

phongn wrote:IIRC, much of the fireproofing of the steel was stripped away in the impact. And yes, buildings have stood for quite awhile without failing ... but not after large impacts via airliner nor a bunch of extra fuel added to the mix.

Happened to the Empire State Building, actually

theski · Post by **theski** » 2006-03-07 04:15pm

phongn wrote:IIRC, much of the fireproofing of the steel was stripped away in the impact. And yes, buildings have stood for quite awhile without failing ... but not after large impacts via airliner nor a bunch of extra fuel added to the mix.

and the building was designed to Pancake.. once the outside frame started to sag.. It chain reactioned..

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2006-03-07 04:19pm

McC wrote:
phongn wrote:IIRC, much of the fireproofing of the steel was stripped away in the impact. And yes, buildings have stood for quite awhile without failing ... but not after large impacts via airliner nor a bunch of extra fuel added to the mix.
Happened to the Empire State Building, actually

The B-25 is MUCH less massive than the airliners. And had much less fuel.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-03-10 10:45am

So, this still doesn't feel settled to me. Said coworker and I have been debating back and forth since before I posted on the topic, and she continues to bring up points that I have a hard time finding satisfying answers to (to both her, but more importantly myself). Evidently, a physicist at BYU named Steven Jones gave a lecture series on the topic. I'm currently listening to this lecture, which one can download here. I'd really like to hear thoughts on this. (Here is the website with some pictures and video links, but the video seemed to be taking a long time to download)

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2006-03-10 11:47am

Planes crashed into buildings, and the buildings later fell due to direct damage, colateral damage, and fire weakening the frame.
Why is THIS so hard to believe? Yet some crazy ass conspiracy of guys setting expolsives is easier.

I submit to you you are either massively ignorant about the construction of the buildings in question, and forces they were subjected to, or you have conclusion driven logic of an agenda mindset.
We can cure both here at SDnet, but admitting you are wrong is the first step in your recovery.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2006-03-10 11:55am

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:Planes crashed into buildings, and the buildings later fell due to direct damage, colateral damage, and fire weakening the frame.
Why is THIS so hard to believe? Yet some crazy ass conspiracy of guys setting expolsives is easier.

I submit to you you are either massively ignorant about the construction of the buildings in question, and forces they were subjected to, or you have conclusion driven logic of an agenda mindset.
We can cure both here at SDnet, but admitting you are wrong is the first step in your recovery.

I've spent the last several days attempting to use the construction of the buildings to justify why they collapsed. I, frankly, resent your implication. I want to feel like the explanation I'm getting and giving is 100% accurate. Guess what: there's enough doubt being cast on it for me to not feel that way. If you're so confident in it, walk me through it and explain it to me, pelase.

These are the things I'm hearing: Jet fuel fires don't burn long. Office fires don't burn hot enough to critically weaken structural steel, let alone fireproofed steel. Let alone steel designed to take five times its given load before weakening. Where did the careening top of the first tower to collapse suddenly stop careening? Why was the debris taken to scrapyards before detailed analysis could be done? Etc, etc, etc. Why is it so easy to ask these questions after days of looking into it?

jigglyspider · Post by **jigglyspider** » 2006-03-10 11:57am

I think the best way forward is to find out what most people can agree upon and work back from there.

The things that I think are true regardless are as follows:-

1)The collapse of WTC buildings 1,2 and 7 certainly bear the hallmarks of controlled demolition. Many reporters, emergency service workers and civillians are on tape exclaiming as much - and initially many engineering experts said as much.

2)The FBI, CIA and intelligence agencies from at least 10 other countries knew of an impending attack using planes before 9/11.

3)The official investigation wasn't hopelessly inadequate to satisfy all the anomolies and much of the evidence has now either been destroyed or is whereabouts unknown (many reports of the FBI siezing evidence such as the footage from cameras around the Pentagon).

4)It was fortunate for the hijackers that the air defenses in the north east region were so ineffective due to jets flying too slowly once alerted and that there just happened to be a special exercise on that day that occupied many of the fighter jets that would normally have been available.

5)The big losers from all of this were the Al Queda friendly Taliban, the big winners from this were intelligence agencies, military contractors, and popularity of the Bush administration.

6)Fireman from the scene had gag orders placed on them and victims' families had to take authorities to court in order to get emergency communication records released. Also FBI agents who have come out in public against the official line have also had gag orders placed on them.

7)Many of the officials in various government agencies who failed to prevent 9/11 have since been promoted. No public enquiries or independent investigations have taken place.

The US media doesn't seem to be following up on any of the many anomolies from 9/11. The biggest terrorist event on US soil with so many unanswered and intriguing aspects and the basis of US military occupation in the middle east and yet so few documentaries and investigative reports on the issue.

There are other things that I think we can all agree upon, and maybe some may argue with the points i've made, but if anyone believes that there aren't problems with the official line that deserve investigation I'd like to know which government agency you are working for

jigglyspider · Post by **jigglyspider** » 2006-03-10 11:59am

"3)The official investigation wasn't hopelessly inadequate to satisfy"

I meant:-

"3)The official investigation WAS hopelessly inadequate to satisfy"