Loose Change

Wow.

I was hanging out with a buddy of mine last night that I hadn't seen in ages.

Anyway, we we're screwing around on YouTube and he brought this up. It's a long video, a little over an hour but, damn, it's worth watching it.

Make you think a little, huh?

YouTube - 911 Loose Change (full-length) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE)

I've seen this video. I know I had my concerns I should say about what happened here, meaning DC, the day of. I just know that when I would look at the news in the morning I got more views of traffic in that area then I did of the horrors that occured that morning. I just find it hard to believe that I could see what the traffic was like on 395 that morning but the only view I could get from what happened was that quick flash from about 10 miles away ? Seriously, this isn't the '60's when you could tell someone that a magic bullet did all the work. I'm a conspiracy theorist anyway so naturally I was skeptical about somethings after getting through the initial shock.

After watching that video, I feel like I have been duped and violated by my own country.
If you think about everything after the video, it makes you feel like the Gov. thinks you're stupid enough to just tell you anything and that common sense and the laws of physics and science should be ignored.

Can someone please fill us in on the points of this youtube video. I for one don't have the hour to watch the video, but I would like to know the basic points.

Basically, it breaks down events before, during, and after 9-11. It shows how what the gov says what happened PHYSICALLY could not have taken place. It gives proff as to how the entire thing was a staged event to gain control over the American people and how 9-11 was used to cover up MASSIVE Wall Street corruption and also used to take the gold that was stored in a cache in the basement of WTC.

An hour is a long time but, like I said, you almost OWE it to yourself to watch it.

If people buy that crap then they probably deserve to be duped. I don't know, maybe it's because members of my family were very closely tied to the events of 9/11 that I find it offensive that there are those that want to belittle all the efforts to recover from that by accusing many of those same people with plotting the whole thing through a conspiracy.

Even more so, I think it's regrettable, to say the least, that the direct victims have to suffer the indignity of being part of these ridiculous claims.

Anyhow, here you are jsarno:

Loose Change (video - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(video))

And there is also this:

Screw Loose Change (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/)

You're an idiot if you believe this propaganda. No other way to say it.

Here's a few facts and refutations of this piece of trash film and the rest of the loony dreams. Then come back to reality.

I guess Spain, France, England and the rest of the world are all faking their terrorist attacks too? If the Bush administration took the Towers down, then I also guess that Clinton should have hired better bombers in 1993 since the government is obviously trying to kill us.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102

You're an idiot if you believe this propaganda. No other way to say it.

Here's a few facts and refutations of this piece of trash film and the rest of the loony dreams. Then come back to reality.

I guess Spain, France, England and the rest of the world are all faking their terrorist attacks too? If the Bush administration took the Towers down, then I also guess that Clinton should have hired better bombers in 1993 since the government is obviously trying to kill us.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)

Loose Change - JREF Forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53102)

Did you even watch it? How can you refute blatant scientifical evidence that most of this crap COULDNT have physically happened. 120 tons of stell melting at 2000F because of burninf jet fuel? Wtf ever....did u watch the towers come down? Tell me there weren't explosives in that building and I may call you crazy. Even the firefighters who were there agree.....

If you go around just believing exactly what they tell you, then you've become what they want; a sheep. A dumb animal who doesn't ask questions. Common sense can guide you through a lot of the BS.....

A little fairy came to me and told me that George Bush is Elvis and Barak Obama is Christopher Columbus...pass it on.

(From the Wikipedia article)

One of the many aspects focused on by these critiques is the collapse of the World Trade Center analysis by Loose Change. The comparison to other notable high-rise fires which did not collapse ignores differences in building design, significant WTC structural damage and compromised fireproofing;[48] as most steel loses over half its strength at 600°C (1112°F).[49] Internet Detectives also found firefighters during those fires were pulled back for fear of collapse and that Madrid's Windsor Building comparison does not mention its steel supported perimeter floors collapsed during the fire. Kevin Ryan from Underwriters Laboratories (UL) was actually employed in a water testing subsidiary,[21] UL does not certify structural steel,[21] and ASTM E119 certification is not meant to predict performance in real uncontrolled fires.[49] UL found no evidence of any firm conducting tests on WTC materials in the past.[49] Another expert quoted, Van Romero, has clarified that he was misquoted by the Albuquerque Journal and he had said it "looked like" explosives took down the WTC. When the misquote was printed he felt like his "scientific reputation was on the line."[49]

And there is this:

World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down (http://skeptoid.com/episode.php?id=4085&comments=all)

"No evidence of any explosives were ever found, but the conspiracy theory states that this is because the government took away all the debris before it could be independently tested. Since it's normal for debris to be removed following any such destruction, this particular piece of information is too ambiguous to be given serious weight as proof of a conspiracy."

"None of the videos of Building 7's collapse show any minor explosions. They simply show the top of the building begin to gracefully sag, as if it's made of clay, and then the whole thing drops. So while the manner of collapse may look superficially similar to a controlled demolition at first glance, a more careful examination shows critically important (and non-ambiguous) differences."

"Could a building with such little apparent external damage collapse like this? The photos and videos on the conspiracy theory web sites are from other angles, and show only relatively minor, superficial damage to the building; and even the NIST has said the fire alone would probably would not have destroyed the building. But, let's not forget that Building 7 did have damage: Severe damage, a deep gouge cutting a quarter of the way through the building, ten floors high. Yet even if there was such extensive damage, argue the conspiracy theorists, that fact alone would invalidate the government report. Also from WTC7.net:

"The alleged damage was asymmetric, confined to the tower's south side, and any weakening of the steelwork from fire exposure would also be asymmetric. Thus, even if the damage were sufficient to cause the whole building to collapse, it would have fallen over asymmetrically — toward the south."

This claim forgets that nobody has said the damage alone was responsible for the collapse. According to the NIST report, the initial loss of the columns served only to transfer the building load to the remaining columns, thus exceeding their load bearing capacities, which then gave way after being adequately softened by the fire. In such a condition, the building would have insufficient support throughout. The east side, already sagging, dropped first and pulled the rest of the building down in a slightly diagonal collapse. The conspiracy theorists are correct in that the fall was not entirely symmetric, as it strayed enough to do the aforementioned damage to the Verizon and Manhattan Community College buildings. The conspiracy theorists have hardly proven that explosives are the only possible explanation for the collapse."

And I'll repost this again:

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4)

And there's this:

9/11 Controlled Demolition Theory Debunked (http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/ExplosivesDebunked.html)