Loose Change Final Cut!!!!!!!!!!

That's what terrorists tried to do the first time when they put a truck bomb in the basement in 1993. It was easy to implement since there were over-size stories in the five sub-levels where large vehicles could move freely in and out.

The rationale was to try to damage the columns in the basement and get one tower to topple into the other. It didn't work since it's difficult to transfer energy from a single truck bomb to the many steel columns that the towers had (47 in the core and and about 78 in the perimeter in the basement levels).

That approach wouldn't have toppled a tower anyway since it would have started to collapse approximately straight down starting at the bottom if the damage had been large enough in the basement. It would take a long time for a quarter-mile high tower to topple due to its inertia. The tower would have collapsed from bottom to top before it could topple It's not like a solid tree toppling over where the stump and tree are solid all the way through and don't collapse. The damage done by the collapse would still have been severe, though.

They came up with a more creative approach the second time. One approach they use is to try to find a situation where there is a lot of energy available and in a semi-stable form that can be released relatively easily and do a large amount of damage. Sometimes it's the blowing up of a chemical plant. For the WTC towers, gravity was the energy that did the damage.

The top-down collapse they started in the towers did more damage than what would have occurred if they had started a collapse in the basement. Debris ejected at a low speed in a quarter mile high tower that is collapsing from top to bottom can reach a few hundred feet away from the base and damage many other buildings.

.

 

But the '93 bombing was staged as well. Not only were the so-called terrorists in the pay of the CIA, but a taped conversation recorded covertly by one of the informants proves that the FBI was working with the terrorists/double-agents to ensure the attack proceeded as planned.

See also:

93 World Trade Center Bombing Foreknowledge (10/28/93 CBS Evening News w/Dan Rather -- YouTube video)

 

Dan Rather is a government shill and CBS is just another corporate controlled media outlet constantly spewing talking head drivel.

 

Which is why the story only received a few minutes of coverage then was never heard about again.

 

That is exactly how they ordered it. They are sure pulling your strings. Or were you sent here to push their agenda?

 

"In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary. The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition." -Phil Molé

Yeah, but the video tape lies. All this proves is that the the photos and videotape have been edited by those involved in the conspiracy. Right?

 

I'm OK with it. I wish they would do explicit inflation targetting.

I'm sure he would say the same about you.

Like many conspiracy theorists, you like to make up facts. Like this one. I've come across people in real life and in the web who were initially taken in by Loose Change, but later realised it was crap. Who are you to say that nobody anywhere in the world has ever changed their mind on 911 troof?

Why not read through the link I gave you? I know why. Because it makes him look like a clown. So why not just pretend you didn't see it rather than responding.

Rat, this is surely one of the most nonsensical, confused arguments you have ever made. You've really outdone yourself.

You come up with a ridiculous, incoherent, contradictory conspiracy and then say "the conspirators deliberately made it ridiculous, incoherent, and contradictory so nobody would believe it!". Its the kind of self serving, circular logic which only a conspiracy theorist could sink to.

 

Like what?

Well genius, they DID topple over and destroy neighboring buildings. Why do you think WTC 7 was so heavily damaged and on fire? Why were four other buildings on the WTC plaza so heavily damaged they had to be torn down? Why don't you have a clue what you are talking about?

No, you are still projecting views onto me.

No its not. Like Rat, you don't even know what you are referring to when you say the "Federal Reserve".

First of all, you don't even know what the "it" you are referring to is (the Federal Reserve System has several components, it is not one institution), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (which is the controlling body) IS an agency of the Federal Government just like the FCC or the Postal Service, and money is printed by the Mint (coins) and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (paper currency), both of which are part of the Treasury. Could you have fit more errors into a single sentence if you tried?

A total lie. You are just repeating what you hear on conspiracy websites.

The Federal Reserve System is not a person, and income taxes are for people. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

Do all four versions of Loose Change suggest that missiles were fired from AA11 and AA175 into the towers at the exact moment before impact?

 

Why should they, it's unconstitutional.

 

Is it true that in Loose Change Final Cut, they interview witnesses and actually admit that an airplane did actually hit the Pentagon?

 

No, that is not true. There were people interviewed who claimed to see a plane. There was also air traffic controllers who said that what was alleged to be Flight 77 was displaying characteristics (based on speed and maneuvering) indicative of a military plane and not a Boeing 757. So no, they didn't "admit" that a plane hit the Pentagon, and they would be foolish to do so as there is no proof of this. 757s cannot descend 7,000 feet while making 330 degree turns in a matter of about two and a half minutes, only to fly inches off the ground to slam perfectly into the Pentagon. After looking at all the evidence, I would say you would either have to be in denial or pretty damn gullible to think a 757 slammed into the Pentagon.

The pilot of this plane could not even fly a single engine Cesna, yet he managed to pull off a stunt that the most seasoned pilots would never dream of pulling off? If you believe this, then I have some oceanfront property in the Sahara to sell you.

 

If I am correct you are referring to the interview with Danielle O'Brien where she claimed that

She goes on to say that it is UNSAFE to fly a 757 in that manner. This quote is usually the one that is taken out of context by CT's, as if it is a reference to the performance parameters of a 757.

Again, this is another quote that is typically taken out of context by CT's. Sounds familiar to information given by Hani Hanjour's Flight Instructors Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner.

The Chief Flight Instructor at Freeway Airport was quoted as saying

 

By the way, I found no need to cite that information. It was taken from the same sources that 9/11 "truthers" acquired it from. I just eliminated the "truth" filter. (aka selective editing)

 

"In controlled demolitions, detonating devices weaken or disrupt all major support points in a building at the same time. Therefore, once the collapse begins, all parts of the building are simultaneously in motion, free-falling to the ground. However, this is definitely not what happens during the collapse of WTC Buildings 1 and 2. Carefully review footage of the collapses, and you will find that the parts of the buildings above the plane impact points begin falling first, while the lower parts of the buildings are initially stationary. The parts of the towers below the impact point do not begin to fall until the higher floors have collapsed onto them. This is not what we would expect if the towers collapsed from a controlled demolition." -Phil Molé


Rat replies:
"Did Hillary approve of this article? If so, then it must be true."

How 'bout this: I'll give you a D+ if you can even tell me the name of the logical fallacy you used in your response to the article. That way you don't have to actually look at video of an actual controlled demolition of a tall building and deal with the fact that the WTC collapse isn't similar in any way.

Wacki:
It was taken from the same sources that 9/11 "truthers" acquired it from. I just eliminated the "truth" filter.

Much like the guy who talked about "pulling" the firefighting unit that was in WTC7 as soon as they realized it was so damaged that it couldn't be expected to stand. The conspiracy theorists edit out most of the conversation so that you can't tell that he's talking about pulling a group of people out of the building.

When the truthers first came out, I took one of their claims at random and researched it. It cited a specific article on a particular newspaper, with date and page. Apparently they thought no one would bother to check the original article. I did. It turned out that the quotes and claims made were completely fabricated, right from the god damn tablecloth.

Are people really so ignorant of the association between the Bush Family and the Saudi royals? Do people really not know that Bush is more Saudi than American? Anyone??!

 

These 'impossibility' statements have become mantras that truthers have taken as fact.

7000 feet is 1.33 miles

2.5 minutes is 0.042 hour

1.33/0.042 = 32 mph

There's nothing unusual about a 32 mph descent speed.

That's a descent angle of about 4 degrees for an aircraft traveling at a nominal speed. The descent angle for a gradual descent is about 3 to 5 degrees.

There are still the stubborn facts that hundreds of people saw a commercial passenger jet hit the Pentagon and no one saw a missile hit it. Not to mention all the fragments of a 757 on the lawn and elsewhere, the passenger plane seen going past the freeway on the gas station video, the people that died on that flight, etc.

.

 

A 330 degree turn in 2.5 minutes amounts to about 0.7 g of acceleration. That's well within the limits for a 757 which could handle a couple g. I posted the math about it a long time ago.

It's not going to stall the engines or tear the plane apart, as some truther sites have wrongly claimed.

.

 

So you admit that there were columns in the twin towers? The 9/11 Commission Report claimed that there were none, that the towers consisted of hollow shafts. Of course that was a lie to cover-up the truth about the columns being blown up and then shipped overseas to be melted down.

Nope! Gravity was not the energetic force that disintegrated (pulverized) the world trade center debris. The towers came down from the top which would mean the lower floors would have resisted the already collapsing floors above them, greatly slowing down the process. The fact that the lower floors offered no resistance (didn't slow down the collapse) implies that the columns were blown up immediately before and during the free fall collapse (disintegration).

All the arguments you're making have been disproved time and time again and yet you operatives keep putting the same arguments out over and over, again and again in hopes that your intended audience hasn't yet heard the opposing viewpoint. Classic disinformation technique.

Oh, and...there WAS an explosion in the basement (eye and ear-witnesses have attested to this) before the 2nd plane struck the south tower. If you watch Loose Change: Final Cut (which is now available for order on dvd) you will hear reports (including from mainstream on-the-ground journalists) that exposions were heard, seen, and felt by many witnesses.

You're right about debris damaging other buildings. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were severely damaged. They remained standing. Building 7 had the least damage done to it and it collapsed symmetrically, at free-fall speed (like the twin towers) at around 5:30pm that day. It was virtually unreported for obvious reasons. The BBC made a huge blunder that day when it reported building 7's collapse about a half hour before it actually did!! When they were reporting it, you could actually SEE the building in the background.

 

Phil Molé:
"The 9/11 Truth Movement often states or implies that steel would have needed to melt in order for the structure to collapse at the speed of a free-fall. While there are varying assessments of the temperature of the fire at WTC, most agree that the temperature probably reached 1,000° Fahrenheit and possibly higher than 1,800° F. Flames of this temperature would be far short of the approximately 2800° F needed to melt steel, but they would have been sufficient to severely reduce the structural integrity of the metal. Best engineering estimates tell us that steel loses 50% of its strength at 650° F, and can lose as much as 90% of its strength at temperatures of 1,800° F.5 Even if we assume temperatures of no higher than 1,000° F during the fire, we would still have more than enough reasons to expect damage severe enough to result in eventual collapse."

Conspiracy theorists refuse to even hear the question.

 

The core and perimeter columns were box columns. It's true that they were hollow. Column doesn't mean it has to be solid. They were hollow squares made up of four plates of steel welded into the shape of a box.

Read the research papers by structural engineers and researchers regarding the WTC. That's a better approach than reading quote mines of truther groups.

.