Loose Change (video about 9/11 attacks)

[Narz]

Have any of you seen this movie? : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose

I'm only 25 minutes thru thusfar (rarely do I watch a movie straight in one sitting), it's muh more captivating than I imagined though. Certain bits jumped out at me like that people with stock in certain airlines reserved the option to sell (forgot the word for it) at a much, much higher frequency each day leading up to 9/11/01. Their case that a Boeing jet did NOT hit the Pentagon seems pretty obvious now considering the evidence (that I never even thought about this before at all).

Sometimes I wish I could read the minds of the people in power.

What do you guys think of this video?

 

[Yeeek]

I've seen it before.. There's something fishy for sure, to say the least. Now where is the truth? I don't think we will ever know, at least not for years.

 

[Kan' Sharuminar]

That link's not working quite right.

Of course, it's still easy to find the video from there. May watch it later.

 

[Narz]

That link's not working quite right.

Sorry 'bout that, fixed.

 

[ybbor]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

EDIT: last thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161113

from the other thread

This I copied from a March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics in an article called "Debunking 9/11 Lies". It debunks all the major conspiracies that I've heard. This one is about how the buildings weakened enough to collapse, note their use of experts and facts.



“Melted” Steel
CLAIM: “We have been lied to,” announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. “The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel.” The posting is entitled “Proof of Controlled Demolition At the WTC.”

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, not hot enough to melt steel (2750 F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn’t need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength-and that required exposure to much less heat. “I have never seen melted steel in a building fire,” says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse of Burning Buildings: A Guide to Fireground Safety. “But I’ve seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks.”
“Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 F,” notes senior engineer Farid Alfawakhiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. “And at 1800 F it is probably at less than 10 percent.” NIST also believes great deal if the spray oon fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn’t the only thing burning notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of the seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832 F.
“The jet fuel was the ignition source.” Williams tells PM. “it burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down.”

 

[Narz]

Ok thanks, I thought there may have been a thread about this already since I noticed the video was from Jan. Mods can close or merge. I'll check out the other thread. Thanks.

 

[Bugfatty300]

And don't forget http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

[Narz]

And don't forget http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Hmm, I'm not conviced. Also, if they really want to prove a plane hit why not release footage of it (from the gas station or Hilton)?

 

[Bugfatty300]

Of course I didn't expect that to convince you or even make you think about what it has to say, but anyway they do have footage of it.

Regardless, its hard to discount all the people in DC who said they saw a airliner hit the pentagon.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

I guess those people were just mistaken about what they saw huh?

 

[Narz]

Of course I didn't expect that to convince you or even make you think about what it has to say, but anyway they do have footage of it.

Regardless, its hard to discount all the people in DC who said they saw a airliner hit the pentagon.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

I guess those people were just mistaken about what they saw huh?

I don't know, I really don't have enough information, I never made the claim the video I found was also factual. Still, I don't understand why the hole was so small if such a huge plane really hit. Also, where did the wings go? Also, how did it come out thru the back, those noses are pretty soft relitively.

I don't have an agenda or care one way or another about any theories, I'm just curious.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I don't know, I really don't have enough information, I never made the claim the video I found was also factual. Still, I don't understand why the hole was so small if such a huge plane really hit. Also, where did the wings go? Also, how did it come out thru the back, those noses are pretty soft relitively.

I don't have an agenda or care one way or another about any theories, I'm just curious.

Most of those questions are answered in that snopes article.