"Screw Loose Change" video

Screw loose change isn't exactely a fair rebuttal of the original video, quite a bit of it just seemed to be pot-shots

I was thinking about the comment asking why the U.S government would use or frame Suadi highjackers and not Iraqi's.....well for a start Afghanistan was attacked first and an oil contract for a pipeline was secured there.

Now don't you think it is perfect to have Suadi highjackers simply because Suadi arabia is an ally and cannot be attacked. So this leaves the gate open for a general run-around of the middle east, to attack wherever 'osama is' , or who has 'WMD's'...or where the freedom hating terrorists are.... lol.

No, there is no direct link between operation northwoods and 9-11. But that was 40 odd years ago! Think of all the other similar or related classified projects that could have been developed since then! Think about what the FOIA could turn up in another 40 years for crying out loud!

All people want is answers. What created molten steel before and long after the collapse of the buildings?

How did the two towers fall at freefall speed, pulverizing 70+ floors of undamadged concrete and steel building into dust?

How did a relitively small fire (compared to other documented case of fires in tall buildings which didn't collapse) pull down WTC7 a building documented as containing FBI offices?

How was the passport of a highjacker found in the rubble of a building that apparently dsintigrated from heat!!!! This highjacker in particular was alledgedly being tracked by the bloody mossad leading up to the attacks lol.

Who the feck was making all the illegal transactions during the attacks?

Who texted the Jewish company warning of the attacks?

Where is all the footage of the pentagon crash?

Someone please answer anyone of these questions for me....I could go on, but I wont. Just keep asking the right questions people ! Some of us need answers. I'm not happy just going back to sleep like some people around here.


[edit on 24/8/2006 by earthtone]

whoops

[edit on 24/8/2006 by earthtone]

As my friends on the other side recently responded on another thread. . .


Read the entire 9-11 forum and you will find that most of those things have been debunked and talked about at length in many other threads. Theres too many things wrong to try to explain.

But otherwise, much love on the HST avatar.

Gonzo Beeyatches

Originally posted by grimreaper797
I suggest you take a look at the guy who made this document up. Allen Dulles....

Super info.


Btw. SCREW Screw Loose Change.


[edit on 6-9-2006 by La Balance]

Originally posted by snoochies
Report:
High-rise Office Building Fire
One Meridian Plaza
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 23, 1991

City of Philadelphia Fire Department
240 Spring Garden Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19123-2991
(215) 592-5962
OVERVIEW
A fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building,
also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire
Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and [size-=5]burned for more than 19 hours. The fire caused three firefighter fatalities and
injuries to 24 firefighters. The 12-alarms brought 51 engine companies, 15
ladder companies, 11 specialized units, and over 300 firefighters to the
scene. It was the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American
history -- completely consuming eight floors of the building -- and was
controlled only when it reached a floor that was protected by automatic
sprinklers.

19 hours? The 38 story highrise DIDN'T even WEAKEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Read the rest here....119 pages .pdf format.Phliadelphia, PA Meridian Building Fire

Funny, I don't see anything about a PLANE HITTING THE BUILDING. Oh, a plane didn't hit that building? Guess that makes this example invalid.

But last I checked the plane wasnt what brought it down, it was heat stress from the FIRE. That was what allegedly brought downthe building, not the plane. Planes have crashed into buildings before. A plane crashed into the Empire State Building before. The thing that the OFFICIAL REPORT is claiming to brought the building down was the KEROSENE FIRE.

And since the Jet Fuel was almost exhausted on impact, and completely exhausted about 10-12 minutes into the fires, with evidence of the smoke color turning more sooty, which is valid.

Astygia, the fires are what caused the building to come down *OFFICIALLY*. If you choose to support this conclusion, care to show the vertical supports (exterior columns) that were sufficiently bowed in enough to enable a collapse to take place? Or are you going to say the fires didn't have to do much damage because the airplane already did enough of that.. because that would be folly.

It's sort of fun to add in the tid-bit of WTC 5 and 6 being ENGULFED, not spotty fires, ENGULFED in flames, and still managed to keep their own.



The point to stand is the fires didn't ENGULF the floors, they were patchy and not completely spread all over the floors, more like pockets of fires and burned inefficiently.

BUT LET'S not steer clear of my point - Evidence of the buckling columns if your fires are what brought down the building?

Asygia, why do you think NIST tries to pin the collapses on office fires?

Give up? Because the planes knocked out less than 15% of the structure in either building, in the impacted regions.

Show me any skyscraper where fire has compromised some >60% of the structure on any floor. I can post pictures from much more severe fires than occurred in any WTC building, and you'll see that fire won't even completely compromise a single column of any significant load-bearing capacity.

Look, I'm no damn expert. But you want to dismiss a plane hitting the building having anything to do with it coming down; people quote things like "what % of structure was damaged" and so on...it's all conjecture, nobody knows, not the NIST and not you. Common sense... you go digging through the thousands of square miles of rubble of the WTC and find which parts were hit by the plane. How the # do you tell where plane damage ends and collapse damage begins? You don't.

I know what I saw, I sat there and listened to sirens go off while watching. Planes hit the buildings, the buildings burned, eventually collapsed. It's horrible, but that's what it was.

My opinion...WTC7 had preplanted explosives. Lots of documentaries have Silverstein admitting to the building being "pulled"...they sure got those structural explosives set awful fast.

But explosives in the WTC? Why even bother with the planes, then? Too many holes in either story for me to embrace 'em.

Show me a building that took a 500mph spreadshot from a 757 and didn't collapse not an accidental hit).

And screw loose change doesn't have to be fair, because the truth isn't always fair.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by Astygia]

"Common Sense" is driven by logistics, statistics, and physics.

Some people have different levels of "common Sense." things that apply to theyre sense of knowledge and understandings of whatever they know.

To the laymens, whos pumped full of the propaganda from the mass media, who went to high school and works at dennys, yeah, a plane might be something that, through "common sense" youd think would take down a building.

But for those with a greater understanding, who dont get spoon fed crap by the media, whom actually look at the data and have an understanding of the laws of physics, strength of skyscrapers, and well, history, youd know that a plane couldn't take down that building.

Even FEMA/NIST don't buy that theory. So on BOTH sides, you have people not believing a PLANE took down the building. The issue now is whether it was weakened steel from fires (NISTs theory) or controlled Demolitions (9/11 scholars theory.)

End of the day, on both sides, the planes did nothing to the buildings that could have brought it down, and both sides agree.

Originally posted by Astygia
people quote things like "what % of structure was damaged" and so on...it's all conjecture, nobody knows, not the NIST and not you.

You can't really dismiss it that easily man. The perimeter columns were exterior. We could see those. NIST modeled the core damage, and even changed the impact trajectories of planes to get the maximum amount of damage they could. Even their worst didn't cause that much damage.

When I say the aircraft impacts did not cause much damage, and give numbers, you can take those numbers as being pretty accurate based on the above information. I even rounded up on the perimeter damages. There is no evidence of any more structural damage from the impacts than what the government has shown. They would surely be the first to tell you if there was.

But explosives in the WTC? Why even bother with the planes, then?

The whole purpose of 9/11, if you back up to look at the grand theme here, would have been propoganda. A military psy-op that allows the US to initiate a series of wars on "terrorism" in the Mid-East. The demolitions were part of this psychological assault: attract amazing amounts of attention with the impacts, and then shock everyone with total destruction of the buildings. Admitting to pre-planted explosives would have resulted in the government investigations (which would obviously result from demand) cutting too close to the parties involved, as there just aren't many ways to blow a building like that, and there aren't many people who can do it, and there are even fewer who could manage to pull it off without discovery.

Show me a building that took a 500mph spreadshot from a 757 and didn't collapse not an accidental hit).

Try both WTC Towers. Neither of them collapsed upon impact.

Again, you are looking to blame the collapses on the wrong events. Read all of the above. It comes back to the fires, always. The impacts simply did not do significant damage. What can you honestly expect with what are essentially thin-bodied aluminum shafts, impacting thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete? Look at the Pentagon.

Uhm. Plane hits building, remaining collumns take on more weight then they were designed to withstand on a day to day basis. Put that along with fires strong enough to weaken the remaining, already under stress steal to half its load capabilities with no fireproofing. Explain to me how it's common sensr that the building would have stayed up.

Originally posted by CaptainLazy
Plane hits building, remaining collumns take on more weight then they were designed to withstand on a day to day basis.

Which is why I reference safety factor ratings. Look up what those are.

already under stress steal to half its load capabilities with no fireproofing.

Steel only loses half its strength at 600 C. The fires may have reached 600 or 700 C, but anyone familiar with thermodynamics could tell you that the steel itself will not reach those same temperatures. There is only evidence of steel heated to as high as 200-some degrees C, and I think that was only two core columns.

Also, last I checked the columns were actually insulated from fire, and the columns were made to take on the extra weight incase some were taken out.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The whole purpose of 9/11, if you back up to look at the grand theme here, would have been propoganda. A military psy-op that allows the US to initiate a series of wars on "terrorism" in the Mid-East. The demolitions were part of this psychological assault: attract amazing amounts of attention with the impacts, and then shock everyone with total destruction of the buildings. Admitting to pre-planted explosives would have resulted in the government investigations (which would obviously result from demand) cutting too close to the parties involved, as there just aren't many ways to blow a building like that, and there aren't many people who can do it, and there are even fewer who could manage to pull it off without discovery.

We could have gone to war anyway. A government investigation? We're talking conspiracy here. The government investigates itself and concludes terrorists planted bombs inside. They've still got the necessary reasons to start a war, still got the plane hitting the Pentagon, which gives an excuse to crack down on aircraft, still got terrorist activity in the states which passes the Patriot Act. This would have been easier to pull off than adding unnecessary planes to the mix.

Show me a building that took a 500mph spreadshot from a 757 and didn't collapse not an accidental hit).

Try both WTC Towers. Neither of them collapsed upon impact.

I didn't say that. I said show me one that didn't collapse, not one that didn't collapse immediately.

Again, you are looking to blame the collapses on the wrong events. Read all of the above. It comes back to the fires, always. The impacts simply did not do significant damage. What can you honestly expect with what are essentially thin-bodied aluminum shafts, impacting thousands of tons of structural steel and concrete? Look at the Pentagon.

Did you know that aluminum burns really well? They use aluminum in bombs to increase the explosive output. Something in the chemical composition just makes it extremely hot upon ignition. Add that to thousands of gallons of jet fuel, all hitting a building at over 500mph.

And in looking at the pentagon, you see a significantly shorter, reinforced concrete-layered structure that was built to withstand bombing. Different building, different circumstances, different plane.

Originally posted by Astygia

Show me a building that took a 500mph spreadshot from a 757 and didn't collapse not an accidental hit).

An Iranian military transport c-130 plane crashed into a 10-story apartment building as it was trying to make an emergency landing Tuesday, ripping open the top of the structure and igniting a huge fire. At least 128 people were killed 34 on the ground.

ABC News

On October 4, 1992 an EL AL 747 freighter crashed in Amsterdam, killing all four people on board and over 50 people on the ground. The cause of the crash was the number 3 and 4 engines separated from the wing, causing a loss of control.

EL AL 646 freighter crash

the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

Plane crashes into Empire State Building

Heres just a few. Some are smaller then others, some in different circustances, but theres many, many planes that crashed into buildings, if you want to do the research, theyre easy to find.

Originally posted by Astygia
I didn't say that. I said show me one that didn't collapse, not one that didn't collapse immediately.

Why didn't the Towers collapse immediately, Astygia?

Was it because you think fires eventually collapsed the buildings, or because you think the impacts themselves collapsed the buildings, from a super-delayed physical reaction in which newtonian laws were suspended?

Physically, the fires and impacts are two totally separate events, despite the fires resulting from the impacts. Hydrocarbon fires are hydrocarbon fires despite their source.

The impacts did not do much damage. I'm going to keep showing you this until you shut up about them, and accept the facts that even the government is handing you on this one. We have images of the exterior columns. Count them yourself. NIST has done their best to present massive damage to the cores and has come up short even after altering flight paths. THE IMPACTS DID NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

Did you know that aluminum burns really well?

Not at 600C or 700C, in sooty hydrocarbon fires.

The people who designed the WTC complex said that the towers were designed to withstand MULTIPLE jet liner impacts.

Video

I heard people on this thread taking about how "badly run" the government is, and how they could never pull of a conspiracy so big and get away with it....

They havent got away with it! Theyve been caught left, right, and center....everyone knows it was an inside job.

Why didnt the government do anything to stop the hi-jackers? Where was NORAD? 2 hours pass and nothing is done, yet if your Cessna goes off course for 15 minutes, youll see how fast you have fighter jets surrounding you.

On October 26, 1999, the famous golfer Payne Stewart boarded a private Learjet in Florida and left for Texas. Shortly after takeoff, Stewart's jet veered sharply off course and began heading northwest. All contact with air controllers was lost. Within 15 minutes of having gone off course, US fighter jets had already intercepted the jet. Everyone on board was likely dead due to depressurization. These fighter jets were dispatched by NORAD, the branch of the US air force whose job it is to monitor and defend US airspace 24 hours a day. NORAD maintains a huge array of land based radar systems and has fighter jets on alert 24 hours a day so that they can respond to a crisis. The jets escorted the doomed airplane until another group of Air National Guard jets took over the escort mission. Finally, Stewart's jet ran out of fuel a crashed in South Dakota. The quick reaction time and military precision with which NORAD intercepted and escorted Stewart's jet was impressive, and exactly what one would have expected from the greatest military power in world history

From: www.the7thfire.com...

But on 911? Nothing! No response at all to FOUR commercial jets, going massively off course for 2 hours....WHY?

I have heard people say that "oh it was an accident they didnt send jets up to intercept those hi-jackers.." Gimme a break.

The government DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES. These guys know what they are doing, they have all the money, all the power, all the resources, all the hidden knowledge they could ever ask for, they know exactly what theyre doing. The only mistake being made is you thinking the government is making mistakes.

Governments get what they want. If they didnt want it, it wouldnt be here, you can rest assured of that fact. Its just the ignorant masses have been so diluded by their mind washing boxes, their televisions, they blindly follow a corrupt government.

If you dont fight them, you are helping them. By doing nothing, they can do what they do. If you dont fight the enemy, you are part of the problem.

[edit on 7-9-2006 by AscendedMaster]

Although I'm a little embarassed, Wolf and bsb, I stand corrected...

Originally posted by bsbray11


Physically, the fires and impacts are two totally separate events, despite the fires resulting from the impacts. Hydrocarbon fires are hydrocarbon fires despite their source.

.

You can not possibly separate the two events in terms of the causes of the collapse. They are inexorably linked.

The impacts did not cause the towers to collapse. . . . by them selves. They needed the fires to complete the task.

The fires did not cause the buildings to collapse. . . . by themselves, they needed the damage to the building from the impact to complete the job.

The impacts did not do much damage. I'm going to keep showing you this until you shut up about them, and accept the facts that even the government is handing you on this one. We have images of the exterior columns. Count them yourself. NIST has done their best to present massive damage to the cores and has come up short even after altering flight paths. THE IMPACTS DID NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT.

The impacts did indeed significantly damage the core structure.

Otherwise how come the stairs were blocked? Elevator cables severed, etc.

In addition, the floor slabs on the impact floors were torn up. Those floor slabs were an important part of the building structure.

It doesn’t take that much to impair a column's ability to support a load. All you have to do is to knock it out of plumb a bit.