View Full Version : Has anyone seen the movie "Loose Change 2nd Edition" ?
Gt1Street
09-20-2007, 01:18 AM
I've stumbled upon it whne flipping channels on the tv, and it was fascinating !
Basicly the movie sums up why 9/11 was a US goverment plot including all the motives and results and proofs, and the way they show it it actually made my skin crawl thinking of those...
I suggest downloading it in high quality or renting it but here's a link to the version they uploaded to Youtube - Loose Change 2nd Edition (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM)
clutch-monkey
09-20-2007, 01:36 AM
haven't seen it yet, but the 1st edition made me lol at it's level of retardism, it was hilarious
Gt1Street
09-20-2007, 01:37 AM
I've heard there were many changes made includin the dropping of several questionable matters...
aiasib
09-20-2007, 03:34 AM
that was an interesting film, but two things stood out as being extra strange, (besides the conspiracy-strange stuff): I've always seen Fox News as the mouth of the republican/conspirator/[illuminatilol] party, so i thought it was strange that the FIRST channel to say that it did NOT look as if a plane had crashed in that field in shanksville, sparking conspiracy flames, was Fox News.
and they were the first channel to.....
to...damn i've forgotten, i'll edit this when i remember
ps: there is supposed to be a 'final cut' version of loose change out this week
Dino Scuderia
09-20-2007, 04:15 AM
All 9/11 conspiracy theories are bullcrap.
Gt1Street
09-20-2007, 04:23 AM
All 9/11 conspiracy theories are bullcrap.
try saying that after you've seen the facts...
Dino Scuderia
09-20-2007, 04:29 AM
try saying that after you've seen the facts...
I've seen the 'facts' ergo my statement.
IBrake4Rainbows
09-20-2007, 04:41 AM
I think you can't make up what happened. bluntly.
where would you hide all the bodies?
Dino Scuderia
09-20-2007, 04:52 AM
I can barely address this silliness because I think there's more credible evidence of the Big Bang than this incredible attempt to muddy up already turbulent waters. Mind numbing nonsense from the conspiracy theorist who are actually conspirators themselves in trying to fool the willing fool. If you're surfing around the internet for actual facts, you will find this crap thrust at you like bait for the lunatic fringe that it is.
IBrake4Rainbows
09-20-2007, 05:01 AM
There is supporting evidence of the Big Bang - not just from crackpot scientists of the misinformed. Bad analogy.
While I agree the conspiracy theorists do little to further the search for the truth in this matter the fact remains that there have always been crackpots who have these ideas - it's just that someone gave these people the internet.thus their way of thinking spreads.
and the wise investigator will see not only what is said, but where it is coming from, before making a judgement. you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think ;)
Dino Scuderia
09-20-2007, 05:04 AM
Wait 'till we reveal to you the REAL deal behind crop circles and the Bermuda Triangle.
IBrake4Rainbows
09-20-2007, 05:18 AM
You mean how they were created by secret societies that are funded by Microsoft - itself an outpost of the Soviet empire?
i've heard them all :D
Loose Change 2nd Edition Viewer Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html)
and
There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)
and
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/outgoing.cgi?u=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html)
aiasib
09-20-2007, 09:57 AM
wait, is the legitimacy of the big bang coming into question here?
lets not put saddles on dinosaurs just yet.
digitalcraft
09-20-2007, 11:33 AM
Its going to be hard to watch after the first one. They sort of blew any credibility they had in the first go around.
TVRs4eva
09-20-2007, 11:40 AM
there's a website somewhere that takes almost every argument presented in loose change and proves why it's twisted and misleading. almost every quote they use is taken out of context, you should see the full statements.
i'll edit my post when i find it, it's pretty hilarious. and yes, i have seen loose change, long before i saw the website disproving it, and i must say the "documentary" doesn't stand a chance. i went in with an open mind.
[EDIT]:
911Myths (http://www.911myths.com/index.html)
Loose Change 2nd Edition Viewer Guide (http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html)
LOOSE CHANGE (http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html)
Screw Loose Change (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/)
go nuts boys and girls.
Jack_Bauer
09-20-2007, 11:44 AM
there's a website somewhere that takes almost every argument presented in loose change and proves why it's twisted and misleading. almost every quote they use is taken out of context, you should see the full statements.
i'll edit my post when i find it, it's pretty hilarious. and yes, i have seen loose change, long before i saw the website disproving it, and i must say the "documentary" doesn't stand a chance. i went in with an open mind.
I think MRR has already posted the link you mean (or at least something very similar) on the first page.
TVRs4eva
09-20-2007, 12:01 PM
I think MRR has already posted the link you mean (or at least something very similar) on the first page.
good call, i entirely looked over that post, sorry sorry. i posted a few links above anyways, the first one is a pretty good conspiracy-disproving site on all levels, and it keeps a pretty objective tone which i respect.
The_Canuck
09-20-2007, 12:39 PM
There is already a thread on ucp about this...well not loose change 2 but about all the bs.
MadMax13
09-20-2007, 02:39 PM
Good vids, proves that all those ****tards that think it was ACTUALLY a plane would be saying that the occurance defeated not only the laws of engineering but the laws of gravity, momentum, etc....
kingofthering
09-20-2007, 03:17 PM
Good vids, proves that all those ****tards that think it was ACTUALLY a plane would be saying that the occurance defeated not only the laws of engineering but the laws of gravity, momentum, etc....
Ok... two planes hit the twin towers. Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel. So... I'd say that yeah... the building's steel columns bent and burned and they've not found, but proven that the planes damaged the steel columns.
Yes, they were planes! OMG new revelation! There were pieces of debris with get this... WINDOWS!!! ZOMFG it's not a conspiracy!
Read the Popular Mechanics report. They cleverly debunk all the conspiracy methods.
As for the crop circles/Bermuda triangle... that was what the aliens used to hide from Mrs. Quiggs.
good call, i entirely looked over that post, sorry sorry. i posted a few links above anyways, the first one is a pretty good conspiracy-disproving site on all levels, and it keeps a pretty objective tone which i respect.
Read the second link I posted which I find to be the most entertaining ;)
Ok... two planes hit the twin towers. Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel. So... I'd say that yeah... the building's steel columns bent and burned and they've not found, but proven that the planes damaged the steel columns.
Yes, they were planes! OMG new revelation! There were pieces of debris with get this... WINDOWS!!! ZOMFG it's not a conspiracy!
Read the Popular Mechanics report. They cleverly debunk all the conspiracy methods.
As for the crop circles/Bermuda triangle... that was what the aliens used to hide from Mrs. Quiggs.
Extremely high heat weakens steel. You can actually see the building bowing outwards shortly before its collapse. The puffs that came out the windows during the collapse are from air pressure changes (not explosive charges) and the list goes on for thousands of points. There are people who still think WW2 was the US's fault and that we provoked Japan (this is not new there will always be a few wackos who can't accept the obvious).
clutch-monkey
09-20-2007, 07:19 PM
ok - specifically for those who think there were demolition charges set - why?
flying aeroplanes into buildings isn't enough to shock the public itno following the so called agenda?
and consider the original loose change was a fictional piece until someone told the guy he could make money and fame by touting it as truth..
interesting link:
The 9/11 Conspiracy (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html)
ok - specifically for those who think there were demolition charges set - why?
flying aeroplanes into buildings isn't enough to shock the public itno following the so called agenda?
and consider the original loose change was a fictional piece until someone told the guy he could make money and fame by touting it as truth..
interesting link:
The 9/11 Conspiracy (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html)
Pointlesswasteoftime.com? Can't get to it because its blocked at my school!
who knows what happened. As if we'll ever find out.
Bush sucks man balls
clutch-monkey
09-20-2007, 08:19 PM
Pointlesswasteoftime.com? Can't get to it because its blocked at my school!
it's worth it :D quite a hilarious writer... :)
MadMax13
09-21-2007, 05:02 PM
Ok... two planes hit the twin towers. Not to mention the hundreds of gallons of burning jet fuel. So... I'd say that yeah... the building's steel columns bent and burned and they've not found, but proven that the planes damaged the steel columns.
Yes, they were planes! OMG new revelation! There were pieces of debris with get this... WINDOWS!!! ZOMFG it's not a conspiracy!
Read the Popular Mechanics report. They cleverly debunk all the conspiracy methods.
As for the crop circles/Bermuda triangle... that was what the aliens used to hide from Mrs. Quiggs.
Did you even watch the vid, have you even heard the experts talk about it?!?!?!. The fact is when a building falls it falls down and out, NOT on top of itself, unless of course the lower half has been weakened. And the Pentagon, give me a ****ing break, i saw the footage on the tele, no plane hit that, and if it did then you would be saying that an entire passenger line disappeared into that hole without leaving ANYTHING outside, not to mention no damage to anywhere surrounding the hole...
MadMax13
09-21-2007, 05:06 PM
Extremely high heat weakens steel. You can actually see the building bowing outwards shortly before its collapse. The puffs that came out the windows during the collapse are from air pressure changes (not explosive charges) and the list goes on for thousands of points. There are people who still think WW2 was the US's fault and that we provoked Japan (this is not new there will always be a few wackos who can't accept the obvious).
However those puffs of smoke contained and explosion, now im guessing theres some explanation to that as well???. Yeah, there we ALWAYS be skeptics, however scinece, god knows how many laws, refute this one in a LIFETIME occurance. Like JFK right, he was shot from high right, yet there were bullet holes in not only the windshield but the firewall as well, supporting the fact that there WAS at least a second shooter...
The_Canuck
09-21-2007, 05:20 PM
Oh and aliens built the pyramids.
However those puffs of smoke contained and explosion, now im guessing theres some explanation to that as well???. Yeah, there we ALWAYS be skeptics, however scinece, god knows how many laws, refute this one in a LIFETIME occurance. Like JFK right, he was shot from high right, yet there were bullet holes in not only the windshield but the firewall as well, supporting the fact that there WAS at least a second shooter...
Err "those puffs of smoke contained and explosion" what are you trying to say. How about 1000s of kgs of jet fuel burning for over an hour and sheer force of impact? Can we stop looking for a scapegoat in the government and just accept the reality that 20 hijackers killed thousands of Americans on their own accord?
If the US government orchestrated 9/11 than they probably would have killed every last person who even suggested a conspiracy theory (I mean hell you killed 3000 of your own countrymen why not a few more to complete the conspiracy and assure secrecy).
MadMax13
09-21-2007, 05:48 PM
Err "those puffs of smoke contained and explosion" what are you trying to say. How about 1000s of kgs of jet fuel burning for over an hour and sheer force of impact? Can we stop looking for a scapegoat in the government and just accept the reality that 20 hijackers killed thousands of Americans on their own accord?
If the US government orchestrated 9/11 than they probably would have killed every last person who even suggested a conspiracy theory (I mean hell you killed 3000 of your own countrymen why not a few more to complete the conspiracy and assure secrecy).
Right, the jet fuel and force of impact caused the main beams to explode in a cloud of smoke and fire, in sequance, from a few floors below the burn area allt he way to the bottom, at all four corners. C'mon, this is a government thats lied BEFORE, DURING, and CONTINUES to lie, i wouldnt trust these ****ers with my shopping list, i wouldnt leave my ****ing plant unattended with them, they could kill a ****ing Cactus. I mean, the first flag was the "responsibility video", theres the old homie OBL claiming it was him, here i am, "TURN UP THE ****ING VOLUME!!!", my mum, "IT IS UP!!!", nothing, the video had no sound, but everyone believed it was that crazy, "anti-American", Muslim raghead the "patriots" have been warning us about admitting he did it...
Right, the jet fuel and force of impact caused the main beams to explode in a cloud of smoke and fire, in sequance, from a few floors below the burn area allt he way to the bottom, at all four corners. C'mon, this is a government thats lied BEFORE, DURING, and CONTINUES to lie, i wouldnt trust these ****ers with my shopping list, i wouldnt leave my ****ing plant unattended with them, they could kill a ****ing Cactus. I mean, the first flag was the "responsibility video", theres the old homie OBL claiming it was him, here i am, "TURN UP THE ****ING VOLUME!!!", my mum, "IT IS UP!!!", nothing, the video had no sound, but everyone believed it was that crazy, "anti-American", Muslim raghead the "patriots" have been warning us about admitting he did it...
Jet fuel is a liquid am I not correct? When the aircraft impacted off course the explosion covered several floors and the beams themselves did not explode just the fuel itself as it spread when the plane was obliterated. In fact much of the structure was intact but the intense heat created by the fire caused the steel to weaken, bow, and eventually fail to support to the remaining floors and pancake the buildings down.
As for the rest of what you said it seems to be irrational paranoia. I think you critiqued my ability to connect the dots in another thread but the fact that the government may have lied about other past situations does not logically imply that they A) lied about 9/11 or B)brought the towers down themselves.
kingofthering
09-22-2007, 02:57 PM
Oh and aliens built the pyramids.
No, it was the Canadians who built them. The aliens were the overseers. Duh.
The_Canuck
09-22-2007, 02:59 PM
Who told you?
kingofthering
09-22-2007, 03:03 PM
Did you even watch the vid, have you even heard the experts talk about it?!?!?!. The fact is when a building falls it falls down and out, NOT on top of itself, unless of course the lower half has been weakened. And the Pentagon, give me a ****ing break, i saw the footage on the tele, no plane hit that, and if it did then you would be saying that an entire passenger line disappeared into that hole without leaving ANYTHING outside, not to mention no damage to anywhere surrounding the hole...
Yes, a plane hit the building and there were debris. They found airplane parts with... get this THE LOGO of the company on them and body parts of the victims.
But I guess the huge hole and blackened area don't count as damage. After all, the building was built to withstand attacks (thus the bomb resistant windows), which is why the damage wasn't that bad.
Go read this (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)
MadMax13
09-22-2007, 03:07 PM
Jet fuel is a liquid am I not correct? When the aircraft impacted off course the explosion covered several floors and the beams themselves did not explode just the fuel itself as it spread when the plane was obliterated. In fact much of the structure was intact but the intense heat created by the fire caused the steel to weaken, bow, and eventually fail to support to the remaining floors and pancake the buildings down.
As for the rest of what you said it seems to be irrational paranoia. I think you critiqued my ability to connect the dots in another thread but the fact that the government may have lied about other past situations does not logically imply that they A) lied about 9/11 or B)brought the towers down themselves.
A building built to the specs that one was would not, under ANY circumstances, pancake STRAIGHT down unless the integrity of the lower floors was compromised, which they werent. And as far as the Pentagon goes, SOME of that plane would have been left OUTSIDE of the hole, however there was NONE, not ONE PIECE of the plane...
The_Canuck
09-22-2007, 03:23 PM
A building built to the specs that one was would not, under ANY circumstances, pancake STRAIGHT down unless the integrity of the lower floors was compromised, which they werent. And as far as the Pentagon goes, SOME of that plane would have been left OUTSIDE of the hole, however there was NONE, not ONE PIECE of the plane...
The Towers were NOT built to withstand planes being flown into them.
and I don't know where people get this shit from but there were pieces of the plane on the outside of the pentagon. However since it's the friggin pentagon it was cleaned up pretty damn fast.
Looks like you've benn gathering all your information from one shaky conspiracy video.
kingofthering
09-22-2007, 03:31 PM
The Towers were NOT built to withstand planes being flown into them.
Well... I hate to play devil's advocate but it was built to withstand a plane. However, this was in the 60's so the plane it could handle was a Boeing 707, which is rather small compared to the 757s used.
A building built to the specs that one was would not, under ANY circumstances, pancake STRAIGHT down unless the integrity of the lower floors was compromised, which they werent. And as far as the Pentagon goes, SOME of that plane would have been left OUTSIDE of the hole, however there was NONE, not ONE PIECE of the plane...
There are plenty of pictures of plane parts outside the Pentagon from landing gear to scraps of the body with the airline name visible. As was mentioned above they were cleaned up quickly and construction of the Pentagon commenced almost immediately.
The integrity of the floors were compromised, they were hit by a friggin 757 and it doesn't take but an even a rudimentary knowledge of physics to understand this.
Well... I hate to play devil's advocate but it was built to withstand a plane. However, this was in the 60's so the plane it could handle was a Boeing 707, which is rather small compared to the 757s used.
He's absolutely correct the towers were built to withstand some aircraft impact and even the steel was covered with fire resistant insulation to protect the building from fire. If I am not mistaken the Empire State Building had been hit by an aircraft by accident at some point and the architects of the Twin Towers took this into consideration. However the 757 is a much larger aircraft and the impact simply obliterated the fire retardant insulation.
2ndclasscitizen
09-22-2007, 06:06 PM
A building built to the specs that one was would not, under ANY circumstances, pancake STRAIGHT down unless the integrity of the lower floors was compromised, which they werent. And as far as the Pentagon goes, SOME of that plane would have been left OUTSIDE of the hole, however there was NONE, not ONE PIECE of the plane...
What do you mean "unless the integrity of the lower floors was compromised"? The floors below the ones that pancaked down had a bloody passenger jet full of fuel crash in to them! And as for wreckage, the freaking thing blew up! What were you expecting, an intact but burnt out 757?
He's absolutely correct the towers were built to withstand some aircraft impact and even the steel was covered with fire resistant insulation to protect the building from fire. If I am not mistaken the Empire State Building had been hit by an aircraft by accident at some point and the architects of the Twin Towers took this into consideration. However the 757 is a much larger aircraft and the impact simply obliterated the fire retardant insulation.
They were designed to withstand a plane coming in to New York and therefore low on fuel, not outbound and full of JP.
clutch-monkey
09-22-2007, 09:02 PM
Like JFK right, he was shot from high right, yet there were bullet holes in not only the windshield but the firewall as well, supporting the fact that there WAS at least a second shooter...
for JFK read the first autopsy, it's pure hilarity - the coroner hadn't had experience with any form of gunshot wound before - he said the first 6.5mm bullet (capable of penetrating 7 inches of concrete or 13 inches of wood) actually fell back out the entry wound...
A building built to the specs that one was would not, under ANY circumstances, pancake STRAIGHT down unless the integrity of the lower floors was compromised, which they werent.
but how to set up a building for demolition without getting noticed? you'd have to do it after hours, ripping out bits of wall to strap ~ 10,000 separate charges in each tower using a team of demolition workers that will stay silent after the attack? not to mention the bomb sniffer dogs had to miss thousands of explosive charges, and it would have taken months to set up?
why not just plant terrorists on the planes, because if flying two planes into the towers isn't shocking enough to get the public behind your agenda, then i don't know what is.
oh my god! planes flew into the twin towers! thousands were killed!
american public: eh.
holy shit! the towers collapsed!
american public: my god, we're outraged! we'll back whatever agenda you have, mr bush.
see what i mean? i don't know if there was any reason to demolish them in the first place, it's kind of a 'bonus'?
no plane hit that, and if it did then you would be saying that an entire passenger line disappeared into that hole without leaving ANYTHING outside, not to mention no damage to anywhere surrounding the hole...
there was, the thing is you have to remember this vid was originally a work of fiction until he got approached by conspiracy nuts to tout it as truth. There was wreckage at the pentagon, just not in the bits of footage.
Sledgehammer
09-22-2007, 09:26 PM
This thread reminds me of zeitgiest. How do the two compare concerning 9/11?
Sledgehammer
09-22-2007, 10:00 PM
Tased student. Lesson in point. Dont be and idiot.
YouTube - University of Florida student Tasered at Kerry forum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscrewloosechange%2Eblogspot%2Eco m%2F)
MadMax13
09-23-2007, 05:35 AM
No, maybe not planes, but it was built to withstand those temperatures, and even if it DID collapse because of the "heat" it still woulnd collapse on itself. I never understand people who always refer to experts to defend arguments but ignore them when they say something they dont want to hear...
IBrake4Rainbows
09-23-2007, 05:42 AM
The fact that the collapse was so neat was a result of how the burn took place - it was over a large area of floors and the pillars weakened due to the heat around the same amount of time and actual heat.
after the first few floors collapsed it was a simple domino effect, and gravity took over.
and for the record it was not built to withstand those temperatures for that period of time.
The_Canuck
09-23-2007, 08:11 AM
Tased student. Lesson in point. Dont be and idiot.
YouTube - University of Florida student Tasered at Kerry forum (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fscrewloosechange%2Eblogspot%2Eco m%2F)
DON'T TASE ME BRO!
No, maybe not planes, but it was built to withstand those temperatures, and even if it DID collapse because of the "heat" it still woulnd collapse on itself. I never understand people who always refer to experts to defend arguments but ignore them when they say something they dont want to hear...
Only heat from a traditional fire on a few floors NOT a plane full of JP burning for over an hour.
Please specify the arguments we are ignoring cause no-one know what the hell you are talking about.
werty
09-23-2007, 11:29 AM
MadMax please read this post
when you talk about the heat from the plane explosion not being great enough to melt steel...YOU need to realize a few things
1.) the towers were hit by a plane with a full tank of jet fuel going 500mph. Your arguement is like suggesting the fuel was simply in the tower already and then lit on fire without any force. Think about how much weight slammed into the steel columns before it was engulfed in flames. The steel didnt stand a chance from the fire after being bent beyond rocognition. It is amazing a building so old was able to stand for 10 minutes, yet it stood for an hour.
2.) same thing with the pentagon, a plane going that fast isnt going to be leaving behind many parts. Loose change shows pictures of other crashes, but those werent aimed at the ground at full speed, with a full tank of gas. When the circumstances change, less plane is left behind. That should be common sense.
3.) I dont understand why you assume the towers and pentagon and even the planes were designed to withstand such a crash. I've seen this arguement time and time again. "the towers were designed to withstand a plane".."the planes shouldnt have been completely vaporized"
NO!!! They were not designed to withstand a plane going 500+mph with a full tank of highly explosive jet fuel. STOP saying that, its not true! The buildings were designed to be businesses and offices. And the planes are designed to fly through air, not through the ground or through a steel and concrete building...again, going 500+mph with a full tank of gas.
I suggest taking a few physics and engineering classes.
EDIT: I must also clarify, YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSPIRACY IS COMPLETE BS.
Rockefella
09-23-2007, 12:45 PM
EDIT: I must also clarify, YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSPIRACY IS COMPLETE BS.
I don't need any formal education to understand that MadMax, or Pininfarina Pimp as his old alias shows, is filled with lunacy.
werty
09-23-2007, 02:08 PM
I don't need any formal education to understand that MadMax, or Pininfarina Pimp as his old alias shows, is filled with lunacy.
haha, no joke:p
kingofthering
09-23-2007, 03:23 PM
No, maybe not planes, but it was built to withstand those temperatures, and even if it DID collapse because of the "heat" it still woulnd collapse on itself. I never understand people who always refer to experts to defend arguments but ignore them when they say something they dont want to hear...
What were you expecting? A hollowed out shell? No one has ignored the "experts", we only listen to those with credentials.
If you still don't believe the monumental evidence against the conspiracy theories, I suggest you smash a car into a brick wall at 100 mph. See how much is still intact. That should change your mind about the Pentagon theory.
Sledgehammer
09-23-2007, 06:30 PM
I suggest you smash a car into a brick wall at 100 mph. See how much is still intact. That should change your mind about the Pentagon theory.
The effect is much larger if the car is moving at 500+ if your looking at the exponential curve from 30-100 in car crash totallness (the amount of totalling) try upping it by several hundred mph. I would guess that their would be little of any left of the car (think mythbuster's concrete semi explosion)
Quiggs
09-23-2007, 06:35 PM
Like the United States government could actually cover up a conspiracy that would involve that many people. Clinton couldn't even cover up getting blown by some ugly chick.
2ndclasscitizen
09-23-2007, 06:42 PM
Like the United States government could actually cover up a conspiracy that would involve that many people. Clinton couldn't even cover up getting blown by some ugly chick.
We have a winner.
Sledgehammer
09-23-2007, 09:58 PM
Just doing some youtubing and came across these videos. To sum up, the authors of Lose Change should be hit with something large, heavy and completly unforgiving.
Part 1 YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M)
Part 2 YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d0XEHahJ2Q)
Part 3 YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_Fm3Zc7D8I)
Part 4 YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpckijMVe3I)
Part 5 YouTube - 9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEg6XEP-Cig)
Dino Scuderia
09-24-2007, 04:23 AM
No, maybe not planes, but it was built to withstand those temperatures, and even if it DID collapse because of the "heat" it still woulnd collapse on itself. I never understand people who always refer to experts to defend arguments but ignore them when they say something they dont want to hear...
Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (http://zapatopi.net/afdb/) Never leave home without it.