SwiftVets.com

SBD · Admiral Joined: 19 Aug 2004 Posts: 1022

I know I will probably get a lot of flack for this, but just take a look at this video and decide for yourself. All I can say is that I might need some of you to bring me back into reality, but only those that actually watch the video. Only those who actually take the time to watch it can you bring me back into reality.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911&hl=en

Please help,

SBD

jwb7605 · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 1:39 pm Post subject:

Reminds me of a couple "films" I saw regarding Waco. Had me going for a couple of years. Nicely done job of piecing together incomplete parts of a picture.

Schadow · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject:

SBD -

I must confess that I'm only half-way through the film and have paused it at the so-called analysis of the collapse of the WTC structures.

It has been shown many times by structural engineers that the collapse mode was perfectly feasible. Steel didn't have to melt to cause failure, only soften through heating to the point where strength was compromised. The now-unsupported weight of the floors above started a chain of pancaking floor failures.

The outer "cage" of these structures essentially contained the fall of the floors above the impact floors. The cage splayed outward as the floors dropped but were not visible due to the cloud of debris.

The fact that the second tower to be hit was the first to fail is perfectly logical since the impact was lower on the structure and thus had a greater load waiting above when the heated steel structures lost their strength through heating.

So far, I've seen nothing to indicate fraud here. I do have to congratulate the producers for making a slick piece of fiction, putting various out-of-context bits and pieces in illogical juxtaposition.

Well, back to it.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

I B Squidly · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject:

SBD,

If this is your first encounter with "Loose Change" and the conspiracy whackos you've been lucky or incommunicado. They've many risible "facts" often mis-represented. Overall their theories are torn to shreds by Occam's razor.

One happy note in this contemptable sideshow is that a BYU professor of remedial physics who lead 50 fellow professors (mostly Liberal Arts and not an engineer in the bunch) in support of Loose Change and leant dubious authority has been suspended. He claimed the Towers were brought down by explosives because there were traces of thermite in the debris. Thermite is an oxide of ferro-aluminum formed in high heat.....go figure. Anyway the LDS regents had enough of his extracurricular ranting.
_________________
"KILL ALL THE LAWYERS!"

-Wlm Shakespeare

Schadow · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:49 pm Post subject:

Well, SBD, I struggled through the rest of this film. One interesting bit of trickery was the scene of what some conspirator said showed "Bin Laden" chatting with some friends in some tent somewhere. The producers triumphantly pronounced that it couldn't be Bin Laden and went on to compare the man's image with several photos of the real Bin Laden. Of course it wasn't Bin Laden. It was al Zawahiri. I happen to remember seeing the whole scene from which the producers chose to crop the others, leaving only al Z, ignoring the others present. The tableau did include Bin Laden and it was a celebratory goat-feed toasting the success of 9/11.

The overarching problem with this conspiracy theory is the lack of any leaks from any of the conspirators both leading up to 9/11 and the five years since. For instance, it's claimed that United 93 actually landed at Cleveland airport and the passengers were spirited off to NASA's Lewis Center and were never heard from again. This is obvious, of course, because no blood or remains were found at the Shanksville crash site and, besides, the crater left in the ground there was so small it couldn't have been a 757, and on, and on, and on..

And, of course, there's the theory that the Pentagon was actually hit by a cruise missile. Never mind the metallic wreckage with American Airlines paint and markings. Pieces of airplane can be found anywhere and planted on the scene right after the impact.

As I said before, the film was well made with excellent production values and had to be expensive to make. The narrator was a bit obnoxious but that's to be expected I guess. If anyone wanted to bother, I'm sure the thing could be deconstructed point by point. But then, that would be giving it much more attention than it deserves.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

jwb7605 · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject:

Anker-Klanker · Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject:

It's not the best that can be done in debunking the nonsense of "Loose Change," but an item-by-item debunking is provided here (it's the Loose Change video overlaid and interspersed with rebuttals - so it's every bit as long):

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276&hl=en-CA

You can clearly see how the makers of Loose Change lifted information completely out of context within only a few minutes of viewing the rebuttal.

A second (pretty good) debunking of major points is here:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

DLI78 · PO3 Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 273

Whoa! To quote Ringo Starr:

No no no no, I don't smoke it no more
I'm tired of waking up on the floor
No, thank you, please,
It only makes me sneeze
And then it makes it hard to find the door.

The libs REALLY need to move past the 70s, OK?
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986