Here Today... Gone To Hell!

watch this video. it's 90mins long, but very interesting..

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=loose+change

It's been posted before by our resident conspiracy theorist.  Don't worry, that video is complete bullshit and there plenty of websites that counter every lil argument they make.

where are those websites?

hehe I just saw this on tv and was going to make a thread about it since I'm almost convinced that there was alot more going on that day then will ever be revealed....

Conservative BYU professor as well as MIT engineers say otherwise, along with a large number of scholars who demand the truth about 9-11. Mainly that it is impossible for buildings to fall in such a way naturally, it defies the laws of physics.

I remember that I presented you with both their speeches, but you never watched them. Imagine that???

(I repost it below)

Here are the links to the northwoods document which show a plan to fake a terror attack in order to invade cuba.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

Operation Northwoods PDF doc:

http://www.retakingamerica.com/files/northwoods_documents.pdf


MIT engineer:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

BYU's Steve Jones:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Steven_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006/BYU_Professor_Steven_E_Jones-UVSC_February_1_2006_911_9-11_Lecture_WTC-7_911TruthSeekers.org.wmv

This is not loose change. These are two (from a quick search) well educated men who debunk the 9-11 story as we understand it. The last one is a ultra conservative from BYU. Hardly a left wing conspiracy nut.

I'm just waiting for the video that proves spacemen came down, teamed up with bigfoot and the easter bunny,  and made the towers fall.

Maybe you should wait by the fax machine, you'll probably get the answer you like there.............

Keep going to that same well.

Hey SLC, not to contradict you, but didn't the architecht say that they towers were designed that way?  Hence the pancake effect?  Correct me if I'm mistaken.  :)

There was a Popular Mechanics article that was supposed to tear apart the alternative 9-11 theories. It didn?t really address any of the alternative theories presented. Instead if created false claims and then attacked those instead (straw man.) Most people don?t know that the PM editor was Ben Chertoff, who is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, who just so happens to be the homeland security guy. This extends beyond a conflict of interest, even before the pretend argument is taken down.

I so love hearing the right wing refer to alternative ideas as ?conspiracy theory?, considering this is the same group of liars who brought us ?WMD?. If that wasn?t a political conspiracy theory, I don?t know what is!

It's your well and your fax machine................

Nice.  Whatever the hell that means.  At least I did'nt name myself after a retarded independant movie.


Anyway, here's the Popular Mechanics article you mentioned (and conveniently failed to provide a link for):

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y


Hey SLCPunk (if that's indeed your real name), I'd like to see you debunk the debunking and break down how each of these debunking points are incorrect.  Good luck.  I tend to agree with PopularMechanics on stuff like like.

Sorry, but no. They were not designed that way for starters, and two they were designed to withstand being hit by airplanes.

Watch the short speech from the MIT engineer. Give me 14 minutes and watch this guy. Then tell me your thoughts.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248

National institute of standards and technology reject the idea of the "pancake" theory.

Ok...watching the video right now.

By the way, this Jeff King guy isn't really an engineer at MIT.  Apparently he got his degree from MIT in the early 70's in electrical engineering.

So, was bad wiring what brought down the towers?  Too many christmas lights plugged in?

" I did my first 2 years at MIT as a math major, left to work in electronics (had a small manufacturing company of my own and worked for Analog Devices when it was still a small MIT spinoff), then went back and did a dual major in Electrical Engineering and Biology (not "physical biology," whatever that is, but molecular biology under Salvador Luria).

This was before there was such a thing as a Bio-Medical Engineering Department at MIT, but my degree program was created by the same faculty members who formed one a year or two after I left.   I did all the undergraduate requirements for Bio and EE, as well as a Senior Biomedical Engineering Project Lab - as the only mixed-major student in a group of EE majors, I was also the only one to have a working device at the end of the year (a widget to transmit stethoscope sounds over phone lines using frequency modulation).

After graduating from MIT in 1974 I went to med school at UVM in Vermont, then spent a year at the Harvard School of Public Health in the Pulmonary Physiology lab doing electrical and mechanical engineering work before deciding to do an internship and practice clinical medicine.  [I then did an internship at Kern Medical Center in Bakersfield and have been doing rural primary care and ER medicine since 1981.] BTW, the "MIT Engineer" caption on the video was not my doing, and the brief bio I gave at the beginning was truncated to almost nothing when the video was produced.  In fact I didn't see the video until almost a year after 9/11/04.

In any case, my engineering experience is substantive and the points I make in my talk are based on simple principles of physics.  I stand by the soundness of the evidence and conclusions presented, and I would be happy to respond to anything you believe is incorrect..

Science is not a matter of authority, but if you want to hear it from someone with Mechanical Engineering credentials, an increasing number of academics are coming forward via Scholars for 9-11 Truth."

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/letters/

*********

I invite ANYBODY here to write this guy and explain to him how he is wrong. Then come back and post in this thread after he responds. Anybody up for it?

I'll write to him right after you write to the entire staff at Popular mechanics and explain to them how they're wrong and post what you hear from them.

Are you saying the chief architect is in on the conspiracy?  :-\

I think that the "9-11 coverup" is shit. It was a real event and the terrorists did it. Thats my opinion, and I KNOW many people think otherwise.

Naw.  Many people do not think otherwise...just a few annoyingly loud people.

trust me, you'll never get an answer to these questions from ANY conspiracy theorist. they don't provide any original thoughts...cause then you could tear their shit to threads.

Alot of these so called scholars calling for truth have no experience in any related field to the attack on the towers and/or are not even scholars hired by a think tank or university.? It amazes me how the left's brilliant scholars have no professional experience in the field they write on.? Examples:? Chomsky whom is a linguist studies, Ward Churchill who had his MA in Communication and pretty much everyone listed in Loose Change.? Give me a moment and I'll find a site that explains why that entire movie is bullshit.   

Link found here: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html     If you're gonna swear by this movie, at least check this out.


Edited to add Link

slcpunk - you just quoted this website - word for word! if you're gonna quote some goofy southerner's words you should at least source them. can't you make your own arguments without just repeating others' thoughts???

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

"....the entire article was a straw man exercise. Popular Mechanics attributed false arguments to researchers and then attacked them...."

And then he's silent.  I imagine him sitting at his computer in his underwear right now furiously googling away for some half-assed article that debunks the PopularScience article.

Hey, that's a cheap shot.  >:(

I'm a cheap guy.

The fundamental problem with this (and most conspiracy theories) is not physics but the fact that you have to have 100s, if not 1000s, of ordinary people in on it and guarantee that not a single one of them will reveal the 'true' details of a mass murder.

Nice.  Way to casually thrown in the fact that you know the origin of his screen name.   : ok:

This is word for word?

No.


It seems you are defending one logical fallacy by using another. You are attacking me, instead checking out the PM story vs the Loose Change version. This is mainly because you are too lazy to do so. Easier to sit back and attack. Put the pressure on the messenger rather than think.

Let me ask you something? How else would you describe a strawman article? Alex Jones is not the only person who claimed PM article was based around tearing down a false claim. There were plenty of other websites that claimed the same thing.

Attack me all you want, but it is nothing new, you guys are never able to handle anything without a strawman and a personal attack to back it up.

Either way, I stand by my post. PM LIED about Loose Changes argument. Then they attacked what they made up.

Just like you do.

The fundamental problem with straw man arguments is that they are based on lies. The right wing posters here want you to believe that these people are all crazy conspiracy theorists who believe that it was some secret master plan.

In reality these are just scientists who are coming forward to say "This goes against the laws of physics, and more questions should be asked."

If Gunslinger and Sandman would admit that is all that is being said by these professors, then they would no longer have a leg to stand on. So that is why they call names and create false arguments. They can only attack by transforming people into ?Conspiracy nuts? and ?loons?.

On the other hand we do have the northwood documents. These documents show the USA planned on killing it's own civilians in a fake terror attack. They wanted to get the support of the American people for future military action against Cuba, and thought fake terror attacks would be the way to do it. This is certainly no conspiracy theory, and has been widely reported. The actual documents were posted (I think I posted them) in this very thread to see. Logically, you could see why people would see these documents, the way the towers fell, and come to alternate conclusions about 9-11.

I haven't seen anything worthwhile from you at all in this thread. Nothing but name calling and personal attacks.

If you would like to post something intelligent; something that would debunk the professors speeches, then please do so.

i don't know why people get so upset with these theories. how else can you explain me that there has never been seen a plane in pittsburgh, or that the pentagon took almost no damage where the plane hit it?
and what about the secondary explosions in the wtc.

sadly 9/11 is a huge cover up

Well that settles it then.


It's political - sorry.