9/11 Loose Change Final Cut Released Online

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: Mavtek3100
PC I hope you see just from the replies regarding my post that your cause is an exercise in Futility. Not once in my post did I talk about Government involvement in 911. Yet that's where every reply is centered. I only talked about why it is important to be a skeptic, or a cynic and that mentality is being driven out of society and often labeled kooky or crazy. This is a relatively new age in America when believing the outlandish is the norm and questioning it is insanity. We as the few must come to realize quickly that we have 3 choices, fix the situation, bury our sanity and become part of the problem, or get the hell out.

I say we try to fix it.

http://www.breakthematrix.com/

Being skeptical is good. Asking questions is good. Clutching to the belief that the government perpetrated 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary is delusional.

Clutching? One neither needs to believe that the government was responsible for 911 nor does one need to believe the full account of what the government has told us to believe regarding the subject. As far as evidence is concerned I think there is more evidence to the contrary regarding the Government's theories than that of the the "theorists". I have a better idea, lets throw out the theories and get down to what really happened.

When Einstein proposed specific relativity, it was met with a great deal of skepticism. As the evidence that the theory was correct mounted, the skepticism vanished. The same goes for 9/11, except that even as the evidence mounts and each conspiracy theory is torn to bits, people go on believing.

I'm not sure about that one, I think in the 1st Loose change they claimed that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon at all, in this latest version they seemed to back off now. In this version they seemed to present evidence that should have been investigated by the commission thoroughly. You know like who funded them.

What really happened? Hijacked planes slammed into the WTC, bringing the towers crashing down to earth. I'm pretty sure that, at this point, is fact.

That's where I disagree, I don't see enough evidence to point to the planes and fire as being the only cause for the collapse of especially WTC7. I also would really like to know what all of those explosions were.

As for Loose Change, they keep changing what they say as each iteration of their BS gets dispelled. First, they claimed missiles hit the Pentagon and now they want to make a conspiracy about who did the 9/11 report? Seems to me like they're grasping at straws.

Well actually they change it as they get more and more evidence. It's still not the best documentary on the subject, 911 Press for Truth is still the best one.

That's where I'm going to claim your twisting the facts - they ARE changing it as they get more and more evidence because the evidence points to all of their initial theories being horribly wrong.

Again, find any credible source (not youtube) that claims explosions were heard or seen. Find any shred of evidence that people saw explosions. Tell me how, and why, and who planted explosives in the WTC. TEll me when they then had planes hijacked and flown into the buildings? Tell me this conspiracy, which must have involved hundreds of people, exists and yet not a single person has stepped forward to say "I was part of it."

100's of eyewitness reports claimed secondary explosions, if you do look on youtube you can watch video and hear the explosions yourself, even though you don't believe this a credible source. It's clear there were explosions. http://st12.startlogic.com/~xe...rground_explosions.htm

Well if you were part of a conspiracy to kill thousands of people would you come forward?

The NIST report accounts for all the visual evidence seen by observers regarding the towers - I see no holes, inconsistencies, or anything with their scientific explanation of how and why the buildings collapsed.

Well except for all the explosions they said they heard.

But, see, we're at the same impasse. You won't accept the NIST report, or other evidence I present and I think your collection of youtube videos and truther sites are full of shit.

Evidently neither of us is going to convince the other.

I have accepted the NIST report. I just happen to think it's incomplete.

According to the link you published, the 'explosion' evidence on the ground floor was caused by jet fuel coming down the elevator shaft. The site you link to claims that "the lobby shows none of the soot or fuel residue we would expect from such an explosion", but I have no idea who wrote that so I have no idea if that person knows what the hell they're talking about.

I'm sorry it didn't say that anywhere, do you actually believe the explosions in the basement were caused by jet fuel? If you believe that then holy shit as Carlin would say.

I have not seen a single source beyond youtube that claims there were 'explosions'. The videos I've watched show no evidence of explosions. The first-hand reports I've read don't mention it. Anecdote: Even two friends I know who were at ground zero never heard explosions.

Truthers are grasping at straws here. If there were explosions, why don't they appear on the seismograph? If there were explosions, who planted the explosives? Who planted these explosives? Why?

They did appear on a seismograph.

Why wouldn't anyone come forward? Well, if I realized that I had been part of a plot to kill 3,000 Americans, I would say something and, on the scale that this "conspiracy" must have existed on, SOMEBODY would have said something. What truthers propose is a conspiracy that involves multiple federal agencies and hundreds upon hundreds of people. Look at Watergate - far fewer people involved and the 'government' couldn't even that covered up. Look at Operation Northwoods - couldn't keep that a secret either. Look at the Bay of Pigs - no secrets there. Thus far, we have nothing.

Like I said though, we aren't going to convince each otherwise and here's why:
You believe in this conspiracy and there is no way I can disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt. That isn't because this conspiracy has any validity whatsoever, it's because, by their very nature, conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove.

You won't convince me because you can't find any real evidence of what you claim. Hence, impasse.

There you go again, either attacking me for being "stupid" or denying facts

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph, which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear ? misleadingly ? as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves ? blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower ? start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground.

So, no, the seismograph DOES NOT support the theory that there were bombs.

And since when are you an expert on explosions, building collapses, and the explosive properties of jet fuel? What is going on here is that people don't understand that explosions don't happen like they do in the movies and that, just because you've seen Die Hard 2 seven times, you aren't an expert on plane crashes or building collapses.

Again, present any circumstantial evidence that indicates explosives were used, provide any meaningful motive or vehicle for planting the explosives and we can talk.

Until then, enjoy living in your comfortable world where the government did this to America so you don't have to face the reality that terrorism can strike at home.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I never said the terrorists posed a bigger threat to our liberties.

People are used to being afraid of the government. They like to blame the government for 9/11 because, if the government did it, they know how to fix that problem. It's something we've already addressed or, at least, thought about addressing.

I didn't fear my government till after 9-11. It wasn't immediately after, it took time. Things like the Patriot Act/Lies for Iraq War. Those actions scared me and fueled my desire to look deeper. I do not fear terrorists, I fear my government and not because they are easy to blame. Their policies and lies blaze a trail to incompetence/negligence and disregard for the common citizen. Disregard for the laws of the land and the Constitution. These things together show the character of the administration in charge. I do not only blame them for negligence regarding 9-11, I also blame them for everything that has happened since. Foreign relations, fiscal policy etc etc. So many things can be pointed out I don't have enough RAM to hold it all (being sarcastic).

Terrorists, on the other hand, are a whole new issue. They are something we haven't dealt with, something that most people don't feel we have the power to change or something that most people don't know how to change.

The whole "theory" that somehow a million terrorists on camels will come floating over the sea to get us is so far idiotic. The whole point of this "terror" and "The war on terror" is to gain your obedience through fear. The "war on terror" can never be won. I have said before, "the war on drugs" was the blueprint for "the war on terror". A continuing war that requires your submission for government to protect you from evil camel riding, cave dwelling spear chuckers.

So, go ahead, blame the government, but admit that placing the blame at the government's feet brings you a degree of comfort.

No, it doesn't bring me comfort in the least bit. I think what you are really saying is, it gives you comfort in believing it was wholly terrorists. Thinking that if government did turn their head, we have alot to fear from that aspect. I would agree. Government willingly turning their heads for a political belief would not only scare the shit out of you, but would also enrage you to the point you speak out to every listening ear.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I didn't fear my government till after 9-11.

LOL :laugh:

I've now got this mental portrait of you, PC Surgeon, hunkered down in an underground bunker, rattling off conspiracy theories and Paul propaganda, all while watching the monitors for black helicopters flying overhead. :laugh:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

I never said the terrorists posed a bigger threat to our liberties.

People are used to being afraid of the government. They like to blame the government for 9/11 because, if the government did it, they know how to fix that problem. It's something we've already addressed or, at least, thought about addressing.

I didn't fear my government till after 9-11. It wasn't immediately after, it took time. Things like the Patriot Act/Lies for Iraq War. Those actions scared me and fueled my desire to look deeper. I do not fear terrorists, I fear my government and not because they are easy to blame. Their policies and lies blaze a trail to incompetence/negligence and disregard for the common citizen. Disregard for the laws of the land and the Constitution. These things together show the character of the administration in charge. I do not only blame them for negligence regarding 9-11, I also blame them for everything that has happened since. Foreign relations, fiscal policy etc etc. So many things can be pointed out I don't have enough RAM to hold it all (being sarcastic).

Terrorists, on the other hand, are a whole new issue. They are something we haven't dealt with, something that most people don't feel we have the power to change or something that most people don't know how to change.

The whole "theory" that somehow a million terrorists on camels will come floating over the sea to get us is so far idiotic. The whole point of this "terror" and "The war on terror" is to gain your obedience through fear. The "war on terror" can never be won. I have said before, "the war on drugs" was the blueprint for "the war on terror". A continuing war that requires your submission for government to protect you from evil camel riding, cave dwelling spear chuckers.

So, go ahead, blame the government, but admit that placing the blame at the government's feet brings you a degree of comfort.

No, it doesn't bring me comfort in the least bit. I think what you are really saying is, it gives you comfort in believing it was wholly terrorists. Thinking that if government did turn their head, we have alot to fear from that aspect. I would agree. Government willingly turning their heads for a political belief would not only scare the shit out of you, but would also enrage you to the point you speak out to every listening ear.

Once again, I love how my words get twisted.

Of course the idea that there are terrorists around every corner is stupid. The difference is I realize that there is no credible evidence that anybody but a bunch of arabs with box cutters killed 3,000 people and you have to believe that, in the end, the government had a hand in it.

Sure, accuse me of drawing comfort from the idea that those hijackers operated alone, without government assistance. That's the easy counterargument. It falls apart, though, when you realize that it is the 9/11 Truther movement that desperately clings to every shred of evidence that the government was involved, while the rest of us recognize the genuine truth.

It's impossible to disprove a conspiracy, so I'm sure you'll go on believing it until your dying day, despite the mountains of evidence that point to no conspiracy, despite the lack of any evidence of a conspiracy, and despite the fact that the Loose Change, 9/11 Truth Commission, and whatever other bullshit organizations put out youtube videos are continually forced to change them because they're wrong.

Grab a hold of that notion that the big, bad, evil 'government' perpetrated 9/11, but notice that everything you've said concerns post-9/11. I'm not arguing with you that the situation was exploited. I'm not arguing with you that GWB had an agenda and took this opportunity to push it forward, but GWB didn't 'help' the terrorists. He didn't fund them, he didn't 'allow' it to happen. See the kind of twist that puts on reality? If the government 'allowed' 9/11 then, logic follows that the government could have stopped 9/11. That's the safe belief. If I believe the government wasn't involved in 9/11 then all I'm stating I believe is that 22 young men flew to the United States, learned to fly planes, hijacked planes, and slammed them into three landmark buildings. Tell me again, which is the more comforting belief?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Once again, I love how my words get twisted.

Of course the idea that there are terrorists around every corner is stupid. The difference is I realize that there is no credible evidence that anybody but a bunch of arabs with box cutters killed 3,000 people and you have to believe that, in the end, the government had a hand in it.

I don't have to believe anything. Its just the conclusion I've come to after research. Again, I'm not contending that the government did it, but I am contending they willfuly turned their head.

Sure, accuse me of drawing comfort from the idea that those hijackers operated alone, without government assistance. That's the easy counterargument.

Might be an easy counterargument, but is it true?

It falls apart, though, when you realize that it is the 9/11 Truther movement that desperately clings to every shred of evidence that the government was involved, while the rest of us recognize the genuine truth.

Sorry, the motives for 9-11 that I put forth is not what the "truther" movement taught. The "genuine truth" isn't what we are told. You don't have to believe the government "did it", but I find it hard for you to believe they didn't willfully turn their head with so much evidence to the contrary.

It's impossible to disprove a conspiracy, so I'm sure you'll go on believing it until your dying day, despite the mountains of evidence that point to no conspiracy, despite the lack of any evidence of a conspiracy, and despite the fact that the Loose Change, 9/11 Truth Commission, and whatever other bullshit organizations put out youtube videos are continually forced to change them because they're wrong.

Actually the evidence does point to a conspiracy. Just not the way you are thinking. Without going into semantics about the 9-11 mismanagement after the fact, I direct you to the men who run this country. What are their backgrounds. What would be their motive? Who are they tied to? Why is this situation unique?

Grab a hold of that notion that the big, bad, evil 'government' perpetrated 9/11, but notice that everything you've said concerns post-9/11. I'm not arguing with you that the situation was exploited. I'm not arguing with you that GWB had an agenda and took this opportunity to push it forward, but GWB didn't 'help' the terrorists. He didn't fund them, he didn't 'allow' it to happen. See the kind of twist that puts on reality? If the government 'allowed' 9/11 then, logic follows that the government could have stopped 9/11. That's the safe belief. If I believe the government wasn't involved in 9/11 then all I'm stating I believe is that 22 young men flew to the United States, learned to fly planes, hijacked planes, and slammed them into three landmark buildings. Tell me again, which is the more comforting belief?

I'll answer this later, gtg

EDIT: Again, its not as if I reached out and said "Ok they did it cause the 'truthers' said so", its after so many wrongs that were done and the lies that I decided to re-evaluate my government. Some of my statements have partained to post 9-11, but most my focus/research has been on things leading up to 9-11. You agree the situation was exploited by the ideology that Bush/Cheney/Neoconservative's brought forth. Which brings in motive He didn't help the terrorists? If he turned a blind eye to it like the evidence suggests, then yes he did help them, and for his own political philosophy (or those close to him, Cheney most likely). He may have not funded them but he might as well have, given the fact he did nothing about it. Yes they allowed 9-11 and yes they could have stopped it. You can call it "safe" if you want, but isn't it also safe believing that the government has told us the truth and nothing but the truth? Do you still believe them after Iraq? Thats not the only reason of course. The more comforting belief is believing that my government did everything it could to stop terror and to protect its citizens. Thats "safe" to me. It is quite the opposite when looking at the facts though. Which is why I do not trust a word from the Neoconservatives.

 

[event8horizon]

TLC - ive looked into that pdf file.
http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
what the hell is a british born canadian doing woking on this type of stuff. is he a member of the JASON group or something!!! haha. i did find a few holes in his logic.
we will concentrate on wtc 7-
his conclusion overall was this-
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
In this report it is shown that sulfur, especially in its most common oxidized form, SO2, had many potential emission sources in the WTC prior to 9-11. These sources have been quantified and rated according to their potential to release SO2 under conditions prevailing in buildings 1, 2 & 7 during and after 9-11.
It is concluded that sulfur emissions from the combustion of typical live load materials such as furniture, paper, plastics, textiles, etc, were relatively small compared to sulfur emissions from more unconventional sources, including those involving diesel fuel for emergency power generation in WTC 7 and CaSO4 in gypsum wallboard used in WTC 1 & 2. Sulfur emissions from thermite/thermate are shown to be quite small compared to these sources.By way of verifying these conclusions it is suggested that the NIST fire tests, which were conducted
on simple office module simulations, should be repeated using more realistic environments that include shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc. In this way better estimates of the rates of production of SO2 and the
degree of sulfidation of steel could be established.

he even calls for the nist do some more fire tests. i would like to see more steel analyzed (more samples)
now for his view on wtc 7-
On the other hand, sulfur in the diesel fuel oil stored in large tanks in the lower floors appears to be the most significant source of SO2 released in WTC 7.
so no drywall???? the question is, did the steel undergo those characteristics before of after the collapse. when he talks of thermite/thermate, he does so talking about the overall sulfur content. with that type of cutter, its localized, not spread out all over the place?????
as for the samples
INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,
WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of
structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.

so there were 2 samples chosen out of 236 that showed this type of corrusion (from the fema report). well, if this only represented a quarter to a half a percent of the total steel from just wtc 1 and 2, then one can assume then that there was perhaps another 200 steel beams that showed this type of corrusion (conservative estimate) on wtc 1 and 2 steel. as for wtc 7, i dont know how much steel it contained but i bet statistically, another 100 steel beams might show the same.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
TLC - ive looked into that pdf file.
http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
what the hell is a british born canadian doing woking on this type of stuff. is he a member of the JASON group or something!!! haha. i did find a few holes in his logic.
we will concentrate on wtc 7-
his conclusion overall was this-
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
In this report it is shown that sulfur, especially in its most common oxidized form, SO2, had many potential emission sources in the WTC prior to 9-11. These sources have been quantified and rated according to their potential to release SO2 under conditions prevailing in buildings 1, 2 & 7 during and after 9-11.
It is concluded that sulfur emissions from the combustion of typical live load materials such as furniture, paper, plastics, textiles, etc, were relatively small compared to sulfur emissions from more unconventional sources, including those involving diesel fuel for emergency power generation in WTC 7 and CaSO4 in gypsum wallboard used in WTC 1 & 2. Sulfur emissions from thermite/thermate are shown to be quite small compared to these sources.By way of verifying these conclusions it is suggested that the NIST fire tests, which were conducted
on simple office module simulations, should be repeated using more realistic environments that include shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc. In this way better estimates of the rates of production of SO2 and the
degree of sulfidation of steel could be established.

he even calls for the nist do some more fire tests. i would like to see more steel analyzed (more samples)
now for his view on wtc 7-
On the other hand, sulfur in the diesel fuel oil stored in large tanks in the lower floors appears to be the most significant source of SO2 released in WTC 7.
so no drywall???? the question is, did the steel undergo those characteristics before of after the collapse. when he talks of thermite/thermate, he does so talking about the overall sulfur content. with that type of cutter, its localized, not spread out all over the place?????
as for the samples
INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL
A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,
WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of
structural steel used in the construction of the two towers.

so there were 2 samples chosen out of 236 that showed this type of corrusion (from the fema report). well, if this only represented a quarter to a half a percent of the total steel from just wtc 1 and 2, then one can assume then that there was perhaps another 200 steel beams that showed this type of corrusion (conservative estimate) on wtc 1 and 2 steel. as for wtc 7, i dont know how much steel it contained but i bet statistically, another 100 steel beams might show the same.

What do you mean "no drywall?" Where do you think the gypsum he mentioned comes from.

As far as cutter charges, aka "thermite or thermate, you'd have a lot of other questions to answer besides the fact that this study pretty much rules it out.

That's not to mention that the NIST report specifically states that the two pieces of steel that showed the sulfidation were selected because of their unusual characteristics. Out of the steel that was was warehoused, NIST doesn't report that any of the other steel had these same characteristics, so you're speculating with absolutely nothing to back up that specualtion.

 

[event8horizon]

he dosent go into drywall concerning wtc 7. he thinks most of the sulfur comes from the generator considering that a plane didnt hit wtc 7. he did mention drywall but mostly for wtc 1 and 2.

like i said, he goes into thermite/thermate. take into account, if thermate was used, then all the other sources he states will also be present. making sulfur very abundant ( around the wtc), which he showed in a couple of studies he presented.

i know, they were selected for their unusual characteristics. i know its speculation. they didnt have that much steel to choose from.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
he dosent go into drywall concerning wtc 7. he thinks most of the sulfur comes from the generator considering that a plane didnt hit wtc 7. he did mention drywall but mostly for wtc 1 and 2.

Actually, he does. If you look at Table 1 he lists Dead Load Materials, Gypsum Wallboard for WTC 7.

like i said, he goes into thermite/thermate. take into account, if thermate was used, then all the other sources he states will also be present. making sulfur very abundant ( around the wtc), which he showed in a couple of studies he presented.

Except in the overall scheme of things thermite/thermate provides a relatively small contribution. He merely considers the possibility of thermite/thermate as well but provides zero proof of its existence, which is a big problem with the whole claim. Nothing beyond spurious claims exist and plenty of common sense says it could not possibly have been used.

i know, they were selected for their unusual characteristics. i know its speculation. they didnt have that much steel to choose from.

FEMA went to ground zero and selected the samples they wanted to study. They have tons and tons of steel, a fact I believe you yourself have already attested to. I wouldn't say "they didnt have that much steel to choose from." They had exactly what they wanted.

 

[ericlp]

Just got done watching the clip. Tho, I have seen parts of the clip before.... never the whole thing. I guess after watching a few things come to mind...

The 767 plane that hit the ground.... How does a huge airplane disappear into a hole in the ground? How does the contents of the plane spread over six miles? All the photos just show a hole yet they manage to find a bunch of personal items and documents... OK....

Then they find the pas ports of the planes that hit the WTC? How does that work? does the dude through his passport out the window before impact? Hmmmmm....

There are a lot of good points in the film. Tho, I can't believe that or I really don't want to believe that our government covered it up but who well.....

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Just got done watching the clip. Tho, I have seen parts of the clip before.... never the whole thing. I guess after watching a few things come to mind...

The 767 plane that hit the ground.... How does a huge airplane disappear into a hole in the ground? How does the contents of the plane spread over six miles? All the photos just show a hole yet they manage to find a bunch of personal items and documents... OK.... Not everything is destroyed in a plane crash. An explosion upon impact can throw debris pretty far; also, coming down at an extremely high velocity could cause things to break apart. Spread over 6 miles could easily mean that they found one tiny thing six miles away from the main crash site.

Then they find the pas ports of the planes that hit the WTC? How does that work? does the dude through his passport out the window before impact? Hmmmmm.... Again, not everything is destroyed in a plane crash.

There are a lot of good points in the film But upon looking at the facts, you realize that all the points are just conjecture and really just complete BS. Tho, I can't believe that or I really don't want to believe that our government covered it up but who well.....

 

[FuzzyBee]

C'mon. If the government is good enough to stage a massive event such as 9/11, why couldn't they stage tiny events to get rid of the "whistlerblowers" that put out this drivel? Besides, it would take massive amounts of people to do such a thing - butnone have spoken out about it? I guess if you have a position in mind, it's easy to warp your opinions into "facts" to support that position.

 

[Vic]

It's not even 6 miles. That's one of the funnier Loose Change flaws. I'm surprised they didn't fix it for this "Final Cut." The 6 miles is the driving distance as calculated by Yahoo or Google maps. The actual distance to the lake is only like a mile.

Flight 175 hit WTC2 at an angle that caused a lot of debris (and bodies) to be ejected down onto the streets. There's nothing mysterious about it. If you go back and watch the videos of the impact, you can even see it.

 

[jonks]

Maddox PROVES Loose Change is Bullsh!t

"Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid."

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Just got done watching the clip. Tho, I have seen parts of the clip before.... never the whole thing. I guess after watching a few things come to mind...

The 767 plane that hit the ground.... How does a huge airplane disappear into a hole in the ground? How does the contents of the plane spread over six miles? All the photos just show a hole yet they manage to find a bunch of personal items and documents... OK....

Then they find the pas ports of the planes that hit the WTC? How does that work? does the dude through his passport out the window before impact? Hmmmmm....

There are a lot of good points in the film. Tho, I can't believe that or I really don't want to believe that our government covered it up but who well.....

Read up on Critter 592 that went down in the Everglades.
Nothing from the plane was found that a person could not pick up.
The metal frame can shatter and essentially pulverize.
Human body can also react the same way.

Almost any questions can be answered with logical thought if one wants to apply.
But for those looking for excuses, logic is an unacceptable answer.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Maddox PROVES Loose Change is Bullsh!t

"Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid."

Possibly the greatest phrase ever uttered on the internet in regard to conspriacy theories.

 

[ericlp]

Well, after thinking about this for awhile... They say if anything is going to survive on the plane it would be in the back... NOT the front.... So...Why would things made from plastic, paper, cloth.... Survive from the front of the air craft....When the safest part of the plane where items like black boxes are located supposedly did not.... They are fire proof boxes and made to withstand almost any crash. Not sure what a black box is made out of but I'm sure it's very beefy.... Anyway, after doing a simple search found this link and found it to be interesting...

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html

Again, not everything is destroyed in a plane crash. Esp. black boxes the one item that is built for a crash and if ANYTHING would have been found...


?It?s extremely rare that we don?t get the recorders back,? said NTSB spokesman Ted Lopatkiewicz. ?I can?t remember another case which we did not recover the recorders.? Not one of 4? Come on!

Ok, call me a loon if you want, but there is something wrong with this picture....