This is a discussion on Three Brazilian Soldiers within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by MacGyver What was the motive? That's irrelevant, the point is that the idea goes against the mainstream ...
But back to the offtopic topic, I thought Loose Change started out pretty good, if I remember it correctly. The giant leaps, though, from Point A to Point B are just staggering, and their attempts to answer the most important questions, like the motive and such, are just horrible.
Also, this section:
The suggestion that $167 billion in gold was stored in vaults beneath the World Trade Center was removed as it exceeded the entire amount of U.S. gold reserves by approximately $67 billion. The "$230 million in precious metals" stored at the WTC complex were in fact recovered.
> You don't know my age.
You're 15. If you lied in your profile, you sure as hell act like you're 15.
> I don't know for sure, but there's no reason one can't know who and not why.
So ok, who? Also, please bring up relevant points you'd like to discuss here. You're the one making the statement that the widely accepted chain of events is not true, so it's on you to bring up why.
Let's focus on this point for now:
But why would the building fall straight down rather than topple? (Like to the side that the airline/jet slamed into.) The bottom of buildings are stronger than the top, and the top was crushing the bottom all of the way down. Even if it could go naturaly straight down, as it fell, the top should have been disinigrated in the falling proccess. Especialy sence it was apperently so fragile from the "weak steel".Originally Posted by Wiki Link
> But why would the building fall straight down rather than topple?
What makes you think it should topple? Keep in mind that there has never been a building demolition of this magnitude (ever). If you watch the video, they don't fall straight down anyways; there's a pronounced tilt to one of them. What's your explanation for them falling down? Remember that taking down a building of that size would require a HUGE conspiracy and people working for a very long time without being uncovered, wiring it with explosives.
> Even if it could go naturaly straight down, as it fell, the top should have been disinigrated in the falling proccess
Who said it didn't? It hit the floor below it, and then had extra weight to hit the one below that, etc etc. By the time it got to the bottom it had all the momentum in the world.
Also, did you mean to quote that part? It kind of tears at the credibility of the movie
Queatrix please explain to us exactly what you think happened
> I don't know for sure, but there's no reason one can't know who and not why.
Actually as Loose Change was going over the supposed holes in the official story; both in the movie and public interviews with their debunkers, the creators have maintained that they simply wanted their audience to ask questions and do their own investigative work.
That may be so, but it should be clear to anyone that the way these people conduct themselves in the media that they've simply confused themselves and jumped to conclusions, and harrass the victims of 9/11 and the gemeral public for no, well-supported, factual reason. Over an interview with Popular Mechanics Editor Meigs, and the editor of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (misspellings may be afoot) several things were established:
- Loose Change is factually inaccurate. The editor made an excellent point about how the Loose Change people didn't speak with any experts on any subject they brought up to support the alternate story. They relied mainly on slick production tactics, the earliest news reports and some heresay. They really hadn't fleshed out any of their reporting work, because they tend to rely on laymen statements on a "good enough for me" basis. (The movie seriously uses the testimony of a janitor who said he heard explosions, which tend to be a loud boom. Just because you hear a bomb doesn't mean that it was one.)
- In the same interview with PM, it's mentioned that despite trying to debunk the official story, Loose Change did nothing to provide the answers to the questions they pose. "If you're going to go against what a large body of evidence would suggest, you do need to provide some evidence of the claims you make," was one good statement. What's better is that, in interviews, the producers say they talked to surviving victims or workers on the scene, and none of these people have come forward to support Loose Change themselves, yet.
- In a separate (and frankly, more polite) debate between the official and conspiracy side, the arbiter, Mr. Wieck, asked a very good question:
"What will it take? Is there anything [presentable] that can falsify your beliefs?"
Mr. Avery speaks volumes about himself in one simple word, "Nothing." A personal best! As he tends to talk for days.
Mr. Avery and his cronies are so set in their way of thinking they refuse to believe any argument to the contrary. It's almost sad. Loose Change started as a work of fiction; he and his buddies almost want it to be true. They are fools. If you want to align yourself to people in this category, then seriously, that's fine, but you should be aware of how much time you are wasting and what exactly you are getting into.
I highly recommend consulting other sources such as the news, or simply going through parts of the Loose Change guide to see how well debunked these guys are. There's also a fact sheet from NIST somewhere that's briefer than the report, but answers some key questions about it, and common attacks against its validity. You can also search for and find the producers public appearances, which I found to be rather eye-opening about those people's character and really how skewed their whole approach to objective journalism is.
So please, let's not talk about this subject further. It only flushes this thread in the toilet.
Last edited by whiteflags; 06-08-2007 at 09:16 PM. Reason: I'll even post some references for you
This thread's current direction reminded me of something I was reading recently.
7. It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.
40. There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.*
The Enforcer. There were murders going on that could not be pinned on the people committing them because the perpetrators and the victims didn't know each other. As such, no motive could be determined in the killings.
So without a motive, what evidence in Loose Change's or any other group's conspiracy theory is there that the government was behind what occurred on 9/11?
OOH OOOH! ME NEXT! PICK ME! PICK ME:
ohkay guyz, i r have undieable poorf dat bush is done 9!1 Why is it be dat when teh plane cratched in2 the hexagon, there wuz no outlien of teh plaen in the wall? liek in cardtoons u know??
Seriously, the fact that some random guy with a video camera and access to the internet could convince you otherwise of what is a more than logical explanation by a Harvard PhD Structural and Materials Engineer shows that you're not looking for the facts, you're looking for something to believe in.
Sure, I know there won't be an outline, but the wings would AT LEAST cause damage WELL BEYOND the hole. And a thing in the debate video (that citizen posted), the guy points out how the gov hids SO MANY THINGS. Why? Why would you hide video footage (and confinscate it from near-by convenient stores) and "recorded" phone calls? Like those 3 frames they released, there is no way to know WHAT is hitting the 8gon, there.
And back to the towers, as it falls you see an incredibly siquencial poofs coming out. (which are the explosives going off) And what about the bright flash before impact (that was NOT A REFLECTION as it was cought by MANY angles). And there are eye wittness reports saying "That was not an American Airliner! That was not an American Airliner!".
Those are good links though, btw.