First off, a little bit about me. I am a true Christian. I voted for Bush twice (the second time was harder). Over the years, it appears that Bush is neather a true Christian nor a person commited to less government involvement. In the past, I tended to get upset that someone would even mention some kind of 9/11 conspiracy; after all, it implies something that is simply disturbing to even think about. But, after seeing a post by some people who were supposedly Christians, I thought I might at least give it a chance and take a look.
On another note, I also wanted to reply to previous posts. I'm not attacking anyone (at least I hope not), but I hope that it might clarify some things. So..., here goes.
I know that two sources for some 9/11 videos include:I've seen it. very interesting altho I want more proof. I want to see his videos but not from him, ie from the original source to confirm they aren't doctored.
* a DVD by CNN called "America Remembers" (or something like that)
* the new "World Trade Center" movie may contain stuff (haven't seen it)
* Anyone know of others?
On another site, they gave the following link to various "lies" in "The 9/11 Commission Report"There are WAayyyyyy too many questions and outright falseries within the official report.
I've only scanned a few lines; didn't really read through it. Other people seem to think it's important, so there's the link.
You know what; although I haven't watched through the whole Loose Change movie, I think I might have to agree with you about this one "movie." There is an entire site dedicated to debunking this movie. The movie contains errors and focuses on stuff that appear to prove absolutely nothing. Some aspects appear so bad that this movie almost appears like it is a government plant to discredit the better done 9/11 studies. (Granted this guy was probably just trying his best and made some mistakes along the way.) I don't suppose, I could convince those of you who have seen and debunked Loose Change, to at least take a look at video #2 that I mentioned (and maybe video #4)?Bill stop watching shit like this it is pure 100% bull it mixes fact with fiction then adds a lot of supposition .......and comes up with pure fiction.
Sophistry is what this is pure and simple.
Where to start picking this pile of garbage apart ..
Actually, approximately 50% of the load is on the outer skin, while 50% of the load is on the massive internal core columns. Or, so I heard that's the approximate ratio. Anyways, the point is that they are some large internal core columns to hold the building up too. Also, one of the architects believed that the WTC towers could take 2 plane hits and stay up. If you've only seen the Loose Change video, then check out the first 2 videos for this info.2. wtf is he on about fire brought down the trade centers two large jets crashing into them brought them down, as the trade centers structure takes its strength from the skin of the building , even the architects in charge of it new they where coming down.
Not sure what Loose Change says on this topic, but this issue is debunked in video #2. Basically, fire does not get hot enough to melt the steel. Not sure what the weakening effects are; would need to look that up. What is also intersting is that we now have evidence that all 3 WTC towers had thermate which is used to cut steel either slowly or explosively.Fire did take down the World Trade center, there was an investigation into the engineering causes of the collapse which involved the original architect (The purpose being to make future structures more resistent to such attacks) and the conclusiong were that although the crash weakened the structure it is the combustion of the planes' fuels and the numerous combustible materials in both towers which finally caused the steel support beams to bend and then snap. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense since it took a while for the towers to collapse after being hit.
I can't link you to my original source since I learned this in a uni engineering class' video, but if you read this you'll see most recommendations following the investigation are fire realted.
Also, there have been various studies into the collapse of the WTC building, by professional investigators. Tests on a mock WTC model failed to be able to make it collapse. Some investigators concluded that the WTC buildings could not have collapsed from fire, but were fired for their statements. But this is just all random info, all unconfirmed by myself. Best, I can suggest is to at least give the Lecture a view once.
I saw a link to the Loose Change forum. After I first looked up the 9/11 info, I tried to find some sites and/or forums on the topic. Loose Change's forum was one of the ones I went to. I'm not really sure of any good forums to go for talking more on 9/11. The scholarsfor911truth site (st911.org) might be worth getting in contact with the people there.