RapVerse.com Community - 9/11 Conspiracies...Make no Sense

RapVerse.com Community (http://community.rapverse.com/index.php)

- Lyricist Lounge (http://community.rapverse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=182)

- - 9/11 Conspiracies...Make no Sense (http://community.rapverse.com/showthread.php?t=234884)

Okay...so the government flew a biplane into the building?

You do know that the government was aware that news would get out, right? And all of America would see it. Something makes me think they wouldn't make that many mistakes. By the way, loosechangeguide.com shows that there are over FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY MISTAKES made in the Loose Change video, from factual errors to similies taken as literal truth (it was LIKE a bomb went off, because you know, people sure are very logical about deducing the difference between a bomb going off and a massive plane crashing into a National landmark). There are references to other buildings being destroyed that were about contained fires, but perhaps ou haven't seen the actual size of the plane? It was multiple times the size of the Boeing that they showed in the Loose Change video to show the damage it would require. The landing gear, not the nose, created the hole in the building. The hole was actual size, though it was widened afterwards to allow for emergency exits and whatnot. The plane crashed at over 500 mph. The secondary explosions...no fucking duh. What would you expect after a plane crashes into a building? Hearts and candy? There are generators and transformers and electrical wiring.

Don't presume just because I don't abide by some propaganda video full of devious errors that I 'believe what the government tells me'.

And by the way, Apexx, steel loses 50% of its strength at about 650 degrees celcius, and I'd love to see the reports where legitimate experts agree with the conspiracy theory. Because I'm quite under the impression no one does. One of the experts that Loose Change provides claimed they were actually affiliated with companies that helped build the planes/towers. Except research will prove that they didn't, and were actually working in water facilities instead of steel.

Quote:

answer how the buildings collapsed with such precision without being packed with explosives.... and also explain why fire fighters and demolishions experts said "it was as if somebody was sat pressing button after button to blow out the floors accordingly".

Quote:

also explain why the government and "witnesses" said the plane hit the ground and slid across the pentagon lawn(GRASS) before hitting the building... yet in ALL the pictures the lawn was in perfect condition.

Yeah, I bet the lawn is in perfect condition. Explain where you got this information from. Oh wait, the smoke-filled picture on Loose Change, right? So you're telling me the government made another obvious error after punching themselves in the nose and running home to their mommy to blame the school bully?

Quote:

explain why this so called COMMERCIAL PLANE(passanger plane), had NO WINDOWS.. nore did it have COMMERCIAL MARKINGS...that basically takes the idea of it being commercial away.

You'll find several different accounts of the story...and you may notice that Loose Change doesn't even claim the voices of those witnesses are actually related to the towers, they could just be rambling. Explain to me why they WOULDN'T use a commercial airplane and say that it was. It'd make more sense to, I don't know, hijack the real plane instead.

Quote:

also explain how the pittsburgh crash site had no wreckage and no bodies. and also why all emergency services exact words were "this looked nothing like a crash site... there was no wreckage nore bodies".

There is a lot of wreckage and bodies. Loose Change contradicts itself: at one part, a "witness" claims from their ANGLE they didn't see anything but a hole and broken trees. Then he proceeded to say something along the lines of 'the people said that it looked like metal scraps had been dumped into a hole'. Yeah, it's kinda called...a similie. Also explain to me why the US would make this huge error. You ever realize that, I don't know, Loose Change never actually talks to a structural engineer or anything?

Quote:

explain why all cctv footage from surrounding buildings was confiscated by the FBI and only 5 frames from a pentagon cctv camera were ever released, and even in that footage you can clearly see its not a plane.

1. What makes you think 5 frames can comprehend a 500 mph plane?
2. Ever heard of...confidential investigations for the official report?

Quote:

explain why osama denied it, and then a blatantly fake video appears of him "admitting it was him"

Where did he deny it? Give me a legitimate source that is not a conspiracy theorist newspaper. Because in the lighting his nose looks different it's not him? Even though, if you look in the news, you can see things such as "Osama tells Iraqians to fight against Americans"? And this isn't proof of an actual bombing. I can accept the story of a plane being hijacked by America, and that Osama wasn't actually in on it really and framed, but not when the theory includes the thought of bombs being present.

im just glad RV is finally talking about this shit
I've tried for a while to get a thread up where we can discuss this
so rather than further my argument, im gonna sit back and read all these different views you all have
and the view mimesis claims to have but doesnt support besides saying i got better things to do lmao
keep it up, THIS is what intelligent people should do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crazy Hades

Yeah, because, a building with an over two story debris pile that damages many of the buildings around it is a very precise pile. Yeah, and perhaps you've never heard of what a similie is? Show me where any demolitions expert would claim that. Sources, please.

Yeah, I bet the lawn is in perfect condition. Explain where you got this information from. Oh wait, the smoke-filled picture on Loose Change, right? So you're telling me the government made another obvious error after punching themselves in the nose and running home to their mommy to blame the school bully?

You'll find several different accounts of the story...and you may notice that Loose Change doesn't even claim the voices of those witnesses are actually related to the towers, they could just be rambling. Explain to me why they WOULDN'T use a commercial airplane and say that it was. It'd make more sense to, I don't know, hijack the real plane instead.

There is a lot of wreckage and bodies. Loose Change contradicts itself: at one part, a "witness" claims from their ANGLE they didn't see anything but a hole and broken trees. Then he proceeded to say something along the lines of 'the people said that it looked like metal scraps had been dumped into a hole'. Yeah, it's kinda called...a similie. Also explain to me why the US would make this huge error. You ever realize that, I don't know, Loose Change never actually talks to a structural engineer or anything?

1. What makes you think 5 frames can comprehend a 500 mph plane?
2. Ever heard of...confidential investigations for the official report?

Where did he deny it? Give me a legitimate source that is not a conspiracy theorist newspaper. Because in the lighting his nose looks different it's not him? Even though, if you look in the news, you can see things such as "Osama tells Iraqians to fight against Americans"? And this isn't proof of an actual bombing. I can accept the story of a plane being hijacked by America, and that Osama wasn't actually in on it really and framed, but not when the theory includes the thought of bombs being present.

look how the twin towers feel, then watch how controlled buildings fall... pretty much exactly the same, and its funny how the only other building knocked down was related to the government(cnt rememberexactly what it was)

as for the pentagon lawn. i got that info from the fact it was all over the news and in newspapers shit ill find pictures that were used on tv and in news papers to prove my point it was in perfect condition.

http://www.danbielefeld.com/images/...opper-smoke.jpg
http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/01...agon_damage.jpg
http://www.blogwashington.com/Pentagon-9-11.jpg

and the best image's to prove the point

http://911review.org/images/pentagon/01749vp_2.jpg

http://www.teamlaw.org/images/Penthitista.jpg

and do you see any debris???? do you see any damage from where the wings and engine should have hit had it been a plane??? no. come on stop being simple.

why would it??? you do know one of the so called hi jacked planes was found landed at another airport and the passengers moved into a nasa building where as the rest from other planes moved some place else. also the witness accounts speak for themselves, and as i say, alot of these were announced on the fucking day that it happened in live tv interviews on the news.... it was only as things went on the media story started to change.... also look at the video closely, slow it down and zoom in under the nose of the planes, just before impact you get a flash that looks very much like a detonation... you can also see for yourself theres no markings nore is there any windows.

dude, in a plane wreckage you get engines, wing sections, tail sections fuelslauge(sp?)... not of that was found, only a few metal sheets were.. the coroner went home after 12 minutes for the lack of bodies.

http://www.knoxstudio.com/SIEGE/pacrash.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gra...09/27/ffpit.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/15450..._site_150ap.jpg
http://graphics.boston.com/globe/im...13/wreckage.jpg

show me the wreckage?? matter of fact heres some pictures from other plane crashes.

http://www.sfu.ca/~qgrc/people/thomas/crash.jpg
http://media.nasaexplores.com/01-039/crash.jpg
http://www.newsvine.com/_vine/image...11504031301.jpg
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-ima...15/crash372.jpg
http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/photo/001-351.jpg
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/200...aplanecrash.jpg
http://stevespak.com/fires/queens/lagjetcrash.jpg

want me to continue??? all different kinds of planes yet all leave BIG chunks of wreckage... yet these particular ones didnt???? come on now. and dont say they left peices of metal sheet... theyd leave an awfull lot more than just that.

dude check the 5 frames out.... the closest thing u see to a plane a blur moving into the building thats less than half the size of a commercial air plane.

as for the bin laden thing, the lighting??? dude his fuckin nose is fatter, shorther, and flatter than osama's is, and osama is left handed but he does everything right handed in the video, get a clue.

actually

http://www.spiritofprophecy.org/Osama%20bin%20Laden.jpg (long thin and pointed).

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/images/obl/sm/obl2.jpg (shor fat and flat).

also you know for a fact something like this is exactly what osama would get a hard on to admit to.... yet he denied it, and he also said the reason being the new countries leader does not allow it which is why he wouldnt have done it.... and then suddenly this fake video appears.

and if you dont beleive bombs were used, why were explosions video'd on floors below where the plane hit(up to 20+ floors down)... to weaken the structure???? help it fall more organised??? or maybe its the lighting(as you would claim)*rolls eyes*.

nice to see one person failed at a logical explination for things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shear Kaughn

you all are correct..i been looking into this shit ever since i had a dream about being on the top floor of the world trade center when teh planes hit....i'm not gona go into detail o n the dream becuase even though it was a few months ago it still kinda scares me...so yea....the planes were used as a destraction from what really brought the buildings down..and that is explosions......them some snicky mofos...i mean damn

but what i don't understand is why something like this?....i dont know if the governemtn REALLY is behind this..but if they are then why would they kill innocent people like that? and be able to live with that like nothing has happend?.....i mean..come on...if you was president would you be able to sleep at night knowing your responsible for killing thousands of people...and any other governemtn officials...?

what do you think going to war is... a picnic? the president's have declared tons of wars in the past and thousands of people die because of that
..
and the reason for both 9/11 and wars is money. so obviously billions of dollars is worth more to them then an over populated country. the government made that choice a very long time ago

we should do a poll
to see who believes exactly what on RV

Quote:

Originally Posted by pictureperfect2

that may be true...but that money is just going right back out to teh war.....war is a large expense...i guess the money coming in is more then what is going out....i have no clue really

Quote:

That's funny, because I was under the impression when a building falls down it looks like a building falling down. What else should a building that is being ravaged by internal fires look like? And just so you know, it didn't crumple in one spot, in one direction. It was leaning to the South.

Loosechange is not bolded. Loosechangeguide.com response in bold. To show you how legitimate loosechangeguide.com is, you might want to take a quick browse at the appendix:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg6.html

There are some nice links on that.

Quote:

Later that evening at 5:20, WTC 7, a 47 story office building 300 feet away from the North Tower, suddenly collapses.

Misleading. The fire department believed it was too damaged to stand and cleared the area around it long before it collapsed. The collapse of the south tower was a surprise. The collapse of WTC 7 was expected. That's why there were no casualties.

The building's tenants included the CIA, Department of Defense, IRS, Secret Service and Rudy Giuliani's emergency bunker.

Bad place to put tanks that can hold 43,000 gallons of diesel fuel. WTC 7 also included a Consolidated Edison electrical substation (mostly outside its footprint) and a 4 inch gas line. The NIST report on WTC 7 is due out sometime soon after this document is released (April 22, 2006). The tenants listed here are some of the smaller ones at WTC 7. The big tenant was Salomon Smith Barney.

And the S.E.C. was using it to store 3 to 4 thousand files related to numerous Wall Street investigations.

Because that's where their offices were. it's good that they keep files on things.

Although every single building surrounding Building 7 stood intact, it fell straight down,

No, they were all heavily damaged. But they didn't have raging fires in them. And the building fell leaning slightly to the south.

Into a convenient little pile, in 6 seconds.

Convenient? What a bizarre assumption that is. If you say it's convenient, you must know whom it's convenient FOR. Please inform me. Little pile? I often see CT claims that the pile was "2 or 3 stories" high. The pile was 12 stories from basement to top, and spread out over 150 meters.

Quote:

On July 28th, 1945, a B-25 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Narrator says B-52, which is an 8-engine jet. 14 people dead, 1 million dollars in damage. But, the building stands intact to this day.

The fire took only 40 minutes to extinguish.

B-25: loaded weight 33,500 lb, fuel capacity 670 gallons, hit ESB at approx 150 mph.

The 767s that hit the WTC weighed about 280,000 lbs and held over 10,000 gallons of fuel each. They hit the World Trade Center with over 200 times the kinetic energy of the B-25 that hit the ESB.

B-25 Compared to 767-200ER, superimposed over footprint of WTC tower

(Blue indicates floor plan of a "typical" skyscraper) Source: FEMA

Look at the size of the 767 compared to the floor plan of the tower, and keep in mind that every bit of both 767s entered the towers at around 500 mph.

On February 14th, 1975, a three alarm fire broke out between in the 9th and 14th floors in the North Tower.

Only the 11th floor had significant fire damage. Firefighters had full access to the fire. The fire never left the concrete-enclosed cable shaft on the other floors. It was a 3-alarm fire, not a 12-alarm. The building was not hit by an airliner at 500 mph with resulting structural damage to load-bearing columns and beams. Fire was not fueled by accelerant. Fire insulation was not blown off the steel.

According to the New York Times, "The fire leads to intense scrutiny of the towers, and eventually to a decision to install sprinklers."

On May 4th, 1988, a 62 storey skyscraper in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours and spread over 4 floors.

It did not collapse.

Because firefighters fought the fire the whole time and put it out. On February 23rd, 1991, a 38 storey skyscraper in Philadelphia, built in 1973, burned for more than 19 hours and spread over 8 floors. It did not collapse.
Fire was contained by fire dept. and sprinklers from floor 30 and up. Bldg was not damaged prior to fire. Fire protection coating was not blown off. Contributor kookbreaker writes,

"The Philadelphia fire LC mentions was the Meridian Building. The firefighting efforts were abandoned after 11 hours because the fire department feared (ta-dah) pancake collapse! The building was effectively destroyed in any case. It had a large net over it and had to be reinforced before it could be brought down!"

And that's damage caused by fire alone. Suppose it had also been hit by a 767 fully-loaded with fuel and flying at top speed?

October 17th, 2004, a 56 storey skyscraper in Venezuela, built in 1976, burned for over 17 hours and spread over 26 floors, eventually reaching the roof. Guess what? It did not collapse.

Fire was put out by military helicopters. No airliners hit, etc.

On February 12th, 2005, the Windsor Building in Madrid, a 32 storey tower framed in steel reinforced concrete, burned for almost 24 hours, completely eradicating the upper 10 stories of the building. Although the top 10 floors of the building fell, the building itself did not collapse.

Building was concrete core, curtain wall construction. Building was not hit by an airliner. Steel beams failed due to heat but the concrete core did not. Here's what ARUP, a major fire-safety engineering firm, had to say about that fire:

The fire led to the collapse of virtually all the slab edge bay above 17th floor as well as one internal bay on the north side. The transition floor resisted the impact of the partial collapses. Below this level there was substantial structural damage and deformation, but no significant collapse.

The steel perimeter columns, even if they had been protected, or even concrete columns, would not necessarily be expected to survive the effects of such a 10-storey blaze.

The central concrete core appeared to perform well in the fire and on initial observations seems to have played a major role in ensuring the stability of the building throughout the incident. The role of cores in multiple floor fires is now an immediate area of study required for the industry, and Arup have commenced investigating this issue.

And yet on September 11th, 2001, two 110 storey skyscrapers, completed in 1973, burned for 56 minutes and 103 minutes respectively, over 4 floors, Evidence that they burned on 4 floors only? And did you notice that airliners hit them? Before collapsing completely to the ground. One might argue, that this was due to the construction of the World Trade Center. Or, one might make a much better argument that the buildings stood as long as they did because they were so well built.

as for the pentagon lawn. i got that info from the fact it was all over the news and in newspapers shit ill find pictures that were used on tv and in news papers to prove my point it was in perfect condition.

http://www.danbielefeld.com/images/...opper-smoke.jpg
http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/01...agon_damage.jpg
http://www.blogwashington.com/Pentagon-9-11.jpg

and the best image's to prove the point

http://911review.org/images/pentagon/01749vp_2.jpg

http://www.teamlaw.org/images/Penthitista.jpg

and do you see any debris???? do you see any damage from where the wings and engine should have hit had it been a plane??? no. come on stop being simple.

Quote:

why would it??? you do know one of the so called hi jacked planes was found landed at another airport and the passengers moved into a nasa building where as the rest from other planes moved some place else. also the witness accounts speak for themselves, and as i say, alot of these were announced on the fucking day that it happened in live tv interviews on the news.... it was only as things went on the media story started to change....

You know that story has been debunked, right? And yeah, the story would change...it's called finding new information.

Quote:

also look at the video closely, slow it down and zoom in under the nose of the planes, just before impact you get a flash that looks very much like a detonation... you can also see for yourself theres no markings nore is there any windows.

I will do so.

Quote:

dude, in a plane wreckage you get engines, wing sections, tail sections fuelslauge(sp?)... not of that was found, only a few metal sheets were.. the coroner went home after 12 minutes for the lack of bodies.

http://www.knoxstudio.com/SIEGE/pacrash.jpg
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gra...09/27/ffpit.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/15450..._site_150ap.jpg
http://graphics.boston.com/globe/im...13/wreckage.jpg

You think I'm stupid? Look at what you're saying..you think the government would allow all this shit to leak out, right? You think they'd throw in random sheets of steel and claim it was a plane? Show me your source of where it says the coroner went home after finding no bodies, cuz I'm sure like quite a few human remains were located.

Quote:

show me the wreckage??

That person is obviously pro-conspiracy theories, but here's your wreckage: http://debris.0catch.com/

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/...07flight93.html
http://www.jonhoyle.com/GeneCodes/LATimes.htm

Does it get any better than this? http://ndms.chepinc.org/data/files/3/266.pdf

Quote:

dude check the 5 frames out.... the closest thing u see to a plane a blur moving into the building thats less than half the size of a commercial air plane.

You do realize that the government released this to the public, which would be seen by many, many people...every single thing you said relies on the assumption that no one took anything into consideration if the government was going to destroy one of its own buildings and spark a war. Link me to a site with the frames, please.

Quote:

as for the bin laden thing, the lighting??? dude his fuckin nose is fatter, shorther, and flatter than osama's is, and osama is left handed but he does everything right handed in the video, get a clue.

Why don't you get a clue and learn to fucking read? Because I said it could be an imposter, easily, and all I'm disproving is the ridiculousness of the bomb theory.

Quote:

and if you dont beleive bombs were used, why were explosions video'd on floors below where the plane hit(up to 20+ floors down)... to weaken the structure???? help it fall more organised??? or maybe its the lighting(as you would claim)*rolls eyes*.

Or maybe it's electrical circuiting and generators and transformers and multiple other things that could explode...Or maybe you think that everything inside of an advanced building is just paper and desks *rolls eyes*. Perhaps you don't understand exactly how big the plane was? Look at loosechangeguide.com and plenty of other sites that go about debunking 9/11 theories...you'll get your answers better than what I can give.

Quote:

nice to see one person failed at a logical explination for things.

Nice to see one person's failed attempt at using ad hominem, and using outdated sources, using a video (Loose Change) with over 420 mistakes in it as one of your sources.

From loosechangeguide.com, concerning the errors in Loose Change.

Quote:

Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25

Total flubs: 426

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shear Kaughn

that may be true...but that money is just going right back out to teh war.....war is a large expense...i guess the money coming in is more then what is going out....i have no clue really

nah that's not true. you pay for all of that. the money for the weapons comes from the destruction comes from tax payer dollars, and the money for this "rebuilding" comes from tax payer dollars. of course everyone employed in either of those efforts gets paid the whole way.

then you pay through the ass again for the oil from the siezed oil fields that their companies now own.

that's how you pay through the ass 3 fold.

yeah i finished reading that link, ima read it again
im not feeling their debunking style
they basically respond by saying what are your sourceS? how do you know?
thats not debunking shit
certain things they provide alternate explanations for......but not fact

so either or that leaves us were we started..........

Goldmine:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

3 years of tested hypothesis, computer models, simulations, video surveillance, fact checking, etcetra, totally demolishing the controlled demolition theory. :)

By the way, it is a legitimate style of debunking. Loose Change made several inferences that they claimed were fact, without showing any legitimate source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A p e x x

and those military complex makes billions seeling war supplies for it all
oil companies make billions more
and we fund the war
brilliant if your on the right side

^^what'd you expect, unbiased research from an OFFICIAL GOV SITE!?

talk about gullible

me ? i aint gullible shit
im giving crazy hades the benefit of the doubt by thoroughly reading his links and seeing if it is in fact true what he says..........
because if i wanted people to consider MY argument,, i have to consider theirs

No, he's talking to me.

Apexx, stop saying shit like I'm gullible because I don't share your fucking opinion. Yeah, it's a government site, I'm able to read URLs, and so are you. If you can prove me wrong and counter everything -- hell, even a little bit --- of what they said, I'd be more than obliged to bow before you and lick your feet if you are able to prove them wrong.