or maybe you could educate someone to something you know and they don't.

just maybe.

__________________

exactly.

thats all that needs to be said.

^^yup, those two look like ownage to me lol

__________________

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.

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.

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...

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

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.





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.



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



I will do so.




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.



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



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.



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.



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.



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.

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.

^^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.

nah Tav I'm talking to Crazy Hades.

and Crazy Hades, i called you gullible becaues you expect to find any truths unearthed on a government site, i mean be real son, what'd you expect to see "yeah, ok ok, we admit it, you got us there"

you're looking at biased "info" as evidence. that makes you gullible.

__________________