V

vaf3

Audioholic Intern
EDIT/Disclaimer: I DO NOT THINK THIS WHOLE VIDEO IS TRUE. I WATCHED THE VIDEO AND PARTS OF IT MADE ME SKEPTICAL. I HAVE MY OWN OPINION ON THIS MATTER AS DO YOU. I DO NOT THINK THIS WHOLE VIDEO IS TRUE. THERE I SAID IT TWICE. AGAIN YOU ASK? OK I DO NOT THINK THE WHOLE VIDEO IS TRUE I JUST WANTED SOME OTHER OPINIONS. IM NOT SPREADING CONSPIRACY THEORIES, WATCH THE VIDEO TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK, THATS ALL I WANTED. This thread is based on the video, if you dont watch/havent seen the video, just dont post.

I recently watched this video on 9/11, moreso a documentary of well put together facts. I found this video to be very interesting and it really opened my eyes to a lot of speculation that has either never made it to the mass media, was squashed by the mass media, or that I just plain didn't believe. I'm not about to go and say that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy... but this video really makes you think... Its about an hour and 20 minutes long so if you have the time I strongly suggest you invest it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

EDIT: By no means do I want this thread to share the fate of the Iran thread so if we could all please mind rule #4 :D , I am just looking for some opinions on the video and the topics discussed. I find this very disturbing/thought provoking and would like to know what others think.
 
Last edited:
racquetman

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
I didn't watch the video, but I've heard this conspiracy theory before. Are there comments like, "the temperature could not have been hot enough to melt steel, so there had to be explosives also in the building to cause it to collapse"? I've heard this before. That is easy to refute - the steel doesn't need to melt, it only needs to weaken sufficiently to cause a collapse.

Also I've heard comments that the towers collapsed at a speed not possible by natural methods - they would have fallen slower due to the resistance of each subsequent floor. Therefore there must have been explosives planted in the buildings aiding in the collapse. Again, completely wrong. That much mass coming straight down will be slowed by nothing getting in its way - other than a millisecond or two delay.

The list goes on and on. If you want to mention a few things you thought had potential for being true in the video, why don't you point them out. I hate watching video on a computer monitor :) .
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
2,000 degrees for 20 minutes...

...is all it takes to significantly weaken steel enough to lose enough strength to colapse as it did that day. Between the jet fuel, office materials and building materials available in the WTC towers and the enclossed spaces whre a lot of it ignited, that is not an unlikely pemperature.

This information is from a fireman who has been on the force for over20 years. They know this kinda stuff. Most reporters and bloggers don't. Nor do they care. Why let a few facts get in the way of an otherwise devistating conspiracy theory.
 
V

vaf3

Audioholic Intern
theres much much more to the video than that, but the steel was heat treated to withstand temperatures of 3000 degrees for several hours before becoming red hot to the point that it would buckle. The president of the company that supplied the steel stated so in a letter to the head of the national institute of standards and was then immediately fired.

as for your comment about the bulding falling there wasnt enough mass falling above the tower to crush the entire structure with perfect radial symmetry. the top of the building would have fallen off to one side or the other or just crumbled straight down on top of the rest of the standing structure.

i would elaborate my opinion further but im in a hurry and if you would watch the video they go into nearly all of the conspiracy theories in great detail and some of the information is very very hard to refute given all the facts
 
S

Sleestack

Senior Audioholic
vaf3 said:
theres much much more to the video than that, but the steel was heat treated to withstand temperatures of 3000 degrees for several hours before becoming red hot to the point that it would buckle. The president of the company that supplied the steel stated so in a letter to the head of the national institute of standards and was then immediately fired.

as for your comment about the bulding falling there wasnt enough mass falling above the tower to crush the entire structure with perfect radial symmetry. the top of the building would have fallen off to one side or the other or just crumbled straight down on top of the rest of the standing structure.

i would elaborate my opinion further but im in a hurry and if you would watch the video they go into nearly all of the conspiracy theories in great detail and some of the information is very very hard to refute given all the facts
How do you know they are giving you all the facts? They might just be presenting what they consider to be "facts."

Furthermore, your assertion about how the building could or coudn't have fallen is pure speculation. Do you really believe anybody knows how the buildings should have collapsed?

Are you really surprised that the steel co. would make the assertion that it couldn't have been the steel? Maybe they were concerned with liability issues? Perhpas the president got fired becuase he gave misinformation or acted without authority of the board?

Entertain yourself with conspiracy theories if you want, but, this is reality, not 24.
 
warhummer

warhummer

Junior Audioholic
If it's on the internet it must be true...

So let me get this straight...did they identify the type of steel? I'm going to say "no" and they just got some "expert" to say it melts at 3000 degrees Farenheit. NEWSFLASH! The melting point of the average steel alloy is roughly 2500 degrees F. That means, for all intensive purposes, it turns to a liquid state. Anyone who works with metals can tell you that it will become pliable at a lower temperature (i.e. IT WILL DEFORM AND COLLAPSE!).

Now, in all fairness I did not view this video and cannot refute everything (or anything for that matter) that they say. But I think its origins follow along the same lines as the crackpots who refuse to believe we put a man on the moon...or in space.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
vaf3 said:
theres much much more to the video than that, but the steel was heat treated to withstand temperatures of 3000 degrees for several hours before becoming red hot to the point that it would buckle. The president of the company that supplied the steel stated so in a letter to the head of the national institute of standards and was then immediately fired.

as for your comment about the bulding falling there wasnt enough mass falling above the tower to crush the entire structure with perfect radial symmetry. the top of the building would have fallen off to one side or the other or just crumbled straight down on top of the rest of the standing structure.

i would elaborate my opinion further but im in a hurry and if you would watch the video they go into nearly all of the conspiracy theories in great detail and some of the information is very very hard to refute given all the facts
Somehow, I trust the word of professionals who are trained in this stuff and deal with deal with this stuff daily for a living than some pundit with an axe to grind.
 
racquetman

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
vaf3 said:
theres much much more to the video than that, but the steel was heat treated to withstand temperatures of 3000 degrees for several hours before becoming red hot to the point that it would buckle. The president of the company that supplied the steel stated so in a letter to the head of the national institute of standards and was then immediately fired.

as for your comment about the bulding falling there wasnt enough mass falling above the tower to crush the entire structure with perfect radial symmetry. the top of the building would have fallen off to one side or the other or just crumbled straight down on top of the rest of the standing structure.

i would elaborate my opinion further but im in a hurry and if you would watch the video they go into nearly all of the conspiracy theories in great detail and some of the information is very very hard to refute given all the facts
Alright, you got me to watch the entire video. You need to ask yourself why you believe that everything that was stated in the video is a fact - and suddenly everything refuting these claims all of a sudden is false.

Let's start with this temperature issue. It doesn't matter what temperature the steel can withstand. That is not the only factor involved in the failure of the steel. Do you understand the huge factor that is pressure!! Try this. Take a lighter to a metal spoon or fork or whatever. See how long it takes for it to bend with nothing acting on it except gravity. Now try the same experiment, but hold both ends of the utensil and attempt to bend it while you are heating it. Guess what?! It's going to bend much more quickly when you help out the process by applying pressure to the weak points. Do you think that 20 or 30 or 40 floors of building might aid in the process of weakening the steel at the explosion point? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

They kept talking about secondary explosions happening in the building around ground level or just above. OK. What did that have to do with anything? The building collapsed from the top down, it didn't fail at the bottom. What was the point they were trying to make? They had all these detonations at the bottom of the building, but they must have miscalculated because they didn't aid in bringing the building down. What was the point of the second explosion 9 seconds later? I can think of a million different scenarios where something would heat up and explode after a primary explosion and subsequent fire. Doesn't that make sense to you. Have you ever seen a chemical fire on the news? There are additional explosions all the time. This secondary explosion didn't cause the building to collapse, so what was it? A bomb? Yet another attempt to help make the building collapse that failed?

Now your comment about there not being enough mass above the explosion to cause a symmetrical collapse. Prove this to me!! Show me some equations. I don't need to defend this - I saw it with my own 2 eyes a hundred times. Those buildings came straight down. Just because some idiot wanted publicity and said that this couldn't happen doesn't make it so. When the majority of structural engineers all band together and agree that this couldn't have happened without help, and they show me data to prove their theory, then I will start believing the building was wired with explosives. Once again, why believe this with no evidence? Do you just want this conspiracy to be true? By the way, can you give me one example where a building actually failed and part of it tipped over?

You say that these theories are hard to refute given all the facts. Once again, why do you believe what was said is factual? Did you take any time to check a single stated fact? I actually heard a guy talking on the radio a couple weeks ago who was part of the initial crew sent in to respond to the Pentagon attack. He said he saw one of the engines of the plane that crashed into the pentagon and said it was definitely the size of a airliner engine. Why go on the radio and make such a claim unless it's true? It doesn't exactly make him look cool or anything. He's on the radio!! They talked about a cruise missile hitting the pentagon, but early on in the video they talk about power lines being knocked down!! Well which one is it??? Did a cruise missile knock down power lines without detonating?

Finally the most telling part of this conspiracy is the sheer number of people that would have needed to be involved in the cover up. Think about it!! If everything in that video were true, how many people would have had to know about these events happening? What happened - did the government pay them all a billion dollars to keep their mouth's shut??!! Think about it!!
 
S

Svenhook

Audioholic
Thanks you Alandamp. I guess its us Michiganders that use logic.

I too did not actually view the video but I have heard and argued the conspiracy several times. Its totally bogus. One point that i dont know if it was in the video or not but that i remember arguing was the fact that there was a extremely bright, blinding light that emits right before the plane hits to cover it up or something. Thats just stupid because everyone knows magenesium creates a flash (fireworks anyone?) and airplanes have been known to be made out of the material. Its not an uncommon substance. What about the people that died? Did they sacrifice themselves to help the government get rid of the buildings? I think not.
 
S

sjdgpt

Senior Audioholic
Have you ever built a bookcase or other structure? If all you have in place is the uprights and the top and bottom shelves the entire bookcase is rather weak and prone to flex and stress. But install the back and several shelves and the bookcase can suddenly hold many pounds in a stable position.

Take that same bookcase, remove all shelves but one, and then reinforce that shelf to hold a great deal of weight. Then overload that shelf. What happens to the bookcase? The uprights will bow (flex) from the overloading and lack of shelves (cross member or floors) to hold the uprights in place.


Take a look at the towers. The outer skin may not have been structually required to hold up the frame of the tower, but the skin did help to stablize the upright frame work from flexing much like the back to a bookcase. It really is the floors of the towers that were critical in holding the upright frames in place, AND kept the uprights from flexing. Suddenly several floors are missing. Missing floors and missing exterior skin means greater stress on the floors above and below the points of impact.

And those critical floors are holding the towers together.

As the fires burned.

( Hopefully you do not dispute there were fires that day.)

As the fires burned there was a critical force in play ... the uprights were allowed to flex.

This flexing could have caused the towers to topple to one side or another.

(Logically, I thought the towers would have toppled to the side of the point of impact from the planes.)

If there had been a tremendous amount of flexing. And if the primary means of preventing the flexing was the exterior skin. But structurally the towers were held up right by the construction of the floors. And the steel never flexed to the degree to allow the towers to topple to the side.

Instead, the best conclusion is that the residual matter (broken floors, plane etc) placed great stress upon the floor that was holding the debris. The fire did not have to exceed the melting point of steel. In fact the fire did not really need to exceed the bending point of the large steel beams that were used to construct the floors and uprights. The fire only needed to be hot enough to stress the small bolts and welds that were holding the critical floor in place....small bolts and welds that were already stressed from holding additional weight from the damaged floors and debris.

As the fires burned, those small bolts and welds would become critically stressed very quickly.

All it would have taken would have been one critical bolt to have given way, and an entire floor would have started to fall.

The first floor to fall would have been a slow reaction. But the impact and weight of that floor (and the residual debris) would have been far too great for the second floor.

(and even greater for the 3rd, and then fourth etc floors).

As the first floor was falling. The hot, slightly softened and weaken steel frame would have bowed or flexed. Any flexing of the uprights would have placed even greater stress on the bolts and welds that held the lower floors to the uprights.

As several floors in the middle of the tower were to fall, the floors above would place even more stress on the upright frames of the towers.

In a manner of a few seconds, what had started as the collaspe of a single floor would become the collapse of many floors and then the entire tower.

As you watch the videos of the towers collasping it seems as if there is a dust cloud that is generated from the bottom of the tower and the top of the tower is hovering in mid air.

The top of the tower is not hovering. The top of the tower is still remaining in place. The lower floors are collapsing like a deck of cards....inside of the outer skin of the tower... creating the dust cloud... and in seconds the top of the tower and entire outer skin will follow.
 
jonnythan

jonnythan

Audioholic Ninja
I hate these videos. I haven't heard one single piece of "evidence" that can't be refuted with actual rational thought instead of some pseudo scientific sounding BS that was completely fabricated by a fool.

"The steel was heat treated to withstand 3000 degrees." There's no such thing as steel that can maintain 100% of its shear and torsional strength at that temperature. Pick up a Materials Engineering textbook before you believe some BS babble on the internet.

"The building would have fallen to one side." More BS. Moving 20 floors of a steel and concrete building that far to one side would take a tremendous amount of force, and there was absolutely nothing to provide that force. The fires were raging all throughout the building, and as soon as one steel beam starts to buckle, they're all going down.

It's the same thing with the videos that "prove" a plane did not hit the Pentagon. When you take 5 minutes and realize that a commercial airliner is a tin can made to be as thin and lightweight as possible while being just strong enough not to break itself, and that this tin can crashed directly into a wall made of reinforced concrete and glass, it's easy to disprove this crap. Watch the video of the second plane flying into the tower and you will see the entire airliner disappear into the building.

Blah blah blah. These theories will, unfortunately, never go away.
 
zipper

zipper

Full Audioholic
Ridiculous theories....................................the last time a fully-fueled jet hit a 100+ story building they said the same things.
 
R

Rÿche 1

Audioholic
Conspiracy or not, my sister is still dead (died at the Pentagon)...So, I couldn't care less..
 
B

BMO

Junior Audioholic
While I don't trust Government, I surely don't trust the people who put 9/11 together.
.
 
shokhead

shokhead

Audioholic General
Just like the Holocaust in a few more years there will be plenty that will try to say it really never happened.
 
V

vaf3

Audioholic Intern
For the record there are many points about the video that I am very skeptical of. I didn't post this saying "I believe every fact presented in this video" I just posted to see what other people thought. What about all the record high put and call options bought in the days preceding 9/11? That is proven fact and it makes it seem that a lot of people made a lot of money on this. I'm just saying things such as this make me skeptical. I certainly do not buy into the entirety of the video. I have also worked in a manufacturing facility for the past two years and I can guarentee you that if the steel provided to the WTC project was supposed to meet a certain standard, then it did.
 
V

vaf3

Audioholic Intern
alandamp said:
Alright, you got me to watch the entire video. You need to ask yourself why you believe that everything that was stated in the video is a fact - and suddenly everything refuting these claims all of a sudden is false.

Let's start with this temperature issue. It doesn't matter what temperature the steel can withstand. That is not the only factor involved in the failure of the steel. Do you understand the huge factor that is pressure!! Try this. Take a lighter to a metal spoon or fork or whatever. See how long it takes for it to bend with nothing acting on it except gravity. Now try the same experiment, but hold both ends of the utensil and attempt to bend it while you are heating it. Guess what?! It's going to bend much more quickly when you help out the process by applying pressure to the weak points. Do you think that 20 or 30 or 40 floors of building might aid in the process of weakening the steel at the explosion point? It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

I do understand what pressure is. I am an engineering major and have taken my share of phsyics and chem so to avoid anyone else trying to explain things such as gravity to me, it is not necessary. And no I am not trying to be all knowing I am graduating college so I have conquered the world guy. This is but my opinion. Yes the pressure of the thirty some floors above falling down on the lower seventy or so floors would have done some damage to the building but even from your viewpoint, the top of the tower would have teetered one way or the other, not fallen straight down. Even if it did fall straight down those top thirty some floors would not have been enough to bring the rest of the building down. That building was over engineered to withstand almost anything.

They kept talking about secondary explosions happening in the building around ground level or just above. OK. What did that have to do with anything? The building collapsed from the top down, it didn't fail at the bottom. What was the point they were trying to make? They had all these detonations at the bottom of the building, but they must have miscalculated because they didn't aid in bringing the building down. What was the point of the second explosion 9 seconds later? I can think of a million different scenarios where something would heat up and explode after a primary explosion and subsequent fire. Doesn't that make sense to you. Have you ever seen a chemical fire on the news? There are additional explosions all the time. This secondary explosion didn't cause the building to collapse, so what was it? A bomb? Yet another attempt to help make the building collapse that failed?

The point they were trying to make about the secondary explosions is that the entire building wouldnt have fallen if it wasn't in fact for those explosions. Exactly what I said would have happened, the top would fall and maybe damage some of the building but it would not have brought the entire thing down. And yes the second explosion nine seconds later could have been completely insignificant. Like I said, I never said I bought into the entire movie. They speak of the explosions so much in the video because they are trying to say that is what aided the building in falling. There is an interview in there with firefighters that were running from the building as it was falling and were only a block or two away and not only did they escape unscathed but they said they turned around and saw every floor being blown out consecutively. Something a bulding falling wouldnt do, but bombs however...

Now your comment about there not being enough mass above the explosion to cause a symmetrical collapse. Prove this to me!! Show me some equations. I don't need to defend this - I saw it with my own 2 eyes a hundred times. Those buildings came straight down. Just because some idiot wanted publicity and said that this couldn't happen doesn't make it so. When the majority of structural engineers all band together and agree that this couldn't have happened without help, and they show me data to prove their theory, then I will start believing the building was wired with explosives. Once again, why believe this with no evidence? Do you just want this conspiracy to be true? By the way, can you give me one example where a building actually failed and part of it tipped over?

First off there is no evidence of explosives becuase all but 150 pieces of the steel was shipped overseas to be scrapped and recycled. None of the steel was investigated for anything. So I can't give you concrete evidence that there were bombs. And I by no means want this conspiracy to be true, but from the knowledge of physics that I have (not by any means an expert) I just can't see how that building would come down like that without aid.

You say that these theories are hard to refute given all the facts. Once again, why do you believe what was said is factual? Did you take any time to check a single stated fact? I actually heard a guy talking on the radio a couple weeks ago who was part of the initial crew sent in to respond to the Pentagon attack. He said he saw one of the engines of the plane that crashed into the pentagon and said it was definitely the size of a airliner engine. Why go on the radio and make such a claim unless it's true? It doesn't exactly make him look cool or anything. He's on the radio!! They talked about a cruise missile hitting the pentagon, but early on in the video they talk about power lines being knocked down!! Well which one is it??? Did a cruise missile knock down power lines without detonating?

And you are correct I don't know that all of the information presented was factual. However I DID take a lot of time to research some of the things presented on various websites and the vast majority of what I looked up held up. To respond to what that guy said on the radio, yeah ok if he saw the engine then why did the Pentagon say the plane was incinerated upon impact melting the entire plane? People will say anything to be someone. I'm not saying the guy was lying, and there are photos of the wreckage, many of them, none of which have his supposed engine in it. And why did the FBI take all the survielance tapes from surrounding buildings?

Finally the most telling part of this conspiracy is the sheer number of people that would have needed to be involved in the cover up. Think about it!! If everything in that video were true, how many people would have had to know about these events happening? What happened - did the government pay them all a billion dollars to keep their mouth's shut??!! Think about it!!
Once again think about the put and call options and think how much money there was to be made. The govt didn't have to pay anyone IF that is the case. All they had to do is let the right people know it was going ot happen and they could have made all the money they wanted off of it.
 
V

vaf3

Audioholic Intern
Ryche: I am terribly sorry to hear that you lost a family member, it's a huge loss no matter what happened as you stated. And I am in no way trying to take anything away from that. If anything about this thread offends you in any way, just say so, and the thread shall be closed.

BMO: Along the lines of what you said I do not believe that this was a US conspiracy completely AS I STATED IN THE FIRST POST. I do however believe that there was a group of people who were aware that this was going to happen and who did benefit from it.

As for the rest of you, you can continue to call me a fool, and say its all speculation, and say that logic can debunk any one of those theories. As I have reiterated many times now I do not believe the entirety of the video. However there are parts that I find to be very ironic. Most of the discussion has been concentrated on the towers falling thus far. What about the other parts of the video. You all have me on that one anyway, the steel was scrapped and recycled before being inspected and tested after the towers fell. There is no evidence of anything involving the integrity of the steel and the steel has all been recycled now so this evidence cannot be obtained. So in reality either of us could be correct, but I am the fool? I can use your "logic" to prove each theory just as easily as you debunked them. Whoever gave the bookshelf example, do you think they engineered the towers to have the same structural properties of a bookshelf? The towers would not have imploded as they did without some sort of aid. Those of you who are professionals say so. I have several professors that have phds in several fields that have argued against your points. I may not be an expert but I will take their word for it. Oh and whoever told me to pick up a materials book I have that class next semester, so give me a minute on that one.

It is very surprising to me that this entire issue is being dismissed by everyone that has posted thus far. I thought there would be at least a few people out there without tunnelvision. I'm not saying all that stuff is true once again. But if you think an issue from that video is false, the say so and say why. Enough aboutthe steel. Someone explain what happened to the put and call options to me. Someone explain to me how the Pentagon shows undeniable evidence of a Boeing jetliner crashing into it. Someone talk about something other than the steel.
 
Last edited:
racquetman

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
vaf3 said:
Once again think about the put and call options and think how much money there was to be made. The govt didn't have to pay anyone IF that is the case. All they had to do is let the right people know it was going ot happen and they could have made all the money they wanted off of it.
Why let anyone know at all? Why take the risk? If you are going to deliberately destroy your own buildings, an act which would literally destroy all public trust in the government, would you tell more people just so they could make some money?

"Ya, Bob, you might want to exercise these stock options because, well, we plan on flying a couple planes straight into the world trade center. Oh, by the way, don't tell anyone OK. I know we didn't need to notify you, but we thought you might want to make a few extra bucks off of this disaster. Have a nice day."

Is that really what you think happened???
 
jonnythan

jonnythan

Audioholic Ninja
The steel hasn't all been recycled. I'm about 50 yards away from a ~ 1-ton steel main support beam that is bent like a noodle.

So much for that "fact."

The idea is being dismissed because it is moronic. As for the Pentagon, the hole in the Pentagon was awfully airliner-shaped to be a missle. I won't waste my time watching the video, so I dunno about your put and call options stuff. Seems to me that would require thousands of people to be "in" on the conspiracy, which would never ever work. Any stock market anomaly would be zeroed in on by the theorists anyway. There were obviously other market forces in play in the days preceeding the attacks.

You're ranting wildly and incoherently because of some total BS spouted by some idiots who are obviously making this **** up as they go.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top