Loose Change Debunked.

Where all the trolls lurk. Oh, and posts that really don't belong in the main forums.

Loose Change Debunked.

Snipezz
Newbie
Snipezz
Newbie
Joined: Sep 12 2006, 02:41 AM

Sep 12 2006, 03:01 AM #1

Ok so explain away all of the points made in this video.. Explain to me and others that don't agree with your production, how you can rebut all of the points made against your "evidence" and other points.
Watch the video below, and then tell me that you're right...

Loose change debunked
Quote
Like
Share

DemolitionCrew
Veteran
Joined: Apr 14 2006, 04:00 PM

Sep 12 2006, 03:03 AM #2

I am moving this to the appropriate forum....

Under the Bridge...

You are welcome to discuss this thread there.
I am a most unhappy man..... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men –Woodrow Wilson.
Quote
Like
Share

Snipezz
Newbie
Snipezz
Newbie
Joined: Sep 12 2006, 02:41 AM

Sep 12 2006, 03:12 AM #4

Well sanders, thats just ridiculous, but thanks for proving that only the uneducated believe in this preposterous theory of loose change.... My father is a civil engineer, and has 30 years of experience in the field, im currently studying civil and structural engineering at university in the UK, and I'm sorry but the creators of loose change obviously have no idea about anything to do with engineering, as do many of the sources they quote....
This theory is ridiculous.
Of course I'm sure ill be banned for expressing my opinion or be called one of them or something. OH NO HE DOESNT AGREE! He must be a governemnt agent!
Rigghhhttt, cause the government would employ people to come to a forum full of uneducated net nerds who spout ideas of an idiotic conspiracy theory... yeahhh....
Quote
Like
Share

DemolitionCrew
Veteran
Joined: Apr 14 2006, 04:00 PM

Sep 12 2006, 03:18 AM #5

You will not get banned for expressing your opinion. Only if you insult people and troll your points without evidence and backup.
I am a most unhappy man..... We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men –Woodrow Wilson.
Quote
Like
Share

Snipezz
Newbie
Snipezz
Newbie
Joined: Sep 12 2006, 02:41 AM

Sep 12 2006, 03:27 AM #6

Ok well;
From my course studying engineering, your whole uneducated idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition are moronic at best, due to the amount of charges needed, and due to the fact that to bring down the WTC towers, detonations would have been in completely different places to where you show on the video the pops coming out of the building, those are infact releases of pressurized air from the fact that the floors were collapsing on top of them. This pressure would in turn be enough to vaporise much of the concrete, and also the crash after the extreme height would also contribute to turning the concrete into dust.
Secondly, many of you overestimate the durability and reliability of steel, any amount of heat begins to weaken it, just because the melting point of steel is higher than that of the burning point of jet fuel, doesn't mean that the steel would be in perfect working order.
Once steel begins to be heated it progressively becomes more weak, so for example say the steel was 50% effective due to the heat induced by the burning jet fuel, this would mean that the support beams for 20 floors could only hold 10.. hence the steel could not support the weight, which led to a collapse.
The pancake theory which many of you say is not visible in the case of the wtc collapses, with images etc, is realistic.
THe amazing kinetic energy of falling concrete and the weight of the building would mean that any evidence of a pancake collapse would be destoryed due to the extreme conversion of kinetic energy once the floors and debris hit the floor. That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.
Quote
Like
Share

THE DECIDER
Veteran
Joined: May 22 2006, 02:03 PM

Sep 12 2006, 03:56 AM #7

Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 03:27 AM wrote: Ok well;
From my course studying engineering, your whole uneducated idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition are moronic at best, due to the amount of charges needed, and due to the fact that to bring down the WTC towers, detonations would have been in completely different places to where you show on the video the pops coming out of the building, those are infact releases of pressurized air from the fact that the floors were collapsing on top of them. This pressure would in turn be enough to vaporise much of the concrete, and also the crash after the extreme height would also contribute to turning the concrete into dust.
Secondly, many of you overestimate the durability and reliability of steel, any amount of heat begins to weaken it, just because the melting point of steel is higher than that of the burning point of jet fuel, doesn't mean that the steel would be in perfect working order.
Once steel begins to be heated it progressively becomes more weak, so for example say the steel was 50% effective due to the heat induced by the burning jet fuel, this would mean that the support beams for 20 floors could only hold 10.. hence the steel could not support the weight, which led to a collapse.
The pancake theory which many of you say is not visible in the case of the wtc collapses, with images etc, is realistic.
THe amazing kinetic energy of falling concrete and the weight of the building would mean that any evidence of a pancake collapse would be destoryed due to the extreme conversion of kinetic energy once the floors and debris hit the floor. That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.
Quote
Like
Share

AE4
Veteran
AE4
Veteran
Joined: Jun 16 2006, 07:59 AM

Sep 12 2006, 07:55 AM #9

I wonder what this board would look like if people would look for the actual truth instead of whatever's right for them which they subsequently label "truth".
Quote
Like
Share

Geoff
Advanced Member
Geoff
Advanced Member
Joined: Jun 29 2006, 04:45 PM

Sep 12 2006, 09:00 AM #11

As another engineer, I have to agree with what Snipez says: the engineering facts are consistent with the official story, and trying to dispute them just makes you look uninformed.

However, I need to pick him up on a point of definition: "pancake theory" actually refers to a now-discredited mechanism for initiating the collapse, not the subsequent collapse sequence. It postulated an initial failure of the joints of the outside ends of the floor beams, so that the whole floor fell like a pancake. Further investigation showed that the joints held, but the floor beams sagged, pulling in the walls to the point where they failed in Euler-load compression.
Quote
Like
Share

Oskzzo
Member
Oskzzo
Member
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 09:05 AM

Sep 12 2006, 09:29 AM #12

Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 03:27 AM wrote: Ok well;
From my course studying engineering, your whole uneducated idea that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition are moronic at best, due to the amount of charges needed, and due to the fact that to bring down the WTC towers, detonations would have been in completely different places to where you show on the video the pops coming out of the building, those are infact releases of pressurized air from the fact that the floors were collapsing on top of them. This pressure would in turn be enough to vaporise much of the concrete, and also the crash after the extreme height would also contribute to turning the concrete into dust.
Secondly, many of you overestimate the durability and reliability of steel, any amount of heat begins to weaken it, just because the melting point of steel is higher than that of the burning point of jet fuel, doesn't mean that the steel would be in perfect working order.
Once steel begins to be heated it progressively becomes more weak, so for example say the steel was 50% effective due to the heat induced by the burning jet fuel, this would mean that the support beams for 20 floors could only hold 10.. hence the steel could not support the weight, which led to a collapse.
The pancake theory which many of you say is not visible in the case of the wtc collapses, with images etc, is realistic.
THe amazing kinetic energy of falling concrete and the weight of the building would mean that any evidence of a pancake collapse would be destoryed due to the extreme conversion of kinetic energy once the floors and debris hit the floor. That would cause the cement to turn to dust, due to the extreme forces that would have happened.
I could go on all night because quite frankly i find it prevalent to say that your *documentary* is completely ludicrous.
well you are intitled to your opion but here is my counter claim for you to think about. if the pancake effect was the reason for the towers to collapse and which was caused by jet fuel burning then explain these facts.

1) why was the jet fuel fire smoke black as in oxygen starved?

with this the fire could of nevered reach it's full potiental of 2000*c (this was stated by firefighters)

2) seeing the pancake effect would of started from the damaged floor why was no kinetic resistence in the theory added in?

if kinetic restence was added for floors that was not damaged the speed of the fall would of slowed down at a point.

3) how did it go straight down?

if you look at the damage evident where the planes impacted the towers the first tower would of only lost the top 20-30 floor due to the damage being on one side which would of caused the falling floors and wall to take the path of least resisance. and the first tower to fall before the implosion of the floors the damage top which was topling over towrds the path of least resistence before the lwer floors all of a sudden dropped from under neither it.

watch the videos they don't lie.

he are my credentials: US Army infantry, tank-killer 11BC2 also trained in demolishions.
Quote
Like
Share

georgie101
Member
Joined: Aug 21 2006, 10:56 AM

Sep 12 2006, 10:06 AM #14

THE DECIDER @ Sep 12 2006, 03:56 AM wrote:
that picture is bloody hilarious.


snipez, you haven't mentioned anything else about that day,

dick cheneys war games,
collapse of wtc7,
pentagon mysteries,
financial situtions of people involved,
mr bush,

i wont go on, but you catch my drift.
Quote
Like
Share

barcode770
Newbie
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 02:55 PM

Sep 12 2006, 02:43 PM #15

I want to add a point that fire mainly burns upwards, IE: heat rises.

I would figure the top 20 or 30 so floors would have burned and eventually "slid" off the main structure. SO how is it the floors beneath the so called raging inferno gave away.
Take a house on fire lets say a 2 story home...fire starts upstairs..the fire would collaspe the roof before collasping down onto the first floor..Ask any firefighter how a fire burns..They will all agree that it will burn upwards

And you want to tell me that this is the first building to suffer a total collaspe due to fire? Please the physics do not add up and I know you all can see that.

There has been numerous skyscraper fires and not one in history was destroyed and collasped by fire...Damaged yes but not totally brought down...there not designed to do that for safety reasons.
Quote
Like
Share

Geoff
Advanced Member
Geoff
Advanced Member
Joined: Jun 29 2006, 04:45 PM

Sep 12 2006, 03:15 PM #16

barcode770 @ Sep 12 2006, 02:43 PM wrote: There has been numerous skyscraper fires and not one in history was destroyed and collasped by fire...Damaged yes but not totally brought down...there not designed to do that for safety reasons.
How about a combination of major structural damage and subsequent fire, fed by a lot of jet fuel? You can't compare other fires, this was unprecedented. This is probably the nearest previous case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijlmerramp
...the heavily loaded plane crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of apartments.
What makes you think the collapse started below the damaged part?
Quote
Like
Share

barcode770
Newbie
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 02:55 PM

Sep 12 2006, 04:55 PM #17

Once again...That was a 747 loaded with hazardous materials but amazing the whole of the apartments remain what? S-t-a-n-d-i-n-g....


Naturally those apartments are not as tall as the WTC and given the weight of a heavilly loaded 747 at speed running into the said apartment building Yes it would fall in due to force and aircraft size but only collasping in the hit area. It looks to me for the most part the building is still intact.

But i forgot that nothing bad is supposed to happen to the USA...Because were a policing country who thrives to have our hands in everyone elses bullsh*&.
Quote
Like
Share

Snipezz
Newbie
Snipezz
Newbie
Joined: Sep 12 2006, 02:41 AM

Sep 12 2006, 05:16 PM #18

All i know is that, if you guys are saying that there was no fire, what about the poor people that jumped, they leapt from something and if you say it wasnt an inferno you disgust me. Those people died trying to escape. You also discredit the fact that there were heroes on the plane that was brought down in the woods.
I think that your supposition that there were no people killed and there was no fire is disgusting to the memory of those that died.
Trying showing some respect to the dead, and those that gave, and lost their lives.
Quote
Like
Share

Roxdog
Veteran
Joined: Feb 10 2006, 04:45 PM

Sep 12 2006, 05:21 PM #19

Snipez @ Sep 11 2006, 09:12 PM wrote: Well sanders, thats just ridiculous, but thanks for proving that only the uneducated believe in this preposterous theory of loose change.... My father is a civil engineer, and has 30 years of experience in the field, im currently studying civil and structural engineering at university in the UK, and I'm sorry but the creators of loose change obviously have no idea about anything to do with engineering, as do many of the sources they quote....
This theory is ridiculous.
Of course I'm sure ill be banned for expressing my opinion or be called one of them or something. OH NO HE DOESNT AGREE! He must be a governemnt agent!
Rigghhhttt, cause the government would employ people to come to a forum full of uneducated net nerds who spout ideas of an idiotic conspiracy theory... yeahhh....
Troll....

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... _wtc_7.htm
http://www.RevereRadio.net
Do Not Visit This Link To Universal Seed

"He who has the most to lose will be the last to wake up."
-Sonny Crack, 9/13/06

"Proof of what? That our govt. is corrupt? I got plenty of proof. Look in your wallet for a piece of paper that says ""Federal Reserve Note". There ya go. A signed confession."
Quote
Like
Share

georgie101
Member
Joined: Aug 21 2006, 10:56 AM

Sep 12 2006, 06:13 PM #20

Snipez @ Sep 12 2006, 05:16 PM wrote:All i know is that, if you guys are saying that there was no fire, what about the poor people that jumped, they leapt from something and if you say it wasnt an inferno you disgust me. Those people died trying to escape. You also discredit the fact that there were heroes on the plane that was brought down in the woods.
I think that your supposition that there were no people killed and there was no fire is disgusting to the memory of those that died.
Trying showing some respect to the dead, and those that gave, and lost their lives.
who exactly said there was no fire, and belive me, nobody is trying to disrespect anyone who lost their lives that day. MORON
Quote
Like
Share

johndoeX
Veteran
Joined: May 18 2006, 01:24 PM

Sep 12 2006, 07:24 PM #21

Geoff @ Sep 12 2006, 11:15 AM wrote:
How about a combination of major structural damage and subsequent fire, fed by a lot of jet fuel? You can't compare other fires, this was unprecedented. This is probably the nearest previous case:
You may be an expert with engineering.. but im an expert with jet fuel burn rates. You may want to double check your figures.

And one last item..

WTC 7. Prove it beyond theory (WTC 1 and 2 for that matter..) thanks!

[cheers]
Pilots For Truth Forum
www.universalseed.org for truth
Freedom To Fascism

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.- Mark Twain
Quote
Like
Share

Guussie
Advanced Member
Guussie
Advanced Member
Joined: Aug 23 2006, 12:49 AM

Sep 12 2006, 07:46 PM #22

SCL (Screw Loose Change) has only 1 goal, to debunk LC (loose Change), it made no investigation at all if the statements in LC are true or not, it just says they are not. They did not provide any evidence that really says LC is wrong. Besides that, Sanders did a great job in debunking SCL. Getting owned by the movie they tried to debunk, that must hurt.

What made you watch SCL anyway?
Did you believe CL first, but then SCL?
Do you switch sides that easily?
Are you the average I-know-what-I-have-been-told-so-it-must-be-true type of person?

I searched a lot on the internet, some parts of the official story I do believe, but a lot of it I don't. Does this mean my opinion is right, no, but till I have no significant evidence provided by the US government my statement is...

if it was not (partly) an inside job they at least knew exactly what happened and when this would be.
Quote
Like
Share

Oskzzo
Member
Oskzzo
Member
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 09:05 AM

Sep 12 2006, 07:46 PM #23

Snipezz @ Sep 12 2006, 05:16 PM wrote: All i know is that, if you guys are saying that there was no fire, what about the poor people that jumped, they leapt from something and if you say it wasnt an inferno you disgust me. Those people died trying to escape. You also discredit the fact that there were heroes on the plane that was brought down in the woods.
I think that your supposition that there were no people killed and there was no fire is disgusting to the memory of those that died.
Trying showing some respect to the dead, and those that gave, and lost their lives.
well for one no one ever said there was no fire. but everyone agrees that the fire did not reach the intensity to cause steel to snap or weaken as much as the government claims. as for disgracing the memory fo ppl who did it is more of a disgrace dying for a lie.

i have respect for the dead and the heroes of 9/11 but i have my questions on why they died and our goverment will either no answer or are hiding the answers with deception.
Quote
Like
Share

Geoff
Advanced Member
Geoff
Advanced Member
Joined: Jun 29 2006, 04:45 PM

Sep 13 2006, 07:23 AM #24

barcode770 @ Sep 12 2006, 04:55 PM wrote: Once again...That was a 747 loaded with hazardous materials but amazing the whole of the apartments remain what? S-t-a-n-d-i-n-g....


Naturally those apartments are not as tall as the WTC and given the weight of a heavilly loaded 747 at speed running into the said apartment building Yes it would fall in due to force and aircraft size but only collasping in the hit area. It looks to me for the most part the building is still intact.

But i forgot that nothing bad is supposed to happen to the USA...Because were a policing country who thrives to have our hands in everyone elses bullsh*&.
That's why I said it was near, not an exact precedent. The bit where the aircraft hit collapsed completely. The rest stayed up because it was a much wider building. A 747 that's just taken off carries a lot less kinetic energy than a 767 at cruise speed.

Can't see what your last paragraph has to do with how a buiding collapses.
Quote
Like
Share

Geoff
Advanced Member
Geoff
Advanced Member
Joined: Jun 29 2006, 04:45 PM

Sep 13 2006, 07:29 AM #25

Oskzzo @ Sep 12 2006, 07:46 PM wrote: well for one no one ever said there was no fire. but everyone agrees that the fire did not reach the intensity to cause steel to snap or weaken as much as the government claims.
You have of course the numbers to back this up?

How much of the building's reserve strength was lost due to impact damage? How much would the steel have to weaken? What temperature would the fire have to reach? You can't form an opinion on this without doing detailed calculations.

How many structural engineers are included in your "everyone"?
Quote
Like
Share

Oskzzo
Member
Oskzzo
Member
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 09:05 AM

Sep 13 2006, 09:32 AM #27

Geoff @ Sep 13 2006, 07:29 AM wrote:
Oskzzo @ Sep 12 2006, 07:46 PM wrote: well for one no one ever said there was no fire. but everyone agrees that the fire did not reach the intensity to cause steel to snap or weaken as much as the government claims.
You have of course the numbers to back this up?

How much of the building's reserve strength was lost due to impact damage? How much would the steel have to weaken? What temperature would the fire have to reach? You can't form an opinion on this without doing detailed calculations.

How many structural engineers are included in your "everyone"?
thank you sander for the numbers.

my experience from steel comes from using the dragon anti-tank missle launcher. which can melt a tank from the inside out. the heat from this missle reaches about 2500-3500*c. seeing it has been 9 yrs since i last fired one i forgot the compound used in it. there are engineers postings about thermite that i beleave this guy needs to read for more numbers about steel and the steel used in the WTC towers and buildings.
Quote
Like
Share

Wiktor
Regular Member
Wiktor
Regular Member
Joined: Sep 7 2006, 07:34 PM

Sep 13 2006, 10:54 AM #28

johndoeX @ Sep 12 2006, 03:24 PM wrote: You may be an expert with engineering.. but im an expert with jet fuel burn rates.
What kind of background do you have in jet fuel burn rates?
WTC 7. Prove it beyond theory (WTC 1 and 2 for that matter..) thanks!

[cheers]
Before you pop the cork, you might want to find physical evidence of your theory before you start negating the opinions of worldwide experts on building demolition (you know, those people who actually make their livings by studying this stuff.)

So far, I have yet to find physical evidence that explosives, bombs, missiles, etc were used on 9/11. You "truthers" have failed to provide it. The only things you've provided are video photage coupled with voice overs which describe things, "...that appear to be." Witnesses from the ground saw a lot of different things and a handful out of the large pool have given statements that can be taken out of context (something that conspiracy theorists love to do). That appearance of a bomb going off doesn't necessarily mean that a bomb actually went off.

Why can't you guys at least admit that this is only a theory that has no physical evidence to support it?
Quote
Like
Share

number3
Member
number3
Member
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 03:33 PM

Sep 13 2006, 11:37 AM #29

Wiktor @ Sep 13 2006, 10:54 AM wrote:

Why can't you guys at least admit that this is only a theory that has no physical evidence to support it?
That is what I am thinking!

Surely to bring down two hundred and twenty stories of office building, and then a few other buildings there MUST have been SOME evidence left behind of the detonation material, where is it?

They found a credit card from a victim above one of the crashed plane sites from a WTC tower victim who died.

Why dont we see ANY evidence of any of what was likely thousands of devices used to take the buildings down? (and no: saying the government hid it is not proof)
Quote
Like
Share

number3
Member
number3
Member
Joined: Sep 11 2006, 03:33 PM

Sep 13 2006, 11:43 AM #30

To me, the biggest debunk of loose change is the lack of physical evidence to prove the theories.

Dont need to watch or read any debunk of the unofficial 'truth' to know that the truth movement has provided not one single photograph or document showing explosives were involved in any way.

In a photograph I do not mean something that LOOKs like a puff of smoke coming out of a window, that can be debated (and is)

nobody could refute a photo of a pile of 20 different pieces of blasting material and shape charges, or photos of beams showing the characteristic marks left by shape charges.. (or the cuts in the beams used to weaken them, allowing for an easier detonation)

where is the evidence? stuff I could hold in my hand..
Quote
Like
Share