seedyunderbelly.com wrote on Wed, 12 November 2008 06:25 |
John Have you ever seen that Loose Change video?
|
Have you ever seen the various analysis of it? Loose change is thought provoking (I know, the first time I saw it I found I was seriously considering what it claimed), but if you actually carry out the thoughts it provokes, with proper research, you find it has pretty much zero substance..
Quote: |
One of the more interesting things I have seen about this (I do not know IF it is correct!!)
In Moore's F911 There a supposedly a scene where they have Bush on camera reading to some kids in school the Moment he "finds out" that 911 had happened
In this "scene" a sercret service guy comes over to him and whispers in his ear proportedly that the 1st plane hit.
He looks nervous (NOT SHOCKED!!!) and continues to read to the kids. It implies (aswe already knew) that he is not controling anything ie:the country etc.
AND/OR he already knew about it
|
Whatever he is told is pretty short, certainly no time for a full explanation. I imagine something along the lines of "there has been a terrorist strike in New York", or "A plane has struck the world trade centre".
If he'd known about it beforehand, surely he would have had his act all worked out? Or the people in charge of him would have had his act all worked out if you believe he was being controlled.
To me it looks like a man with insufficient information (and no excess of intelligence) deciding (probably incorrectly in retrospect) that the best thing to do was to keep an appearance of calm and normality.
Quote: |
the other thing is that they had the SIMPLE DISCRETIONAL ability to PULL build #7 and they did NOT HIT it by planes..
|
Ah, the famous "Pull" quote
OK....
Demolishin a building with explosives is NOT REFERRED TO AS PULLING IT BY A DEMOLITIONS PERSON .
This is one of the lies started by Loose Change which just keeps going round.
Think about it, how could anyone equate an explosion with the word "pull"??
A number of leading demolitions experts have stated quite clearly that the only times in their careers where the word "pull" has been used in reference to demolition is when cables are attached to the structure and it is quite literally pulled.
Makes sense doesn't it?
Quote: |
If they had the building "pre loaded" to pull why is it far fetched that they pull the towers
|
Nothing was pre loaded to pull, nor for demolition with explosives, I don't know where you got that idea.
Quote: |
I was always confused why the owner of the towers (who some say was in on it) would let it fly-- I just heard that he is involved in making the new construction..? insurance?
|
Let what fly? His buildings being struck by aircraft, fire, and big bits of other buildings?
Quote: |
Also some say that vast amounts of gold were moved out before the collapse from under the towers
|
http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_revi ew_of_the_gold_story_segment.pdf
Quote: |
Are there many accounts of those who lost their families in the planes?
|
Yes.
Quote: |
Also the argument that the fire was hot enough to melt steel yet you can see humans standing at the opening and then jumping out down (rip)
Lots of questions anyway.
|
And lots of answers, if you read stuff by people who aren't desperate to prove it was all a demolition job.
Even if someone in government were directly involved or allowed it to happen to auit their own motives, you're more likely to find video footage of Dick Cheney handing the terrorists their boarding passes while Rumsfeld distracts security than you are of finding the various demolitions theories are correct, because it's actually more feasible!