Slashdot Mirror

Check out the Loose Change guide: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

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? On 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. 33:07 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. Let's look at, what was inside those buildings. cite: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

Read this:

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

  - it points out all the guff in "Loose Change". Checks in with real experts, shows the pictures that Loose Change didn't bother showing (because it doesn't agree with their version of events), and explains everything the 'truthers' try to point out.

> Let's not forget Loose Change.

Definitely let's not forget the viewer's guide as well. You conspiracy wackjobs are allies neither I nor the ACLU want or need in our particular fights.

No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find numerous refutations if you take 3 seconds to search.

It wasn't done by the US, as much as people like you seem to believe/wish it were.

And yes, we've all seen the alleged "proof" (which is laughable at best).

A decent compendium debunking most of the more common little tidbits is here:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/

(Yes, it's related to Loose Change, but since Loose Change is a collection of some of the more popular conspiracy theories/doubts/etc. about 9/11, it's a good place to start.)

There might be a lot of corrupt politicians, ulterior motives, and evil deeds in the world, but the US executing 9/11 on itself, and all that is implicit in that from technical, personnel, logistics, military, and numerous other perspectives, simply doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

You can say the US invited the attacks because of mideast policy. You can even say that some people might have not shed a tear in terms of the ability to then use 9/11 as a "Pearl Harbor"-type incident. But unfortunately, it was 19 mostly Saudi radical Islamic extremists - even if one believes they are monsters of the United States' own creation - that attacked the US on 9/11.

Not the US government or military itself. Not the shadow government. Not the Illuminati.

It's actually quite incredible what some conspiracy loons believe about 9/11. It simply does not stand up to any logic at all, or even common sense. Buildings weren't wired with explosives. It wasn't a drone or missile that hit the Pentagon. It wasn't remote control military aircraft that hit the towers. Voice changing technology wasn't used to make fake cell phone calls from Flight 93. Cell phones *do* work on planes (in various circumstances). The FCC/FAA cell phone "ban" isn't a trick so that people will "find out" that cell phones "don't work" under Flight 93-like conditions. Saying that something falls at "free fall speeds" (e.g., in reference to WTC 7) is meaningless and has no bearing on the discussion. Bringing up things like some NORAD exercise or Operation Northwoods or all kinds of tenuous, ridiculous, and (co)incidental information about some pilot who worked some particular place 25 years ago is irrelevant and meaningless. All/some of the planes weren't secretly landed safely at a military installation and then the occupants murdered. Hundreds/thousands of people haven't been "bought off" or "disappeared" to "cover up" the "truth" about 9/11.

I could go on and on and on and on. But ultimately, the people who want to believe 9/11 was an inside job will keep believing it, and any amount of proof otherwise won't sway them, and can indeed just be explained away as part of the conspiracy. Kind of like rabid Creationists, almost, frankly...

If you want to hate policy and a political view, go for it. But just realize that lunacy takes away any legitimacy from your debate, and getting other people to believe this tripe will eventually be the entire movement's undoing, or the end of *actual* truth (as opposed to your "truth") in any debate on this topic. And frankly, I think that may be what some people want.

Download Loose Change [demonoid.com]

And while you're at it, don't forget to have the Loose Change viewing guide handy.