Location: Ottawa (Now in Bangalore)
Posted on: 11-09-06 17:36:52
Ummmm... some really peace loving individuals... from peace loving countries.. and all their well wishers and apologists...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/nn1page1.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456983/html/nn1page1.stm</a>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Aur Vaise Bhi, Sharafat ki jab kapde utarti hai, sabse zyaada mazaa shareefon ko hi aati hai"....(From The Dirty Picture)
Warning !! SCAM ALERT !!
http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=4169 & http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=1379
This is a Useful Health related Tip
http://www.canadiandesi.ca/read.php?TID=3865
Please visit
http://www.cmje.org/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php for some interesting Information ! (Especially 009.005 )
Quote:
Originally posted by bangaloredesi
All those who donot believe the conspiracy theory shoud spend few hours on google and also on youtube.com. Donot miss watching the link provided by the sudhesingh above.
The same in google is provided below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726
'Loose change' was the film(the most popular one i guess with 10 million viewers) that claimed that there were multiple explosions in the bottom floors of the collapsing building towers. It also claimed that there were multiple explosions heard by witnesses. I have already answered the first assumption. Regarding the second, yesterdays CBC doc also mentioned a fire chief saying that secondary explosions are but normal, in any fire, especially in hi-rise structures due to the likely presence of potentially explosive material on site(e.g: propane tanks etc). I've just picked on 2 of the assumptions made in loose change....the film is full of them.
Yesterdays doc however seemed to gloss over these explanations while focussing at length on the conspiracy angle leading the viewers to a specific conclussion.
There was a documentary some time ago which used stock footage of interviews and previous recorded(on camera) incidents and basically constructed a premise about the landing on the moon being fake. The doc had people like Kissinger quoted out of context and admitting to misdeeds and coverups .I myself was quite surprised about the information I was receiving until the fictitious nature of the whole thing was revealed at the end of the doc. The doc was made to convey the fact that a skillful director can easily manipulate the audience into a particular way of thinking. This is especially true when the material and 'experts' quoted do not have opposing 'experts' to cross question them.
The doc was called DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_161103.html
Farenhiet 911 and its rebuttal Farenhype 911 are examples of this kind of film-making.
http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Independant%20Essay.htm
In laymans terms...Its also called propaganda(if you take them seriously) OR entertainment. Take your pick
As film maker I would recommend a high dose of pessimism.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Building 7 was abt 300 ft away from the towers. There was hardly any debris on it. Then why did it collapse?
Secondary explosions could occur due to presence of potentially explosive materials like propane. Fair enough. Without igniting how they can explode? That too at the lower floors? Did the fire come down to the lower floors by itself and cause explosions? They exploded right in the middle of the lower floors.
DIO
Quote:
Originally posted by desi in ottawa
Building 7 was abt 300 ft away from the towers. There was hardly any debris on it. Then why did it collapse?
Secondary explosions could occur due to presence of potentially explosive materials like propane. Fair enough. Without igniting how they can explode? That too at the lower floors? Did the fire come down to the lower floors by itself and cause explosions? They exploded right in the middle of the lower floors.
DIO
DIO. About building 7 see this
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/05/loose-marbles-ii.html
I did not connect the link between the debri's goming out of the lower floors with any explosions. You and probably the other witness did the same.
Here is how I see it.
1)There were secondary explosions, mostly on the floors the fire was. Also probably due to pressure of collapsing debris on substances sealed under high pressure...there may have been explosions on the floors below.
2)The debri comming out of the floors below the collapsing structure are due to the innards collapsing and imploding out before the outer shell crumbling. After all the outer shell is not what holds the inner structure but the other way around. The inner structure HAS to collapse inorder for the whole tower to come down like it did. The outer wall just followed.
The both were not neccessarily connected all the time....though it could have been in some instances. The link I posted above also mentions what I wrote above
ALL this to say...I am not trying to say that you are wrong. I am just asking all of you if you would still believe the 'loose change' film if the above link and sources were juxtaposed with the footage and quotes of the film. Would it not cancell out most of the premise of the conspiracy theory? Would you still believe the conspiracy angle if such cross examination happened simultaneously?
Even after all this:
If the govt conspirers had such wanton disregard for property and life, why did they worry about a controlled demolition? What makes bin laden and ilk take responsibility for a controlled demolition by Bush and Cheney(and the nefarious international cabal)? Or does the conspiracy take deeper tones with Bin laden and Al zawahiri being part of the same cabal?. To sustain the conspiracy angle one HAS to go to ridiculous links to explain away all the actors of the game.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
Forget loose change, etc.
Lee Hamilton who chaired the 9/11 enquiry commission, admitted in the interview (CBCNEWS) that there are number of unanswered questions and the report did not cover everything. He was very defensive in his answers.
Well, we all saw the planes hitting the towers. No doubt about that. But there are other things that raise questions. Again the 9/11 report did not elaborate on building 7.
DIO
Quote:
Originally posted by desi in ottawa
Forget loose change, etc.
A good part of the cbc story(by Evan Solomon right?) you mentioned in the OP was devoted to 'loose change', including interviews with atleast one of its makers.
Quote:
Lee Hamilton who chaired the 9/11 enquiry commission, admitted in the interview (CBCNEWS) that there are number of unanswered questions and the report did not cover everything.
True. I dont think any report will. Similarly reports on other aircraft accidents/ disasters etc have unanswered questions too.
Quote:
He was very defensive in his answers.
A question of perception....let me dismiss that you are grasping at straws(emotion vs logic) with this statement.
He also did admit that he was 'setup to fail'. The CBC doc focussed on this aspect to push the conspiracy theory angle.
Are you are implying that he is part of the conspiracy?Why did he say that he was 'setup to fail'. To to undermine the same conspiracy he belonged to?
p.s: I did not find him being defensive.
Quote:
Well, we all saw the planes hitting the towers. No doubt about that. But there are other things that raise questions. Again the 9/11 report did not elaborate on building 7.
DIO
Since you did not look at my link here are pictures of wtc7 and quotes from firemen
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
from the same link...just one of the quotes
--------------------------
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years
Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html
----------------------------------
Ofcourse he could be part of the cabal too
. Maybe he killed Visconti inorder to destroy evidence-----------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Services- Servicedomino.com
http://www.servicedomino.com
I wonder if it is the hatred towards the US and its policies that is driving people towards conspiracy theories? Its okay to hate the US policies on war etc...but come on guys be rational, dont turn into conspiracy nuts :-)
Take a look at how a desi american-civil engineer Mr.Shyam Sunder describes the building collap[seon PBS (considered a very neutral source in the US)- which I consider is a rational theory
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html
------------------------------
"The truth is out there"
...aliens are being hidden by the US govt in area 51 :-)
