Comments | methodius: Conspiracy movies

methodius

Conspiracy movies

Jun 11, 2006 20:42

No, not The da Vinci codeThis is a documentary on disc that my son borrowed from a friend, that claims that the planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 was orchestrated by people in power in the USA to further their own ends ( Read more... )

conspiracy theories, 911, conspiracy films

Comments 5

djproject June 11 2006, 19:34:18 UTC

oh i know which one you are talking about ... loose change

the major problem with the "controlled demolition" theory is for a controlled demolition, it would collapse a bit more gracefully (implosion with the rubble moving toward the center and not away from the building). the twin towere didn't.

the other thing people like to point out is that "the fire couldn't have melted all that steel." the plane by itself, no. however, when you crash into a building that's full of ... paper, you have a nice plentiful source to keep a fire going. all it took was time.

furthermore, the reason why the south tower collapsed first even though it was hit last was all the asbestos was removed from the inner structure. the north tower still had it.

and yeah ... conspiracy theories give me a headache. mainly because they spend so much time, effort and brain power trying to convince you that their theory is correct.

golodhgwath June 11 2006, 22:44:10 UTC

They collapsed almost entirely on their own footprints, with relatively little debris falling outside that range.

Also, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane.

however, when you crash into a building that's full of ... paper, you have a nice plentiful source to keep a fire going. all it took was time.Work with metal much? I confess that I have little experience with large quantities of metal, but I have a lot of experience with small scale jewelry fabrication. I need a butane torch just to melt silver. I can keep that thing on my steel tools the whole time I'm working with the silver, and they don't get better than red hot. No amount of burning paper would melt steel ( ... )

golodhgwath June 11 2006, 21:52:28 UTC

I've seen that video. I think it brings up a lot of the questions that I had, even back then. Whether or not the explanations they present in the video are the truth, I am utterly unconvinced by the official story.

And I am not prone to conspiracy theory. Actually, I have heard from a number of sources that those planes couldn't have made the buildings collapse on their own. It was most recently, I think, some physicist from Brigham Young University that caused a stir by saying so.

Loose change methodius June 12 2006, 08:08:45 UTC

Yes, the film was Loose change

As I said, I haven't watched all of it. I don't find the arguments in the bits I have seen altogether convincing. Expecially the "controlled demolition" theory.

At the time I was watching it, I thought that the aircraft had not done all that much damage to the building, and the fire did not seem to be very fierce. No flames to be seen, just black smoke coming out of broken windows.

The film made the argument that there had been fires in other buildings, and they had not collapsed, therefore these should not have collapsed. But the other buildings had not suffered damage from impact with aircraft, which would have weakened the structure. In the case where an aircraft had hit the building, it was a smaller aircraft and a stronger building. Or at least a building with a stronger shell -- concrete is harder to penetrate than than glass windows and aluminium cladding. The difference could be explained by different construction methods ( ... )

What would it acheive? jp_uk June 12 2006, 18:04:04 UTC

My thought when I hear about such theories is what is the point of going to all the trouble of setting up a disaster (where over 3,000 people lost their lives) when the US is pretty good at just getting into a scrap with little excuse ( ... )