9-11 Loose Change (full-version)

Very long yet very interesting. This video leaves you saying "what if" time and time again.

The conspiracy theory blames the attacks on September 11, 2001 as government-staged acts to get the United States involved in the Global War on Terror. Other propagandist cases such as this have been used before (explained in the video), so whats stopping the government from doing it now?

​

 

Meh, they'll be conspiracies around every event.

Sure, it's naive to says the government is a "good" entity.... but this theory, or I should say theories aren't feasible.

If you actually look at how many sorts of ridiculous statements these videos made, and how improbable that they ALL happenned, you probably wouldn't the video seriously.

Sure, if the video suggested that some aspects were government caused, it might be believable... but the magntitude of some of that bull shit is ridicilous.

 

Any explosives would've made the building fail outwards. The steel was not melting, it was softening. At 0:15 you can see the foundation fails inwards, thus proving that there weren't any explosives that caused the collapse. It's softened steel was also being weighted down. When that part started to fail, all of the top floor's weight pressed down on the rest of the building, thus causing a chain effect. This chain effect was the collapse itself. Anyone who thinks it was a inside job is just a conspiracy eater. Open your eyes and look at the true facts.

 

I don't think it was a conspiracy, I like the comment above ^

But seeing that video just brings back the memories of getting taken from school early, not knowing what happened. Then I just sat and watched the tv, watching our country fall into chaos.

 

They talked about the Pentagon using explosives. Look at the past attempts at governmental propaganda like the mention of Cuba in the beggining of the film.

 

that was a very interesting video. but just talking about it, brings back that nightmare of a day 8 years ago..

 

I have a theory of you being a fag.

 

me too. it was pretty freaky at first.

reported.

 

You guys are idiots to even consider it was the government. Enough said >.>

And theres been about 5 topics on this.

 

If the explosives were planted under it, I don't think anything would be exploding outward. If the support under the whole thing was broken/melted, it could have just collapsed. Also, the whole free-fall thing in the video. Unless ALL of the metal/support was broken up in to small peices, small enough for the buildings parts to go into free-fall speed, it wouldn't have reached the ground in 10.2 seconds. Something had to make all of the support break at the same time. Explosives would be the only likely thing. And what about the second explosion people heard? And what about the fact that the building wouldn't collapse from jet fuel being burned. The steel was better quality than that, and the people who built the tower said that the steel was high quality, and would have taken much longer than 45 minutes-1 hour to melt and collapse. And, buildings made WAY longer ago, with MUCH worse materials/metals, lower standards, have resisted fires while burning for 10+ hours. So why does 1 hour of burning collapse a modern masterpeice, that used top-notch steel, concrete, and was created to resist attacks by things like this?

 

These tests have never been supported by the scientific theory. Because crashing a plane into a building would be impossible to replicate, the best solution would be a computer-modeled simulation of the event. To prove that explosives were involved, the simulation would have to prove that even in extreme situations, such a fall would be impossible.

These conspiracies are far too broad to believable. They should just focus on one particular sequence, rather than suggesting other notions (ie, Pentagon was blown up as well, the other plane landed safely).

 

False. An airplane was accidently crashed into a building. It was made with much poorer quality, and it was much older. The building did NOT fall. Try watching the video before you just say stuff.

 

The steel was coated with fire resistance paint...but this was poorly done so that explains why the steel didnt stand the flames....and thats why the building collapsed.

 

That has to be one of the most idiotic statements of logic I've heard.

Do you even know the scientific method? This is just like saying, I saw a stupid black person, therefore black people must be stupid.

For the scientific method to hold true, the building must have been of at least approximately same height, material. The plane must've been exactly the same size, and hit exactly the same place. The hypothesis must be repeatable and testable.

 

the explosions on the pentagon went outward. and there is no plan on video. they were planted inside the wall

and alll i can do is LOL at this one. They accidentally crashed 2 consecutive planes into 2 identical towers in the same location within 20 minutes of eachother?
wooooow hahaha
planes crash like 3 or 4 times a year. 2 in 20 minutes isnt an accident dude.

 

Again, take consideration of the weight of the 20+ stories weighting on the rest of the building. It all falls like a set of Janga blocks if you took out a giant part of the building a put a 30 pound weight on it. That top notch steel and concrete had to have massive weight. The building was fireproofed, but the plane collision removed the fireproofing. This started to soften the steel. The building started to wedge, because the metal was softening with lots of weight on it. When this happened, the rest of the building's infrastructure failed and the building collapsed. At 0:02 pause the video. See the steel softening and decaying on the side of the tower? This was due to the removal of fireproofing. When the tower started to wedge, all of that weight just pushed it down. This isn't an inside job. To understand this, you need a bit of common knowledge.

 

Like Swift's response, 2 planes crashing into two identical buildings within 20 minutes just isn't an accident.

 

its simple illogical to believe in coincidence in this type of situation

 

He was trying to suggest that a different airplane crashed into a different building, and did not collapse it.... he then jumped to the conclusion that a plane could not collapse a building.

Nevertheless, illogical, however misinterpreted.

 

He was trying to suggest that a different airplane crashed into a different building, and did not collapse it.... he then jumped to the conclusion that a plane could not collapse a building.

Nevertheless, illogical, however misinterpreted.