Mark Cuban, Charlie Sheen, Rosie fund 9/11 Documentary

[TSChaser]

This was in the NY Post today:



http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/photos/pg6016.jpg

March 22, 2007 -- SOME celebrities don't know when to keep their traps shut - like Charlie Sheen and Rosie O'Donnell, who are throwing their weight behind the twisted theory that the United States government was behind the 9/11 terror attacks.

Page Six has learned that Sheen, the hooker-loving Hollywood hunk, has agreed to narrate a new version of the loopy YouTube documentary "Loose Change", which claims that a corrupt faction within the federal government orchestrated the mass murder at the World Trade Center.

Sources say Sheen - whose father, Martin Sheen, has been arrested 63 times protesting on behalf of various leftist causes - is in talks with Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban's Magnolia Pictures to distribute "Loose Change." Sheen has called for a new independent probe of the attack, telling Alex Jones' radio show: "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75 percent of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."

Sheen's rep confirmed his participation. Cuban e-mailed us: "We are having discussions about distributing the existing video with Charlie's involvement as a narrator, not in making a new feature. We are also looking for productions with an opposing viewpoint. We like controversial subjects, but we are agnostic to which side the controversy comes from."

Meanwhile, on her blog, O'Donnell has pasted in a widely debunked rundown of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center from the whatreallyhappened.com Web site, created by conspiracy theorist Matt Rivero.

O'Donnell repeats his discredited theories, which include the notion that because the fires were not evenly distributed, it made the building's perfect collapse into its footprint "impossible that landlord Larry Silverstein told the FDNY that "the smartest thing to do is pull it," a phrase conspiracy theorists take to mean that he ordered the skyscraper's destruction; and that firefighters withdrawing from the building feared it was going to "blow up."

O'Donnell's rep declined comment.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03222007/gossip/pagesix/pagesix.htm


Picked up by Access Hollywood:




Charlie Sheen, Rosie Involved In 9/11 Documentary

http://www.accesshollywood.com/assets/images/200703/200x150/24341.jpg

NEW YORK (March 22, 2007) -- Charlie Sheen has been lined up to take part in a 9/11 documentary, his reps confirmed to Access Hollywood.

Sheen is involved in the production of "Loose Change," a new version of a documentary suggesting the US government was behind the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks. The current version of the documentary is availabe on YouTube.

The actor's reps declined to reveal more details about Sheen's involvement in the project, but Page Six reports he will be narrating a new version of the film.

In an interview on the Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network a year ago, Sheen expressed his views on 9/11 saying, "It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."

Page Six also reported "The View" moderator Rosie O'Donnell is involved in the project, though it was unclear what her role would be.

Calls to Rosie's reps for comment were not returned at press time.


http://www.accesshollywood.com/news/ah4563.shtml

[chefmike]

DISSENT IS TREASON!

[TSChaser]

DISSENT IS TREASON!

I hope that was sarcasm.

[White_Male_Canada]

DISSENT IS TREASON!

I hope that was sarcasm.

Trust me on this one.

Alot of HA members really do believe the neo-cons did it ! :screwy

[insert_namehere]

Aside from the amount of crap science contained in it; the amazing leaps of logic, gaping holes and sheer knuckleheadedness... my main beef with "Loose Change" is the amount of bandwidth the sucker takes up.

Seriously, if they're going to re-release it... do the Utube version as one of those postage stamp sized thumbnail things. A small over-lossie mpg looks better than a BIG over-lossie mpg and takes a lot less time to download.

[TSChaser]

DISSENT IS TREASON!

I hope that was sarcasm.

Trust me on this one.

Alot of HA members really do believe the neo-cons did it ! :screwy

Good, because I agree with them.

More and more people agree with me that the evidence points to 9/11 being an inside job. Most rebuttals I encounter entail name calling, tinfoil hat comments, slander and sometimes threats of violence. What are you afraid of?

If anyone here would like to discuss this topic like a rational adult, I am well researched and willing to go toe-to-toe.

Have you even watched Loose Change?

It was viewed on video.google.com over 16 million times before google pulled it. Which makes it the most viewed internet film ever. It has since been re-uploaded.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change


TSChaser

[TSChaser]

Aside from the amount of crap science contained in it; the amazing leaps of logic, gaping holes and sheer knuckleheadedness... my main beef with "Loose Change" is the amount of bandwidth the sucker takes up.

Seriously, if they're going to re-release it... do the Utube version as one of those postage stamp sized thumbnail things. A small over-lossie mpg looks better than a BIG over-lossie mpg and takes a lot less time to download.

The film is not without it's flaws, hence the reason for a final cut. But I do believe the film illustrates that this was indeed and inside job. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Speaking of flaws, the NYPost article is incorrect, it was video.google.com not youtube. The NYPost writer may not have wanted readers to locate the film. Also, the Post refers to a "Matt Rivero"; this is incorrect. His name is Mike Rivero. If you search for Matt Rivero you will find nothing on the subject, aside from the Post article. The Post writer may not have wanted you to find Mike Rivero's research.

Also, this film was originally distributed in the 9/11 grassroots movement in DVD format. It can be downloaded in hi-resolution all over the internet.

http://www.mininova.org/tor/220762 (bit torrent client application required (http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php))

TSChaser

[White_Male_Canada]

DISSENT IS TREASON!

I hope that was sarcasm.

Trust me on this one.

Alot of HA members really do believe the neo-cons did it ! :screwy

Good, because I agree with them.

More and more people agree with me that the evidence points to 9/11 being an inside job. Most rebuttals I encounter entail name calling, tinfoil hat comments, slander and sometimes threats of violence. What are you afraid of?

If anyone here would like to discuss this topic like a rational adult, I am well researched and willing to go toe-to-toe.

Have you even watched Loose Change?

It was viewed on video.google.com over 16 million times before google pulled it. Which makes it the most viewed internet film ever. It has since been re-uploaded.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=loose+change


TSChaser

Believe whatever you wish.

Loosechange debunked :

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

[TSChaser]

In my opinion, posting a link to a site does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If you care to elaborate on why you don't agree 9/11 was an inside job, I am all ears.

However, I am going to watch the video you posted; thanks for the link. I'd love to be proven wrong. Do you think that I really want to believe my country is run by tyrants that attack it's own citizens? Do you really think that I love the fact that the general public would let them do it?

I'll post more comments later.

TSChaser.

[White_Male_Canada]

In my opinion, posting a link to a site does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If you care to elaborate on why you don't agree 9/11 was an inside job, I am all ears.

However, I am going to watch the video you posted; thanks for the link. I'd love to be proven wrong. Do you think that I really want to believe my country is run by tyrants that attack it's own citizens? Do you really think that I love the fact that the general public would let them do it?

I'll post more comments later.

TSChaser.

Perhaps.

That lolloosechange, it`s over 2 hours in length.

Allow Penn & Teller to do it in under 10 minutes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=

[TSChaser]

In my opinion, posting a link to a site does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If you care to elaborate on why you don't agree 9/11 was an inside job, I am all ears.

However, I am going to watch the video you posted; thanks for the link. I'd love to be proven wrong. Do you think that I really want to believe my country is run by tyrants that attack it's own citizens? Do you really think that I love the fact that the general public would let them do it?

I'll post more comments later.

TSChaser.

Perhaps.

That lolloosechange, it`s over 2 hours in length.

Allow Penn & Teller to do it in under 10 minutes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=

Is two hours too much time to spend evaluating one of the biggest crimes in history? 10 minutes will do? Perhaps someone will set up a drive-thru so we can get the real deal on 9/11 in under 2 minutes.

I'm familiar with the Penn/Teller 9/11 hitpiece. They invited Eric Hufschmidt on and called him a shitbag. He's an easy target. He's whiney and not very well spoken. If you believe there's an argument that Penn/Teller made in this piece that contradicts an inside job scenerio, please point it out.

I'd really appreciate more debate. I've been watching this forum for about a year now, I know HA has some very intelligent and well spoken members. I hope to hear from you members, especially those that would like to argue that 9/11 was planned and executed by a man in a cave strapped to a kidney dialysis machine.

I ensure you that I'm not a flamer, I don't troll around forums and start problems. I would just like to be challenged, and hopefully, proven wrong.



TSChaser

[White_Male_Canada]

In my opinion, posting a link to a site does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If you care to elaborate on why you don't agree 9/11 was an inside job, I am all ears.

However, I am going to watch the video you posted; thanks for the link. I'd love to be proven wrong. Do you think that I really want to believe my country is run by tyrants that attack it's own citizens? Do you really think that I love the fact that the general public would let them do it?

I'll post more comments later.

TSChaser.

Perhaps.

That lolloosechange, it`s over 2 hours in length.

Allow Penn & Teller to do it in under 10 minutes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=

Is two hours too much time to spend evaluating one of the biggest crimes in history? 10 minutes will do? Perhaps someone will set up a drive-thru so we can get the real deal on 9/11 in under 2 minutes.

I'm familiar with the Penn/Teller 9/11 hitpiece. They invited Eric Hufschmidt on and called him a shitbag. He's an easy target. He's whiney and not very well spoken. If you believe there's an argument that Penn/Teller made in this piece that contradicts an inside job scenerio, please point it out.

I'd really appreciate more debate. I've been watching this forum for about a year now, I know HA has some very intelligent and well spoken members. I hope to hear from you members, especially those that would like to argue that 9/11 was planned and executed by a man in a cave strapped to a kidney dialysis machine.

I ensure you that I'm not a flamer, I don't troll around forums and start problems. I would just like to be challenged, and hopefully, proven wrong.



TSChaser

Of course, P&T`s 9 minute flick was polemic. Haven`t watched the whole Loosechange flic. Get back to you.

You have alot in common with Jamie Michelle:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16459

[TSChaser]

In my opinion, posting a link to a site does not constitute a valid rebuttal. If you care to elaborate on why you don't agree 9/11 was an inside job, I am all ears.

However, I am going to watch the video you posted; thanks for the link. I'd love to be proven wrong. Do you think that I really want to believe my country is run by tyrants that attack it's own citizens? Do you really think that I love the fact that the general public would let them do it?

I'll post more comments later.

TSChaser.

Perhaps.

That lolloosechange, it`s over 2 hours in length.

Allow Penn & Teller to do it in under 10 minutes:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I&mode=related&search=

Is two hours too much time to spend evaluating one of the biggest crimes in history? 10 minutes will do? Perhaps someone will set up a drive-thru so we can get the real deal on 9/11 in under 2 minutes.

I'm familiar with the Penn/Teller 9/11 hitpiece. They invited Eric Hufschmidt on and called him a shitbag. He's an easy target. He's whiney and not very well spoken. If you believe there's an argument that Penn/Teller made in this piece that contradicts an inside job scenerio, please point it out.

I'd really appreciate more debate. I've been watching this forum for about a year now, I know HA has some very intelligent and well spoken members. I hope to hear from you members, especially those that would like to argue that 9/11 was planned and executed by a man in a cave strapped to a kidney dialysis machine.

I ensure you that I'm not a flamer, I don't troll around forums and start problems. I would just like to be challenged, and hopefully, proven wrong.



TSChaser

Of course, P&T`s 9 minute flick was polemic. Haven`t watched the whole Loosechange flic. Get back to you.

You have alot in common with Jamie Michelle:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=16459

I saw a thread she posted regarding the 93 WTC bombing. I think her and I are in agreement on that issue. I'm assuming she's a "9/11 inside job" proponent as well. But I don't know much more about her; will check her posts.


TSChaser

[ezed]

You conspiracy theorist's have been watching too many movies and TV shows.

The inside job theory could never be true for two reasons.
1. The people running the country aren't as smart as you make them out to be.
2. The scope of such an operation would require too many people to be involved. And we all know no one nowadays can keep their mouths shut.

And the people elected and appointed to positions of power would fuck up a wet dream.

[guyone]

I think we have to get Mulder & Scully on the case ASAP!

[guyone]

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.


Brother, that shit is classic! Worthy of the hall of HA fame! As is deemed by the tfan.

[chefmike]

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.


Brother, that shit is classic! Worthy of the hall of HA fame! As is deemed by the tfan.

Pipe down, chorus boy!

Go bag some groceries, TFool.

[guyone]

Why don't you leave him alone? He wasn't doing anything to you.

[TSChaser]

You conspiracy theorist's have been watching too many movies and TV shows.

The inside job theory could never be true for two reasons.
1. The people running the country aren't as smart as you make them out to be.
2. The scope of such an operation would require too many people to be involved. And we all know no one nowadays can keep their mouths shut.

And the people elected and appointed to positions of power would fuck up a wet dream.

Scope of the project too large to be kept secret? What about the Manhattan project?

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.


Brother, that shit is classic! Worthy of the hall of HA fame! As is deemed by the tfan.

Pipe down, chorus boy!

Go bag some groceries, TFool.

You're not a veteran so you should shut up.

Let us know when you sack up for the war against our troops which you preach for.

[chefmike]

Go bag some groceries, Francis.

Go bag some groceries, Francis.


In a rush to get them potatos all to yourself, ain't ya peeler boy? :lol:

[specialk]

Paranoid Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia (SKITS-oh-FREEN-ee-uh)---one of the most damaging of all mental disorders---causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see, or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalization.


Brother, that shit is classic! Worthy of the hall of HA fame! As is deemed by the tfan.

Pipe down, chorus boy!

Go bag some groceries, TFool.

You're not a veteran so you should shut up.

Let us know when you sack up for the war against our troops which you preach for.


:smh :smh :smh

[ezed]

You conspiracy theorist's have been watching too many movies and TV shows.

The inside job theory could never be true for two reasons.
1. The people running the country aren't as smart as you make them out to be.
2. The scope of such an operation would require too many people to be involved. And we all know no one nowadays can keep their mouths shut.

And the people elected and appointed to positions of power would fuck up a wet dream.

Scope of the project too large to be kept secret? What about the Manhattan project?

That was back in the good old days before TV when men smoked "Lucky's"!

[TSChaser]

I have to be honest. I haven't followed the political forum on HA. I've only chimed in once prior to my recent post.

With all of the socially open minded folks on this site, I really did expected a balance of responses. Unfortunately, I am rather disappointed to see that this thread has digressed into a flame war.

I would like some debate on the subject, prove to me that I'm wrong.

I'll start with WTC 7, aka The Solomon Building. Can anyone explain the "collapse" of a 3rd steel structured building (and highly reinforced due to the CIA, FBI, IRS offices) falling due to fires on the same day? It's never happened before in history and many scientists, architechs and demolition experts have boldly sacrificed their carreers in the effort to publish their findings.

If you are unfamiliar with the "collapse" of building 7, please view the footage. In addition, the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC complex 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and OVER INSURED the property for terrorist attacks, stated : "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And then we watched the buiiilding collapse". "Pull" is a demolition term for bringing down a building.

WTC 7 footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+7+&search=Search

Silverstein quote from PBS: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

In addition, BBC News reported the colllapse 26 minutes prior to the event. How did they know it would collapse?

YouTube footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bbc+wtc+7&search=Search

TSChaser

[guyone]

This stuff just sounds a little too far fetched to me. I've seen the original 'Loose Change' but I don't buy the theories.

[TSChaser]

This stuff just sounds a little too far fetched to me. I've seen the original 'Loose Change' but I don't buy the theories.

Yawn.

Goddamnit, will someone please engage me in a debate.

This is unbelievably fucking lame. I may as well hit the FOXNEWS forum.


TSChaser

PS, no personal offense intended toward guyone. This is an invitation to discuss one of the biggest crimes in history. I would really appreciate some constructive criticism (or even destructive, go fucking nuts) on this subject. Yet, all responses to this thread consist of name-calling or wishy-washy poo pooing with no logical reasoning to support their conclusions.

TSChaser

[White_Male_Canada]

I have to be honest. I haven't followed the political forum on HA. I've only chimed in once prior to my recent post.

With all of the socially open minded folks on this site, I really did expected a balance of responses. Unfortunately, I am rather disappointed to see that this thread has digressed into a flame war.

I would like some debate on the subject, prove to me that I'm wrong.

I'll start with WTC 7, aka The Solomon Building. Can anyone explain the "collapse" of a 3rd steel structured building (and highly reinforced due to the CIA, FBI, IRS offices) falling due to fires on the same day? It's never happened before in history and many scientists, architechs and demolition experts have boldly sacrificed their carreers in the effort to publish their findings.

If you are unfamiliar with the "collapse" of building 7, please view the footage. In addition, the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC complex 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and OVER INSURED the property for terrorist attacks, stated : "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And then we watched the buiiilding collapse". "Pull" is a demolition term for bringing down a building.

WTC 7 footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+7+&search=Search

Silverstein quote from PBS: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

In addition, BBC News reported the colllapse 26 minutes prior to the event. How did they know it would collapse?

YouTube footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bbc+wtc+7&search=Search

TSChaser



So you will argue that dozens of men worked inside wt7, tore down walls, drilled into concrete exposing the columns, planted 100`s of pounds of petn, laid miles of det cord, and NO ONE witnessed the demolition experts doing this ?

[TSChaser]

I have to be honest. I haven't followed the political forum on HA. I've only chimed in once prior to my recent post.

With all of the socially open minded folks on this site, I really did expected a balance of responses. Unfortunately, I am rather disappointed to see that this thread has digressed into a flame war.

I would like some debate on the subject, prove to me that I'm wrong.

I'll start with WTC 7, aka The Solomon Building. Can anyone explain the "collapse" of a 3rd steel structured building (and highly reinforced due to the CIA, FBI, IRS offices) falling due to fires on the same day? It's never happened before in history and many scientists, architechs and demolition experts have boldly sacrificed their carreers in the effort to publish their findings.

If you are unfamiliar with the "collapse" of building 7, please view the footage. In addition, the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC complex 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and OVER INSURED the property for terrorist attacks, stated : "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And then we watched the buiiilding collapse". "Pull" is a demolition term for bringing down a building.

WTC 7 footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+7+&search=Search

Silverstein quote from PBS: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

In addition, BBC News reported the colllapse 26 minutes prior to the event. How did they know it would collapse?

YouTube footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bbc+wtc+7&search=Search

TSChaser



So you will argue that dozens of men worked inside wt7, tore down walls, drilled into concrete exposing the columns, planted 100`s of pounds of petn, laid miles of det cord, and NO ONE witnessed the demolition experts doing this ?

Excellent question White_Male_Canada,

There was a power down of the WTC days before 9/11. Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. Employees reported seeing men going in and out of the building with heavy equipment.

One of the most outspoken employees, Scott Forbes, who worked in Fiduciary Trust, tells his story in a radio interview...

Details: http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/28/scott-forbes/

Interview: http://we-dont.gotdns.org/~culhavoc/audio/060227_-_Scott_Forbes_-_Deadline_Live.mp3

In addition, the security firm in charge of the complex was directed by none other than Marvin Bush, the president's brother. Also on the board was Wirt D. Walker III, another Bush cousin. This firm was also responsible for security Washington Dulles and United Airlines.

source: Stratesec's prospectus... http://sec.edgar-online.com/1997/09/11/17/0000950133-97-003231/Section2.asp

Cheers,

TSChaser

[insert_namehere]

In addition, the security firm in charge of the complex was directed by none other than Marvin Bush, the president's brother.

Actually, Marvin left Securacom in 2000, to start up Winston Capital Managment.

While that takes Marvin out of the picture, I'll be more than happy to toss some gas on the fire by noting that Securacom/Stratesec company was backed by the investment firm Kuwait-American Corporation.

On a side note, it's these sort of "gee whiz!" but "two minutes worth of easy research makes it fall apart" statements riddled throughout Loose Change which prompts cynics like myself to raise an eyebrow.

[guyone]

There's nothing to debate here because it's not backed by any facts. Everything is based on conjecture.

[chefmike]

There's nothing to debate here because it's not backed by any facts. Everything is based on conjecture.

Like the occupation of Iraq?

[specialk]

The Loose Change movie raises many questions,but doesn't offer any conclusive proof the Gov. pulled this off. Like EZED, I think their too stupid to pull it off. Ask yourself this: If the Gov. was this clever to pull this off AND cover it up so nicely, why couldn't they "produce" WMD in Iraq?? A much easier "job" you would think, yet they fell flat on their face
on that one, and are paying the price for lying about it.... Reminds me of what my dad used to tell me as a young turk. " If you can't cover your ass, don't pull your pants down"

[TSChaser]

The Loose Change movie raises many questions,but doesn't offer any conclusive proof the Gov. pulled this off. Like EZED, I think their too stupid to pull it off. Ask yourself this: If the Gov. was this clever to pull this off AND cover it up so nicely, why couldn't they "produce" WMD in Iraq?? A much easier "job" you would think, yet they fell flat on their face
on that one, and are paying the price for lying about it.... Reminds me of what my dad used to tell me as a young turk. " If you can't cover your ass, don't pull your pants down"

SpecialK, I often wondered why WMD's were not planted. Perhaps finding WMD's in Iraq would not justify an invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

In my opinion, 9/11 served multiple purposes. The Port Authority, who owned the complex prior to 6 weeks before 9/11, carried out an exhaustive study in order to find a solution to the WTC's asbestos issue. In many asbestos abatement situations, the removal of asbestos can cost as much or more than the value of the property. Demolishing WTC solved this issue.

Very few 9/11 researchers touch on this.

Here's a few links to some of them...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12797/index.php

I'll add more links when I have time to locate the material, I don't have them handy at the moment.

Also see Time Magazine's "Monster in the Closet (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956877,00.html)"

TSChaser

[specialk]

The Loose Change movie raises many questions,but doesn't offer any conclusive proof the Gov. pulled this off. Like EZED, I think their too stupid to pull it off. Ask yourself this: If the Gov. was this clever to pull this off AND cover it up so nicely, why couldn't they "produce" WMD in Iraq?? A much easier "job" you would think, yet they fell flat on their face
on that one, and are paying the price for lying about it.... Reminds me of what my dad used to tell me as a young turk. " If you can't cover your ass, don't pull your pants down"

SpecialK, I often wondered why WMD's were not planted. Perhaps finding WMD's in Iraq would not justify an invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

In my opinion, 9/11 served multiple purposes. The Port Authority, who owned the complex prior to 6 weeks before 9/11, carried out an exhaustive study in order to find a solution to the WTC's asbestos issue. In many asbestos abatement situations, the removal of asbestos can cost as much or more than the value of the property. Demolishing WTC solved this issue.

Very few 9/11 researchers touch on this.

Here's a few links to some of them...

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html
http://colorado.indymedia.org/newswire/display/12797/index.php

I'll add more links when I have time to locate the material, I don't have them handy at the moment.

Also see Time Magazine's "Monster in the Closet (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956877,00.html)"

TSChaser

I'm sorry TSChaser, but you just lost me on the Asbestos problem. That makes no sense what so ever. I can't believe you brought that up. :smh

There are encapsulation methods for large scale asbestos problems, much cheaper than abatement. Here's a link:
http://www.safecoatings.co.uk/asbestos/

[TSChaser]

I'm sorry TSChaser, but you just lost me on the Asbestos problem. That makes no sense what so ever. I can't believe you brought that up. :smh

There are encapsulation methods for large scale asbestos problems, much cheaper than abatement. Here's a link:
http://www.safecoatings.co.uk/asbestos/

I believe it makes perfect sense to make billions from an insurance claim rather than spend a single penny on abatement or encapsulation.


TSChaser

[specialk]

I'm sorry TSChaser, but you just lost me on the Asbestos problem. That makes no sense what so ever. I can't believe you brought that up. :smh

There are encapsulation methods for large scale asbestos problems, much cheaper than abatement. Here's a link:
http://www.safecoatings.co.uk/asbestos/

I believe it makes perfect sense to make billions from an insurance claim rather than spend a single penny on abatement or encapsulation.


TSChaser

Who made billions?? How does an insurance loss of billions justify anything?

Help me out be more specific with names, dates etc. You leave out way too much info.

[TSChaser]

I'm sorry TSChaser, but you just lost me on the Asbestos problem. That makes no sense what so ever. I can't believe you brought that up. :smh

There are encapsulation methods for large scale asbestos problems, much cheaper than abatement. Here's a link:
http://www.safecoatings.co.uk/asbestos/

I believe it makes perfect sense to make billions from an insurance claim rather than spend a single penny on abatement or encapsulation.


TSChaser

Who made billions?? How does an insurance loss of billions justify anything?

Help me out be more specific with names, dates etc. You leave out way too much info.

I appologize for the lack of details, but I've been short on time tonight.

Justification? Try insurance fraud...

"A proposal by a small shareholder to withhold approval from the Board of Directors for failure to investigate signs of insurance fraud on 9/11 has been published on the website of the Allianz Group, one of the world’s largest insurers, in preparation for its May 4th annual meeting."
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/5/emw235341.htm


Silverstein's potential profit can be derived from the following...

Silverstein's Initial investment:

"the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16-acre site, has quietly agreed to return all of the $125 million in equity that New York developer Larry Silverstein and his low-profile group of backers originally invested to buy the 99-year leases on the office portion of the complex in July 2001. The full details of that transaction, which closed in December, haven't been released to the public. But the deal effectively eliminates the Silverstein group's capital risk in the project, while allowing the group to retain control of 10 million square feet of office space..."
http://www.realestatejournal.com/regionalnews/20040301-starkman.html



Silverstein's claim:

"At the end of two lengthy and costly trials in 2004, a federal court found that the insurers owed a maximum of $4.6 billion, less than the $7 billion that Mr. Silverstein had originally claimed, but more than the $3.5 billion term of the insurance policy. The two sides have been locked in a grueling appraisal process to determine exactly how much of the $4.6 billion must be paid out."
http://www.silversteinproperties.com/news_content.aspx?news_id=22

Of course the exact number can not be determined until the income brought in from tenants of the new complex can be projected.

TSChaser

[specialk]

Help me some more. This Silverstein guy put this event into place by himself? Got the US government to go along with a tragic event that changed the world forever, for an insurance claim?

This guy must be hot shit, organized 9/11 and the cover up! Our we in Iraq because he's looking to score again? :lol:

[TSChaser]

Help me some more. This Silverstein guy put this event into place by himself? Got the US government to go along with a tragic event that changed the world forever, for an insurance claim?

This guy must be hot shit, organized 9/11 and the cover up! Our we in Iraq because he's looking to score again? :lol:

I speculate that Silverstein may have been duped. His claim would provide nice incentive to keep his mouth shut. Again, I'm speculating on this. This would explain why he stated on PBS that WTC7 was "pulled", a demolition term for bringing a building down. This statement indicates that he may have been out of the loop.


TSChaser

[guyone]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jamie Michelle]

DISSENT IS TREASON!

I hope that was sarcasm.

Trust me on this one.

Alot of HA members really do believe the neo-cons did it ! :screwy

Give me a break. Self-termed "neo-conservatives" are literal communists (i.e., self-termed communists) who found out that they could promote their agenda better while making more money by subverting "conservatism" within. Hence the "neo," as in new: as in, not was it was before, i.e., as in a surface imitation.

Now would some atheistic socialists lie in order to promote their agenda for a one-world socialist government? After all, they've slaughtered hundreds of millions of their own non-combatant citizens just within the past century. So the answer is yes, they would. If they have no problem murdering hundreds of millions of their own innocent citizens, then they certainly wouldn't have a problem pretending to be something they are not. And they certainly wouldn't have a problem murdering a measly 3000 of their own citizens.

Some of you people act as if you've never heard of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

For more on this, see Republican Congressman Ron Paul's below scholarly speech:

"Neo-Conned!," Hon. Ron Paul of Texas (Republican), In the House of Representatives, July 10, 2003 http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

[chefmike]

So they hate the baby jesus?

[Jamie Michelle]

So they hate the baby jesus?

Indeed.

[guyone]

I LOVE the baby Jesus! Praise Gawd!

[White_Male_Canada]

I have to be honest. I haven't followed the political forum on HA. I've only chimed in once prior to my recent post.

With all of the socially open minded folks on this site, I really did expected a balance of responses. Unfortunately, I am rather disappointed to see that this thread has digressed into a flame war.

I would like some debate on the subject, prove to me that I'm wrong.

I'll start with WTC 7, aka The Solomon Building. Can anyone explain the "collapse" of a 3rd steel structured building (and highly reinforced due to the CIA, FBI, IRS offices) falling due to fires on the same day? It's never happened before in history and many scientists, architechs and demolition experts have boldly sacrificed their carreers in the effort to publish their findings.

If you are unfamiliar with the "collapse" of building 7, please view the footage. In addition, the owner of the WTC complex, Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC complex 6 weeks prior to 9/11 and OVER INSURED the property for terrorist attacks, stated : "I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And then we watched the buiiilding collapse". "Pull" is a demolition term for bringing down a building.

WTC 7 footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=wtc+7+&search=Search

Silverstein quote from PBS: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

In addition, BBC News reported the colllapse 26 minutes prior to the event. How did they know it would collapse?

YouTube footage: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=bbc+wtc+7&search=Search

TSChaser



So you will argue that dozens of men worked inside wt7, tore down walls, drilled into concrete exposing the columns, planted 100`s of pounds of petn, laid miles of det cord, and NO ONE witnessed the demolition experts doing this ?

Excellent question White_Male_Canada,

There was a power down of the WTC days before 9/11. Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. Employees reported seeing men going in and out of the building with heavy equipment.

One of the most outspoken employees, Scott Forbes, who worked in Fiduciary Trust, tells his story in a radio interview...

Details: http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/02/28/scott-forbes/

Interview: http://we-dont.gotdns.org/~culhavoc/audio/060227_-_Scott_Forbes_-_Deadline_Live.mp3

In addition, the security firm in charge of the complex was directed by none other than Marvin Bush, the president's brother. Also on the board was Wirt D. Walker III, another Bush cousin. This firm was also responsible for security Washington Dulles and United Airlines.

source: Stratesec's prospectus... http://sec.edgar-online.com/1997/09/11/17/0000950133-97-003231/Section2.asp

Cheers,

TSChaser

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told PM that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told PM, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melting”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell PM that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html

[guyone]

Point 1. Explosive demolition is only attempted after the building is gutted.

Point 2. (see point 1)

[Jamie Michelle]

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition is the video of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower.

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. That video, alone and by itself, is irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what that video records.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the video. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful indendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

"Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten%20Metal%20from%20WTC.mpg

"Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see Dr. Steven Jones's below paper:

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Compl etely
%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20C enter%20J24.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Compl etely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trad e%20Center%20J24.pdf)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

"Experiments to test NIST 'orange glow' hypothesis," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glowhypothesis.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

"A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lif ferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "C Limited Metallurgical Examination," FEMA 403--World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

[chefmike]

How does the baby jesus feel about molotov cocktails?

In mixed company, I mean....

[Jamie Michelle]

How does the baby jesus feel about molotov cocktails?

In mixed company, I mean....

How do you feel about yellow-hot molten metal cascading off the South Tower immediately before its collapse, of which molten metal can only be produced with an extremely powerful incendiary?

Below is the context for which I refer:

-----

A truly vital piece of evidence that provides definitive proof that the World Trade Center towers were brought down by controlled demolition is the video of yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower.

That piece of evidence isn't merely a smoking gun: it's a smoking nuclear cannon. That video, alone and by itself, is irrefragable *proof* that the South Tower (at the very least) had thermite-like ("like" in the sense of producing comparable temperatures) incendiary demolition charges with the ability to easily slice through structural steel going off within it. There is no innocent explanation for what that video records.

That is to say, the only way to get around that it is thermite which is causing that yellow-hot metal to cascade off the South Tower before its collapse would be to posit that we are seeing a different form of extremely powerful incendiary with thermite-like temperatures at work in the video. Of which, even if true, would be every bit as much damning, since no such powerful indendiaries can be accounted for without involving a sinister intent to plant them there.

Below are videos which contain some of this footage:

"Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863

http://www.supportthetruth.com/vids/thermite.wmv

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Molten%20Metal%20from%20WTC.mpg

"Wtc 1, impact site close up, tower collapse close up, long shot, people shouting," CameraPlanet http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151

From the color of the yellow-hot molten metal seen cascading off the South Tower, it had to be at least over 1000 °C, yet jet fuel burns in open air at 260-315 °C; nor do burning office, building, or plane materials impart temperatures anywhere near that hot to structural members (indeed, it would present quite a hazard if such articles were constructed with such powerful incendiaries, and so designers of such objects go out of their way to make sure that they are not). Thus, if it wasn't molten iron from thermite that we are seeing come off the South Tower, then by necessity a reaction source with a heat intensity very much like thermite had to be present. Yet there is nothing in the U.S. government's account that can explain such a heat source; indeed, there's nothing innocent that could explain it, since it requires some sort of extremely powerful incendiary.

For more on this, see Dr. Steven Jones's below paper:

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., former professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Journal of 911 Studies, Vol. 3 (September 2006) http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Compl etely
%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trade%20C enter%20J24.pdf (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Why%20Indeed%20Did%20the%20WTC%20Buildings%20Compl etely%20Collapse%20Jones%20Thermite%20World%20Trad e%20Center%20J24.pdf)
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc (Older version.)

"Experiments to test NIST 'orange glow' hypothesis," Steven E. Jones, Ph.D., August 31, 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experiments-to-test-NIST-orange-glowhypothesis.html
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_011.mpg
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Liquid_Aluminum_012.mpg

"Experiments with Molten Aluminum," Steven E. Jones with Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch, circa June 2006 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc

"A description of molten aluminum poured onto rusty steel," Wes Lifferth, Physics Shop, Brigham Young University, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Vol. 9 (March 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Molten_Aluminum_Poured_onto_Rusty_Steel_by_Wes_Lif ferth.pdf

Moreover, even the official FEMA scientists Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr. bolster the evidence that thermate (i.e., thermite with sulfur added, which causes it to slice through steel even faster by forming a eutectic alloy with it) was used to bring down the WTC towers (see "C Limited Metallurgical Examination," FEMA 403--World Trade Center Building Performance Study http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf ):

""
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. ... No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown.
""

[chefmike]

How do you feel about yellow-hot molten metal cascading off the South Tower...

I'm against it.

[Jamie Michelle]

How do you feel about yellow-hot molten metal cascading off the South Tower...

I'm against it.

As we all ought to be. All the more so in this case, since it irrefragably proves that the U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks.

I'm against governments staging attacks in order to provide a pretext for obtaining more tyrannical power, funding, and control; such as with the U.S. government staging the 9/11 attacks.

[guyone]

Is it a conspiracy that Steven E. Jones, Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch all currently reside at the same mental institution?

[Jamie Michelle]

Is it a conspiracy that Steven E. Jones, Wesley Lifferth, Jared Dodson, Jacob Stevenson and Shannon Walch all currently reside at the same mental institution?

I assume that's a sarcastic reference to Brigham Young University, or possibly to Utah. The physics shop of Brigham Young University is where the molten aluminum and thermite experiments that I cited above were conducted. The nature of said scientific experiments are such that they have been published and are reproducible, hence no one has to take the findings on trust. Anyone who doubts the veracity of the findings is free to conduct their own experiments with molten aluminum or thermite. But even beyond that, the experiments were recorded on video and in photographs, so one can see for oneself the published findings of the experiments.

[svenson]

some of you all are crazy