Rule
Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
1- From USA Today:
Does that make it true?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
Most of what the film alleges is refuted by the evidence at hand.
Most of? It requires only one fact that is not refuted to prove that those objects that smashed into the towers did not collapse them. There are plenty of such facts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
Anything not answered definitively by the government is interpreted by the film as proof of a coverup.
Quite.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
Among the assertions in Loose Change is that a missile hit the Pentagon even though eyewitnesses saw the jet, numerous pieces of wreckage were found including the flight recorder, and those on the flight and in its path at the Pentagon are dead.
Eyewitnesses? Truly?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
and those on the flight and in its path at the Pentagon are dead.
Those on the flight? Who? There is no credible evidence at all that anybody was aboard those four flying objects.
Duh. Of course some people did die at the Pentagon - and at the WTC-towers as well. That was intended.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
There is also the claim that because jet fuel burns at up to 1,500 degrees and steel melts at 2,750 degrees, the World Trade Center's infrastructure could not have been brought down by the airliners. However, as reported by the Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, steel loses 50% of its strength at 1,200 degrees, enough for a failure.
This is not an argument that credibly explains the collapse of the towers nor of WTC7.
Metals are excellent conductors of heat. Most of the heat was generated in the first few moments upon impact. After those first few moments the steel would have cooled down. So why did not those towers collapse immediately upon impact, when the steel supposedly was most weakened? There is no evidence at all that the fire heated the steel. There is evidence that the steel was damaged by thermate explosives.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
"The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred," says Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of American Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.
"They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world," she says. "They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."
Did not the relatives of those alleged airplane passengers receive a substantial amount of money? Who then are the con artists here? Is it wise to in blind faith accept the words of the sister of someone whose alleged presence on one of the unmanned flying objects cannot be proven?
< Message edited by Rule -- 10/29/2006 9:34:45 AM >
|
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 
Profile
RE: 911 - Al-Qaeda or Hoax? - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread