the documentary loose change made too much sense on too many levels to just let slide. Yet i cant help wonder if some of the things they said were made up. they seemed like they were hunting for a conspiracy before they found one. which is an easy way to get bad info. so what im looking for is a list of true or false answers not tainted with politics.
1. what is the structurally unstable point of steel due to heat?
2. what is the maximum heat attainable by jet fuel under perfect conditions?
3. How many planes have ever vaporized on impact leave next to no wreckage?
4. How many sky scrapers framed with steel have collapsed due to fire?
5. Could cell phones work on planes on 9/11? were they technoligically capable of doing so?
6. when buildings collapse do they fall straight down on thier own (similair to a planned demolision), is that impossible?
- for your answers do not use anything from 9/11 as an example. I want evidence from other places. I dont care which side it supports
2007-11-18 15:54:20 · 0 answers · asked by Themythdorkage 1 in Education & Reference ➔ Trivia
First off, you are correct that anytime something is produced with an obvious agenda in mind it should be viewed skeptically Even if the producers have only the noblest of intentions, their perspective is skewed. Many of the elements of that film are verifyable facts. One may choose to disagree with the interpretations of those facts, of course.
1) Suprisingly, there is conflicting statements on this from different 'experts'. One would think this would be a cut-and-dry stright answer question, but you hear different things. Dpends on which 'expert' and which source you find more credible.
2) Same as above, interestingly.
3) ZERO
4) ZERO
5) Same as one and two, conflicting stories. Some other related non-sequiters are whether or not a jet-liner's transponder can be switched on and off from the cockpit, and whether the flight computer would allow a pilot to put a jet-liner into a nose-dive??
6) NO. It takes a high degree of education and technical skill for professional demolitionists to set charges in very specific places to get a structure to collapse in a pre-determined and controlled manner.
These are just a few of the facts that don't add up under even the most superficial analysis. Clearly, something was up on 9/11 more than the official story. What that is, I don't know, but something seriously stinks about all of this.
p.s. - In deference to the oft-cited popular mechanics article, consider this. Yes, these are well reputed experts. However, they were tasked NOT with scientifically analyzing what actually happened, BUT to find a scientific rational to explain how the official story could work. Big difference. Again, it goes back to approaching a subject with a pre-set agenda. Further, their explaination does not account for the collapse of WTC7, or all the other inconsistancies of the official 9/11 story.
2007-11-19 11:38:22 · answer #1 · answered by lmn78744 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Loose Change Facts
2016-11-04 02:18:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Popular Mechanics has debunked all the technical aspects of the "Loose Change" artguments.
Popular Mechanics is written by people who actually have scientific and engineering backgrounds. The article was written in consultation with 70 experts in various technical fields.
2007-11-19 03:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by John F 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
check out popular mechanics they did the science to disprove a lot of what loose changed stated.
2016-03-16 22:40:17 · answer #4 · answered by Brenda 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋