Loose change video
1.he showed that the bombs were inside the buildings through the videos
2.He interviewed the fireworkers inside the bulidings and they claimed to have said that the bombs were inside the building
3.the constructor of the building claimed that the metal used for the building could withstand temperature upto 3000 C for a few hours but the metal melt at around 1500 C.............etc
people i jus want to know the resons u dont beleive it i dont want to hurt anyones sentiments.these are the facts i want ur opinion
2007-12-03 06:32:55 · 11 answers · asked by donthekingkhan 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
all I know is that there's a hotel in Madrid where it burned for 28 hours had the same metal components and didn't fall, no impact of a plane, but then again, the impact from a plane would only effect a tower on impact not after.
2007-12-03 06:41:41 · answer #1 · answered by m d 5 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Another Conspiracy Theory related rant about 9/11!!!!
He claims the explosions caused by the jets going into the building seconds before the collapse are demo charges going off, but its all old news and crap with NO proof.
what the F is a "fireworker" the buildings were on fire from the jets before the firemen arrived on the scene i.e. the ground floor, so what good is that as a eye witness who arrived after the event??
2007-12-03 07:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by conranger1 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
It's truly sad that people believe the LooseChange nonsense.
There were no bombs or explosives in the buildings. Think about it. If you have ever watched a building demolition, you will notice that to plant the explosives they have to tear out every single interior wall so they can get to the metal and concrete skeleton. Out of 250,000 people that worked at the WTC, not 1 ever saw anybody tear the walls open and plant explosives. If you watch a demolition, you will see there there are miles upon miles of detonation cables running through the building to set off the explosives in a very specific order. Out of 250,000 employees, not 1 ever saw a single detonation cord in the buildings.
If you are not smart enough to see the utter nonsense of LooseChange, then you have bigger problems than a government conspiracy.
2007-12-03 06:46:30 · answer #3 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Melt: to become liquefied by warmth or heat; to become liquid.
The steel didn't MELT, it was weakened by the heat.
People can continuously try to pull sources out of thin air, but it is your responsibility to double-check those sources. Do you have any idea how many people would be willing to pose as a fireman, and say they were in the building before it collapsed... Take that Jesse Macbeth scum bag that said he was a soldier in Iraq, and that he 'witnessed' horrible crimes done to Iraqi civilians when in fact, he never graduated BCT.
2007-12-03 08:48:36 · answer #4 · answered by CAUTION:Truth may hurt! 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The biggest reason I cannot believe the 'Loose Change' video is because of the fact that placing demolition charges as described would have required several weeks of work, the removal of interior walls and obvious placement of explosives, det cord and your detonation trains.
Can you explain how anybody could have done this without the occupants of the building noticing?
BTW, if explosives were used - how do you explain the absence of the distinctive colored smoke produced by explosives?
2007-12-03 07:00:40 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Why would you believe rumor, hearsay and a home-made grainy blurry video and some clown's opinions.
Just ask the architects who built the building and world-renowned explosive experts, and they will tell you, as they have told the world, that the explosives theory is utter nonsense.
I think people with vast experience and intelligence have more credibility than some joker on YouTube.
2007-12-03 07:04:48 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
What melted? Are you referring to the world trade center? if so, i think there's a good documentary on what happened architecturally, but I don't remember the name of it! Anyway, the short of that tragedy was that the planes knocked the insulation off the beams that caused them to give way at lower temps and brought it down.
2007-12-03 06:44:32 · answer #7 · answered by da_zoo_keeper 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
An IQ over 80 is required to understand the physics of why the building fell.
Resign yourself to the fact that you will never get it.
2007-12-03 07:20:23 · answer #8 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Because in real life the steel if unprotected could fail, and even if the temp is withstood, the explosive force has to be considered.
2007-12-03 06:42:37 · answer #9 · answered by kemosabbe 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
My opinion is that you are a complete moron. The buildings were hit by 2 planes flown by Muslim terrorists.
2007-12-03 08:57:06 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋