Loose Change

[Belz...]

"Never argue with idiots! They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience...." or beat you down....

So arguing with idiots is like trying to save a drowning man ?

"Your logic-defying, free-fall Tiger technique is no match for my structural engineer stance."

I admit I haven't read the entire thread but I do have questions of my own...

None of those questions are your own. You're just regurgitating CT stuff.

 

[rwguinn]

So arguing with idiots is like trying to save a drowning man ?



.

Naw- A drowning person can be rendered unconcious whilst you forcibly rescue them--they wake up, the deed is done.
Getting a coherent thought through the CT skull and into the CT mind will take Dynamite. This has rather drastic ramifications.
Look what a couple sticks of the stuff did to the WTC!

None of those questions are your own. You're just regurgitating CT stuff.

10-4
It's another conspiracy!

 

[Manny]

10-4

Ever notice that 10-4 is CB slang for A-OK and October 4, 1957 is when Sputnik was launched? Damn commie illuminati.

 

[aggle-rithm]

and how exactly would shooting down a plane over a highly populated area be a better outcome? And how long would it take for the fighter jets to intercept the planes, especially as the are barred from traveling supersonic whilst on intercept missions.

Now that we know what damage can be done with commercial airliners used as weapons, it seems perfectly reasonable that we would shoot down an airliner that posed a threat. Not so twenty-odd years ago, when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner that had strayed into their airspace near a highly sensitive military outpost. This was in the middle of the Cold War, when paranoia was rampant. The Soviets were condemned around the world; no one could understand how they could do such a thing.

Post-911, it seems easier to understand.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Ever notice that 10-4 is CB slang for A-OK and October 4, 1957 is when Sputnik was launched? Damn commie illuminati.

10-4 is really a law enforcement radio signal rather than CB slang, and as we all know Broderick Crawford was famous for the use of that term in the TV show "Highway Patrol". 10-4 also refers to October 4th, which we all know is "Broderick Crawford Day" in the US.

My conclusion is that manny and his illuminati henchmen will make something really bad happen on October 4th of some year in the future. It will become known as the BCD incident.

Or something like that.

 

[bob_kark]

The only way someone could have asked this question is willful ignorance.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Hold it there! A 9/11 CTer who is willfully ignorant? I've never heard of such a thing! I am so shocked, I must utilize a shocked smiley emote.



Much better.

 

[brodski]

Now that we know what damage can be done with commercial airliners used as weapons, it seems perfectly reasonable that we would shoot down an airliner that posed a threat. Not so twenty-odd years ago, when the Soviets shot down a Korean airliner that had strayed into their airspace near a highly sensitive military outpost. This was in the middle of the Cold War, when paranoia was rampant. The Soviets were condemned around the world; no one could understand how they could do such a thing.

Post-911, it seems easier to understand.

Ok, yes, post 9-11 the decision would be taken to shoot down the plane, but on 9-11? The military just doesn't make new policy that fast.

 

[delphi_ote]

Ever notice that 10-4 is CB slang for A-OK and October 4, 1957 is when Sputnik was launched? Damn commie illuminati.

It is also by birthday. Sinister, no?

 

[CptColumbo]

Geggy

If we've been short or harsh with you it's because we've covered this issue ad naseum with others, who then ignored our answers and kept posting the same questions. Apparently thinking that repetition would throw us off. It didn't.

 

[geggy]

Facts, not conspiracy theories, were thrown at your face repeatedly, yet you're still clinging onto the official story of 9/11 like flies on poop.

I appreciate you guys challenging me on the questions, even though it feels as if we're on a merry go round reaching 36th page of the thread. I have not seen loose change as it is not subtitled cuz you see, I'm deaf myself and I would need the subtitles to be able to understand what's being said in the video.

However I've started reading articles, both independent and mainstream reports, relating to sept 11 as early as 2002. I'd recommend you to start with this... informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm An excellent article, actually, written in 2003. If some of you are new to the sept 11 "conspiracy theories", I probably can understand what you're thinking. At first I dismissed it as an impossiblity that the government could perform such atrocity as massive as sept 11 toward their own people.

But then I kept an open mind and took a closer look, despite being indifferent to the ufo/jfk/bigfoot conspiracy theories, the anomalies surrounding sept 11 raises a lot of valid questions. After the FBI were forced to put halt to the sept 11 investigation on Oct 10, 2001, after 3 years of Bush's attempt at obstructing the independant investigation, the 9/11 cOmmission Report were finally released to the public and yet, it has a lot of holes in it and does not answer a lot of important questions.

I'm convinced that Osama, who was an asset to the CIA, and the 19hijackers, whom 7 of them came forward proving their innocence after the
attacks, had nothing to do with sept 11. I believe those who were training to become pilots in the US were members of al-Qaeda yet they were set up as scapegoats and patsies, provided by Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, the ISI. The forewarnings received by the Bush administration were put forth themselves to cover their own tracks. For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored, just as the nigeria document confirming Saddam's yellow cakes thta acted as a justification for Bush administration to invade Iraq.

Even if they had forewarnings of the sept 11 attack that was going to take place, then why were plans for war game exercises went ahead as scheduled on the morning of sept 11? Perhaps this article will help you understand why none of the fighter jets in the Air Force base 10 miles from DC were deployed:
infowars.com/articles/us/former_head_of_star_wars_say_cheney_main_911_suspect.htm

The Project for New American Century, created in 1997 whose members are
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc, created a document called "Rebuilding
of the Defense System" in 1998, which was criticized harshly by those in the capitol. They then rewrote the document in 2000 cliaming that they would need a "catalyzing event--like a new pearl harbor" in order to generate public support to meet with the PNAC's agenda to invade the MiddleEast. Don't believe me? Look it up at newamericancentury.org

As for WTC7, four years and a half since the attacks and the NIST has not come to conclusion as to why it collapsed? An obvious sign of a cover up. You're probably thinking, why would they even intentionally implode WTC7? The government agencies housed at the building were the US secret service, the department of defense, FEMA, the SEC, the CIA and the IRS. Could it be just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein had signed $3.2 billion, 99 year lease several weeks prior to sept 11, only later to claim more than $5 billion from insurance after the attacks? Or the fact that Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was the head of security in WTC during the time of the attacks?

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did

Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...

Go here: question911.livejournal.com/2804.html

Because of several witness statements, I strongly believe AA77 struck the pentagon. But I admit the fact they refuse to release videos of the pentagon attack is very suspicious.

I don't know what happened to flight 93. Many had claimed that it made an emergency landing in Cleveland because it was said to be carrying a bomb. Many said it was shot down. Anything that I come to conclusion as to what had happened to flight 93 would be conspiracy theory because I don't have any real, solid proof backed up, which is why I don't spend much time on it.

It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.

I think you guys need to remind yourselves that this is not fantasy, and that it is very, very probable that the Bush administartion may had orchestrated the entire event themselves. You just need to do research yourselves on the internet to allow for it to sink in. But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

 

[chipmunk stew]

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did

Quick response before work. I'll address other points later (unless I'm beaten to it):

add to your list:
-both were 1/4 the height of 7 and had larger footprints
-neither was burning uncontrollably
-7 had a 20-story gash on the south side
-you're comparing apples to oranges

 

[Shaun from Scotland]

But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

Ha ha very good satire of a typical CTER...

Er...

It is satire right? Right?

 

[geggy]

Ok, yes, post 9-11 the decision would be taken to shoot down the plane, but on 9-11? The military just doesn't make new policy that fast.

June 2001 The decades-old procedure for a quick response by the nation’s air defense was changed. NORAD’s military commanders could no longer issue the command to launch fighter jets because approval had to be sought from the civilian Defense Secretary and PNAC-member, Donald Rumsfeld.

9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing7/for_the_record_ashley.pdf

 

[Tirdun]

Facts, not conspiracy theories
[...]
I'm convinced that Osama, who was an asset to the CIA, and the 19hijackers, whom 7 of them came forward proving their innocence after the
attacks, had nothing to do with sept 11. I believe those who were training to become pilots in the US were members of al-Qaeda yet they were set up as scapegoats and patsies, provided by Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, the ISI. The forewarnings received by the Bush administration were put forth themselves to cover their own tracks. For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored, just as the nigeria document confirming Saddam's yellow cakes thta acted as a justification for Bush administration to invade Iraq.

Osama was an "asset" to the CIA, not an agent. Going with the theory "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", Osama was fighting Russia, so we sent him cash and gear. It came back to bite us horribly.

Oh and the list of living hijackers is old and tired. Or perhaps you have a different list?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Facts, not conspiracy theories, were thrown at your face repeatedly, yet you're still clinging onto the official story of 9/11 like flies on poop.

Until there's a rational reason to believe that something happened other than what appeared to happen, we will continue to do so, along with all other rational people.

I appreciate you guys challenging me on the questions, even though it feels as if we're on a merry go round reaching 36th page of the thread. I have not seen loose change as it is not subtitled cuz you see, I'm deaf myself and I would need the subtitles to be able to understand what's being said in the video.

However I've started reading articles, both independent and mainstream reports, relating to sept 11 as early as 2002. I'd recommend you to start with this... informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm An excellent article, actually, written in 2003. If some of you are new to the sept 11 "conspiracy theories", I probably can understand what you're thinking. At first I dismissed it as an impossiblity that the government could perform such atrocity as massive as sept 11 toward their own people.

You had the right idea the first time around. All the points brought up in the article you linked to have been refuted many, many times.

But then I kept an open mind and took a closer look, despite being indifferent to the ufo/jfk/bigfoot conspiracy theories, the anomalies surrounding sept 11 raises a lot of valid questions. After the FBI were forced to put halt to the sept 11 investigation on Oct 10, 2001, after 3 years of Bush's attempt at obstructing the independant investigation, the 9/11 cOmmission Report were finally released to the public and yet, it has a lot of holes in it and does not answer a lot of important questions.

I'm sure you don't mean October, 2001. That would mean that Bush began obstructing the investigation while still governor of Texas.

I'm convinced that Osama, who was an asset to the CIA, and the 19hijackers,

WAS an asset, during the cold war. BECAME a liability afterwards.

But don't let me stop you. Please continue.

whom 7 of them came forward proving their innocence after the
attacks, had nothing to do with sept 11. I believe those who were training to become pilots in the US were members of al-Qaeda yet they were set up as scapegoats and patsies, provided by Pakistan's Intelligence Agency, the ISI.

Evidence? Sorry, we're all about evidence around here.

The forewarnings received by the Bush administration were put forth themselves to cover their own tracks. For all we know, the august 6th memo was most likely doctored, just as the nigeria document confirming Saddam's yellow cakes thta acted as a justification for Bush administration to invade Iraq.

"For all we know"? Are you serious?

Even if they had forewarnings of the sept 11 attack that was going to take place, then why were plans for war game exercises went ahead as scheduled on the morning of sept 11? Perhaps this article will help you understand why none of the fighter jets in the Air Force base 10 miles from DC were deployed:
infowars.com/articles/us/former_head_of_star_wars_say_cheney_main_911_suspect.htm

I was skeptical as soon as I saw the site name "infowars", but I looked at it anyway. However, as soon as I saw the claim that President Carter was in office during the Star Wars program, I gave up. Maybe I can go back and look at this fairy tale a little closer when I have time.

The Project for New American Century, created in 1997 whose members are
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc, created a document called "Rebuilding
of the Defense System" in 1998, which was criticized harshly by those in the capitol. They then rewrote the document in 2000 cliaming that they would need a "catalyzing event--like a new pearl harbor" in order to generate public support to meet with the PNAC's agenda to invade the MiddleEast. Don't believe me? Look it up at newamericancentury.org

If there is a conspiracy, don't you think they would have kept quiet about the "catalyzing event"?

As for WTC7, four years and a half since the attacks and the NIST has not come to conclusion as to why it collapsed? An obvious sign of a cover up.

Or an obvious sign that it was not a high priority. Where is the conclusion about all the other buildings that were destroyed? Is that a cover up too?

You're probably thinking,

Yes, I am. You should try it some time.

why would they even intentionally implode WTC7?

Because it was heavily damaged? That's why WTC 3-6 were brought down.

The government agencies housed at the building were the US secret service, the department of defense, FEMA, the SEC, the CIA and the IRS. Could it be just a coincidence? Is it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein had signed $3.2 billion, 99 year lease several weeks prior to sept 11, only later to claim more than $5 billion from insurance after the attacks?

He was required by the lease agreement to rebuild. How much do you think it should cost to rebuild seven very large office buildings?

Or the fact that Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was the head of security in WTC during the time of the attacks?

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did

So they are still standing today?

Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...

Go here: question911.livejournal.com/2804.html

Where are these mainstream news sources you spoke of earlier?

Because of several witness statements, I strongly believe AA77 struck the pentagon.

Hallelujah!

But I admit the fact they refuse to release videos of the pentagon attack is very suspicious.

Awww, you were doing so well!

I don't know what happened to flight 93. Many had claimed that it made an emergency landing in Cleveland because it was said to be carrying a bomb. Many said it was shot down. Anything that I come to conclusion as to what had happened to flight 93 would be conspiracy theory because I don't have any real, solid proof backed up, which is why I don't spend much time on it.

...and none of your other conclusions are conspiracy theories..?

Nonetheless, I appreciate your willingness to not jump to conclusions.

It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.

I think you guys need to remind yourselves that this is not fantasy, and that it is very, very probable that the Bush administartion may had orchestrated the entire event themselves. You just need to do research yourselves on the internet to allow for it to sink in. But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

How are you able to discern what is true and what is misinformation? The "official version" of events is logical and follows a clear chain of cause-and-effect relationships. The conspiracy theories are theories in name only. They are just a hodge-podge of uninformed claims that require huge leaps of faith and cognitive distortions before they can be accepted. As I said before, we're all about evidence here. Real evidence, not questions, "inconsistencies", and unfounded claims.

 

[WildCat]

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did

Here's another interesting fact: There is not a single structural engineer in the entire world who has come out against the official explanation of any of the tower's collapse. You know, the guys who are actually experts in how buildings stay up and what brings them down? How do you account for this fact?

I anxiously await your response, because every other controlled demo theorist who has come here has dodged this question, along w/ many others we have put to them. I'll let you answer this one first.

 

[valis]

Wouldn't help. The loosers would just say, "A real plane wouldn't produce that much exhaust! And it would be in color, not black and white! WHAT ARE THEY HIDING!?!"

What are they hiding indeed?

I took my wife to the airport in Orlando last week and the planes there were in color. Something is fishy here.

 

[kookbreaker]

As for WTC7, four years and a half since the attacks and the NIST has not come to conclusion as to why it collapsed? An obvious sign of a cover up.

Not really, merely a sign that it is not as easy, the budget is getting low, and only cranks really care.

You're probably thinking, why would they even intentionally implode WTC7? The government agencies housed at the building were the US secret service, the department of defense, FEMA, the SEC, the CIA and the IRS. Could it be just a coincidence?

Yes. Why destroy their own offices? If they have something they wanted to hide, why risk it surviving an implosion to be recovered by clean-up crews? Why not just remove the offending material?

Is it a coincidence that Larry Silverstein had signed $3.2 billion, 99 year lease several weeks prior to sept 11, only later to claim more than $5 billion from insurance after the attacks?

When will you losers stop accusing Silverstein?
http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Or the fact that Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was the head of security in WTC during the time of the attacks?

Wrong again. He was on the BoD for the company, and had left by 2000. A far cry from 'in charge of security'.

http://911myths.com/html/stratesec.html

Speaking of WTC, here are interesting facts about buildings 5 and 6...
-both had thinner steel columns than buildings 1, 2 and 7
-both stood closer to buidlings 1 and 2 than building 7 did
-both suffered far more damages than building 7 did
-both did not collapse, yet building 7 did

Different structures, different sizes, different results.

Some of you have proven to me that you lack any knowledge of how
building implosion works...

Experts in the field have proven to me that you don't know how buildings stay up, how they can fail, and why demolition claims are absurd.

Go here: question911.livejournal.com/2804.html

Because of several witness statements, I strongly believe AA77 struck the pentagon. But I admit the fact they refuse to release videos of the pentagon attack is very suspicious.

They've released one video that they own. The other videos were sezied as evidence and since they were someone elses property they will not likely be released, as they do not have the rigth to do so and will not likely seek it. This happens all the time in investigations and just because 911 was a big event does not mean any investgating agencies are going to change the procedure.

It's interesting that, as you may have already read the highly unconvincing Popular Mechannic's article debunking the sept 11 CT, was written by Chertoff's son.

Poison the Well much? The only reason CTs have given for disregarding the PM article is that it doesn't cover their particular bugaboo.

I think you guys need to remind yourselves that this is not fantasy,

You're right, fantasy often has boundries that lie in the realm of reality. if a fantasy author tried to pass off a chunk of concrete as a pile of steel, he'd be laughed out of the genre. But the 911 kook's biggest hero does exactly that.

and that it is very, very probable that the Bush administartion may had orchestrated the entire event themselves.

No, it is not.

You just need to do research yourselves on the internet to allow for it to sink in.

We've been doing research. Research involves more than going to conspiracy sites and drooling over the nonsense they spew.

But beware of government sponsered disinformationalists spreading misleading information across the internet in attempt discredit the 9/11 truth seekers and divert the attention away from those responsible....

You mean like the nutcases who try and shy people away from the fact that some fanatical religious terrorists did this horriffic deed?

 

[Manny]

Yes. Why destroy their own offices? If they have something they wanted to hide, why risk it surviving an implosion to be recovered by clean-up crews? Why not just remove the offending material?

I think this is becoming my favorite one. "You see, they didn't have paper shredders back in 2001..."

 

[WildCat]

I think this is becoming my favorite one. "You see, they didn't have paper shredders back in 2001..."

Nor sledge hammers to smash a hard drive, or pockets to carry away cd's and other recordable media.