Loose Change

[delphi_ote]

"The number of contradictions in the official version of ... 9/11 is so overwhelming that ... it simply cannot be believed. Yet ... the official version cannot be abandoned because the implication of rejecting it is far too disturbing: that we are subject to a government conspiracy of "X-Files" proportions and insidiousness."

G.I. Joe for adults.

Greggy, if you really believe all this, why are you posting on this website? Evil Uncle Sam should be sending stormtroopers to your home as we speak.

 

[Hellbound]

Greggy, if you really believe all this, why are you posting on this website? Evil Uncle Sam should be sending stormtroopers to your home as we speak.

G_d D__mit!!

*Huntsman turns and yells over his shoulder*

"Pack it up, guys, mission is a scrub. SOMEBODY gave advance warning...we'll try again later."

 

[bob_kark]

G_d D__mit!!

*Huntsman turns and yells over his shoulder*

"Pack it up, guys, mission is a scrub. SOMEBODY gave advance warning...we'll try again later."

Shhh... He's trying to make him leave his house so we can grab him! Oops, I think I just got demoted to 44...

 

[Dackefejden]

Hello people,

I'm new here, this is my first post thought I'd post what I had to say here instead of creating another 9/11 - Loose Change related thread. I discovered this forum after viewing Loose Change when searching for rebuttals and to verify/disprove the claims made on the documentary. I have to agree that it's rather poorly made, has a lot of holes and that there are those out there who only see/hear what they want to believe, that goes for both sides of the coin.

However there are a few points that do deserve further scrutiny and you can't dismiss these because of the shortcomings of some amateur film makers. I don't see myself as a CT'ist and wouldn't refer to myself usually as skeptic but I certainly don't wish to be aligned with the former. I do believe that 2 planes were flown into the WTC Towers and many people died that day and it was a truly tragic event. I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon. Hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law so I'm not going to buy into the conflicting reports of those who say they definitely saw a commercial airliner or those who say they saw a missile or any form of military aircraft. I do think the damage at the Pentagon is suspicious, as I do with the 3 WTC building collapses, but as I'm not a structural engineer, a physicist and the fact I never witnessed the events in person I won't say yay or nay on the matter. I have experience with light engineering I've never questioned the moon landing, put too much thought into the JFK assasination. I'm just your regular Atheist Aussie 30 year old male, so I'm not going to make any definite claims as what I think is the undeniable truth as I'm not in any position to do so. Yet I'm not going to blindly believe the official story, nor am I going to believe a documentary on google video with an annoying soundtrack or what I read on message boards.

I do find it strange that either the impact or fire on the upper stories of a highrise building from a plane constructed from mostly lightweight materials that fall apart/disintegrate on impact despite it's velocity is going to substantially damage the structural integrity of the lower levels to make the building collapse in on itself similar to that of a controlled demolition which fell at close to free fall speeds (note "similar" and "close to"). Also strange that another plane constructed of lightweight material was able to punch as many holes through the layers of the Pentagon as it did. In my opinion if it was an airliner there would obviously be significant damage to the external wall of the Pentagon and there would've been wreckage, incinerated luggage and body parts strewn everywhere at the point of impact. To punch such a hole through so many reinforced concrete walls the chassis/fuselage of the airliner would pretty much have to be a solid mass of steel as I see it.

As I stated I find it strange, I'm not saying it's impossible nor am I blaming the Bush Administration, CIA, Aliens, the Jews or the Smurfs.

I have a few point's/question's I'd like to raise:

If the 9 or however many it is of the supposed suicide bombers are apparently still alive that does pose some serious questions. As does the apparent claim of no Arab names on the flight lists. Your stereotypical Arab terrorist isn't going to get away with a passport with the name Tommy Wong or John Smith. If they were stolen/fake identities surely intelligence agencies would have or should have been aware of this and the ensuing media reports would've stated that terrorists using stolen identities flew planes into the WTC & Pentagon rather than pin it on innocent people who weren't even in the country at the time.

If 19 Islamic terrorists under direction from a man in a cave with kidney problems are easily able to infiltrate the US which happens to be the biggest military superpower and probably the most secure if not most technologically advanced country on the planet as far as homeland security goes. Now if they were capable of firstly infiltrating the country and avoiding authorities whom should have been on their tail, yet they were even able to undertake flying lessons and book flight simulator time why hasn't this same terrorist organization been hijacking planes from say other Middle Eastern countries, Africa or Eastern European countries with airport security far less stringent than the US and been flying airliners into Israel or foreign US military bases/embassies on a regular basis? Or why haven't the sponsors of terrorism been supplying terrorist organizations with airliners laden with fuel and explosives to fly into Israel etc etc?

We are all aware that these Islamic fundamentalist's want to primarily destroy and delight in terrorizing Israel and apparently have an abundance of willing suicide bombers, does it not seem logical to assume if they were capable of terrorizing Israel as they did the US wouldn't it be common place to see news reports of airliners crashing into Tel Aviv rather than teenager's detonating explosive vests in cafe's & promenades, children throwing stones at tanks & armoured vehicles or launching crude home-made rockets?

 

[Manny]

As I stated I find it strange, I'm not saying it's impossible nor am I blaming the Bush Administration, CIA, Aliens, the Jews or the Smurfs.

I have a few point's/question's I'd like to raise:

Fair questions. But just so you know, we haven't exonorated the Smurfs.

If they were stolen/fake identities surely intelligence agencies would have or should have been aware of this and the ensuing media reports would've stated that terrorists using stolen identities flew planes into the WTC & Pentagon rather than pin it on innocent people who weren't even in the country at the time.

Correct. That's exactly what happened. This isn't so much an unanswered question as it is a lie by the CTers. They know full well the resolution of that "mystery," they just chose not to tell you.

If 19 Islamic terrorists under direction from a man in a cave with kidney problems are easily able to infiltrate the US which happens to be the biggest military superpower and probably the most secure if not most technologically advanced country on the planet as far as homeland security goes. Now if they were capable of firstly infiltrating the country and avoiding authorities whom should have been on their tail, yet they were even able to undertake flying lessons and book flight simulator time why hasn't this same terrorist organization been hijacking planes from say other Middle Eastern countries, Africa or Eastern European countries with airport security far less stringent than the US and been flying airliners into Israel or foreign US military bases/embassies on a regular basis? Or why haven't the sponsors of terrorism been supplying terrorist organizations with airliners laden with fuel and explosives to fly into Israel etc etc?

Because the sad truth is that for all our military might we were actually one of the least secure countries on the planet as far as homeland security. Once a person is in the US, they can do almost anything they want. To take flight lessons in, say, Saudi Arabia, one would have to get permission from the Saudi government. Here, you look in the yellow pages and pick a flight school. Anyone over the age of 16 can get a private pilot's license. Hotels, apartments, etc. don't require you to hand over a copy of your passport and they don't go to jail if you stay with them past your visa expiration. Our very freedom of movement made (and makes) us more vulnerable. As for Israel, they control their airspace pretty tightly -- they'd shoot down an incoming airliner well before it reached its target.

We are all aware that these Islamic fundamentalist's want to primarily destroy and delight in terrorizing Israel and apparently have an abundance of willing suicide bombers, does it not seem logical to assume if they were capable of terrorizing Israel as they did the US wouldn't it be common place to see news reports of airliners crashing into Tel Aviv rather than teenager's detonating explosive vests in cafe's & promenades, children throwing stones at tanks & armoured vehicles or launching crude home-made rockets?

The al Qaeda organization doesn't care about the Palestinians. In fact, no Arabs do, but that's another topic. Al Qaeda was primarily concerned with Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina. It is Osama's contention that the Saudi regime is corrupt and too aligned with western interests (that's us) and that the presence of US troops on Saudi soil was a desecration of Islam. The organization has undertaken many terrorist operations in Saudi Arabia.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I do find it strange that either the impact or fire on the upper stories of a highrise building from a plane constructed from mostly lightweight materials that fall apart/disintegrate on impact despite it's velocity is going to substantially damage the structural integrity of the lower levels to make the building collapse in on itself similar to that of a controlled demolition which fell at close to free fall speeds (note "similar" and "close to").

Don't underestimate velocity. You don't get much lighter-weight than air, but when air gets moving fast enough it can cause obliterating destruction.

The damage from the impact and the fire didn't have to affect the lower floors to cause the collapses that we saw--once the initial failure occurred on the upper floors, gravity and kinetic energy did the rest.

Regarding "close to free fall": this fuzzy, subjective term is used often by CTs, but it's meaningless. The buildings' collapse time was at least a few seconds longer than it would be at free fall.

The buildings were about 415m tall.
Freefall acceleration is 9.8m/s/s.
Collapse time at freefall would be about 9.2s.
Average velocity would be about 45 m/s.

The buildings collapsed in about 12s.
That would make the acceleration about 5.8m/s/s--about 40% less than freefall!
Average velocity was about 35 m/s.

Also strange that another plane constructed of lightweight material was able to punch as many holes through the layers of the Pentagon as it did. In my opinion if it was an airliner there would obviously be significant damage to the external wall of the Pentagon and there would've been wreckage, incinerated luggage and body parts strewn everywhere at the point of impact. To punch such a hole through so many reinforced concrete walls the chassis/fuselage of the airliner would pretty much have to be a solid mass of steel as I see it.

The lower floor, where the plane hit, only had two walls, and only the outer one had the extra reinforcement. There was a lot of wreckage. There's an abundance of photographic evidence showing it. Almost all of the wreckage & carnage followed the momentum of the plane deep inside the building. At the velocity the plane was travelling, there was no chance of much being blown back out onto the lawn.

 

[Dackefejden]

Fair questions. But just so you know, we haven't exonorated the Smurfs.

Yep put a burqa on Papa Smurf give him an AK and you've got a definite suspect.

Correct. That's exactly what happened. *url removed because I can't quote and post my reply with it* This isn't so much an unanswered question as it is a lie by the CTers. They know full well the resolution of that "mystery," they just chose not to tell you.

Thanks for the link, I'd never read that. Yet that articles headline is "Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs" keyword being likely, that's not definitive proof. Just because it's on cnn doesn't make it so.

Because the sad truth is that for all our military might we were actually one of the least secure countries on the planet as far as homeland security. Once a person is in the US, they can do almost anything they want. To take flight lessons in, say, Saudi Arabia, one would have to get permission from the Saudi government. Here, you look in the yellow pages and pick a flight school. Anyone over the age of 16 can get a private pilot's license. Hotels, apartments, etc. don't require you to hand over a copy of your passport and they don't go to jail if you stay with them past your visa expiration. Our very freedom of movement made (and makes) us more vulnerable. As for Israel, they control their airspace pretty tightly -- they'd shoot down an incoming airliner well before it reached its target.

That's fair enough I understand that migrants have a fair amount of freedom in the US, but still with Islamic terrorists on the most wanted list, intelligence reports of a possible terrorist attack involving airliners flying into building's - landmarks, and these terrorists were able to achieve what they did. Still think it's fishy.

Yet still no attempted suicide bombing with an airliner on Israel? It's a very small country surrounded by hostile countries I doubt they'd have much chance to scramble say F-16's as an airliner invades their airspace at 300-500 odd mph and I also doubt there are many AA installations in the Tel Aviv business district. If they were able to pull it off in the US why hasn't there been atleast one attempt on Israel?

The al Qaeda organization doesn't care about the Palestinians. In fact, no Arabs do, but that's another topic. Al Qaeda was primarily concerned with Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina. It is Osama's contention that the Saudi regime is corrupt and too aligned with western interests (that's us) and that the presence of US troops on Saudi soil was a desecration of Islam. The organization has undertaken many terrorist operations in Saudi Arabia

I realise Palestine is an excuse the terrorists use for their actions but still the point I was making is Israel is enemy #1 in their eyes yet they chose to go the hard route and attack the US. Still no attacks on western interests or the Saudi regime in Saudi Arabia with airliners, no attacks using airliners on US military bases. It's such a devastating and proven means of attack I don't fathom why they don't use it more often. It's been 5 years since 9/11 not one iota of an instance of another terrorist attack using an airliner.

 

[pgwenthold]

I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon. Hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law so I'm not going to buy into the conflicting reports of those who say they definitely saw a commercial airliner or those who say they saw a missile or any form of military aircraft.

Why listen to hearsay when there are pictures all over showing bits and pieces of a commercial airliner in the pentagon wreckage?

When hearsay is corraborated by photographic evidence, it's more than hearsay.

 

[geggy]

Hey now...have a little patience. I'm only describing why it's redundant to dismiss anyone as CT, especially when the person holds multiple evidence as proof. True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job, but it also comes along with common sense and the ability to gather coincidences as there are far too many of them and putting thing together like pieces of puzzle, then you can clearly see the big picture. I can't really spoon feed you the information, there are just far too many of it. If you can't read the information put forward in text and video then maybe I'm just wasting your time after all, but I can't stop trying to spread the information that I see as worth my time.

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.
2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.
3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits
4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance
5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.

None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report yet the oddities of these listed above were characteristics of controlled demolition.The most plausible explanation of why these buildings were brought down was that explosives were preplanted at stragetic points...

I'm waiting on pins and needles for some new evidence from scientists and whistleblowers to come out. I've heard that there is some steel from the structures being analyzed that should make headlines if conclusive. Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..

We need more physicists, engineers, demolition experts and pilots that are beyond reproach to tip the balance.

Regarding keeping 9-11 as an inside job hush hush, It's a matter of cognitave dissonance. There is a built in resistance to questioning our government that results in a faithful blindness keeping the questions down. The idea that if you question the Bush Administration you are not patriotic keeps many folks away from these issues and is very, very strong. As many called sept 11 an PSYOP, it is an attack on an ideology or emotion that is mentally hard to untangle or challenge.

Unfortunately time is precious for me as I have to stop here...

 

[kookbreaker]

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.

Buildings as large as the WTC do not simply 'tip over'. The amount of energy required to move that much material would break the structural joints well before the towers began to move Stop think of the WTC buildings as a wooden block and think of it as a structure made up of many parts.

2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.

The 'freefall speeds' arguement is nonsense. Debris can be seen to be falling much faster (i.e. at true freefall speeds) in comparison to the rest of the building.

3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits

What about it?

4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance

They aren't explosive charges. Look again and you will see that the ejected material is taking place after the building begins to collapse.

5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.

So too bad for you that the whole 'molten metal' bit is a complete myth invented by 911 conspiracy cranks, eh? There's no reliable evidence for molten metal

None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report

Because they are mostly inventions of paranoid conpiracists.

I'm waiting on pins and needles for some new evidence from scientists and whistleblowers to come out.

You will be waiting a looooooong time.

I've heard that there is some steel from the structures being analyzed that should make headlines if conclusive.

That's a lot of faith to base off of mere rumors.

Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist

and thus has no business telling structural engineers how buildings should fall.

and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..

Jones' paper has no engineering and is bad physics. End of story.

We need more physicists, engineers, demolition experts and pilots that are beyond reproach to tip the balance.

Just having one structural engineer on your side would be a start. How many do you have? Oh, right, NONE!

 

[Hellbound]

1. The only way they would tip over is if signifigant outside force was applied. Buildings fall down. They rarely fall over (except in movies).
2. No, it wasn't. It was a rate equal to about half the acceleration in freefall (12s vs. 9s). You have a right to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
3. When several tons of concrete slam together, this happens. I can pulverize concrete with a sledgehammer and not much work. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's wrong.
4. Wha? There weren't any.
5. Um, no. Once again, look beyond action movies as source material from which to draw conclusions. Real explosions typically leave very little fire and don't produce motlen steel. Real explosions do thier damage from a blast wave, not a heat pulse. There's little heat, but a h3ll of a lot of force. Burning jet fuel and building fires, ont he other hand, can easily reach the melting point of aluminum (of which the facade contained a large amount).

As to your next paragraph, these are not characteristic of controlled demolitions. Fire and motlen metal are not characteristic of controlled demolition. Long-distance explosive charges are not characteristic of controlled demolitions. Pulverized concrete happens to some extent in all building collapses, and is not characteristic of controlled demolition. Freefall speeds are not characteristic of controlled demolition (even if we assume that every clock in the world sped up that day, and the buildings actually fell at free fall). Almost all buildings fall straight down (more or less), very few topple, so this is also not characteristic of controlled demolition.

IN fact, here's a challenge for you. Find me one building that fell sideways during a collapse. One that toppled.

You are characteristic of an idiot. You speak from a profound ignorance of the topics you call into question, you've done minimal research of anything from respected, recognized sources (such as, say, the entire world community of structural engineers?), and you insult pretty much everyone who has knowledge in these subjects by claiming that you know better.

You do not.

 

[Ramooone]

Hey now...have a little patience. I'm only describing why it's redundant to dismiss anyone as CT, especially when the person holds multiple evidence as proof. True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job, but it also comes along with common sense and the ability to gather coincidences as there are far too many of them and putting thing together like pieces of puzzle, then you can clearly see the big picture. I can't really spoon feed you the information, there are just far too many of it. If you can't read the information put forward in text and video then maybe I'm just wasting your time after all, but I can't stop trying to spread the information that I see as worth my time.

FEMA's report of the collapsing of WTC1 and 2 plausible yes but..
1. neither plane hit the center of the towers, damages made to south side of WTC7 as one of you pointed out yet all towers fell almost straight down. I would have a lot of doubt about the demolition theories if they tipped over.
2. Then there's the rate of fall being nearly at the speed of freefall, just doesnt make sense unless there was timed demolition.
3. The pulverzitation of concrete that exploded into dust and small bits
4. Explosive charges shooting out of buildings at high speed and long distance
5. Molten metal in the rubble that burned for weeks and couldn't be put out, that lends to the demolition theory and this might be one of the most critical pieces of evidence.

None of these oddities were addressed by the commission report yet the oddities of these listed above were characteristics of controlled demolition.The most plausible explanation of why these buildings were brought down was that explosives were preplanted at stragetic points...

I'm waiting on pins and needles for some new evidence from scientists and whistleblowers to come out. I've heard that there is some steel from the structures being analyzed that should make headlines if conclusive. Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..

We need more physicists, engineers, demolition experts and pilots that are beyond reproach to tip the balance.

Regarding keeping 9-11 as an inside job hush hush, It's a matter of cognitave dissonance. There is a built in resistance to questioning our government that results in a faithful blindness keeping the questions down. The idea that if you question the Bush Administration you are not patriotic keeps many folks away from these issues and is very, very strong. As many called sept 11 an PSYOP, it is an attack on an ideology or emotion that is mentally hard to untangle or challenge.

Unfortunately time is precious for me as I have to stop here...

dude, you don't have evidence, you have speculation. Evidence would be oh lets say a blasting cap, wiring, the plunger that wiley coyote pressed to make the tower fall down.

you see, if the building fell over on its side THEN i'd be suspicious, being that the building was hit on the top why would it topple? You talk about how the concrete was turned to dust, the "Squibs", all this is from the pressure of the building falling into itself. The top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below. Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.

To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage. Similarly, if you swing the hammer forward, you can apply enough force to drive nails into a wall.

When the upper structure of each tower fell down, its velocity -- and therefore its momentum -- increased sharply. This greater momentum resulted in an impact force that exceeded the structural integrity of the columns immediately underneath the destroyed area. Those support columns gave way, and the whole mass fell on the floors even farther down. In this way, the force of the falling building structure broke apart the superstructure underneath, crushing the building from the top, one floor at a time.

To put it another way, the potential energy of the building mass, the energy of position it had due to its height and the pull of gravity, was converted into kinetic energy, or energy of motion (the total potential energy for WTC 1 is 4*10^11 joules). This is the same basic principle that professional demolition blasters use to bring down unoccupied buildings. Hmm, the SAME PRINCIPLE OF CD, MAYBE THATS WHY IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN!

And there was no molten metal in the basements of the WTC. there was some very hot metal, but not molten. molten would imply that its in a liquid state.

 

[Manny]

Thanks for the link, I'd never read that. Yet that articles headline is "Hijackers likely skilled with fake IDs" keyword being likely, that's not definitive proof. Just because it's on cnn doesn't make it so.

That was to give a sense of just how quickly it was apparent that fake ID's had been used. It was very quickly well known to the FBI and to the MSM that some of the hijackers had stolen identities.

That's fair enough I understand that migrants have a fair amount of freedom in the US, but still with Islamic terrorists on the most wanted list, intelligence reports of a possible terrorist attack involving airliners flying into building's - landmarks, and these terrorists were able to achieve what they did. Still think it's fishy.

Not fishy, just unfortunate. The US had (and still has, but slightly less so) extremely strict prohibitions on intelligence sharing between domestic and international agencies.

Yet still no attempted suicide bombing with an airliner on Israel? It's a very small country surrounded by hostile countries I doubt they'd have much chance to scramble say F-16's as an airliner invades their airspace at 300-500 odd mph and I also doubt there are many AA installations in the Tel Aviv business district. If they were able to pull it off in the US why hasn't there been atleast one attempt on Israel?

Israel is ringed from tip to tip with anti-aircraft. Also, see below.

I realise Palestine is an excuse the terrorists use for their actions but still the point I was making is Israel is enemy #1 in their eyes yet they chose to go the hard route and attack the US. Still no attacks on western interests or the Saudi regime in Saudi Arabia with airliners, no attacks using airliners on US military bases. It's such a devastating and proven means of attack I don't fathom why they don't use it more often. It's been 5 years since 9/11 not one iota of an instance of another terrorist attack using an airliner.

I believe that after 9-11, and in particular after the actions of the people on Flight 93, that there will never again be a successful hijacking of a commercial airliner. The government and the airlines used to instruct people to cooperate, and the terrorists most often let the passengers go unharmed. Now no one cares what the government and the airlines say -- they'll fight hijackers to the death, because they correctly perceive that the result of not fighting is certain death.

Oh, and on "hearsay." You misunderstand the term. Hearsay is simply someone saying what someone else said. The reason that it's not usually allowed in court cases is because the court will want to hear it from the person who actually said it. There are several exceptions which do allow hearsay testimony, the most relevant one here being if the person who said it was speaking against his/her penal interests -- a confession, for example.

If we only convicted people whose crimes were videotaped we'd have a pretty small justice system and a pretty big list of criminals on the street. At the Pentagon they found a plane, DNA of people on the plane, eyewitness testimony of a plane descending to the Pentagon. American Airlines found themselves missing a plane and a bunch of passengers. People called from the plane and said exactly what was happening. None of this is hearsay. It's direct and circumstantial evidence which leads to a conclusion as inescapable as can possibly be.

 

[DavidJames]

Dr. Steven Jones is a physicist and he says that after his analysis, there's no way that the towers fell from the planes hitting them, I read the paper, I'm convinced, but I fail to explain it to others that convincingly..

Would you allow Jones to perform heart surgery on you? He is as qualified to perform heart surgery as he is to analyze the collapse of the towers.

 

[Pardalis]

Wow you guys have given me so much attention. I wouldn't know where to start in order to debunk every one of your replies.

For someone who is supposedly objective, I think you have already chosen the conspiracy theory as your «side».

I want to post several things regarding 9/11 truth seekers being dismissed as conspiracy theorists, as if the same way sherlock holmes would also be dismissed as being one.

Sherlock Holmes was a fictional character by the way.

As we struggle to put the events of and following 9-11-2001 into the most complete perspective, we’re hampered by having to find a way through the minefields of "conspiracy theory" accusations. There are so many parts to consider, it’s almost impossible to argue from any one event. If we argue that the Bush administration was complicit in the attacks of 9-11 - that they intentionally murdered 3,000 Americans in order to further their imperialistic agenda abroad and their transformation of America into a command-and-control plutocracy here at home - a hundred others will pick holes in individual pieces of the 9-11 conspiracy theory, and derail the argument rather than clarifying or advancing it. It’s like trying to pick up Jell-O without the bowl.

That's because you assume the bush administration is out to no good, you're just saying propaganda.

Nor can this ever be a merely intellectual game.

Propaganda isn't anything intellectual. You switch your mind off and let the cassette player roll.

our imperialism, our invasions of Iraq and Iran

Invasion of Iran?????

the rise in repressive laws, loss of civil liberties, increase in the state power of Christian fundamentalism, and its accompanying marginalization of women that always accompanies fascisms and fundamentalisms.

Woah, slow down here! We are here talking freely are we? What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Pardalis]

Hey now...have a little patience. I'm only describing why it's redundant to dismiss anyone as CT, especially when the person holds multiple evidence as proof.

Still waiting for your evidence.

True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job, but it also comes along with common sense and the ability to gather coincidences as there are far too many of them and putting thing together like pieces of puzzle, then you can clearly see the big picture.

Coincidences happen at every second of every minute of every hour. It's just the paranoid type who can actually put them together and make up conspiracies. Gut feeling isn't a good source for evidence, brother.

Does the word apophenia mean anything to you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

 

[Dackefejden]

Don't underestimate velocity. You don't get much lighter-weight than air, but when air gets moving fast enough it can cause obliterating destruction.

Very true, I don't want to underestimate or discount anything, as I said I'm not in any position to make definitive claims as it's not my field.

The damage from the impact and the fire didn't have to affect the lower floors to cause the collapses that we saw--once the initial failure occurred on the upper floors, gravity and kinetic energy did the rest.

The weight of the damaged levels above is only say a 1/4 of the lower levels I understand that the falling upper sections would cause substantial damage not enough I would've thought to near on flatten it to the ground in under a minute.

Regarding "close to free fall": this fuzzy, subjective term is used often by CTs, but it's meaningless. The buildings' collapse time was at least a few seconds longer than it would be at free fall.


The buildings were about 415m tall.
Freefall acceleration is 9.8m/s/s.
Collapse time at freefall would be about 9.2s.
Average velocity would be about 45 m/s.

The buildings collapsed in about 12s.
That would make the acceleration about 5.8m/s/s--about 40% less than freefall!
Average velocity was about 35 m/s.

I think it's safe to say "close to" with only a few seconds difference in the collapse time. If the Towers slowly collapsed over the span of an hour to few hours or a day/s then we could say with "great difference" to freefall time.

The lower floor, where the plane hit, only had two walls, and only the outer one had the extra reinforcement. There was a lot of wreckage. There's an abundance of photographic evidence showing it. Almost all of the wreckage & carnage followed the momentum of the plane deep inside the building. At the velocity the plane was travelling, there was no chance of much being blown back out onto the lawn.

The plane would mostly break up, the wings wouldve been sheared off, the aluminium panels would've been blasted away, leaving what I gather to be the titanium fuselage that's not a solid mass of steel, more like a framework regardless of the velocity and momentum I can't see how that would punch a neat whole through several layers of concrete, after all the two planes that hit the WTC Towers didn't penetrate through the other side although I may have read something where an engine and landing gear was found on the opposite side of impact to one of the towers. Why didn't the the fuselage or parts of it from the two planes hitting the WTC Towers turn into a virtual demoltion ball and smash all the way through when the impact damage to the planes in the WTC Towers would've been substantially less since it's hitting mostly glass/steel framework instead of a mass of solid reinforced concrete and according to you subsequent non reinforced concrete walls as at the Pentagon?

I've never seen images showing "a lot" of wreckage I've seen substantial damage to the facade of the Pentagon and the gaping hole but as far as wreckage only the mainstream media footage/pics of some aluminium siding with red and white markings, and assorted bits and pieces of aircraft hardware. Not enough wreckage relative to that of a 767 or whatever it was.

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?

 

[Pardalis]

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?

I understand there is a lot of things that seem suspicious to the suspicious mind that happened that day. But what is the alternative to the official story?

A high-tech-multi-angled conspiracy from the Illuminati-globalists-neocon-mossad-who-ever-else, or a low tech Al Qaida attack?

 

[kookbreaker]

Actually isn't the official story for the Pentagon most of the materials were vaporised by the explosion? How then does vaporised/molten aluminium/titanium punch such a hole?

No. The word 'vaporized' does not appear the official explanations from NIST or any other official source I have seen.

 

[Dackefejden]

I'll quickly respond to this before I'm off to bed, I will deal with the rest on my next visit.

Oh, and on "hearsay." You misunderstand the term. Hearsay is simply someone saying what someone else said. The reason that it's not usually allowed in court cases is because the court will want to hear it from the person who actually said it. There are several exceptions which do allow hearsay testimony, the most relevant one here being if the person who said it was speaking against his/her penal interests -- a confession, for example.

No I don't think I did, For instance in news coverage where a journalist relays "eyewitness reports" the given journo is simply someone saying what they were told ie: Hearsay.

It doesn't hold as much weight if any as it would coming from the person or persons who actually said/witnessed whatever... as in a court of law. But still in that instance you have to take what is said with a grain of salt. If several people were saying they saw a giant hamburger piloted by a group of cross dressing leprechaun's slam into the Pentagon and that was run on CNN/FOX in a serious manner not them just giving some token nutters airtime to clown themself would you believe it? Obviously not. I hope