Loose Change

[Pardalis]

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



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

Actually, alot of the so-called CT evidence of explosions in the WTC comes from hearsay and witnesses who in the heat of the moment thought they heard explosions.

 

[Dackefejden]

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

Ok thanks for the correction, I'm not a 9/11 scholar I'm only going on what vague info I have in mind from mainstream media and web searching.

If the use of the '' and alternate spelling was intended as a correction I hope you realise that vaporise is the UK/Australian spelling, naturally 'vaporised' wouldn't appear in any source from Americans

 

[bob_kark]

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?

That would be due to the security on El Al Airlines, From Wiki:

At least six (formerly two) undercover agents accompany each international El Al flight, sitting amongst passengers whilst holstering firearms. All El Al pilots must be former Israeli Air Force fighter pilots, and all El Al flight crew members are trained in hand to hand combat. In fact, most El Al employees have served in the Israeli army (since national service is compulsory in Israel).

El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats. All passengers are classified on a 3 tier threat scale: Israelis and Jews are classified as the lowest threat, Westerners are classified as medium level threats, and any Arab (particularly males) are classified as high threat. In addition, all luggage must pass through a decompression chamber. El Al is the only airline in the world that passes all luggage through this special chamber.

The El Al fleet is also the only commercial airline fleet in the world to be equipped with anti-missile countermeasures.

As a result of the tight security, only one El Al plane has been successfully hijacked, in 1968.

 

[Pardalis]

I think we shouldn't put the palestinian terrorists and Alquaida in the same basket. They are different organisations with different modus operandi. The fact that there hasn't been a airline jet attack on Israel has nothing to do with 9/11. I think people tend to over simplify history.

 

[Manny]

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



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

I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying here. By this standard you can't believe anything you didn't personally witness. It wasn't just the eyewitness testimony -- everyone saw planes, BTW, though some thought they saw different kinds, not something unexpected given the circumstances. But in addition to everyone seeing planes, there was a plane strewn all over the Pentagon site. And American found themselves missing an airplane. And all the passengers and crew on that particular airplane are missing, and some of them were found at the Pentagon. And some of those same passengers called their families and reported exactly what was happening, in real time.

One of the things which distinguishes homo sapiens from other animals is our ability to assemble facts into a coherent whole. It's turned out to be a pretty good survival mechanism. Don't abandon that hard-evolved tool.

 

[chipmunk stew]

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 has excellent airport security, their plane cockpits lock, and their pilots are armed, IIRC.

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.

The 9/11 attacks took a lot of planning, it wasn't an easy operation by any means, and now it's a known possibility. Flight schools will be much more scrutinized, and passengers and crews won't let cockpits be taken over. Al-Qaeda isn't being given any breathing room. And who knows, it may happen yet.

 

[geggy]

Surely I have evidence...

From wikipedia: Squib: "A squib is not an electric match, even though the terms are used interchangeably by the uninitiated. It is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses generating mechanical forces as well as pyrotechnic uses. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter. The squib being an explosive device, releases a lot of energy, and can be used for shattering, triggering, propelling and cutting a wide range of pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic materials."

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg

Unless you think the picture was doctored, here is a link to several videos of WTC collapsing, with some of them showing squibs (especially click on "This 8-second KTLA5 video shows the North Tower as it starts to collapse. It shows squibs and streamers ahead of the mushrooming top", and among others )

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Unless you think that video is CGI, here is a short video clip of NYC firefighters hearing something go "boom-boom-boom"...

whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv

Unless you think they were actors then let me know, I can provide even more links...

I apologize if any of you feel like I've ignored your questions which it is not in my intention to do so, as there are too many of them to even catch up with all..

 

[delphi_ote]

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg

That's a squib? You have proof? Let's hear it!

 

[Manny]

And while you're on the subject, precisely what were these "squibs" supposed to do -- they pretty obviously weren't damaging the exterior of the building.

 

[chipmunk stew]

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.

On 7, it seems that the internal support structures failed first, which caused it to implode. It wasn't exactly straight down, though, the debris biased to the south. (You can see this in aerial photos.) 1 & 2 had a "tube-within-a-tube" construction--downward collapse is what would be expected (and virtually every structural engineer in the world agrees).

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

See my post above: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1589960#post1589960

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

The crushing energy of the collapsing building is more than enough to account for this.

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

If you've ever seen a tank explode, you appreciate the power of large volumes of compressed air.

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.

Please name for me one instance in the history of controlled demolitions that included molten metal that burned for weeks. Of all these points, this is the least convincing and the least characteristic of a controlled demo.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'm not sure if you realize what you're saying here. By this standard you can't believe anything you didn't personally witness. It wasn't just the eyewitness testimony -- everyone saw planes, BTW, though some thought they saw different kinds, not something unexpected given the circumstances. But in addition to everyone seeing planes, there was a plane strewn all over the Pentagon site. And American found themselves missing an airplane. And all the passengers and crew on that particular airplane are missing, and some of them were found at the Pentagon. And some of those same passengers called their families and reported exactly what was happening, in real time.

Hearsay.

Did you actually see the passengers get on the plane? Did you actually see their body parts at the scene? Did you actually see the plane before it took off?

If not, then you are just relying on someone else relating the tales to you. It's all just hearsay. Means nothing.

(see, you just have be skeptical...)

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Surely I have evidence...

From wikipedia: Squib: "A squib is not an electric match, even though the terms are used interchangeably by the uninitiated. It is a small explosive device which has a wide range of uses generating mechanical forces as well as pyrotechnic uses. A squib can range in size from a small cap only millimeters in diameter to ones which can be 15 millimetres in diameter. The squib being an explosive device, releases a lot of energy, and can be used for shattering, triggering, propelling and cutting a wide range of pyrotechnic and non-pyrotechnic materials."

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg

Unless you think the picture was doctored, here is a link to several videos of WTC collapsing, with some of them showing squibs (especially click on "This 8-second KTLA5 video shows the North Tower as it starts to collapse. It shows squibs and streamers ahead of the mushrooming top", and among others )

911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

Unless you think that video is CGI, here is a short video clip of NYC firefighters hearing something go "boom-boom-boom"...

whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/discussion_in_firehouse.wmv

Unless you think they were actors then let me know, I can provide even more links...

I apologize if any of you feel like I've ignored your questions which it is not in my intention to do so, as there are too many of them to even catch up with all..

You present only false dichotomies. There are other possibilites for the ejcted material besides "squibs" or doctored photos. Likewise there are other possibilities for the firemen hearing noises besides bombs or them being actors.

In short, it is up to you to prove that the ejected material is a squib and that there were bombs, the evidence you have presented so far does not do that. Presenting your 'evidence' in the form of such a blatant false dichotomy doesn't help your case, either.

 

[CurtC]

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...

Titanium fuselage? I remember hearing something like this in the Loose Change video - where do you guys come up with this stuff? Most everything on the plane is aluminum. Parts of the engine are titanium, but this is extremely small compared to the rest of the plane.

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.

It was a 757, and there were twisted, scorched, and melted parts from a 757 inside the Pentagon. Lots of them, along with enough human remains to identify (almost?) every passenger.

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?

Again, this is more misinformation from the Loose Change video. The material was not titanium, it was not vaporised or even melted in the initial explosion. The resulting fire melted much of it.

here is a link to several videos of WTC collapsing, with some of them showing squibs (especially click on "This 8-second KTLA5 video shows the North Tower as it starts to collapse. It shows squibs and streamers ahead of the mushrooming top", and among others )

I thought the purpose of the explosions in controlled demolitions was to initiate the collapse. In every CD video I've ever seen, the explosions happen first, then the building falls. In these videos and pictures you're talking about, the material is ejected well after the collapse is underway. Why would that be evidence of a CD?

 

[aggle-rithm]

Hello people,

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?

I apologize if this has already been addressed.

The reason there were no such hijackings before or after 9/11 is because this was a one-shot deal. They could do it once and only once, but then the jig was up.

Tell me, if you were a passenger on a hijacked airline in this day and age, would you and the other passengers sit meekly and await your fate, or would you, knowing you were going to die anyway, try to take charge of the situation?

That's why the tactic doesn't work anymore. In fact, it stopped working on 9/11, when the fourth hijacking occurred later than it should have, the passengers learned the fate of the other hijacked planes, and fought back.

I could imagine what a planeful of Israelis would do in this situation -- each and every one of them with compulsory military experience! I would pay money to see that show.

 

[aggle-rithm]

True, my gut intuition tells me sept 11 was an inside job...

"Yes, when you have a small brain, your other organs have to kick in like that."

-- Dogbert

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think we shouldn't put the palestinian terrorists and Alquaida in the same basket. They are different organisations with different modus operandi. The fact that there hasn't been a airline jet attack on Israel has nothing to do with 9/11. I think people tend to over simplify history.

I think if the Palestinians were behind the hijacking it wouldn't have been so successful. Half of the hijackers would have overslept and missed their flight. The other half would have accidentally stabbed themselves trying to undo their seat belts.

It's true.

 

[Beleth]

Photograph of squibs shooting out...

911wasalie.com/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg

Classic "affirming the consequent" fallacy.

If A, then B.
B.
Therefore A.

Actually, it's two AtC fallacies, one nested within the other.

In a controlled demolition, squibs are ignited.
- When squibs are ignited, little puffs of smoke come out of the sides of buildings.
- Little puffs of smoke came out of the sides of the WTC.
- Therefore squibs were ignited.
Therefore the WTC was a controlled demolition.

This is the same logic as:
If it purrs and drinks milk, it's a cat.
- If it's a cat, it has claws on its feet.
- This parakeet has claws on its feet.
- Therefore this parakeet is a cat.
Therefore this parakeet purrs and drinks milk.

 

[Pardalis]

Surely I have evidence...

Is that all? The only things you have brought to this thread so far are anti-Bush propaganda and links to paranoid CT sites. Can you summon any good objective and reliable evidence?

 

[WildCat]

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.

Glad you're here, I'm sure you can answer one simple question I have. Earlier in this thread I posted a long list of eyewitnesses to the pentagon crash, all reported that it was a civilian airliner consistent w/ the official version of events. Can you show a single contemporary (ie, reported in a reputable news source at the time) account where any witness reported seeing anything but a civilian airliner hitting the Pentagon? Thanks!

 

[Gravy]

I cannot say what hit the Pentagon as there has been no footage screened of a commercial airliner hitting said Pentagon.

You're wrong. The families of flight 77 victims have seen all the footage of the 757 hitting the Pentagon, and none of them are calling for an "investigation." Before the FBI took the tapes, several employees of buildings with security cameras also saw the footage, and none of them are calling for an investigation.

And why wouldn't you believe all the people who were on the scene and had to pick up the aircraft pieces and body parts, people from a dozen different organizations? Are they all lying?

“Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?" Source

All but one of the flght 77 passengers and crew were positively identified through DNA, radiological and fingerprint analysis. Were all the forensic pathologists all lying? Many families received personal effects that were found in the wreckage. Was that all faked?

And where did the tons of airliner wreckage come from, wreckage that was there when the first responders arrived? Was all that American Airlines Boeing 757 wreckage created by magic?

Do a count: how many eyewitnesses saw a plane that didn't look like a 757, compared to those who did? The information is available. Just tally it up.