Loose Change - Part II

[Kent1]

Don't forget about this picture, it goes very well with that other one in that you can see the same other landmarks in it, but from a slightly different angle...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_wtc7_smoke_d.jpg

Here are the larger photos of that same angle
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1498.JPG
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1499.JPG

 

[XXX]

Good job Kent1. Much nicer versions!

 

[WildCat]

Pray tell, what is this "reason?"

Hundreds, eh? Then it should be easy as breathing to expose. I won't hold my breath waiting, however.

I usually fly Southwest Airlines when I fly, Southwest uses 737's exclusively. Now, when a 737 and a 757 or especially a 767 are near each other on the tarmac, the size differences are obvious. The 737 is much, much smaller than those other planes. It would be nearly impossible to mistake one for the other if there is something else in the pic for scale, a large building of known dimensions for example...

 

[Brainster]

I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.

Thing is, there are two basic modes of thought over there; those that think the aircraft hit just like the pictures showed, but that the Government is covering up something about it and that the report has too many holes, and those who believe the whole thing was an elaborate hoax and Government run "hit" (I won't even try to divide all the subcategories of the latter, from the -300 767 to the CD of WTC 7 to the no-757 into the Pentagon to...well, they get even wilder than that.

It appears the moderates (those who think the Government is covering up something, but that the basics (Arab terrorists crashed 4 planes) is accurate) are being driven off by those who want to believe in a more radical answer. It is not unknown, the more radical the interpertation, the more they tend to be fanatical in their belief--IMHO. And radicals often drive the more thoughful moderates out--see almost any revolution from the French to the Russian--the one saving grace of the USA was our moderates got control and made it stick--I honor Thomas Paine, but I'm rather glad he didn't put our government together.

So I tend to agree that LC may be on a death spiral, much like the French Revolution, of eating its' own--and it might well have been our doing by upsetting the applecart.

Naughty of us...

The board over there does seem like a bad joke, but don't kid yourself; this is going to get worse before it gets better. As I posted on the blog, I overheard two other guys in my office suite on Friday talking about "the hole in the Pentagon's only 16 feet wide". Walked in, sure enough, they're watching Dylan & Co's little flick. I sent them the link to Gravy's guide and Markyx's film, but one guy was still holding out--he said he wanted to watch the film again before he decided. These guys are not kooks, not stupid people by any means, but they are decidedly left wing in their politics.

 

[CptColumbo]

ETA: Damn you, Columbo! I'll beat you yet!

NEVER!!! BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[realitybites]

How Is It...?

That the CTers are able find conspiracy in every last thing, down to which names and faces the government felt would best promote psychological warfare...?

.... but that same government would be retarded enough to forget to place wreckage at the "faked" Flight 93 crash site?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.

Bad analogy. If you insist on religious terms you are the Friedrich Nietzsches. Fortunately there is no orthodoxy yet - no Luthers involved. I admit that some church dignitaries don't get that and try to burn heretics (and atheists of course).

Hmm... at least there are no Thomas Huxleys around - i hope.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Why doesn't that surprise me dork




Sentinel

"Dork"?? Are you kidding me? Ok, tell me the truth....are you in 6th or 7th grade? Which is it?

 

[bob_kark]

Ladies and gentlemen...

[drumroll]

[/drumroll] The kilik has landed:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6017

 

[money]

Ladies and gentlemen...

[drumroll]

[/drumroll] The kilik has landed:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6017

... the death and destruction of LC is soon to follow...

Oh man. I can't even think of a better punishment for those Loosers than to put up with Kilik. They just might be the group he was put here on Earth to harrass and confuse...

eta- 8 straight posts by Kilik, then ChuckSheen giving him the "thank you" smiley! Good times!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Your theory is that there is a cover-up. Fair enough. Hard to exhaustively disprove, unlike the nonsense about controlled demolition, although I personally don't think there was one. It will help if we have some details about this cover-up, i.e. what was covered up, who covered it, and how.

My theory is that elements in the interconnected world of organized crime, secret services and terrorism were involved in 9/11. I referenced some indications for that theory.

(ad 1.) Erm... There was an investigation, but the 19 Hijackers was a pretty simple conclusion. In brief, we know they boarded the planes (passenger lists, video evidence, eyewitnesses in the airports), have corroborating descriptions from phone calls from the hijacked planes, found at least some of their DNA in wreckage, voice recorder evidence, and have video claiming responsibility from their conspirators. Do you have evidence that casts doubt on this conclusion? If so, that would be grounds to reopen the investigation, but I'd like to see it before casting judgment, if you don't mind.

All we know is what was told to us by very few people in government positions. Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video. The videos in which he denied his involvement were released via al-jazeera et al while the "confession"-tape was released by the department of defense. Maybe we disagree on the question of which sources are more valid.

Do you agree with RandFan that there was no case for an official federal investigation "USA vs. Unknown"?

(ad 2.) What makes you think the entire FBI was taken off one case and put on another? Sounds sketchy. Can you support this assertion? Who are these "lot of people" you're talking about, and what do they know that was overlooked?

(I don't know who was behind the anthrax letters either, but it may have been totally unrelated. Let's stick to one investigation at a time, please.)

I already admitted that i have to rely on Daniel Hopsicker for that. He describes the circumstances as if the FBI disappeared entirely from the crime scene weeks after the attacks and several interviewed people stated that they were told not to talk to anyone about their knowledge of Atta. New inconsistenties in the timelime

I mentioned the anthrax letters because if we believe Hopsicker a lot of FBI-Agents investigated it - and never found the criminals.

(ad 3.) You didn't mention any people in 2., just said that there were some. I gravely doubt that Hopsicker "had to do the work of the whole investigative apparatus of the US." That's balmy, sorry. You'll need to show a whole lot of evidence before I believe this trail of breadcrumbs leading to International Organized Crime, and you haven't shown any whatsoever.

I can't show evidence. I can only search for connections on the net. I'm 10000 miles away from Florida, sorry.

(ad 5.) I don't know what "The Legend" refers to. Anyway, this is a non sequitur. I'm not the least bit satisfied with how the Moussaoui trial was handled myself, but I don't see the guest list supporting your allegations of a 9/11 coverup. They didn't let me in to witness the OJ trial, either, for what it's worth.

Perhaps i used the word "witness" in a false way. Cite:

U.S. refuses to let Moussaoui call witness

The Justice Department refused a federal judge's order to allow terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui access to a captured al Qaeda leader Monday, citing national security concerns. source

That article is from 2003 but as far as i know Moussaouis lawyers tried several times to question KSM and Binalshibh in the trial. Why was this refused?

(ad 6.) I have no idea what you're talking about. It almost seems that you're implying the Loose Changers should be jailed and questioned -- surely that can't be what you mean?

I mentioned the connection Adnan Khashoggi/John Gray/9/11 Truth movement and provided some "evidence" in form of mainstream media articles to "Belz..." Any opinion on that, "Belz..."?

 

[WildCat]

... the death and destruction of LC is soon to follow...

Oh man. I can't even think of a better punishment for those Loosers than to put up with Kilik. They just might be the group he was put here on Earth to harrass and confuse...

eta- 8 straight posts by Kilik, then ChuckSheen giving him the "thank you" smiley! Good times!

Yeah, now that's funny!

And as we know all too well, Kilik has a lot more where that came from!

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I usually fly Southwest Airlines when I fly, Southwest uses 737's exclusively...

WildCat:

I'm not sure why you quoted me in your response (truncated above). I was responding facetiously to a quote from LC regarding the idea that hundreds of commercial jets are currently rigged for destruction. It had nothing to do with relative sizes of aircraft.

 

[R.Mackey]

My theory is that elements in the interconnected world of organized crime, secret services and terrorism were involved in 9/11. I referenced some indications for that theory.

Fine. I just like to make sure we agree on the theory being debated rather than assume each other knows what we're talking about.

When you say you "referenced" it, what do you mean? I saw no references at all, meaning citations to published, verifiable material. Do you have references? Can we see them?

All we know is what was told to us by very few people in government positions. Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video. The videos in which he denied his involvement were released via al-jazeera et al while the "confession"-tape was released by the department of defense. Maybe we disagree on the question of which sources are more valid.

Absolutely not! The investigation spanned virtually every government agency. Bin Laden did not deny his involvement at any time*, as we have discussed here for a long time (i.e. "prove it!"). DNA of the aircraft occupants was analyzed by crime labs. Telephone calls were placed to survivors of the victims on board the aircraft. No government agency, and in fact no set of government agencies, covers the entire space of evidence available.

I agree that it is vaguely possible for all of this evidence to be wrong, but you must come up with compelling evidence before this possibility is worth a second thought.

You still haven't presented any. "My" evidence is therefore more valid, by default.

Do you agree with RandFan that there was no case for an official federal investigation "USA vs. Unknown"?

Not sure what you're referring to -- please be more specific if you want my agreement. Besides... relevance? I stated in my last reply that there was an investigation, and that its conclusion seems perfectly correct. You haven't challenged that assertion.

I already admitted that i have to rely on Daniel Hopsicker for that. He describes the circumstances as if the FBI disappeared entirely from the crime scene weeks after the attacks and several interviewed people stated that they were told not to talk to anyone about their knowledge of Atta. New inconsistenties in the timelime

I am not impressed.

Your link is nothing more than an advertisement. No sources, no evidence. You might as well link to old Warner Bros. cartoons as evidence for life on Mars. Please, legitimate sources only.

I mentioned the anthrax letters because if we believe Hopsicker a lot of FBI-Agents investigated it - and never found the criminals.

The anthrax event was pretty bizarre, and there are some big unanswered questions. I doubt anybody here will dispute that. BUT unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect these events are related.

Like I said before, one theory at a time, please. You are welcome to start another thread asking about the anthrax letters.

I can't show evidence. I can only search for connections on the net. I'm 10000 miles away from Florida, sorry.

Thank you for clarifying what I suspected, namely that you have no evidence. I haven't been to Florida for two years myself. I therefore listen to those people who do have evidence -- and only those people -- and lay my cards on the table when I encounter something new.

But think about this for a minute. If you have no evidence, why do you believe all these things? Surely you're harder to convince than that?

That article is from 2003 but as far as i know Moussaouis lawyers tried several times to question KSM and Binalshibh in the trial. Why was this refused?

Lots of possibilities, many of them not sinister at all. It proves nothing.

My opinion, though I Am Not A Lawyer, the Justice Department did not feel bound to accede to the judge's orders. Didn't help their case. Moussaoui's lawyers had no leverage whatsoever, so let's just ignore that. The defense can try to call on whomever it wants, W, Easter Bunny, whomever, and it is typically thrown out as a delaying tactic. Here we saw the judge going head to head with Justice which is different, and indicative of an unfortunate adversarial relationship between Justice and the judiciary, but it in no way helps your case.

I might remind you that Moussaoui pled guilty to the crime (even though I personally believe he vastly exaggerated his own involvement), and he was VERY outspoken during the trial -- but uttered not a single word about "organized crime" in Florida. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, even if those "witnesses" had taken the stand, they would confirm a single thing you've presented.

You have no evidence. I am therefore not obligated to believe a word of it.

And in case you couldn't tell, I am not a fan of the current administration or our foreign policy. But that doesn't mean I haphazardly accuse them of such incredible treachery. You shouldn't either.

* ERRATUM: As was pointed out to me, Bin Laden did in fact initially deny involvement in the attacks. The semantics of Bin Laden's statements are complicated. I suggest http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html for a discussion of this issue. I also contend that all of Bin Laden's propaganda should be taken with extreme suspicion.

 

[money]

Yeah, now that's funny!

And as we know all too well, Kilik has a lot more where that came from!

Yes, yes he does.

One funny thing stuck out at me. In his second post there, near the bottom, right below some strange pictures that either look poorly photoshopped or taken from some RPG, he has a link that has the prefix:
lol , shiiiit(then the link)

Is that a bizarre sequence or what? Even for him. One of those photos is even clearly drawn, comic book style...

Maybe he's slipping?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Fine. I just like to make sure we agree on the theory being debated rather than assume each other knows what we're talking about.

Let's tell Gravy and Dylan about that!

When you say you "referenced" it, what do you mean? I saw no references at all, meaning citations to published, verifiable material. Do you have references? Can we see them?

Looked at the Khashoggi-Connection? My next search will be "Ben-Veniste". I'll provide some links.

Absolutely not! The investigation spanned virtually every government agency. Bin Laden did not deny his involvement at any time, as we have discussed here for a long time (i.e. "prove it!"). DNA of the aircraft occupants was analyzed by crime labs. Telephone calls were placed to survivors of the victims on board the aircraft. No government agency, and in fact no set of government agencies, covers the entire space of evidence available.

Come on. Bin Laden denied his involvement several times. That's a fact. Take this for now:

Bin Laden has publicly issued four previous videos since September 11, always denying carrying out the atrocities.

If you don't believe it or are too lazy to search for yourself, i'll provide more sources.

The anthrax event was pretty bizarre, and there are some big unanswered questions. I doubt anybody here will dispute that. BUT unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect these events are related.

Like I said before, one theory at a time, please. You are welcome to start another thread asking about the anthrax letters.

Ok, that's offtopic. I mentioned it because i wanted to clarify that they couldn't have been SO busy. One link from the wayback machine (because i just recognized that the article disappeared from the "Federation of American Scientists"-Website (in June 2004)): Barbara Hatch Rosenberg: Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks.

But think about this for a minute. If you have no evidence, why do you believe all these things? Surely you're harder to convince than that?

I observed the development since the first day and wasn't THAT emotionally disturbed (because of the distance).

The defense can try to call on whomever it wants, W, Easter Bunny, whomever, and it is typically thrown out as a delaying tactic.

Let's keep this serious.

 

[R.Mackey]

Looked at the Khashoggi-Connection? My next search will be "Ben-Veniste". I'll provide some links.

Tell you what, I'll just wait until you get your position organized. That way there's no danger of me misinterpreting you.

Come on. Bin Laden denied his involvement several times. That's a fact. Take this for now:

If you don't believe it or are too lazy to search for yourself, i'll provide more sources.

Lazy? Moi? Funny, I was about to point you to http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html which has a whole collection of citations, organized with dates and commentary...

...but following your link, the first thing I read is "Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It". So you're not really defending yourself terribly well.

Yes, Bin Laden issued some contradictory statements early. This is fact. But saying "he denied his involvement" is a lie of omission. You're cherry-picking his statements to only include the ones that agree with your viewpoint.

Even if you were right and he'd never reversed himself, none of this would prove any link to organized crime. You still haven't even begun to present that case.

Please find some more evidence, and I'll be glad to discuss it further. Yes, indeed, let us be serious. This is progress and I am learning a lot.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Tell you what, I'll just wait until you get your position organized. That way there's no danger of me misinterpreting you.

If you want a theory-of-everything-that-happened-on-911 from me, i have to disappoint you.

Bin Laden did not deny his involvement at any time

Yes, Bin Laden issued some contradictory statements early. This is fact. But saying "he denied his involvement" is a lie of omission.

Who lies by omission here?

Please find some more evidence, and I'll be glad to discuss it further. Yes, indeed, let us be serious. This is progress and I am learning a lot.

Fine. Me too. See you later.

 

[R.Mackey]

If you want a theory-of-everything-that-happened-on-911 from me, i have to disappoint you.

I'd settle for a complete description of the "coverup" you're postulating.

Who lies by omission here?

That was my mistake, not a lie. Thank you for making me look things up. My first position was in error. I have no problem whatsoever changing my opinion when faced with conflicting evidence.

Now that I have looked things up, do you deny that Bin Laden ever accepted responsibility? Yes or no?

 

[Gravy]

My theory is that elements in the interconnected world of organized crime, secret services and terrorism were involved in 9/11. I referenced some indications for that theory.

You chastised us for saying that you had any theory at all. What's going on?

All we know is what was told to us by very few people in government positions. Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video. The videos in which he denied his involvement were released via al-jazeera et al while the "confession"-tape was released by the department of defense. Maybe we disagree on the question of which sources are more valid.

Video and text released by al-Jazeera of Bin Laden claiming responsibility, November, 2004.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Please do your homework.