Loose Change

Status
Not open for further replies.
Then there's the fact that the planes were monitored on radar. If the planes stopped off somewhere to unload all the passengers, then this requires the people monitoring the planes on radar to be part of the conspiracy.

Does anyone else remember the documentary on the air traffic controllers? A&E, I think. There were an awful lot of people watching the progress of the planes on 911. The idea they landed somewhere is just so completely ridiculus I can't believe anyone buys it.
 
One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.

For example, they drag Larry Silverstein into it. Why? It is quite possible to crash a plane into a building without first notifying the landlord. Why would then conspirators need to reveal their plans to him? He's just one more mouth to keep silent.

There's the allegations about the stock market. Me, if I was going to commit mass murder, I wouldn't mention it in advance to a bunch of share dealers, for fear that one of them might talk. The CTs, however, are eager to add these speculators to the list of people who are complicit and silent.

Then there's the bit where for no apparent reason the conspirators evacuate the passengers from the planes. This means that the conspirators now need ground crew to land the planes, secretly, people to hide the passengers, and you need to coerce forensic medical teams into pretending they found body parts. You need a whole call center full of people pretending to be frightened passengers phoning friends and relatives, and their deception must be perfect. And THEY have to keep quiet afterwards.

Now instead of involving all these people, why not just crash the planes into the building with the passengers on board? This would also have the effect of making people think that the planes crashed with the passengers on board --- and wouldn't need all the extra conspirators.

Then there's the fact that the planes were monitored on radar. If the planes stopped off somewhere to unload all the passengers, then this requires the people monitoring the planes on radar to be part of the conspiracy.

Again, we have to ask --- instead of involving all these extra people, why not just fly the plane into the building? By adding these senseless manoevres to the conspiracy, the CTs add hundreds to the tally of conspirators.

Then there's Flight 77. Apparently, the conspirators wished to give the impression that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. So they hid Flight 77 somewhere, and fired a missile disguised as a jumbo jet at the Pentagon instead. This, of course, requires lots of people to design and build a fake jumbo jet. And someone to fire it at the Pentagon.

Now, the conspirators could have dispensed with the services of all these people, and still given the impression that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon BY CRASHING FLIGHT 77 INTO THE PENTAGON. But they seem to be addicted to doing things the hard way.

So the CTs wilfully add in to the conspiracy a secret THE SIZE OF A JUMBO JET, and the people to design build it.

And so we come on to the controlled demolition. Not content with arranging one attack on the Twin Towers, the conspirators went to the trouble of arranging TWO, requiring completely different sets of technical experts. Instead of going with the claim that Evil Repulicans destroyed the Twin Towers BY CRASHING PLANES INTO THEM --- the CTs blandly double the size of the conspiracy.

There's the infamous "pull it" remark. Now, what were the conspirators thinking when they decided to delegate this bit of the conpiracy to firemen? Why not leave it in the capable hands of the people who rigged the explosives in the first place? But no, let's drag in yet another bunch of people to be complicit!

Now of course in order to make their theory PLAUSIBLE, the CTs should be hotly denying that it required the collaboration of FIREMEN, OF ALL PEOPLE. But instead, they insist on it.

And then there's the matter of clearing up the rubble of this controlled demolition. Four different firms were hired. Experts in the field, they would have surely recognised the shearing of the steel columns which would have been produced by a controlled demolition. All those people have to keep their silence.

Again, the CTs could save themselves this problem by simply claiming that Evil Republicans crashed planes into the towers, CAUSING THEM TO COLLAPSE. But no, instead let's add another few hundred collaborators.

And then the CTs make even more trouble for themselves by insisting that the fake collapse was a CLUMSY fake. Instead of making the towers collapse in such a way that they looked like towers collapsing, the conspiracy chose instead to destroy them in a way that the discerning can recognise as a controlled demolition.

Having done that, the conspirators merely need to coerce, blackmail and intimidate tens of thousands of technical experts in construction and demolition for the rest of their lives.

And more structural engineers graduate every year. Hundreds of them. FOREVER.

Now if the CTs really have their little hearts set on the use of explosives to bring down the towers, then why not say that the fake collapse was a GOOD fake which FOOLED the experts? But no: instead they require thousands of people to be coerced into silence.

By this point the conspiracy blackmailing and monitoring so many thousands of people that the number of people required just to do all the coercion is itself significant. People don't just blackmail themselves.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?. Perhaps the blackmailers blackmail each other.

And finally there are the CTs who wish to drag in every other violent event of the past century --- Oklahoma City, the shooting of Malcom X, the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Now the conspiracy is not just enormous but has been HANDED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION. Without anyone talking.

The CTs' mistake, I think, is this. They suppose that the more aspects of 9/11 they argue to be bogus, the more weight this adds to their conspiracy theory. But in order to argue that any particular aspect of the incident was fake, they need to add another dozen or hundred or thousand people to the conspiracy. The result of this is that their theory now requires THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE as willing or unwilling collaborators than would be required simply to crash the planes and blame it on a bunch of Arabs. And it requires the conspirators to involve all these extra people just, it would seem, for the heck of it. We have fake terrorists, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake radar records, fake seismographic records, fake jumbo jets, fake building collapses, fake body parts, fake forensic evidence, and fake expert opinions --- and of all these ONLY THE FAKE TERRORISTS are actually necessary to produce a fake terrorist attack. All the other fakes seem to have been put into the conspiracy just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.
Yes, but, as BBro256 said:
People can state accounting principles as to why someone would not prosper from this, eyewitness accounts, video footage, Photoshop, why there is no footage of the Pentagon attack, except for one video, only one, how long it takes to wire a building with explosives, someone is prospering by merchandising 911, etc.....

But they are overlooking one fact. The USA has very good intelligence gathering, and has for years. We could put a man on the moon (???) develop weapons to annihilate millions in seconds, but yet we could not prevent 911?
QED
 
Aww jeez...

From NORAD official report:
United Airlines Flight 175 – Boston enroute to Los Angeles

FAA Notificationto NEADS0843

Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass. Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11)0846

Fighters Airborne0852

Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2)0902 (estimated)

Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Locationapprox 8 min****/71 miles

http://www.standdown.net/noradseptember182001pressrelease.htm

Three years later in the sept 11 commission report:
Military Notification and Response. The first indication that the NORAD air defenders had of the second hijacked aircraft, United 175, came in a phone call from New York Center to NEADS at 9:03.The notice came at about the time the plane was hitting the South Tower.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch1.htm
 
pgwenthold said:
So we've come full circle:

[from]
It looked like a controlled demolition, therefore it was a conspiracy.

[to]
It was a conspiracy, so it didn't look like a controlled demolition.

It's failsafe. Doesn't matter how it looked, it was a conspiracy either way.

Yep. Enter the mind of the religious nut.

geggy said:
I find it amusing that you all think of this as a boxing match. I'm not trying to win at anything, just bringin my perspectives of sept 11 to the table for you to think about, is all.

No you don't. You just spew out the same crap over and over again, even when it's been shown wrong. You're either trying to convince US, or yourself.

Btw, my IQ is not below 90 if that is what your assumption is, it's actually much higher.

Who gives a hoot about your IQ ?

I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project, I'm saying it was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top to make it look like it was falling as if the structure of the building was failing.

No. You DID say it looked like a controlled demolition. Are you backing down from your original assertion ?

And if you are, how do you explain the fact that you think it looks like it was done deliberately if it DOESN'T look controlled ?
 
I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project

I'm saying it (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top
 
geggy said:
If I didn't know how to think crticially then I would've swallowed the bs that were laid out in the sept 11 commission report while reading it, which I doubt any of you actually read.

Well isn't that a nice way to turn it around to your advantage ?

Problem is, I don't think you don't think "critically" as in, you critique the official story. But you're simply not a good investigator, and your logic is flawed, that's all.

geggy said:
If you guys are looking for sponsors for your little movie, I'm sure the bush admin will be more than willing to help with the funding...

Just saying more bad things about the hypothetical evil Bush administration doesn't make it so.
 
geggy said:
I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project

I'm saying it (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top
You can "say" it all you like, but figments of your imagination do not constitute proof.
 
chipmunk stew kindly quoted this (presumably from another forum) in post 3102 above:

People can state accounting principles as to why someone would not prosper from this, eyewitness accounts, video footage, Photoshop, why there is no footage of the Pentagon attack, except for one video, only one, how long it takes to wire a building with explosives, someone is prospering by merchandising 911, etc.....

But they are overlooking one fact. The USA has very good intelligence gathering, and has for years. We could put a man on the moon (???) develop weapons to annihilate millions in seconds, but yet we could not prevent 911?
I'd be embarrassed to display such ignorance, but that's just me I guess.
 
I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project

I'm saying it (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

I would use the phrase, "Very Unique!" but I don't think you'd get it.

Or maybe the phrase "The same, only different." sums it up.

But just a few spaces down, we find that geggy is reduced to a bubble of CO-2.
 
I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project

I'm saying it (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top
So it didn't look like a controlled demolition, and you're taking this as evidence that it was a controlled demolition carried out in a special way so as to make it look as if it wasn't a controlled demolition?

Ever heard of William of Ockham?
 
I'm saying it didn't look like a controlled demo that is normally practiced in a regular building imploding project

I'm saying it (controlled demo) was done differently and uniquely for the towers to start imploding from the top

So it does not resemble a controlled demolition, right?
 
Aww jeez...

From NORAD official report:
Three years later in the sept 11 commission report:

And? The Commission report mentions the Otis 0846 scramble, in response to AA11.

0838: NEADS is notified of AA11
0846: Otis Scramble
0846: AA11 hits WTC1
0853: Otis Airborne
0903: UA175 hits WTC2
0915: NEADS is notified of UA175

So at 0853 there are 2 F-15 eagles in the air leaving Otis AFB. WTC1 has already been hit. Ignoring the muddled information (they were still looking for AA11 even after its been destroyed), UA175 is 10-11 minutes from hitting WTC2. The F-15s are 153 miles away.

At NEADS, the report of the hijacking was relayed immediately to Battle Commander Colonel Robert Marr. After ordering the Otis fighters to battle stations, Colonel Marr phoned Major General Larry Arnold, commanding general of the First Air Force and NORAD's Continental Region. Marr sought authorization to scramble the Otis fighters. General Arnold later recalled instructing Marr to "go ahead and scramble them, and we'll get authorities later." General Arnold then called NORAD headquarters to report.118

F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the World Trade Center.

Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.

In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four hijackings.
 
One of the strange things about the CTs is their bull-headed determination to make their theory as implausible as possible.

......

The CTs' mistake, I think, is this. They suppose that the more aspects of 9/11 they argue to be bogus, the more weight this adds to their conspiracy theory. But in order to argue that any particular aspect of the incident was fake, they need to add another dozen or hundred or thousand people to the conspiracy. The result of this is that their theory now requires THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE PEOPLE as willing or unwilling collaborators than would be required simply to crash the planes and blame it on a bunch of Arabs. And it requires the conspirators to involve all these extra people just, it would seem, for the heck of it. We have fake terrorists, fake passengers, fake phone calls, fake radar records, fake seismographic records, fake jumbo jets, fake building collapses, fake body parts, fake forensic evidence, and fake expert opinions --- and of all these ONLY THE FAKE TERRORISTS are actually necessary to produce a fake terrorist attack. All the other fakes seem to have been put into the conspiracy just to give conspiracy theorists something to talk about.

William of Ockham must be spinning in his grave.

Very well put. The CT's profess to a sort of reverse Ockham's razor, in which the more entities are added, the more likely there is a massive conspiracy at work...in fact, it is even MORE massive than previously thought! That is why their story is unfalsifiable, and therefore not worth the time and effort they squander on it.

I wish I wasn't forced to squander so much time on it. But it's like a train wreck, ya know? You just can't look away. :(
 
Aww jeez...
From NORAD official report:
Three years later in the sept 11 commission report:

Geggy, I apologize. I didn't read your post carefully and foolishly chastised you over the wrong issue.

You're still wrong.

When you became suspicious of the discrapancy in times between NORAD and the FAA, what did you do? Did you look into it? No you decided something was fishy. Obviously evidence of a conspiracy there. geggy, we've known since 2001 that NORAD's timeline was off. How do we know that the FAA's timeline is correct, and that the fighters, which were in a holding pattern offshore in military airspace, did not have time to intercept flight 175?

Because all of the FAA transmissions were recorded.

None of the NEADS transmissions were.

You know those numbers after practically every paragraph in the 9/11 Commission report? Those are called footnotes. You ahould check them out sometime.
 
Very well put. The CT's profess to a sort of reverse Ockham's razor, in which the more entities are added, the more likely there is a massive conspiracy at work...in fact, it is even MORE massive than previously thought!

That's it! Dr. Adequate and aggle have hit on something important here, and I think we need a name for it. Ockham's kaleidoscope?

I got an email from a fellow who's got a fun website and a snazzy link to my critique: http://www.perrylogan.org/

8790445f4e687492b.jpg
 
A great list of links, linked to from Perry Logan's site:

Tired of angry white guys with IQ's in the mid-80's pretending to be engineers,
telling you how 9/11 was an inside job?

Try these links from PublicEye:

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the World Trade Center that refute the claims that it was demolished by bombs or "controlled demolition?"
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2002/4/30_APwtc.html

Where can I find engineering studies that offer evidence that structural steel from the World Trade Center was collected for analysis?
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery.htm#recover
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/gallery2.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/Structural_Fire_Response_and_Collapse_Analysis.pdf
http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

Where can I find evidence that refutes the claim that World Trade Center Building 7 was "pulled" down intentionally by some official order?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Where can I find engineering studies concerning the Pentagon that refute the claims that it was hit by a guided missile?
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/pentagon.php
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/
http://www.asce.org/responds/

More information:
http://architecture.about.com/library/weekly/aawtc-collapse.htm
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/021104.asp
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php#why
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/resources.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/
More links to real engineers refuting conspiracy theorists:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php
http://space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html
http://www.teachersdomain.org/6-8/sci/engin/systems/collapse/
http://mcleon.tripod.com/WTC1.htm
http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF Files/World Trade Centre.pdf

YET MORE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/news/wtc/wtc.html
http://www.newhaven.edu/show.asp?durki=1185
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

An article from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00128000001000002000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Here's a colloquium of engineers discussing the fall of the WTC towers.* They're all too dumb to see the bombs:
http://mae.ce.uiuc.edu/Outreach/Conferences/wtc.htm

A collection of essays by researchers at MIT:
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

A bibliography of analyses of the collapse:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html#Analysis of Collapse

Architecture Week on the engineering forensics of the collapse:
http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html
Oh, what the heck.*** Here's some more...

On WTC7:
http://www.americanlaboratory.com/articles/al/a0212mar.pdf
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/
http://212.204.44.125/WTC/wtc----the-construction/great_buildings_wtc/WTC_GBO.htm
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0515/news_1-1.html
http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst/Final NCSTAC 2004 Report to Congress.pdf
http://www.engr.psu.edu/ae/wtc/wtctragedy.html
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/report/news/december5/wtc-125.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/011119fa_FACT
http://www.ncsea.com/articles/seerp/wtcseerp.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html
http://mceer.buffalo.edu/publications/wtc/02-SP08/default.asp

In this article, the author, Anne Elizabeth Powell, describes in detail how civil engineers quickly mobilized and led the efforts to evaluate not only the performance of the structures involved in the two assaults but also the vulnerability of the nation's infrastructure to future attacks in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon:
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline01/0111feat.html

This Web site provides a summary of seismic observations, including seismogram traces of the two impacts and three collapses at the WTC (including those of the twin towers as well as that of the adjacent building, WTC-7):
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

This report presents results of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA's) Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data and interpretations that mapped the distribution and intensity of thermal hot spots in the WTC area on September 16 and 23:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0405/ofr-01-0405.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom