Loose Change

[Flange Desire]

snip
Unfortunately, I don't "want to believe" the government lied, I know it, both logically and intuitively. This country is in deep, deep trouble, and the only hope is that people first face the truth. There can be no solutions without facing up to the horrible truth.

Yes, we must face up to the horrible truth that such CTs are belived by many, regardless of the weight of evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Alek, how about the witnesses to the pentagon flight?
You tend to believe other 'anecdotal' evidence, so how about these testimonies? dont brush past them....

Anyone want to bet that he'll say it was a missile disquised as a 757 via holography?

 

[Alek]

Alek, how about the witnesses to the pentagon flight?
You tend to believe other 'anecdotal' evidence, so how about these testimonies? dont brush past them....

There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

What I do know is that the FBI confiscated all of the surveillance footage that captured the event, within minutes of it happening, and put a gag order on the owners of the tapes. Why would they do this? If the private surveillance footage corroborates the official story, then why not show me? Corroborating video footage from multiple cameras would certainly convince me.

Some might claim they did this for "national security". I find this unreasonable, since at the moment I find the threat of my own government lying to me to be greater than the threat posed by the supposed "terrorists", and in any event I don't see how releasing that footage would compromise security at the Pentagon.

If the Pentagon officials and the FBI were truly concerned about "national security", they might want to talk to NORAD. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 timeline:

8:40am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 11 is hijacked
8:43am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am - NORAD scrambles two F15s from Otis Air National Guard in Falmouth, MA
8:46am - Flight 11 impacts the North Tower (WTC 1)
8:47am - NORAD informed of Flight 11 impacting WTC 1
8:56am - Flight 77 transponder signal stops
9:02am - Flight 175 impacts the South Tower (WTC 2)
9:16am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 93 is hijacked
9:24am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 77 is hijacked
9:37am - Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

I don't know what really happend at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie.

Be careful, the governments onto you...remember Hal is watching.

Edit: that fundy site is madness. Irational. And isn't it a good thing if the leader of a powerful country such as USA was not a christian?

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

 

[WildCat]

There are conflicting eyewitness testimonies as to what actually struck the pentagon on 9/11. I don't know what the ratio is.

Since you haven't found anyone who saw anything but a plane, so far the ratio is infinite.

What I do know is that the FBI confiscated all of the surveillance footage that captured the event, within minutes of it happening, and put a gag order on the owners of the tapes. Why would they do this? If the private surveillance footage corroborates the official story, then why not show me? Corroborating video footage from multiple cameras would certainly convince me.

And yet, footage from one Pentagon camera has been shown all over the internet.

Some might claim they did this for "national security". I find this unreasonable, since at the moment I find the threat of my own government lying to me to be greater than the threat posed by the supposed "terrorists", and in any event I don't see how releasing that footage would compromise security at the Pentagon.

Alek, run. run far, run fast, they're on to you...

If the Pentagon officials and the FBI were truly concerned about "national security", they might want to talk to NORAD. Here's an excerpt from the 9/11 timeline:

8:40am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 11 is hijacked
8:43am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am - NORAD scrambles two F15s from Otis Air National Guard in Falmouth, MA
8:46am - Flight 11 impacts the North Tower (WTC 1)
8:47am - NORAD informed of Flight 11 impacting WTC 1
8:56am - Flight 77 transponder signal stops
9:02am - Flight 175 impacts the South Tower (WTC 2)
9:16am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 93 is hijacked
9:24am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 77 is hijacked
9:37am - Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

Most secured airspace in the entire world? You must be joking. There's a major airport literally a minutes flight from any building in DC.

I don't know what really happend at the Pentagon, but I find the official story to be a lie.

Based on what evidence? Evidence is, after all, the determination rational people use to discern the facts and decide what likely happened. So far, you believe in a conclusion w/o any facts.

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

View the lunacy here.

 

[WildCat]

BTW, I wasn't kidding about the hologram thing. The theory is out there!

 

[CurtC]

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world?

So now you accept the fact that AA77 was what hit the Pentagon?

Yes, the Pentagon confiscated the tapes from the impact, and that makes it harder for you CTers to accept the official story. But they don't care - you are a tiny minority. They might just be concerned that the video compromises their security, by showing how the building reacted to the impact. There are plausible reasons.

 

[Orphia Nay]

8:40am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 11 is hijacked
8:43am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 175 is hijacked
8:46am - NORAD scrambles two F15s from Otis Air National Guard in Falmouth, MA
8:46am - Flight 11 impacts the North Tower (WTC 1)
8:47am - NORAD informed of Flight 11 impacting WTC 1
8:56am - Flight 77 transponder signal stops
9:02am - Flight 175 impacts the South Tower (WTC 2)
9:16am - FAA notifies NORAD that UA Flight 93 is hijacked
9:24am - FAA notifies NORAD that AA Flight 77 is hijacked
9:37am - Flight 77 impacts the Pentagon

At 8:43am, NORAD knew that at least two planes had been hijacked. At 8:47am they knew that one of the hijacked planes was used as a weapon to impact the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:24am NORAD knew that flight 77 was hijacked.

Does gross negligence account for the fact that fifty minutes passed between NORAD learning that airplanes were being hijacked and flown into buildings and American Airlines flight 77's impact into the most secure facility in the entire world, in the most secure airspace in the entire world? I don't find this feasible at all.

You expect them to be psychic.
How were they supposed to know flight 77 was going to be hijacked?
How were they supposed to know which building in Washington the terrorists were aiming for?
What could anyone have done to prevent it even 13 minutes before (unknown) impact? Shoot a jet airliner down over the suburbs and kill even more people than were eventually killed?

I hope your pride is not preventing you from thinking things through after reading people's responses. Stick with it, and muster up a thick skin, and your re-reading of the forum will enlighten you. I hope for your sake you prove our generalisations of CTers wrong.

 

[delphi_ote]

Here is a picture of the hole:

Not the fire truck in the image. Note how far away that firetruck is from the building. Note how far up the building the destruction goes. The first and second stories are totally destroyed. That's somewhere between 30 and 40 feet off the ground.

A Boeing 757 hit the building. The diameter of the fuselage on this aircraft is only 12.34 feet.

But wait, there's more. Here is another image of the same area:

Notice that three stories of the building are destroyed here? Notice that it's about a hundred feet to the right of where your friend put the box in his photograph?

If you're interested in what exactly took place, there's a simulation available. I think it really says everything:

I was admitted to Purdue and talked to this very professor about his simulations (more from a bioinformatics perspective.) Odd to run across his work again.

 

[Skeptic]

This is more on the scope of the Lunar Landing Hoax conspiracy theories. Vast army of government agents all working together to pull off a hoax and keeping quiet about it forever.

And of course, this is the same government that is behind the $400 hammers, $2100 toilet seats, the Susan B. Anthony Dollar, Watergate, etc., etc., etc.

 

[senorpogo]

Long time lurker, first time poster,

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

 

[CurtC]

delphi, something I don't like about that simulation animation is that it seems to neglect the effect of the reinforced outer wall. It looks to me like it's simulating hitting only the supporting columns in the lower level. For one thing, the plane's wings apparently didn't go through that outer wall - they are fairly lightweight, and just disintegrated upon impact. The fuselage is what went in, plus the engines.

 

[CurtC]

why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives?

Let me be the first to say welcome!

I think a conspiracy advocate would explain that the planes were just a cover story, and we weren't supposed to figure out the explosives, or something like that. Bringing the buildings down was their goal, the planes were what we are supposed to think did it, but they "knew" that planes weren't sufficient, so they also planted explosives. If they just did explosives, we would all know that it was an inside job.

Or something like that. In the words of another pro-conspiracy insane person, "We're through the looking glass here, folks!"

 

[chipmunk stew]

Not the fire truck in the image. Note how far away that firetruck is from the building. Note how far up the building the destruction goes. The first and second stories are totally destroyed. That's somewhere between 30 and 40 feet off the ground.

A Boeing 757 hit the building. The diameter of the fuselage on this aircraft is only 12.34 feet.

But wait, there's more. Here is another image of the same area:

Notice that three stories of the building are destroyed here? Notice that it's about a hundred feet to the right of where your friend put the box in his photograph?

If you're interested in what exactly took place, there's a simulation available. I think it really says everything:

But why wasn't the hole more plane-shaped? I mean, look at what happens when a coyote runs into a wall:

 

[kookbreaker]

But why wasn't the hole more plane-shaped? I mean, look at what happens when a coyote runs into a wall:

PROOF!!!!

 

[senorpogo]

Let me be the first to say welcome!

I think a conspiracy advocate would explain that the planes were just a cover story, and we weren't supposed to figure out the explosives, or something like that. Bringing the buildings down was their goal, the planes were what we are supposed to think did it, but they "knew" that planes weren't sufficient, so they also planted explosives. If they just did explosives, we would all know that it was an inside job.

Or something like that. In the words of another pro-conspiracy insane person, "We're through the looking glass here, folks!"

Thanks for the welcome. Very glad to be here.

I kind of assumed the answer would be something like that, but Alek's explanation for the US Government/corporations/globalists plotting 9/11 was - "To create the pretext for a panopticon police state domestically and to create the premise for wars of aggression in the middle east, thus satisfying PNAC's conditions for a "new Pearl Harbor" to accelerate the neo-conservative agenda"

I'm asking him, wouldn't the planes hitting the towers have been enough to achieve that? Why did the plot require the complication of demolition? Wouldn't the plotters be familiar with Ockham's Razor?

 

[delphi_ote]

delphi, something I don't like about that simulation animation is that it seems to neglect the effect of the reinforced outer wall. It looks to me like it's simulating hitting only the supporting columns in the lower level. For one thing, the plane's wings apparently didn't go through that outer wall - they are fairly lightweight, and just disintegrated upon impact. The fuselage is what went in, plus the engines.

The wings do all but disintigrate on impact. The brown/orange floating about is a simulation of the liquid fuel. Look at the total time on the simulation. It's about a quarter of a second. I recommend the video if you're still having trouble seeing it.

 

[senorpogo]

Now I know this conspiracy has legs. Topper Harley believes it.

I'd post the link to the story, but I don't have enough posts to do so. Check out prisonplanet.com to check it out. The story should be on the main page. I don't think they mention "Loose Change" by name, but the arguments seem to be the same.

 

[money]

I haven't read the entire site. Are you claiming Bohemian Grove doesn't exist, or that Bush doesn't attend it?

Weren't you calling Delphi Ote a liar and an all around bassbowl for commenting on a movie he had only partially watched? It takes all of a minute to realize that the site you mentioned is quite nutter.

You're showing off you're credulity, here. The farther we stray from your 9/11 theory, the goofier you sound.

I am one of the most rational and sane people I know, and my friends and family would vouch for that.

I think, just by linking to that site in support of your arguments, you should revisit this quote.

 

[Alek]

Long time lurker, first time poster,

My question is (and pardon me if this has been covered and I missed it) -
Even if we accept the idea that the US Government/corporations/globalists planned and somehow gained from the terrorist attacks on 9/11, why was it necessary for them to crash planes into the towers AND rig them with explosives? Wouldn't one or the other have achieved their goal? Wouldn't the visuals of 747s ramming into iconic American buildings been enough to evoke the emotional response needed by the US Government/corporations/globalists to ultimately achieve their end, whatever that may have been?

I'm speculating, but I think the simple reason is that the towers simply had to come down to generate the desired effect. Which is why I also believe that the 19 hijackers used stolen identities, and were probably patsies running a training op. I suspect they used global hawk technology to pilot the planes into their targets. Flight 93 was an exception.

Wouldn't planting explosives and firing missles be unecessary liabilities? Wouldn't the logistics inolved (getting the proper people and materials into and out of the buildings undetected) be a risk not worth taking considering that hundred-ton, jet powered make-shift missles were already on the way to crash into the towers?

In short, why did this conspiracy require the towers to fall rather than, lets say, just get hit by the airliners and remain burnt husks, constantly reminding Americans of the horror of that day?

Audacity. I think 9/11 was a psy-op, and it was a revolutionary one not only in the logistics employed, but in the spectacular impudence of its execution. The symmetrical free-fall implosion of World Trade Center 7 was akin to a magic trick on a massive stage. Unlike most tricks, in which the magician tries to convince you that what you're seeing is impossible, in the case of building 7 the trick is to convince you that what you're seeing is in fact, possible (and even likely), given the explanation. The monolithic voice of media carving out perception, coupled with people's natural inclination to believe the most colossal of lies are crucial factors making this "trick" a success.

I also believe that it is planned for the truth of 9/11 to be revealed, at least in part. The US is already a pariah on the world stage. If the world learned that the US Government was behind 9/11, it would reduce US credibility even more. They can't conquer America without first bringing it to its knees.

 

[Alek]

Weren't you calling Delphi Ote a liar and an all around bassbowl for commenting on a movie he had only partially watched? It takes all of a minute to realize that the site you mentioned is quite nutter.

You're showing off you're credulity, here. The farther we stray from your 9/11 theory, the goofier you sound.

I think, just by linking to that site in support of your arguments, you should revisit this quote.

He's a liar because he tried to give the impression he watched the film in full, and he started a forum thread about it ostensibly to discuss and debunk what he had just seen.

Not only have I read most of that site, I agree with its content. I didn't post the site in order to disparage it, but to make a mockery of the idea that Bush is representative of Christianity, just because he says he is. What in particular about the site to you find to be nutty? Be specific.

Surely you're aware of the Order of Skull and Bones, and the Bohemian Grove, right?

I already said this before, I'm not concerned with how "goofy" I sound. There is a lot more at stake here than vanity.