Loose Change
- Thread starter delphi_ote
- Start date
- Status
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
As has become abundantly clear, readers of this thread will not be seeing anything of substance from our little friend. Though I'm certain he will continue to have "questions."
This is interesting geggy. What constitutes a coincidence to you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence
http://skepdic.com/lawofnumbers.html
http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html
Last edited:
Here is on coincidence that one of the conspiracists on the LC forum posted:
So according to him, "A" went to flight shool owned by "B", who smuggled drugs to "C", "C" smuggled drugs to "D" who was defended in court by "E" who worked on the commission investigating "A".
How is "A" (Atta) related to "E" (Richard ben-Veniste) and vice-versa???
Here is a similar coincidence in my own life:
A very good friend of mine works with someone who knows a famous American rock singer. That singer happens to be my favourite singer.
So "A" knows "B" who knows "C" who knows "D". "A" is a fan of "D".
I’m pretty sure "D" (the singer) knows nothing of "A" (me), and I didn't know "D" before he became a famous rock star. The same goes for Atta and ben-Veniste: I’m pretty sure Atta never knew nothing of ben-Veniste, as ben-Veniste never knew anything of Atta before the 9/11 commission.
So according to him, "A" went to flight shool owned by "B", who smuggled drugs to "C", "C" smuggled drugs to "D" who was defended in court by "E" who worked on the commission investigating "A".
How is "A" (Atta) related to "E" (Richard ben-Veniste) and vice-versa???
Here is a similar coincidence in my own life:
A very good friend of mine works with someone who knows a famous American rock singer. That singer happens to be my favourite singer.
So "A" knows "B" who knows "C" who knows "D". "A" is a fan of "D".
I’m pretty sure "D" (the singer) knows nothing of "A" (me), and I didn't know "D" before he became a famous rock star. The same goes for Atta and ben-Veniste: I’m pretty sure Atta never knew nothing of ben-Veniste, as ben-Veniste never knew anything of Atta before the 9/11 commission.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
It's just the whole "6 degrees of separation" theory - everyone is linked to everyone else somehow. Of course, such linkages are evidence of... a parlor game, I guess.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
I have to wonder what the repurcussions would be if some more, interesting people, became aware of LC and their ilk. Namely people like R. Lee Ermy, Ted Nugent, etc
It would also be great to see Shermer do a debunk in the same way as he approached the holocause deniers.
It would also be great to see Shermer do a debunk in the same way as he approached the holocause deniers.
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,494
There would be a series of loud concussive type noises and human screams followed by Ermey and Nugent swearing profusely and high-fiving each other.
Maybe you mean for the LC crowd to draw the attention of people known for raising hell without the aid of gunpowder?
EDIT: On second thought, maybe that's exactly what you meant. That's good too.
Last edited:
milesalpha
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 375
I do have to laugh. I took time to post my correction to the Hitler myth in their forum after one of the LC people posted a single line to try and make me look like I was a Hitler supporter. Naturally they did not comment on his out of context comment but instead start attacking me based on my ideology (which they cannot know) and my comment that "I was unconvinced" by the documentary.
They should look up the word pseudo-intellectual and then ponder why most universities do not allow the use of the internet as a source (they provide the perfect examples).
They should look up the word pseudo-intellectual and then ponder why most universities do not allow the use of the internet as a source (they provide the perfect examples).
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
geggy, I'll take your apology whenever you're ready. You can pm me.
bob_kark, thanks for the Twain. Relevant and diverting at the same time.
Milesalpha, don't you know that if you mention Hitler, you should be prepared to prove that you are not a Nazi?
I received an email from a CT about my "Loose Change" thing. It had lots of specific questions and points to make, and I took some time to respond. You might find the list of some of the investigative bodies and on-scene personnel interesting. A good deal of it was, I think, posted here, but I'm not sure by whom. Anyway, it's not meant to be exhaustive. Does anyone have anything to add to it? There must have been other organizations involved in NYC.
(My response to CT email)
Thanks for taking the time to give me your input. Most people who disagree with my analysis of "Loose Change" don't seem to have read more than the first few pages of it, and no one has had specific disagreements...just a lot of name-calling about how I'm a government agent. That said, many of the questions you ask here are answered right in my "Loose Change" piece.
I may not get to all of your points, but I'll do my best.
> "The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and over Cuban waters
> transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by remote control.
> Note that no one was to be killed in the fake plane scheme. (Thanks CurtC.)
> We know about this idea because the document has been declassified. The idea
> was rejected, of course."
>
> The point was to show that our government thinks about it and even wrote it
> down as a plan. This shows intent.... Just like a person buying a gun 6
> months before he plans to kill his wife but is caught before he actually
> does it. He can be prosecuted for the fact that he intended (Intent) to
> perform the murder with the gun he purchased. This was the point in
> pointing out Northwoods.
My points were these:
1) The scheme was summarily rejected
2) It did not call for the murder of thousands of Americans
3) No one has shown any connection between it and 9/11
4) It's a distraction from a deception that REALLY HAPPENED, and that is thousands of times more serious: our involvement in Iraq.
> "Global Hawk? Three minutes and twelve seconds and nothing you have said has
> had any demonstrable connection to 9/11."
>
> It shows that the technology is available to remotely control aircraft. It
> shows that this is one method that could have led to the control of the planes.
I for one doubt that 19 highjackers could take over 4 planes with
> box cutters, especially when most of the pilots were former air force
> pilots
Please provide any evidence that the planes were remote-controlled. I'm not interested at in all in your beliefs. I'm interested in what new evidence you have. We know that the terrorists trained to fly airliners. We know they boarded the planes. We know they took over the planes. If you have evidence that this didn't happen, please provide it. If you have evidence that the planes were drones with or without passengers, please provide it. If you have evidence that passengers did not board the 4 flights in question, did not make emergency calls from those flights, did not die, and that their remains were not identified, please provide it.
> Given that all 4 of the planes that were involved were only 1/4
> full. Though this may happen from time to time, it does not happen with
> that many planes heading in similar directions on the same day. Generally,
> the airlines would put them on another flight.
Please provide evidence that this is so, or that there was ANYTHING untoward in how the normal passenger reservations were made for those flights.
> It was bombed by Islamic terrorists in 1993. The terrorists were trying
> to knock the north tower into the south, killing tens of thousands of
> people. They did a lot of damage, but “only” six people died, and the
> cyanide gas that had been packed with the bomb was incinerated by the
> explosion."
>
> Perhaps you should do some more research. This bombing was with complete
> knowledge and assistance from the FBI and CIA.
>
> In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an
> Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem
> claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as
> February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly
> pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
>
> Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed
> that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a
> harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that
> the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [1] He secretly
> recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers,
> made during discussions held after the bombings. They are currently in
> possession of the FBI.
>
> In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office,
> denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Please provide evidence of government complicity in the 1993 bombing. Not speculation: evidence.
> "According to CT logic, these “conspirators” are the smartest, most devious,
> most capable connivers the world has ever seen – but are incredibly stupid.
> This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein’
> s “Pull it” quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always
> tell the media I did it."
>
> First, they are using 9/11 as a guise to take our civil liberties from us
> and keep us in constant war (much like Hitler did). Have you ever heard of
> a slip of the tongue? These people have to tell a story, but sometimes
> things may slip out and often is over looked. Also, it WAS Bush's plan from
> the beginning to attack Iraq. You can find this information in a recent
> book that the author interviewed Bush before he ran for Presidency. So what
> better way to engage the country in going into where you want to go, then by
> causing an event, or letting an event happen, to gain support?
Sometimes things slip out? Larry Silverstein INADVERTENTLY admitted TO THE MEDIA to being involved in the biggest terorist attack in history? You need to get a hold of yourself.
> "Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an “inside
> job” perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that
> ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found
> out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons
> or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility?
> 100 years? Never? This isn’t “Operation Northwoods” were talking about here.
> Try to keep some perspective."
>
> Well let's use some current events to make the point..... Mr. Tice, the CIA
> Whistleblower, has proven that not to be the case. They smear and destroy
> any credibility that a person may or may not have. Therefore, in the long
> run they still come out on top and though a few people still doubt it, the
> sheep follow just as always. How many people do you really think it would
> take to perform this operation???? Probably thousands! However, how many
> would actually know the facts? Maybe 30. It would be like a terror
> cell..... Not everyone would know what the whole plan is, only parts that
> way if they get caught the plan is not in jeopardy. They could have many
> people in the military, or contractors, do work but not know what is
> happening. If they do realize later, they are told that if they say a word
> that they will go to jail, or perhaps they provide a time line of when their
> kid(s) go to or from school. You don't think this happens???? How about
> people being disappeared?
Please provide evidence that only 30 people would need to know the "facts" about the conspiracy you posit.
How about the people who planned this enormous operation? How many would you think would have to be "in the know?"
How about the people who invisibly planted thousands of pounds of explosives in three buildings and expertly disguised their work?
How about the people who installed remote-control devices in the planes? None of them have spoken out. No other airliners have those devices installed.
How about the people who faked all of the transmissions between the pilots of the planes and the various Air Traffic and Ground Traffic Controllers at 3 airports, from the time the planes left the gates until they were hijacked?
How about the airport personnel who manned the ramps to the planes?
How about the airport personnel who serviced the pilotless planes and moved them from the gates?
How about the people who killed and dismembered the all of the passengers and crew on the 4 planes and scattered their remains at three locations?
How about the people who lied about discovering airliner wreckage and human remains at each site immediately after each crash?
How about thte people who faked all of the details about all of the hijackers?
How about the thousands of investigators who would have had to lie about their findings?
How about the hundreds of structural engineers, fire safety engineers and failure analysts who say there is no evidence of the conspiracy you posit?
How about the people needed to fake over a dozen utterly convincing phone conversations, in real time, as events unfolded, including personal details such as safe combinations?
How about the military leaders who "stood down?" None of them has ever spoken up and claimed a conspiracy, and they HATE Rumsfeld.
How about the 7,000 FBI agents involved in the investigation? Did they all lie about their findings?
How about the dozens of forensic pathologists involved? Did they all lie about their findings?
How about the people who planted over 500 human remains on top of the Deutsche Bank building that were discovered in March and April, 2006?
How about the people who had to sprint onto the scene and plant tons of American Airlines 757 debris and passenger remains within seconds of the incident at the Pentagon?
How about the dozens of witnesses who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon?
How about the air traffic controllers who tracked the planes?
How about the employees at the Cleveland airport, none of whom saw flight 93 there?
How about the people who would have had to escort those people off the plane, kill them, destroy the plane, cut the bodies into tiny, burned bits, plant 1500 body parts in Pennsylvania, damage and then plant personal effects of all the pasengers in Pennsylvania in a 35-foot-deep hole, dismantle the ENTIRE PLANE, cut most of it into tiny bits without making it look like it was cut up, transport all that debris to PA and bury it, fake all the recordings on the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders, fake all the radar information for a plane which never was out of radar contact from the time it took off until it crashed, ALL WITHIN A FEW MINUTES?
At Shanksville alone, over 1,100 people from SEVENTY-FOUR agencies and organizations were ON THE SCENE. On 9/11 these included:
• 8 Police Departments
• 7 EMS Services
• 8 Fire Departments
• 10 Emergency Management Agencies
• NTSB
• ATF
• FBI
• CISM
• Red Cross
• United Airlines
So everyone in those organizations was either fooled or is lying, right?
Someone had to fool tens of thousands of people in the following organizations whose conclusions explicitly refute your theory:
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the Building and Construction Trades Council,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Pentagon security staff,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
hundreds of steelworkers, some of whom built the WTC,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
United Laboratories,
the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Controlled Demolitions, Inc.
Bovis, Inc.,
Tully Construction,
AEMC Construction,
Karl Koch Steel Consulting, Inc.,
The United Steelworkers of America
the Armed Forces Institute of Technnology
the Federal Advisory Committee,
several DNA labs,
Numerous Forensic Pathologists,
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists,
Numerous Forensic Dentists,
Numerous Forensic Radiologists,
the National Medical Response Team,
the International Association of Fire Chiefs
the New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
the Fire Department of New York,
the New York City Office of Emergency Management,
the New York State Emergency Management Office,
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
the Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
the Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
the Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
the District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Pentagon Fire Unit,
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 2-person Helicopter Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
several FBI Hazmat Teams,
several EPA Hazmat Teams,
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the DOD Honor Guard
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the Washington, D.C. Fire Department,
the California Incident Management Team,
the Shanksville, PA VFD,
the Somerset County Coroner's Office,
the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
the Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
the State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
the Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
the Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services,
the Salvation Army Disaster Services,
the National Emergency Numbering Association
the 911 operators who took the calls from passengers,
the American Red Cross,
the National Guard in D.C., NYC, and PA.,
the Air National Guard,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the United States Secret Service,
the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
the New York Port Authority Police,
the New York Port Authority Construction Board
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
the World Trade Center security staff,
United Airlines,
American Airllines,
the Office of Emergency Preparedness
Several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams,
Several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team,
the Virginia State Police
Many other Urban Search and Rescue Teams
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
the National Response Center,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Disaster Medical System,
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
the Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the C-130H crew in D.C.
the Falcon 20 crew in PA,
the SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams,
the SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams,
the National Transportation Safety Board,
the New York Flight Control Center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the Cleveland Airport control tower,
the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee,
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
etc., etc., etc.
NONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT YOUR THEORY. ACCORDING TO YOU, ALL WERE COMPLETELY FOOLED BY "MAYBE" 30 PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE KNOW. Are you THAT divorced from reality?
> "If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a “stranglehold”
> on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why
> are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I
> allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush’s “favorable”
> rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military
> leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?"
>
> Do you not review history???? Things of this nature MUST be processed
> slowly. Look at the FREE Speech zones, the patriot act, and many other laws
> that now make the average person a criminal at the presidents whim. What do
> you think would happen if one day we woke up and the president just says: "I
> am king and you will pay me at least 10% of your money and you will no
> longer say anything negative about the government, and there is not longer a
> constitution." This would definitely cause a revolution. However, if
> things are taken slowly then the public does not fight it so hard.
> Especially, when there is a fear presented by the government and this is
> used all the time to bring the country in line with what they want.
I do review history. Do you have any evidence for me?
> "During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and
> government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not
> national. From Ashcroft’s 9/11 Commission testimony:"
>
> With all due respect...... You are asking someone to believe an
> Administration that has LIED in everything they have done. Why are we to
> believe ANYTHING that they say??? Unless there are FACTS, and supporting
> data to present why should we believe them? Can you dispute the fact that
> they have not lied to the American people in almost everything they present
> to us?
Everyone in the adminstration has always lied about everything they have done? That's an interesting concept. How about showing me evidence that Ashcroft's testimony about this issue was incorrect? His story is supported by many people. I don't like John Ashcroft. Please give me evidence that I should disbelieve him.
And need I remind you that the creators of "Loose Change" take Osama bin Laden's WORD from a single statement that he was not involved in 9/11?
> "That’s all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't
> know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming
> from."
>
> So you don't believe in Anonymous sources? It gives some doubt, but the
> government has not denied it. Therefore, it should be given some
> credibility until the government denies it, and at least shows some proof
> that it is false.
Is it the government's job respond to every conspiracy theorist? I'll gladly review any supporting evidence for this story if you have it. I was unable to find any.
> "Note: prior to 9/11/01, NORAD was responsible only for threats coming from
> outside U.S. borders. Only once in the prior decade had NORAD attempted to
> intercept a stray civilian aircraft over U.S. soil, which was golfer Payne
> Stewart’s plane, after its crew and passengers fell unconscious."
>
> Not according to this:
>
> This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report [from Associated
> Press] of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that
> is one of PM's cited experts!
>
> From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air
> patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from
> September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
>
> It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to
> intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period
> before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its
> assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds
> that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and
> the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.
Please provide evidence that NORAD intercepted any flight that originated in the U.S. and was over U.S. soil in the time period you mention. If NORAD was responsible for identifying interior threats in 2001, why were all seven alert bases located on the coast?
> "Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had “stood down”
> on 9/11, they were unusually “geared up.” Because of the semiannual
> exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and
> battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make
> decisions."
>
> Actually, that is extremely misleading...... It is true that they were
> practicing war games, but they were conveniently doing it in Alaska and
> Canada. A little odd when there were plenty of signs that these attacks
> were going to happen. It's not just one thing that happened that day, but
> all of the things.
My statement was completely correct. NEADS was fully staffed, more so than usual. Here's a brief overview of what I'm talking about:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm
> "South tower collapses. This is out of chronological order, because we haven
> ’t seen it being hit yet. Notice how the debris falls much faster (in the
> video, at free-fall speed) than the bulk of the building."
>
> Well of course loose debris is going to fall faster than the rest of the
> building. You will notice that the statement is "at near free fall speed".
> It does not say "at free fall speed". There is a VERY large difference
> between the two.
I couldn't agree more.
> "Conspiracy buffs hate to show the other side of the building which shows
> smoke billowing out of nearly every visible floor. There was an enormous
> amount of fire in that building. Here’s a quote from FDNY Chief Daniel
> Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene (quote not in video): "
> I don't think that you will find many people who would argue that there were
> not any fires in WTC7.
Gosh, I hope not.
>However, the damage was not enough to cause a
> collapse at near free fall speed and almost directly on it's own footprint.
Please give me your calculations as to how quickly the building should have fallen. Did you actually read that section of my analysis? I state, and show, that the collapse of WTC 7 severely damaged the buildings around it, and that its debris field spread over 150 meters.
> If there was that much damage to the front, toward WTC1, then the building
> should have toppled in that direction. Very much like removing one of the
> legs of a chair. The chair will not fall straight down, but will lean
> toward the missing leg with very minimal force.
Comparing the complex structure of a 300,000-ton skyscraper to a chair is incredibly foolish. It sounds like you've been reading that buffoon Steven E. Jones, the one who says that "entropy" means "things topple over"? Anyway, the collapse did start on the building's south side, and more of the building did wind up on the south as opposed to the north, which you can clearly see from the huge sections of north wall that fell to th esouth and are lying over the wreckage in aerial photos.
>One point about the towers
> is the fact that the top part of one of them was leaning at a 30 degree
> angle during the collapse. Now if the pancake theory is true, then this top
> part should have fell largely in tact to the ground. IT DID NOT! This
> simple little fact literally blows the pancaking theory out of the water.
> The top part would have been severely damaged, for sure, but would have been
> largely laying on the ground as a large piece of the building. However, it
> was not and it too was destroyed into little pieces. Since this was the
> "pile driver" for the pancake theory, what was the "pile driver" for this
> top part to cause it to completely disintegrate?
Wow.
Those statements demonstrate an incredible ignorance of how buildings are constructed. Do you wonder why no structural engineers agree with you?
Do you really think you know more than they?
Please provide evidence that the top part of the south tower was tilted on a fulcrum at a 30-degree angle.
Please also provide evidence that the base of the angled portion was not falling downwards as it tilted.
Please remember that the top portion of the south tower weighed 200 million pounds. I really suggest that you talk to a structural engineer about this.
> "In the circled area is what “controlled demolitions theory” advocates like
> to call a “squib,” a jet of material caused by explosive charges timed to be
> in synch with the top-down collapse."
>
> Well, when this occurs 20 to 30 floors below and is in a very concentrated
> area on multiple sides, at or near the same floors is very indicative of
> controlled demolition. The pressure theory makes sense only just a few
> floors below the collapse,
Please present your calculations in support of this hypothesis.
Please explain why the "squibs' are ejecting material at the rate at which the building is collapsing, not at the rate explosions happen. Please explain why the squibs appear at random places on random floors. Please explain why the squibs do not appear at the moment before collapse. Please explain why no companies that do controled demolitions agree with you, an why the biggest one calls your theory "ludicrous." Please explain how the placement of the explosives was accomplished, how the workers and work remained unseen, and how it survived the impact of the airliners and subsequent explosion and fires that were hot enough to melt aluminum.
Those are just a few things you'll need to answer to support the absurd controlled demolition theory.
> "It’s been 4 ½ years since the attacks. Has any conspiracy theorist,
> anywhere, turned up a single piece of evidence that implicates any
> individual not already named in the “official” version?"
> Has there been one single piece of evidence provided by the government to
> prove otherwise?
Yes, all the information they've provided proves otherwise. In addition, all of the organizations, public and private, listed above, agree with the official explanation. Remember, it's not the government's job to disprove conspiracy theories, it's your job to present evidence that supports yours. Evidence, not conjecture.
> Look at JFK. Science
> has proven that the Warren Commission theory is bogus. We know from science
> that a bullet will make a small hole entering, and a larger hole on the
> exit. There was a small hole in his forehead and the back of his head was
> blown out. There is absolutely no way that this particular shot came from
> behind, as the original version tries to claim.
How did I know you would go there? You are completely wrong, by the way. Yep, I've looked into the JFK assassination a lot more than 9/11.
>So, by the fact that they
> fought the investigation for 1 1/2 years, loaded the commission with
> cronies, and did not allow them to investigate the actual collapse but
> rather what went wrong.
I also don't like how politics got so wrapped up in this, and how the Bush administration did its least to provide full and open disclosure.
Who was prevented from investigating "the actual collapse?"
>By the way, NTSB was not allowed to handle the
> aircraft investigation.
The NTSB was involved.
>The government claims that NO black boxes were
> recovered at ground zero, when 2 fire fighters claim they helped find them
> and carried them out on the back of their ATV.
Did you read my analysis? I cover this issue at length.
> "" that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon ... "
> Misleading. It did more than crash into the side, it went right through. The
> speaker didn’t know that the plane was going 500+ mph."
>
> Extremely misleading statement. You make it sound as though you were there
> and that you helped rebuild the aircraft in a hanger. First, let me ask you
> this...... A 100 ton plane is gone, with very little debris, and very
> little other items are reported yet we are to believe that the 100 ton plane
> dissolves but bodies can be identified. How about all the other articles
> that would have been on the plane as cargo???? I'm sure that if the plane
> was that empty that the belly was loaded to the hilt. Yet, we have not
> heard of or seen any material around. You make it sound as though
> everything would have just flowed into the building. There would have been
> more than the relatively small amount of plane surrounding the area. This
> is not consistent of this type of crash. I am not saying that a plane did
> not hit the Pentagon, but I have serious doubts that flight 77 hit it.
> Where's the traceable part identification proof???? Supposedly the landing
> gear is from a 757, where's the serial number match to the actual plane?
> This is one of the traceable parts, that is required by the FAA.
Okay, so you don't believe the evidence I presented or any of the dozens of eyewitness reports I linked to that say the AA 757 hit the Pentagon.
If I were you, I'd be worried sick!
Have you attempted to contact a single one of the 8,000 people who were on the site after the crash?
No, of course you haven't.
So you accuse your government of committing terrorist attacks against Americans, but you're not wiling to find out for sure? That's quite intellectually dishonest.
> The governments claim that cell phones would work on an air craft, pre 9/11,
> would not have worked at that height or speed. This is a FACT!
Then can you explain to me how I made cell phone calls AT ALTITUDE with my personal phone in 2001? Are you caling me a liar? Are you aware that analog phones that were common then were many times more powerful than the digital phones common now?
Can you explain why all airliners had GTE Airphones installed, several of which were used by the passengers on 9/11? At least three of the calls quoted by Dylan Avery were made using those phones. Are you saying that's impossible? Again, did you read my piece?
So we are
> to believe that all of the calls that were made that day on all of these
> planes, not from air phones, were made by the actual people? I have no
> doubt that they can fake phone calls, so this is not science fiction. Calls
> like "hi mom .. it's mark lastname....." I don't care what the situation
> is, the actual person is not going to make a call like their mom does not
> know them.
Have you ever been on a flight that was hijacked?
> "This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a
> Tomahawk cruise
> missile had hit it. See any similarities?
> See any differences? Heard of any? Like the huge amount of 757 debris and
> the remains of the passengers, all but one of whom were identified? But you’
> re not concerned with victims, are you?"
>
> You mean the Autopsy report that lists everyone but the so called
> highjakers? You know...... Those pesky guys who don't show up on any
> official document, even from the air lines.
Again, you certainly didn't read my piece carefully. That bothers me, because I took care in writing it. Read that section again.
> "Some were played for victims at the Moussaoui trial. Has the government
> released all other recordings of all plane crashes to the public? No. If
> they are not classified such recordings may be available through FOIA
> requests."
>
> Yeah, but not the last 3 minutes of flight 93. It is a FACT, that the crash
> occurred at 10:06. However, the government claims that it occurred at
> 10:03. This does not coincide with seismic data. Also, if the plane was
> not shot down how can parts of the plane and some body parts end up in an 8
> mile radius. IMPOSSIBLE! Yet you believe 100% of the events the government
> provides you.
You are completely wrong again. Please re-read that section. Also, there was o 8-mile debris field. You're just parroting CT beliefs without doing your homework.
>
> Here is some more facts to support the governments cover-up.
> 1) The Secret Service (SS) knew of a possible highjacking at 7:30AM on 9/11
> and placed the system on high alert.
> http://www.freepressinternational.com/secret-service-possible-hijacking-911.
> html
> Since the SS knew of this possibility, why then did they not do anything to
> get the president to a safer location? It goes completely against the SS
> operating procedure. Yet, they do it for the VP.
I hadn't heard that. I'll have to check that link later. I only have a few minutes here and I want to get to the rest of your email.
> The President is told we are under attack, but just sits there. Does
> nothing!
I agree that he looks terrible sitting there. But think of all the arrangements that the SS and his staff have to make to find out what's going on and get him to a secure location. Don't you think if he had foreknowledge that he'd ACT presidential? Do you think he'd do the same thing if he had it to do over again?
> 2) FEMA is strangely in NY on the day for an exercise. How convenient!
> Months before the attack, the Pentagon practices for a plane crashing into
> the building.
You are comp[letely wrong. FEMA was not in NY on 9/10. They got there on 9/11. That ENTIRE CT story is based on a simple slip of the tongue about the day of the week by a very stressed-out manager. The story is incredibly easy to check out. Why don't you do so?
> 3) How about a 50 ton hydraulic press being destroyed in the sub basement?
> There would not be enough energy, even from vapor fuel, to destroy that
> along with a large portion of the lower parking garage.
Oh, lord. "50 tons" doesn't refer to the weight of the press, it refers to its hydraulic capacity. Just like a 2,000 lb. hydraulic car jack doesn't weigh 2,000 lbs., capisce? An average 50-ton press weghs 650 lbs, not 100,000 lbs.
>Also, did you
> realize that steel is a very good conductor of heat?????
No, I didn't realize that, because steel is a very poor conductor of heat.
So if one area of
> the building was say 1000 F, the actual steel would distribute that heat
> through the entire beam in effect keeping the steel much much cooler and
> well below any stressful level. Just look at why we use heat sinks on
> CPU's. Because the metal if very good at distributing the heat. Otherwise
> the CPU would burn up in no time, and so would mush of the metal (if
> the processor would keep working).
Again, you are completely wrong about steel, and you have everything to learn about building fires. I suggest consulting some of the links at the end of my document. You should really question the sources where you're getting this bad info. And PLEASE open your computer and see what those heat sinks are made of.
> How about this picture?
>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg
>
> Notice the column directly behind the fireman, this column was not cut with
> a blow torch. What caused the metal to melt like that if explosives were
> not used????
Again, you are completely wrong. That's what happens when you rely on sources like "rumormill news." The large debris at the WTC was cut with torches, as was that piece. Look here for a close-up view, where you can clearly see the torch marks and the slag from the cut that's fallen on TOP of the other debris:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1601663&postcount=1799
> No one really knows what happened,
You're wrong. We do know what happened. You just don't like it. Well, I don't like it either, but facts is facts.
but the 9/11 truth organization is
> pushing to get the information released, so why is that such a bad thing?
Funny you should mention that, because today I'll be releasing my critique of 911truth.org's literature, which is every bit as factually incorrect as "Loose Change" is. It's disgraceful that people who say they are searching for the truth will go so far out of their way to disseminate falsehoods.
> You keep labeling those people, and I guess me as well, nuts and crazy
> because there is very little proof to the WHOLE day events.
I don't think you're nuts. I think you're lazy. And that's not a good thing to be if you want to get to the bottom of things.
>It's not just
> one or two things, its the entire day. All these things, and the many
> things that followed, are reason to not believe the government. The only
> time people fight so hard to not have something presented to counter a
> claim, is largely if the claim is false.
Oh?
Why else have all of the tapes,
> FAA logs, and many other items of the day declared a national security????
> This is known by the whole world and it is not a secret, so what's the issue
> (unless there is something to hide).
Most of these items are available to the public. Which ones are you referring to? Again, I covered this in my piece.
I hope my response has given you some things to chew on. Again, thanks for not calling me a government lackey!
bob_kark, thanks for the Twain. Relevant and diverting at the same time.
Milesalpha, don't you know that if you mention Hitler, you should be prepared to prove that you are not a Nazi?
I received an email from a CT about my "Loose Change" thing. It had lots of specific questions and points to make, and I took some time to respond. You might find the list of some of the investigative bodies and on-scene personnel interesting. A good deal of it was, I think, posted here, but I'm not sure by whom. Anyway, it's not meant to be exhaustive. Does anyone have anything to add to it? There must have been other organizations involved in NYC.
(My response to CT email)
Thanks for taking the time to give me your input. Most people who disagree with my analysis of "Loose Change" don't seem to have read more than the first few pages of it, and no one has had specific disagreements...just a lot of name-calling about how I'm a government agent. That said, many of the questions you ask here are answered right in my "Loose Change" piece.
I may not get to all of your points, but I'll do my best.
> "The drone would pick up the scheduled flight plan and over Cuban waters
> transmit a "mayday signal" before being blown up by remote control.
> Note that no one was to be killed in the fake plane scheme. (Thanks CurtC.)
> We know about this idea because the document has been declassified. The idea
> was rejected, of course."
>
> The point was to show that our government thinks about it and even wrote it
> down as a plan. This shows intent.... Just like a person buying a gun 6
> months before he plans to kill his wife but is caught before he actually
> does it. He can be prosecuted for the fact that he intended (Intent) to
> perform the murder with the gun he purchased. This was the point in
> pointing out Northwoods.
My points were these:
1) The scheme was summarily rejected
2) It did not call for the murder of thousands of Americans
3) No one has shown any connection between it and 9/11
4) It's a distraction from a deception that REALLY HAPPENED, and that is thousands of times more serious: our involvement in Iraq.
> "Global Hawk? Three minutes and twelve seconds and nothing you have said has
> had any demonstrable connection to 9/11."
>
> It shows that the technology is available to remotely control aircraft. It
> shows that this is one method that could have led to the control of the planes.
I for one doubt that 19 highjackers could take over 4 planes with
> box cutters, especially when most of the pilots were former air force
> pilots
Please provide any evidence that the planes were remote-controlled. I'm not interested at in all in your beliefs. I'm interested in what new evidence you have. We know that the terrorists trained to fly airliners. We know they boarded the planes. We know they took over the planes. If you have evidence that this didn't happen, please provide it. If you have evidence that the planes were drones with or without passengers, please provide it. If you have evidence that passengers did not board the 4 flights in question, did not make emergency calls from those flights, did not die, and that their remains were not identified, please provide it.
> Given that all 4 of the planes that were involved were only 1/4
> full. Though this may happen from time to time, it does not happen with
> that many planes heading in similar directions on the same day. Generally,
> the airlines would put them on another flight.
Please provide evidence that this is so, or that there was ANYTHING untoward in how the normal passenger reservations were made for those flights.
> It was bombed by Islamic terrorists in 1993. The terrorists were trying
> to knock the north tower into the south, killing tens of thousands of
> people. They did a lot of damage, but “only” six people died, and the
> cyanide gas that had been packed with the bomb was incinerated by the
> explosion."
>
> Perhaps you should do some more research. This bombing was with complete
> knowledge and assistance from the FBI and CIA.
>
> In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an
> Egyptian man named Emad A. Salem, a former Egyptian army officer. Salem
> claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as
> February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly
> pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.
>
> Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed
> that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a
> harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that
> the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. [1] He secretly
> recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers,
> made during discussions held after the bombings. They are currently in
> possession of the FBI.
>
> In December 1993, James M. Fox, the head of the FBI's New York Office,
> denied that the FBI had any foreknowledge of the attacks.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Please provide evidence of government complicity in the 1993 bombing. Not speculation: evidence.
> "According to CT logic, these “conspirators” are the smartest, most devious,
> most capable connivers the world has ever seen – but are incredibly stupid.
> This PNAC quote issue is a lot like the CTist emphasis on Larry Silverstein’
> s “Pull it” quote. Right: whenever I commit a billion-dollar crime, I always
> tell the media I did it."
>
> First, they are using 9/11 as a guise to take our civil liberties from us
> and keep us in constant war (much like Hitler did). Have you ever heard of
> a slip of the tongue? These people have to tell a story, but sometimes
> things may slip out and often is over looked. Also, it WAS Bush's plan from
> the beginning to attack Iraq. You can find this information in a recent
> book that the author interviewed Bush before he ran for Presidency. So what
> better way to engage the country in going into where you want to go, then by
> causing an event, or letting an event happen, to gain support?
Sometimes things slip out? Larry Silverstein INADVERTENTLY admitted TO THE MEDIA to being involved in the biggest terorist attack in history? You need to get a hold of yourself.
> "Suppose you are correct, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were an “inside
> job” perpetrated by elements within the U.S. government. Now suppose that
> ONE person admitted to the plot, or ONE person, (you, for instance) found
> out the truth, and could prove it. How long would it take for the neo-cons
> or Republicans, or whomever was responsible, to regain their credibility?
> 100 years? Never? This isn’t “Operation Northwoods” were talking about here.
> Try to keep some perspective."
>
> Well let's use some current events to make the point..... Mr. Tice, the CIA
> Whistleblower, has proven that not to be the case. They smear and destroy
> any credibility that a person may or may not have. Therefore, in the long
> run they still come out on top and though a few people still doubt it, the
> sheep follow just as always. How many people do you really think it would
> take to perform this operation???? Probably thousands! However, how many
> would actually know the facts? Maybe 30. It would be like a terror
> cell..... Not everyone would know what the whole plan is, only parts that
> way if they get caught the plan is not in jeopardy. They could have many
> people in the military, or contractors, do work but not know what is
> happening. If they do realize later, they are told that if they say a word
> that they will go to jail, or perhaps they provide a time line of when their
> kid(s) go to or from school. You don't think this happens???? How about
> people being disappeared?
Please provide evidence that only 30 people would need to know the "facts" about the conspiracy you posit.
How about the people who planned this enormous operation? How many would you think would have to be "in the know?"
How about the people who invisibly planted thousands of pounds of explosives in three buildings and expertly disguised their work?
How about the people who installed remote-control devices in the planes? None of them have spoken out. No other airliners have those devices installed.
How about the people who faked all of the transmissions between the pilots of the planes and the various Air Traffic and Ground Traffic Controllers at 3 airports, from the time the planes left the gates until they were hijacked?
How about the airport personnel who manned the ramps to the planes?
How about the airport personnel who serviced the pilotless planes and moved them from the gates?
How about the people who killed and dismembered the all of the passengers and crew on the 4 planes and scattered their remains at three locations?
How about the people who lied about discovering airliner wreckage and human remains at each site immediately after each crash?
How about thte people who faked all of the details about all of the hijackers?
How about the thousands of investigators who would have had to lie about their findings?
How about the hundreds of structural engineers, fire safety engineers and failure analysts who say there is no evidence of the conspiracy you posit?
How about the people needed to fake over a dozen utterly convincing phone conversations, in real time, as events unfolded, including personal details such as safe combinations?
How about the military leaders who "stood down?" None of them has ever spoken up and claimed a conspiracy, and they HATE Rumsfeld.
How about the 7,000 FBI agents involved in the investigation? Did they all lie about their findings?
How about the dozens of forensic pathologists involved? Did they all lie about their findings?
How about the people who planted over 500 human remains on top of the Deutsche Bank building that were discovered in March and April, 2006?
How about the people who had to sprint onto the scene and plant tons of American Airlines 757 debris and passenger remains within seconds of the incident at the Pentagon?
How about the dozens of witnesses who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon?
How about the air traffic controllers who tracked the planes?
How about the employees at the Cleveland airport, none of whom saw flight 93 there?
How about the people who would have had to escort those people off the plane, kill them, destroy the plane, cut the bodies into tiny, burned bits, plant 1500 body parts in Pennsylvania, damage and then plant personal effects of all the pasengers in Pennsylvania in a 35-foot-deep hole, dismantle the ENTIRE PLANE, cut most of it into tiny bits without making it look like it was cut up, transport all that debris to PA and bury it, fake all the recordings on the cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders, fake all the radar information for a plane which never was out of radar contact from the time it took off until it crashed, ALL WITHIN A FEW MINUTES?
At Shanksville alone, over 1,100 people from SEVENTY-FOUR agencies and organizations were ON THE SCENE. On 9/11 these included:
• 8 Police Departments
• 7 EMS Services
• 8 Fire Departments
• 10 Emergency Management Agencies
• NTSB
• ATF
• FBI
• CISM
• Red Cross
• United Airlines
So everyone in those organizations was either fooled or is lying, right?
Someone had to fool tens of thousands of people in the following organizations whose conclusions explicitly refute your theory:
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI/ASCE),
the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations,
the New York City Department of Design and Construction,
the Structural Engineers Association of New York,
the National Fire Protection Association,
the Society of Fire Protection Engineers,
the American Concrete Institute,
the Building and Construction Trades Council,
the American Institute of Steel Construction,
the Masonry Society,
the Pentagon security staff,
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
hundreds of steelworkers, some of whom built the WTC,
the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
United Laboratories,
the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory,
Controlled Demolitions, Inc.
Bovis, Inc.,
Tully Construction,
AEMC Construction,
Karl Koch Steel Consulting, Inc.,
The United Steelworkers of America
the Armed Forces Institute of Technnology
the Federal Advisory Committee,
several DNA labs,
Numerous Forensic Pathologists,
Numerous Forensic Anthropologists,
Numerous Forensic Dentists,
Numerous Forensic Radiologists,
the National Medical Response Team,
the International Association of Fire Chiefs
the New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
the Fire Department of New York,
the New York City Office of Emergency Management,
the New York State Emergency Management Office,
the Arlington County Fire Department,
the Arlington County Sheriff's Department,
the Arlington County Emergency Medical Services
the Arlington County SWAT Team,
the Arlington, VA Police Department,
the Fairfax County Fire & Rescue,
the FBI's Evidence Recovery Teams,
the Montgomery County Fire & Rescue,
the Alexandria, VA Fire & Rescue
the District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
the Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
the Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
the Fort Myer Fire Department,
the Pentagon Fire Unit,
the Pentagon Medical Unit,
the Pentagon 2-person Helicopter Crash Response Team
the Pentagon Defense Protective Service,
several FBI Hazmat Teams,
several EPA Hazmat Teams,
the FEMA Virginia-1, Virginia-2, Maryland-1 and Tennessee-1 Task Forces
the DOD Honor Guard
the US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach, Fairfax County and Montgomery County,
the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
the Washington, D.C. Fire Department,
the California Incident Management Team,
the Shanksville, PA VFD,
the Somerset County Coroner's Office,
the Somerset County Emergency Management Agency
the Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
the State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
the Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association
the Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
the Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services,
the Salvation Army Disaster Services,
the National Emergency Numbering Association
the 911 operators who took the calls from passengers,
the American Red Cross,
the National Guard in D.C., NYC, and PA.,
the Air National Guard,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the United States Secret Service,
the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,
the New York Port Authority Police,
the New York Port Authority Construction Board
the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute,
the World Trade Center security staff,
United Airlines,
American Airllines,
the Office of Emergency Preparedness
Several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams,
Several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams,
the Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team,
the Virginia State Police
Many other Urban Search and Rescue Teams
the FEMA Incident Support Team,
the FEMA Emergency Response Team,
the FEMA Disaster Field Office.
the US Department of Defense,
the US Department of Justice,
the US Department of State,
the National Response Center,
North American Aerospace Defense Command,
the National Military Command Center,
the Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Disaster Medical System,
the HHS National Medical Response Team,
the Counterterrorism and Security Group,
the US Army’s Communications-Electronics Command,
the Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders
three E-4B National Airborne Operations Center planes,
the C-130H crew in D.C.
the Falcon 20 crew in PA,
the SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams,
the SACE Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams,
the National Transportation Safety Board,
the New York Flight Control Center,
the Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington,
the Cleveland Airport control tower,
the Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee,
the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
the New York Times,
the Boston Globe,
the Wall Street Journal,
the Washington Post,
Newsday,
United Press International,
Associated Press,
CNN,
ABC,
NBC,
CBS,
etc., etc., etc.
NONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORT YOUR THEORY. ACCORDING TO YOU, ALL WERE COMPLETELY FOOLED BY "MAYBE" 30 PEOPLE WHO WERE IN THE KNOW. Are you THAT divorced from reality?
> "If, as so many CTists claim, the Bush administration has a “stranglehold”
> on the media, why have countless administration scandals been reported, why
> are the CTists allowed to freely publish and promote their claims, why am I
> allowed to post this document on the internet, and why is Bush’s “favorable”
> rating in the polls at 33% (AP poll this week)? And why are ex-military
> leaders allowed to speak so freely against their former boss?"
>
> Do you not review history???? Things of this nature MUST be processed
> slowly. Look at the FREE Speech zones, the patriot act, and many other laws
> that now make the average person a criminal at the presidents whim. What do
> you think would happen if one day we woke up and the president just says: "I
> am king and you will pay me at least 10% of your money and you will no
> longer say anything negative about the government, and there is not longer a
> constitution." This would definitely cause a revolution. However, if
> things are taken slowly then the public does not fight it so hard.
> Especially, when there is a fear presented by the government and this is
> used all the time to bring the country in line with what they want.
I do review history. Do you have any evidence for me?
> "During that time he took commercial flights for personal travel and
> government flights for work-related travel. The threat was personal, not
> national. From Ashcroft’s 9/11 Commission testimony:"
>
> With all due respect...... You are asking someone to believe an
> Administration that has LIED in everything they have done. Why are we to
> believe ANYTHING that they say??? Unless there are FACTS, and supporting
> data to present why should we believe them? Can you dispute the fact that
> they have not lied to the American people in almost everything they present
> to us?
Everyone in the adminstration has always lied about everything they have done? That's an interesting concept. How about showing me evidence that Ashcroft's testimony about this issue was incorrect? His story is supported by many people. I don't like John Ashcroft. Please give me evidence that I should disbelieve him.
And need I remind you that the creators of "Loose Change" take Osama bin Laden's WORD from a single statement that he was not involved in 9/11?
> "That’s all. The story is extremely vague, and has no named source. We don't
> know where these unnamed officials were supposed to be going or coming
> from."
>
> So you don't believe in Anonymous sources? It gives some doubt, but the
> government has not denied it. Therefore, it should be given some
> credibility until the government denies it, and at least shows some proof
> that it is false.
Is it the government's job respond to every conspiracy theorist? I'll gladly review any supporting evidence for this story if you have it. I was unable to find any.
> "Note: prior to 9/11/01, NORAD was responsible only for threats coming from
> outside U.S. borders. Only once in the prior decade had NORAD attempted to
> intercept a stray civilian aircraft over U.S. soil, which was golfer Payne
> Stewart’s plane, after its crew and passengers fell unconscious."
>
> Not according to this:
>
> This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report [from Associated
> Press] of scramble frequencies that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that
> is one of PM's cited experts!
>
> From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air
> patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from
> September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
>
> It is safe to assume that a significant fraction of scrambles lead to
> intercepts, so the fact that there were 67 scrambles in a 9-month period
> before 9/11/01 suggests that there are dozens of intercepts per year. To its
> assertion that there was only one intercept in a decade, the article adds
> that "rules in effect ... prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts," and
> the suggestion that there were no hotlines between ATCs and NORAD.
Please provide evidence that NORAD intercepted any flight that originated in the U.S. and was over U.S. soil in the time period you mention. If NORAD was responsible for identifying interior threats in 2001, why were all seven alert bases located on the coast?
> "Contrary to conspiracy theorist claims that air defenses had “stood down”
> on 9/11, they were unusually “geared up.” Because of the semiannual
> exercises that had been going on for several days, NORAD radar stations and
> battle rooms were fully staffed, with top commanders there to make
> decisions."
>
> Actually, that is extremely misleading...... It is true that they were
> practicing war games, but they were conveniently doing it in Alaska and
> Canada. A little odd when there were plenty of signs that these attacks
> were going to happen. It's not just one thing that happened that day, but
> all of the things.
My statement was completely correct. NEADS was fully staffed, more so than usual. Here's a brief overview of what I'm talking about:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm
> "South tower collapses. This is out of chronological order, because we haven
> ’t seen it being hit yet. Notice how the debris falls much faster (in the
> video, at free-fall speed) than the bulk of the building."
>
> Well of course loose debris is going to fall faster than the rest of the
> building. You will notice that the statement is "at near free fall speed".
> It does not say "at free fall speed". There is a VERY large difference
> between the two.
I couldn't agree more.
> "Conspiracy buffs hate to show the other side of the building which shows
> smoke billowing out of nearly every visible floor. There was an enormous
> amount of fire in that building. Here’s a quote from FDNY Chief Daniel
> Nigro, who was calling the shots on the scene (quote not in video): "
> I don't think that you will find many people who would argue that there were
> not any fires in WTC7.
Gosh, I hope not.
>However, the damage was not enough to cause a
> collapse at near free fall speed and almost directly on it's own footprint.
Please give me your calculations as to how quickly the building should have fallen. Did you actually read that section of my analysis? I state, and show, that the collapse of WTC 7 severely damaged the buildings around it, and that its debris field spread over 150 meters.
> If there was that much damage to the front, toward WTC1, then the building
> should have toppled in that direction. Very much like removing one of the
> legs of a chair. The chair will not fall straight down, but will lean
> toward the missing leg with very minimal force.
Comparing the complex structure of a 300,000-ton skyscraper to a chair is incredibly foolish. It sounds like you've been reading that buffoon Steven E. Jones, the one who says that "entropy" means "things topple over"? Anyway, the collapse did start on the building's south side, and more of the building did wind up on the south as opposed to the north, which you can clearly see from the huge sections of north wall that fell to th esouth and are lying over the wreckage in aerial photos.
>One point about the towers
> is the fact that the top part of one of them was leaning at a 30 degree
> angle during the collapse. Now if the pancake theory is true, then this top
> part should have fell largely in tact to the ground. IT DID NOT! This
> simple little fact literally blows the pancaking theory out of the water.
> The top part would have been severely damaged, for sure, but would have been
> largely laying on the ground as a large piece of the building. However, it
> was not and it too was destroyed into little pieces. Since this was the
> "pile driver" for the pancake theory, what was the "pile driver" for this
> top part to cause it to completely disintegrate?
Wow.
Those statements demonstrate an incredible ignorance of how buildings are constructed. Do you wonder why no structural engineers agree with you?
Do you really think you know more than they?
Please provide evidence that the top part of the south tower was tilted on a fulcrum at a 30-degree angle.
Please also provide evidence that the base of the angled portion was not falling downwards as it tilted.
Please remember that the top portion of the south tower weighed 200 million pounds. I really suggest that you talk to a structural engineer about this.
> "In the circled area is what “controlled demolitions theory” advocates like
> to call a “squib,” a jet of material caused by explosive charges timed to be
> in synch with the top-down collapse."
>
> Well, when this occurs 20 to 30 floors below and is in a very concentrated
> area on multiple sides, at or near the same floors is very indicative of
> controlled demolition. The pressure theory makes sense only just a few
> floors below the collapse,
Please present your calculations in support of this hypothesis.
Please explain why the "squibs' are ejecting material at the rate at which the building is collapsing, not at the rate explosions happen. Please explain why the squibs appear at random places on random floors. Please explain why the squibs do not appear at the moment before collapse. Please explain why no companies that do controled demolitions agree with you, an why the biggest one calls your theory "ludicrous." Please explain how the placement of the explosives was accomplished, how the workers and work remained unseen, and how it survived the impact of the airliners and subsequent explosion and fires that were hot enough to melt aluminum.
Those are just a few things you'll need to answer to support the absurd controlled demolition theory.
> "It’s been 4 ½ years since the attacks. Has any conspiracy theorist,
> anywhere, turned up a single piece of evidence that implicates any
> individual not already named in the “official” version?"
> Has there been one single piece of evidence provided by the government to
> prove otherwise?
Yes, all the information they've provided proves otherwise. In addition, all of the organizations, public and private, listed above, agree with the official explanation. Remember, it's not the government's job to disprove conspiracy theories, it's your job to present evidence that supports yours. Evidence, not conjecture.
> Look at JFK. Science
> has proven that the Warren Commission theory is bogus. We know from science
> that a bullet will make a small hole entering, and a larger hole on the
> exit. There was a small hole in his forehead and the back of his head was
> blown out. There is absolutely no way that this particular shot came from
> behind, as the original version tries to claim.
How did I know you would go there? You are completely wrong, by the way. Yep, I've looked into the JFK assassination a lot more than 9/11.
>So, by the fact that they
> fought the investigation for 1 1/2 years, loaded the commission with
> cronies, and did not allow them to investigate the actual collapse but
> rather what went wrong.
I also don't like how politics got so wrapped up in this, and how the Bush administration did its least to provide full and open disclosure.
Who was prevented from investigating "the actual collapse?"
>By the way, NTSB was not allowed to handle the
> aircraft investigation.
The NTSB was involved.
>The government claims that NO black boxes were
> recovered at ground zero, when 2 fire fighters claim they helped find them
> and carried them out on the back of their ATV.
Did you read my analysis? I cover this issue at length.
> "" that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon ... "
> Misleading. It did more than crash into the side, it went right through. The
> speaker didn’t know that the plane was going 500+ mph."
>
> Extremely misleading statement. You make it sound as though you were there
> and that you helped rebuild the aircraft in a hanger. First, let me ask you
> this...... A 100 ton plane is gone, with very little debris, and very
> little other items are reported yet we are to believe that the 100 ton plane
> dissolves but bodies can be identified. How about all the other articles
> that would have been on the plane as cargo???? I'm sure that if the plane
> was that empty that the belly was loaded to the hilt. Yet, we have not
> heard of or seen any material around. You make it sound as though
> everything would have just flowed into the building. There would have been
> more than the relatively small amount of plane surrounding the area. This
> is not consistent of this type of crash. I am not saying that a plane did
> not hit the Pentagon, but I have serious doubts that flight 77 hit it.
> Where's the traceable part identification proof???? Supposedly the landing
> gear is from a 757, where's the serial number match to the actual plane?
> This is one of the traceable parts, that is required by the FAA.
Okay, so you don't believe the evidence I presented or any of the dozens of eyewitness reports I linked to that say the AA 757 hit the Pentagon.
If I were you, I'd be worried sick!
Have you attempted to contact a single one of the 8,000 people who were on the site after the crash?
No, of course you haven't.
So you accuse your government of committing terrorist attacks against Americans, but you're not wiling to find out for sure? That's quite intellectually dishonest.
> The governments claim that cell phones would work on an air craft, pre 9/11,
> would not have worked at that height or speed. This is a FACT!
Then can you explain to me how I made cell phone calls AT ALTITUDE with my personal phone in 2001? Are you caling me a liar? Are you aware that analog phones that were common then were many times more powerful than the digital phones common now?
Can you explain why all airliners had GTE Airphones installed, several of which were used by the passengers on 9/11? At least three of the calls quoted by Dylan Avery were made using those phones. Are you saying that's impossible? Again, did you read my piece?
So we are
> to believe that all of the calls that were made that day on all of these
> planes, not from air phones, were made by the actual people? I have no
> doubt that they can fake phone calls, so this is not science fiction. Calls
> like "hi mom .. it's mark lastname....." I don't care what the situation
> is, the actual person is not going to make a call like their mom does not
> know them.
Have you ever been on a flight that was hijacked?
> "This is what Slobodan Milosevic's residence in Belgrade looked like after a
> Tomahawk cruise
> missile had hit it. See any similarities?
> See any differences? Heard of any? Like the huge amount of 757 debris and
> the remains of the passengers, all but one of whom were identified? But you’
> re not concerned with victims, are you?"
>
> You mean the Autopsy report that lists everyone but the so called
> highjakers? You know...... Those pesky guys who don't show up on any
> official document, even from the air lines.
Again, you certainly didn't read my piece carefully. That bothers me, because I took care in writing it. Read that section again.
> "Some were played for victims at the Moussaoui trial. Has the government
> released all other recordings of all plane crashes to the public? No. If
> they are not classified such recordings may be available through FOIA
> requests."
>
> Yeah, but not the last 3 minutes of flight 93. It is a FACT, that the crash
> occurred at 10:06. However, the government claims that it occurred at
> 10:03. This does not coincide with seismic data. Also, if the plane was
> not shot down how can parts of the plane and some body parts end up in an 8
> mile radius. IMPOSSIBLE! Yet you believe 100% of the events the government
> provides you.
You are completely wrong again. Please re-read that section. Also, there was o 8-mile debris field. You're just parroting CT beliefs without doing your homework.
>
> Here is some more facts to support the governments cover-up.
> 1) The Secret Service (SS) knew of a possible highjacking at 7:30AM on 9/11
> and placed the system on high alert.
> http://www.freepressinternational.com/secret-service-possible-hijacking-911.
> html
> Since the SS knew of this possibility, why then did they not do anything to
> get the president to a safer location? It goes completely against the SS
> operating procedure. Yet, they do it for the VP.
I hadn't heard that. I'll have to check that link later. I only have a few minutes here and I want to get to the rest of your email.
> The President is told we are under attack, but just sits there. Does
> nothing!
I agree that he looks terrible sitting there. But think of all the arrangements that the SS and his staff have to make to find out what's going on and get him to a secure location. Don't you think if he had foreknowledge that he'd ACT presidential? Do you think he'd do the same thing if he had it to do over again?
> 2) FEMA is strangely in NY on the day for an exercise. How convenient!
> Months before the attack, the Pentagon practices for a plane crashing into
> the building.
You are comp[letely wrong. FEMA was not in NY on 9/10. They got there on 9/11. That ENTIRE CT story is based on a simple slip of the tongue about the day of the week by a very stressed-out manager. The story is incredibly easy to check out. Why don't you do so?
> 3) How about a 50 ton hydraulic press being destroyed in the sub basement?
> There would not be enough energy, even from vapor fuel, to destroy that
> along with a large portion of the lower parking garage.
Oh, lord. "50 tons" doesn't refer to the weight of the press, it refers to its hydraulic capacity. Just like a 2,000 lb. hydraulic car jack doesn't weigh 2,000 lbs., capisce? An average 50-ton press weghs 650 lbs, not 100,000 lbs.
>Also, did you
> realize that steel is a very good conductor of heat?????
No, I didn't realize that, because steel is a very poor conductor of heat.
So if one area of
> the building was say 1000 F, the actual steel would distribute that heat
> through the entire beam in effect keeping the steel much much cooler and
> well below any stressful level. Just look at why we use heat sinks on
> CPU's. Because the metal if very good at distributing the heat. Otherwise
> the CPU would burn up in no time, and so would mush of the metal (if
> the processor would keep working).
Again, you are completely wrong about steel, and you have everything to learn about building fires. I suggest consulting some of the links at the end of my document. You should really question the sources where you're getting this bad info. And PLEASE open your computer and see what those heat sinks are made of.
> How about this picture?
>
> http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic87932.jpg
>
> Notice the column directly behind the fireman, this column was not cut with
> a blow torch. What caused the metal to melt like that if explosives were
> not used????
Again, you are completely wrong. That's what happens when you rely on sources like "rumormill news." The large debris at the WTC was cut with torches, as was that piece. Look here for a close-up view, where you can clearly see the torch marks and the slag from the cut that's fallen on TOP of the other debris:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1601663&postcount=1799
> No one really knows what happened,
You're wrong. We do know what happened. You just don't like it. Well, I don't like it either, but facts is facts.
but the 9/11 truth organization is
> pushing to get the information released, so why is that such a bad thing?
Funny you should mention that, because today I'll be releasing my critique of 911truth.org's literature, which is every bit as factually incorrect as "Loose Change" is. It's disgraceful that people who say they are searching for the truth will go so far out of their way to disseminate falsehoods.
> You keep labeling those people, and I guess me as well, nuts and crazy
> because there is very little proof to the WHOLE day events.
I don't think you're nuts. I think you're lazy. And that's not a good thing to be if you want to get to the bottom of things.
>It's not just
> one or two things, its the entire day. All these things, and the many
> things that followed, are reason to not believe the government. The only
> time people fight so hard to not have something presented to counter a
> claim, is largely if the claim is false.
Oh?
Why else have all of the tapes,
> FAA logs, and many other items of the day declared a national security????
> This is known by the whole world and it is not a secret, so what's the issue
> (unless there is something to hide).
Most of these items are available to the public. Which ones are you referring to? Again, I covered this in my piece.
I hope my response has given you some things to chew on. Again, thanks for not calling me a government lackey!
bob_kark
Person of Hench
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,488
Good Gravy, Gravy! That was quite an email! Excellent job!
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,930
Interesting that one finally wrote to you with an attempt, but again we see the same game. The same laughable sources, the same not paying attention.
Great work Gravy.
Great work Gravy.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
I'll confess that I've been dying for a CT to bring up the "50-ton hydraulic press" issue. It was in Loose Change part 1 but not in 2.
I said I would have my critique of 911truh.org's literature done today, but I spent too much time on that email, so I'll finish it tomorrow. There's nothing new in it, but it's truly amszing how much b.s. they fit into a single pamphlet.
I said I would have my critique of 911truh.org's literature done today, but I spent too much time on that email, so I'll finish it tomorrow. There's nothing new in it, but it's truly amszing how much b.s. they fit into a single pamphlet.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
A salute for Gravy!
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Has anyone thought yet to email Randi and Shermer Gravy's LC debunk?
Also, on the Huffington Post blog, truthcommission wrote: "To all of the haters out there..Dispute this, line by line, and we will all shutup.
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html"
From what I've read of it so far, Griffin doesn't do any of his own analysis. He's a pretty persuasive essayist--that's about it. His citations are mostly the same ones we've been beating up on this thread.
Since I've seen Griffin being touted more and more by the saner CTs as one of the more respectable flag-bearers of the Truth Movement, I think it might be worthwhile to take truthcommission up on his challenge.
dubfan
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 452
I just read the comments at the HuffPo.
Good God.
These people are like the Flood in Halo. You shoot one of them with your fact-rifle and 15 more pop right out.
dubfan
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 452
Here, here.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Griffin has a distinct advantage over many CTs in that he writes grammatically correct sentences. Most of the 911truth.org b.s. is based on his work, and it's easily debunked. He never met a straw man he didn't like. He has a list of "115 omissions, distortions or outright lies" in the 9/11 Commission Report. "The New Pearl Harbor" is based on those items.
As an experiment I had a friend pick 4 numbers from 1 to 115 at random, and I pulled those criticisms from Griffin's list and demolished them. Looking at that whole list, though, there are some items that would take longer to debunk, and he may be right about others. But I could make a list of thousands of things the 9/11 Commission didn't address, such as the fact that I tripped on my shoelaces on 9/11.
You're right about him not doing original research, but neither do we. Much of what he does is take factual information, such as lousy communication and lots of confusion between the FAA and NORAD, and say, "Aha! Proof of conspiracy!" But I haven't seen any new evidence that he's brought to light.
Here are the first 20 items on his list. If you didn't know the facts, you'd find many of these things to be suspicious.
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers — including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC — are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta — such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances — that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed — an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft" — a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-2.
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (2.
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel — that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel — made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner — even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
Note that in the WTC section he talks a lot about fire but never mentions structural damage caused by the planes. That's classic Griffin. Another flagrant liar.
ETA: Oh, and I think that, in addition to being a Theologian, he's a professor of logic. Bwahahahahaha!
Last edited:
geggy
Muse
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 598
Bobkark...these quotes said by mark twain can be directly to either side, depending on how one would look at the event of sept 11. When I read these quote, I was thinking that it could be said directly to you.
Parelsis...no I have not dismissed the CD theory. I will explain using pictures with graphics, possibly on mon. And the coincidences I was speaking of applies to different situations leading up, during and the aftermath of sept 11. Like the coincidences in foreknowledge/security standdown, the coincidences of hijackers' whereabouts, the coincidences of the wtc collapsing, etc all mushed into one big huge "coincidences" or "conspiracy", whichever applies to you.
Gravy...I'm not clear on why I owe you an apology.
Do you realize the 19 hijackers trained right here in america? Even several of them had resided in Maryland during training. Two of the hijackers lived with couple of FBI agents in california. Several of them got their training in aviation school in florida, owned by a known criminal with no pilot experience. Few of the hijackers were involved with various terrorist activities prior to sept 11, so how were they allowed into america with VISA that should have been denied?
Do you think the NSA was spying prior to sept 11? Dick cheney has fought for legislation to spy on "terrorists" without warrent since 1975. Do you remember how bill clinton got caught having an affair with monica lewinsky? So it has been proven countless times the NSA had been spying prior to sept 11...why were there no action taken toward the hijackers?
Parelsis...no I have not dismissed the CD theory. I will explain using pictures with graphics, possibly on mon. And the coincidences I was speaking of applies to different situations leading up, during and the aftermath of sept 11. Like the coincidences in foreknowledge/security standdown, the coincidences of hijackers' whereabouts, the coincidences of the wtc collapsing, etc all mushed into one big huge "coincidences" or "conspiracy", whichever applies to you.
Gravy...I'm not clear on why I owe you an apology.
Do you realize the 19 hijackers trained right here in america? Even several of them had resided in Maryland during training. Two of the hijackers lived with couple of FBI agents in california. Several of them got their training in aviation school in florida, owned by a known criminal with no pilot experience. Few of the hijackers were involved with various terrorist activities prior to sept 11, so how were they allowed into america with VISA that should have been denied?
Do you think the NSA was spying prior to sept 11? Dick cheney has fought for legislation to spy on "terrorists" without warrent since 1975. Do you remember how bill clinton got caught having an affair with monica lewinsky? So it has been proven countless times the NSA had been spying prior to sept 11...why were there no action taken toward the hijackers?
- Status