top
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: U.S. | Police State and Prisons
What, Then, is Amiss With “Loose Change,” the New 9/11 DVD Promoted by FOX?
by repost
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 5:04 PM
"The USG intelligence community is for the most part smarter and better educated than the people it fools, and it is certainly better organized, funded, and equipped for its tasks than its audience is to resist or expose them. Many of the operatives who write the dialogue come from the best universities and are inclined to amuse themselves by mocking the rubes that they fool. This mockery is typically done by announcing what they are doing in disguised form, and then doing it with verve and bravado."
loose_change_author.jpg
"Loose Change" An analysis
by Michael B. Green
August 3, 2005
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html

Both videos ["Loose Change" and "In Plane Site"] contain much good evidence and valuable material of explosions in the WTC that brought down WTC1, 2,7 that cannot be suppressed. I suggest that the purpose in including both junk and substantive evidence is to discredit the latter. If rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles, few people with good judgment or good taste will attempt to retrieve and salvage the truffles. It is also to scant good evidence and thorough analysis in favor of cheap shots and one-liners that have no evidentiary value whatsoever. VonKleist wraps the good meat of the WTC blowing up between two pieces of rotten bread: the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon, and the Pod & Flash fraud. If Mr. VonKleist is not a paid intelligence disinformation asset, then he is the dream of the intelligence community: someone who dissembles as artfully as they do, and with all their wit, but who doesn’t draw a salary.[4]

I do not know what hit the Pentagon, but the evidence strongly indicates it was a Boeing 757. The same general arguments that any substitute plane that hit WTC1 and WTC2 would be an exact duplicate would apply to the Pentagon strike. I have nothing against a missile, two planes, or other theory, but there is little to support them except junk forensics and uninformed intuitions. From its start the “no-Boeing” fight was a miserable tar baby facilitated by the release of five still frames allegedly from a Pentagon parking kiosk video absent the Boeing; such stills should make anyone suspicious of USG complicity realize that they have just been served a red herring.

Let me make this point about rotten wrappings concrete.

Last year I bought In Plane Sight and saw it twice before going to the KPFK screening on August 7, 2004. I was so moved by the power of the film, by vonKleist’s constrained moral gravity about the pod, that I sent an email to about 25 people with the subject “911 was a US military operation.” I spent the next morning replaying all four impact videos in slow motion, with magnification, and realized there is no pod.

I wrote those 25 people an apology.

They all now have reason to regard me as impulsive, a bit oddly drawn to and easily taken in by conspiracy theories, and to dismiss the idea that 911 was even in part a US military operation. Mr. VonKleist made me cry wolf, and even though it was (approximately) the right wolf, I had the wrong evidence. When I now try to urge these people to examine the evidence that the Twin Towers were blown up, they dismiss my enthusiasm as an expression of my quirks, and are more than happy to defer to knowledgeable charlatans like Professor Thomas W. Eager of Journal of Metallurgy and NOVA. The situation is especially embarrassing for me because my scientific training has shown many situations where the correct explanation is at odds with even sophisticated common sense, but here I am urging the latter against the cool quantified experts and their lies.

Last August I thought that Dave vonKleist was acting in good faith, and I thought so in part because I had liked and admired the work of his wife Joyce Riley, who has exposed so many of the military’s lies. But after recently seeing “Loose Change” and hearing it hyped by vonKleist, I went to The Power Hour website to see how Mr. VonKleist’s education had progressed since August 2004. There he was asking classic nonsensical disinformation questions, of which the following is typical:

"Why did a FOX News employee, who witnessed the second tower attack, report seeing no windows on “Flight 175” a commercial United Airlines jetliner? Why did another eyewitness report that United Airlines Flight 175 was not a commercial airliner? What kind of plane hit the second tower?"

ANSWER: As Fox employee Marc Birnbach states in DVK's original IPS, he saw the plane from a subway station in Brooklyn, and it turns out that this subway stop was about two miles from the crash, which he did not see. Birnbach’s distance from the plane would make it impossible to see the windows of a plane silhouetted against the morning sky. I suspect that the other eyewitness is the hysterical woman separated from Manhattan by a very long bridge screaming, "That is not an American airline!" You don't have to be a genius to know that other closer eyewitnesses saw a commercial airline, and that other photos show the plane with UA markings, and that debris found in the WTC wreckage is of a commercial airliner with windows. But Dave's job is to keep those nonsensical questions in the mix.

Such nonsense prompted me to take a closer look at both DVDs and to write this review.

--------

Back to Mr. Avery’s Contribution ["Loose Change"]

Let me then be very brief with the rest of Mr. Avery’s film, omitting mention of many erroneous or misleading points that would require endless background or debate.

1) The film shows two still photographs of the underside of two airplanes. The one on the right is of the plane that crashed into the WTC2; the one on the left “is what the underside of a Boeing 757 should look like,” Avery intones gravely, intending us to see that the plane that hit the Tower could not be UA175. (2:17) COMMENT: I can see no relevant difference except for the angle of the photos and the fact that the photo on the left is in color, the one on the right in black-and-white. If there is a relevant difference, Mr. Avery fails to mention it.

2) Mr. Avery makes much of Donald Rumsfeld’s slip of the tongue on 10/12/01 referring to the “missile that damaged this building.” COMMENT: Worth a snigger, no evidentiary value.

3) A valuable interview with Air Flight School instructor Marcel Bernard showing that alleged Pentagon Pilot Hani Hanjour could not fly well is obscured by the musical sound track and omits such questions as whether Hanjour could have acquired the necessary skills in the month or two between when he was shown deficient and 911.

4) Mr. Avery makes much effort to prove that UA77 did not bounce off the Pentagon lawn. He even shows photos of other plane crashes that bounced off the ground and what they look like. The film gives no idea why this is relevant to anyone except, perhaps, the Pentagon gardener.

5) Mr. Avery states that “the downed light poles were thrown away from the Pentagon, not towards it, and the bases are ripped out completely. There is no indicated that these were bent or damaged by a Boeing 757 traveling at 535 mph. Instead, they seem to have just popped out of the ground.” (11:20-11:35)

COMMENT: First, The direction of the light poles doesn’t much matter given that their final direction depends on the torquing forces to which they were subjected and the fact that they might bounce around on the ground once toppled. Hence, it is largely irrelevant. Second, the spatial relationship of the toppled poles to the Pentagon is nowhere apparent in most of the photos. Nonetheless, where it is apparent the photos in the film show the toppled light poles falling in the direction of the Pentagon, away from the highway, and roughly pointing in the Pentagon’s direction. Furthermore, every one shows significant structural damage at its top as though it had been clipped by a plane and popped from the ground.

6) Mr. Avery claims that the damage to the Pentagon is “completely inconsistent” with a being hit by a Boeing. He shows a video of a test crash of a small jet fighter smashing into a reinforced concrete barrier and advises that if a Boeing hit the Pentagon flying at full speed, “the wings would rip off outside.” Yet the crash video does not show the wings being ripped off outside, but of being smashed to smithereens just as the reinforced exterior wall of the Pentagon might be expected to smash or shred the Boeing’s wings. (11:55) He then asks why there are “absolutely no traces of the aircraft at all” even while showing a Fox News Alert that shows the entire area littered with what look like small pieces of aircraft debris. Mr. Avery even asks why there is “not one seat cushion,” on the outside, apparently having forgotten his own statement of moments before that the fuselage penetrated the Pentagon.

7) Mr. Avery shows a photo of Pentagon employees carrying away a large box shrouded in a blue plastic tarp and asks, “What was in that box? Why weren’t we allowed to see it?”

COMMENT: Why should removal of materials from a sensitive site like the Pentagon and the fact that it is not made public be of any evidentiary value whatsoever, as opposed to idle speculation?

8) Mr. Avery states that the “official” account of the Pentagon crash claims that the intense heat vaporized the entire plane, and then he proves that titanium would not have been vaporized.

COMMENT: I have no idea what “official” account he means and believe he has invented a straw man.

9) Mr. Avery offers extended discussion of the difficulty of identifying residue in the Pentagon proper that might be plane parts. Since the time, source, and subjects of most of the Pentagon photos are unknown – and since we do not know what photographs have been withheld – it is difficult to know what to make of the ones he addresses. I cannot follow his technical talk and we have seen that there is no reason to trust it. But Mr. Avery is clear in his rebuttal that a large diffuser case from the debris cannot come from a 757. (He seems to have forgotten what he said was the official version that everything was vaporized.) Mr. Avery then argues that the damaged diffuser case has circular bezels but both a diagram and an actual diffuser case from a 757 have triangular bezels.

COMMENT: This observation might be of interest if Mr. Avery made use of the fact that at least two companies have made engines for the 757 (Rolls Royce, Payne-Whitney); that they almost certainly do not make them the same way, and that each company in turn may have made them differently at different times since the shape of the bezel is not an essential specification of performance, and it is the performance specifications that must be met, not the bezel shape. This is like arguing that the 1.6 liter engine found in the fiery crash of a 1983 Nissan Sentra could not be from a 1983 Sentra because, LOOK!!, Here is a photo and a diagram of a 1.5 liter 1983 Nissan Sentra engine. Well, Nissan makes both size engines for the 1983 Sentra.

10) Mr. Avery then says to “forget the debris. The 767’s that hit the WTC left a very distinct outline of a commercial airliner. Therefore we should expect something similar at the Pentagon.” The film then flashes to the famous photo of the smoky Pentagon that shows the entry hole before the outer wall collapsed. Avery remarks, “The only damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole approximately 16’ in diameter.”

COMMENT: First, Avery advances a bad argument because whether or not the Pentagon should show the outline of an airliner in the same way depends on whether it is constructed of the same material as the WTC, and if not, upon the structural differences. Since the outer wall of the Pentagon reportedly was 18” of steel reinforced concrete and reportedly had many of its windows replaced with bomb-resistant 2,500 pound windows in the renovation process that was not yet completed, there is no reason to expect the same pattern.[5] Indeed Mr. Avery’s short attention span shows when he asks the relevant question at 21:35 “And is it merely a coincidence that the Pentagon was hit in the only section that was renovated to withstand that kind of attack?” Second, the area of damage caused by the wings to the Pentagon does in fact fit its outlines well. The photo that Avery mistakenly says shows just a small hole in fact shows massive damage to the façade where the right wing hit; the left side is totally obscured by black smoke. Other photos of the left area show a very close correlation to the angled wingspan of a 767. See “Revelations 911,” http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm.

For those who were awake during “In Plane Site”, the video contains a photo (9:38) showing massive damage from the left wing to the Pentagon façade even while Mr. vonKleist is acting like some fraud must have been committed because the ever-tapering ever-thinner 757 wings did not collapse every part of the Pentagon they impacted. Mr. Avery succeeds by simply ignoring massive damage in his own data and denying that it is there. Indeed, he continues “Why are the windows next to the hole completely intact?” while showing windows that are smashed open and have flames licking through them. As noted, the 2” 2,500 pound bomb-resistant windows may have done quite well while other windows not yet replaced were broken.

11) At 20:00 Mr. Avery plays a video that shows a car being swept from a highway and says, “This is what happens when a car gets too close to the wake of a commercial airline.” He implies that cars on the highway should have been blown off, but since they were not, no 767 passed overhead.

COMMENT: Mr. Avery’s demo video does not show what happens to a car in the wake of a commercial airline. It shows a stationary airliner whose jet engine blast sweeps a car off the highway when it comes too close. The likely case at the Pentagon is that the cars on the highway were not that close and that the Pentagon jet was in the air with its jet engines slightly tilted upward away from traffic, and neither close enough to, nor pointed directly at, the cars near the Pentagon.

12) The Avery video then spews confusion by quoting many contradictory eyewitness statements to no good end, and without taking account of all the eyewitness statements and what they support as a whole: A 767 into the Pentagon. Again, see “Revelations 911” at http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/home.html and also “Analysis of Eyewitness Statements on 9/11 American Airlines Flight 77 Crash into the Pentagon” by Penny Schoner at http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77pentaToC.html.

13) At 30:00 Mr. Avery describes an explosion in the lobby of the North Tower just after AA11 crashed into it. He notes an official explanation that this was caused by a fireball, but then says, “However there was no soot, no fire, no fuel residue.” Within a minute, Mr. Avery quotes approvingly of first-person testimony from “We Will Note Forget,” published in The Chief Engineer, in 9/2002 which quotes hero Mike Pecoraro describing how the WTC1 looked just after the blast, "When I walked out into the lobby, it was incredible," he recalled. "The whole lobby was soot and black, elevator doors were missing. …” This actual text is in Mr. Avery’s film, and Mr. Avery reads it aloud, but he ignores it. Earlier, a part of the article not in the film, states:

We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working. … The jet fuel actually came down the elevator shaft, blew off all the (elevator) doors and flames rolled through the lobby. That explained all the burnt people and why everything was sooted in the lobby.

The smell of kerosene would be from aviation fuel, not an internal explosion. Mr. Avery apparently does not read, nor remember what he said a moment before. (I believe that Mike Pecoraro is mistaken in holding that the explosions were caused by a fireball, but the evidence is complex and ambiguous and simply cannot be assessed in a video.

The fact that Mr. Avery just tells his side of the evidence reduced his video to propaganda. I believe that WTC1 suffered an explosion in the sub-basement just prior to the impact of AA11, but this conclusion is from other evidence that Mr. Avery does not use. Mike Pecoraro may be reporting a secondary fuel spillage down the elevator shafts in the core, and may have been persuaded by the “official account” that a fireball caused the explosions.)

Let me conclude with two more points, one of which shows what is missing in Mr. Avery’s account, the other of which shows his lack of thought.

First, The WTC 1,2,& 7 were brought down by explosive charges.

WTC1-2 literally exploded in mid-air before hitting the ground while WTC7 was demolished by a classic lower energy implosion. I recommend Jim Hoffman’s excellent site, http://www.911review.com, as well as the photos on the back of his co-authored book, Waking Up From Our Nightmare.

One key to understanding the official hoax of WTC1, 2, is to juxtapose official accounts of its flimsy or non-existent core with photos of the core 47 massive steel box columns held together by massive interlocking grid work, and connected to the peripheral columns by massive beams and girders as well as the lighter-duty trusses that supported the flooring. This is what gives the lie to the pancake theory –- even if the floors collapsed the core would still stand, or demonstrate terrific resistance to collapse instead of nearly free-fall descent. Again, though not definitive, the core being demolished first then makes sense of a video mounted on a tripod, focused on one of the towers, shaking several seconds before the building’s collapse (when the base is detonated); and again though not definitive, makes sense of a video taken from a helicopter photographing a WTC collapse that is rocked by propagating shock waves that would not occur from a simple collapse. Some of these facts are better presented in a print and still medium, but any video of the subject that wants to be effective should use them.

Second, the telephone calls from the airplanes are a difficult subject, and I have no firm idea whether any, some, or none were genuine. But Mr. Avery makes two claims that are pragmatic contradictions, and argues very badly for each of them. Mr. Avery argues that all the calls are bogus based on research by Professor of Physics A.K. Dewdney trying to make call phone calls from a chartered airplane over Canada. I don’t think that Dewdney’s self-funded research in Canada is definitive about how the entire lot of commercial cell phones in airlines at unknown heights may have behaved in the United States. Additionally, some reports of cell-phone calls may be paid air-phone calls.

Mr. Avery’s tack is then to scoff at the alleged implausibility of reported dialogue, which we shall show momentarily he does crudely and wrong-headedly. Perhaps the worst part is that as part of his debunking all the calls, Mr. Avery makes such comments as the following. Referring to Flight Attendant Madeline Sweeney’s 25 minute call with her ground manager Michael Woodward, Mr. Avery mimics and mocks her statement “near the end [when] she says, ‘I see water and buildings! Oh my god! Oh, my god!’ as though she had never seen the Manhattan skyline before in her life.” (53:00)

COMMENT: Mr. Avery seems to have little capacity for understanding how people feel. If this is genuine dialogue, its obvious interpretation is that Madeline Sweeney has just realized that the hijacked plane is not going to be landed, but to be crashed into lower Manhattan.

Mr. Avery also narrates:

A man claiming to be Todd Beamer got through to a Verizon supervisor telling of three men with knives, one claiming to have a bomb. Thirteen minutes later he recites the 23rd psalm of the bible and drops the phone, turning to utter his rallying cry, “Let’s roll!” Why would Beamer spend the last minutes of his life talking to a complete stranger as opposed to a member of his own family?

The boldfaced, supposedly deep question unmasking the perpetrators’ charade, is designed to show that Mr. Beamer’s behavior made no sense, and to set up Mr. Avery’s own opinion that based on Dewdney’s research, “The cell phone call were faked. No ifs, ands, or buts.” It would take too much time to show in detail why this does not follow from Dewdney’s research, not least of which is that the altitudes from which the calls were made remain unknown, and the low probability given by Dewdney of getting through on any given call is offset in a hard-to-calculate way by automatic redial, not to mention that these calls may have been air-phone calls.

But given Mr. Avery’s cry that the calls were faked, I don’t see anything but intelligence community irony in ending his film with a rallying cry to all Americans that we should follow Todd Beamer’s example and, “Let’s roll!” Why should we follow as an example what Mr. Avery has just told us is sheer fiction manufactured by the 911 perpetrators through voice morphing technology?

And as for Mr. Avery’s distinct incapacity to imagine the obvious, let alone see it in front of his face, here are several good reasons why Todd Beamer would spend the last few minutes of his life talking to a complete stranger rather than a family member:

a) Mr. Beamer may have been able to reach a Verizon supervisor but not able to reach a family member to whom he wanted to talk at a time like that.

b) Mr. Avery’s video displays a 9/22/01 article from the Post Gazette that states that the Verizon supervisor notified the FBI and Todd Beamer was apprising her, and presumably the FBI, of the status of the airplane in preparation to making a counter-attack. Mr. Beamer may have felt that speaking to her and the FBI would be more useful at that moment than speaking to a family member.

c) Mr. Beamer clearly did not know that he would die, and clearly hoped that he might survive. A passenger on that flight was a licensed commercial pilot and might have been able to land the plane. Todd Beamer asks the Verizon supervisor to call his wife and tell the wife how much he loved her in case he dies. Since he hoped to live, and since he needed to steel himself for the task immediately ahead, he may well have not wanted to burden his wife at such a moment as he then faced.

Mr. Avery did not ask penetrating questions, but asked shallow, immature, insensitive, callow and uninformed questions consistent with his performance through his video.



Michael B. Green, Ph.D.

Clinical Psychologist

Qualified Medical Examiner

August 3, 2005



[1] References are to the original version of “In Plane Site” unless otherwise stated.

[2] It is hard to see why there would need for a plane switch, a risky complication, instead of simply taking over the planes by remote control. But, perhaps the perpetrators did not wish to lower morale amongst their pool of patsies –- cronies of the “hijackers” who were aboard – by killing them. So perhaps a landing was made to remove the “hijackers” (if there were any) and load the unusually small number of commuters onto a single “rescue” plane for their final demise.

[3] David R. Wrone, The Zapruder Film, University of Kansas Press, 2003, p.54.

[4] As I wrote in an August 8, 2004 email debunking KPFK’s August 6, 2004 screening of “In Plane Site”: As Dave vonKleist himself declared in person at Friday's screening, the most critical single claim made in "In Plane Site" is that the plane that crashed into WT2 had a huge pod attached to its right underbelly beneath the right wing. Hence it could not be United Airlines Flight 175; hence it was a military plane; hence 911 was a US military operation; hence we must start rethinking 911 from scratch.

[5] The specifications of the reinforced windows are from Esther Schrader, “Pentagon, a Vulnerable Building, Was Hit in Least Vulnerable Spot” Los Angeles Times, September 16, 2001. Due to extensive official disinformation it is impossible to know whether to credit this report, since it almost certainly came from Pentagon public relations.

Copyright Michael B. Green August 3, 2005
by repost
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 5:09 PM
Dylan Avery, 22
Founder, Owner, Director

Born in Leesburg, VA, and living for a year in WASHINGTON, DC, from homeless to a couch to an apartment, all the while completing "Loose Change". . .


Korey Rowe, 22
Owner, Producer
'Terrorism has to be dealt with': Soldier recounts service
http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2002/07/23/afghan.html

At 18 for no apparent reason I joined the ARMY. . . found my self in a fox hole in Kandahar, Afghanistan (January 14th, 2002 - July 15th, 2002). Served six months there before . . . shipped back across the Atlantic to Kuwait were we staged for a nice long year in Iraq (February 28th, 2003 - January 16th, 2004).


Jason Bermas, 26
Webmaster, Graphic Designer
A google search turns up only a SINGLE entry on this person posted in July 2005, and already gone. The purpose of the post seems to be to describe the Bermas in a couple of sentences and say nothing else meaningful.

Did you mean: "Jason Borman"
Untitled Document
This past year I was introduced to a friend named Jason Bermas who has tought me
more in the field of computer art than any teachers I've had so far. ...
students.oneonta.edu/kochnl43/aboutme.htm - 6k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
by 9/11 activist
Friday Dec 2nd, 2005 6:37 PM
Hoax-Mongering Videos

Of all the media used to disseminate misinformation and disinformation videos are perhaps the most effective. Whereas websites with disinformation can be critiqued by other websites which are easily located using the Web's search capabilities, a video is unlikely to occupy a shelf with another video critiquing it. Also, being a visual and passive medium, videos can persuade the viewer in ways that books can not.

In Plane Site

Following the first 9/11 International Inquiry in San Francisco in 2004, a new video packaged as a sensational expose of evidence that the 9/11 attack was an inside job burst on the scene. In Plane Site, a production of The Power Hour, features Dave Von Kleist sitting in front of a wall of computer monitors and pretending to expose shoking anomalies in footage from the day of the attack. The vast majority of Von Kleist's claims are nonsensical, debunked in the Parade of Errors section.

Von Kleist's video functions to marginalize the case that the attack was an inside job by associating that idea with sensationalism and lack of critical thinking. The video got top billing in the Popular Mechanics attack piece, which used several of its ill-founded claims to smear the entire 9/11 Truth community.
http://911review.com/disinfo/videos.html
Why does Korey Rowe now say he has all these progressive views, when he was all into 'get the terrorists' in 2002 after coming back? It's possible that he changed his views, but then why is he making a film about 9/11 disinformation (pods, missiles, no planes)? Why would he *now* want to make people asking questions about 9/11 look looney tunes by saying that 'no commercial jets' hit the towers? Why would he spend all this time to do that with someone who made the film while in DC? Why was the film made in DC while they are now all in a small town in NY State? Could it be that FOX News wants the people who ask questions about 9/11 look like nutcases? Afterall, the main website associated with this film is 'letsroll911' - the PODS website. It's linked to directly on the website.

PODS were debunked a long long long time ago, so why would these guys want to promote that stuff by linking directly to the PODS site on the homepage for the film?

So check this out:

2005: (speaking to FOX news . . .)
Film producer Korey Rowe says his experience serving the military for 12 months in Iraq and 6 months in Afghanistan, leads him to believe first hand that we are not fighting a war on terror.
http://www.wicz.com/news2005/viewarticle.asp?a=291

2002 (upon returning from the Middle East, local newspaper)
"Sept. 11 was something that directly affected every person in the U.S.," he [Korey Rowe] said. "We had to go over there and get the terrorists. Some are still over there. Eventually it may be over, but not for a long time."
http://www.thedailystar.com/news/stories/2002/07/23/afghan.html

by Ian Neal
(ianneal [at] fastmail.fm) Sunday Jan 29th, 2006 5:57 PM
I have a simple question for critics of this film.

What alternative DVD presentation of the 9/11 evidence would they recommend as an introduction to the 9/11 truth movement?

If you prefer not to use DVDs in order to raise awareness (which in my opinion would be a serious error) what book or alternative resource would you recommend?

by Deba Lazo
Wednesday Feb 1st, 2006 9:31 AM
Gee, Michael, i would like to help your 'cause' by believing your rebuttal, but, haven't you heard on the grapevine what's the general opinion of Psychos?... Did you take your RED pill this morning, mh?

What's really important about these films, really, is they prove beyond a doubt 3 building were demolished, pulverized, by the Bushit Gang. Whether they used 757, 737, Cruise Missile or SuperMom, is inconsequential.

The crime of the Century (so far), is already exposed worldwide. What are your bosses going to do about it? Martial Law?
by reader
Monday Feb 6th, 2006 5:12 PM
free downloads of the Citizens Commission event are at:
http://www.911busters.com/911-Commission.html

911 busters has a lot of great information on line, but it also pushes the no plane hoax. The only other website selling copies of the Citizens Commission DVD is "911 share the truth," an effort that sells both some of the best videos and many of the worst videos. It is a shame, since the Citizens Commission DVD is probably the best compilation that has been made of the strongest evidence.

The DVD can be ordered at
http://www.911truth.org/store/dvd34.htm

Free New Pearl Harbor text
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

Video – The Truth and Lies of 9-11 – Mike Ruppert
Free Internet viewing in 4 parts available at:
http://www.thelawparty.com/MediaPlayer/911/TruthandLies0f911Part156k.wmv
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%202.rm
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%203.rm
http://www.ganjasound.fsworld.co.uk/films%20&%20clips/mike%20ruppert_911%20the%20truth%20and%20lies%20part%204.rm

David Ray Griffin Reveals
Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN
View the program online for free. Windows Media Player required
http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html

Free audio version of program online. Windows Media Player required
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/drg_cspan.mp3

The Power of Nightmares
available for free viewing at http://207.44.245.159/video1037.htm (full written transcript also provided)
(note - the site hosting it is a mix of real information and fake information - looking to find a more reliable, credible host for this material)
by repost
Monday Feb 6th, 2006 5:17 PM
Two good videos are listed here:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/resources/videos/index.html

Truth and Politics
by David Ray Griffin

This video captures David Ray Griffin's October 3, 2004 speech in Santa Rosa, CA. The speech is essentially a summary of Griffin's second book on the 9/11/01 attack, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Griffin gave this talk before the book was published. This video supplements the speech with added images and video clips to illustrate Griffin's points.


Perspective on 9-11
by Ken Jenkins

This video is a compilation of segments from other videos on the 9/11/01 attack and historical precedents. It is in two parts, Part 1: History/Context and Part 2: 9-11. Part 2 is composed of excerpts from the following:

* The Great Deception by Barrie Zwicker
* Painful Deceptions by Eric Hufschmid
* Aftermath -- Unanswered Questions from 9-11 by GNN.tv
* 9-11 International Inquiry, San Fransisco

Perspective on 9-11 excerpts the portion of Painful Deceptions that covers the collapse of Building 7 -- which includes five videos of the Building 7's implosion.

Jenkins' video is an excellent tool for education and outreach in audiences skeptical of the idea that the attack was an inside job. Jenkins combines the best parts of the work of others, sticks to substantial evidence, and frames the presentation of that evidence in a historical context that facilitates its objective examination.
by Elisa Cervantes
(elisamentary [at] yahoo.co.uk) Tuesday Feb 14th, 2006 4:19 PM
That might be one of the most ignorant comments I've seen yet.

The Loose Change video has its merits. It asks tough questions (many of which it doesn't answer), and it raises possiblities of conspiracies at the highest level. It forces one to think about things in a different way. It does not prove a single thing, not a single thing, beyond a doubt. It also does a disservice by propogating badly-formed, nonsensical theory. It is unfortunate that you are unable to see that.
by James
Friday Feb 17th, 2006 7:58 PM
I think that you said it all.
by Matt
Saturday Feb 25th, 2006 7:03 AM
You guys are watching the wrong "Loose Change" video you should be watching 2nd edition it's been edited and the dis-info missle theory has been removed.

here is the link for "Loose Change 2nd edition"

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1787340.php
by Matt
Saturday Feb 25th, 2006 7:04 AM
You guys are watching the wrong "Loose Change" video you should be watching 2nd edition it's been edited and the dis-info missle theory has been removed.

here is the link for "Loose Change 2nd edition"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801
by reader
Wednesday Mar 1st, 2006 3:44 PM
The film is exactly the same as before only the pods aren't in it.

Instead, the new 2nd Ed website links directly to pod creator Phil Jayhan's website.

So any changes are just to try to pretend it's different - it is not.
by ResearchGuy
Wednesday Mar 1st, 2006 4:39 PM

Another good video has just been released:


9/11 GUILT: THE PROOF IS IN YOUR HANDS

It's primarily lectures by Jim Hoffman and Don Paul -- who co-wrote Waking Up From Our Nightmare -- and has some special features also.


The best books are probably David Ray Griffin's 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, and Paul Thompson's The Terror Timeline.

by Andrew Watson
(strangerdomain [at] yahoo.co.uk) Wednesday Mar 1st, 2006 10:11 PM
I haven't seen InPlane Site. I have seen LC2 and I like it. Yes, it's hip and slick. That's probably no bad thing. Why bash something that is making people think?
Michael Green's vitriolic diatribe on these two videos plays right into the hands of the supporters of the status quo. While the Pod theory may well be old news now, and the Pentagon attack the most difficult one to unravel, there remains the question of WCT7, surely the Mother and Daddy of smoking guns. Just play people the clip of its 6-second implosion and most people are left open-mouthed in incredulity. No wonder the Commission didn't mention it. It's dynamite...oops

Let's give these kids a little support, right?
by reader
Friday Mar 3rd, 2006 10:37 AM
>>Yes, it's hip and slick. That's probably no bad thing.

Saying that the planes were swapped and the passengers from, for example, Flight 93, were herded into an empty NASA research center in Cleveland while planes were swapped IS a big deal -- it makes us all look nutty, just what the DoD, the State Dept and Popular Mechanics want. There is virtually zero evidence for those claims, and the eyewitnesses are not included at all!

Fl 93 Eyewitnesses are here:
http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_eyewitness.html

This film needs to be critiqued because it is pushing misinformation, not just Fl 93, but a lot more. Some of it is good, the demolitions, but other aspects are not.

I suspect the filmmakers didn't know any better, but then, this will be a learning process for them. They seem dedicated and intelligent -- can they grow and learn?
by Justin
(beavertang98 [at] hotmail.com) Monday Mar 6th, 2006 5:34 PM
The confiscated videos from the gas station and Sheraton. The video camera on the Sheraton building has the best view of the Pentagon! Why have they not released it and instead hidden it. Come on don't tell me Osama does not have anything else better to do. Who benefits more from these attacks. Osama... don't think so i think otherwise. Ok the evidence isn't really outright there proving the theory, but a bit of common sense, the government definitely has a part in it. Especially where are the pieces from the plane in Shanksville. Don't tell me... oh wait it too VAPORISED just like the rest. How convenient... that's about it. The government has something to do with the 9/11 attacks.
by logic
Tuesday Mar 7th, 2006 2:38 PM
"Why have they not released it and instead hidden it."

Why does the Bush Administration do anything they do?

For example, a couple of years ago they decided that no scientists in the US could peer review (grammer, not content) any research papers from any countries from the 'axis of evil.' Naturally, scientists were outraged and filed a lawsuit. Who benefits from poorly grammatically reviewed scientific papers?? No one. It just means that they are harder to read with typos etc.

You cannot explain why fascists do what they do.
by Tom Murphy
Saturday Mar 11th, 2006 5:59 PM

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse
of the World Trade Center Buildings
Disprove Explosives Theory

Page 1

Quick Guide to Motives for 9/11

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

The bucking of the exterior steel columns, in the minutes well before the buildings collapsed, disproves the idea that explosives brought the buildings down for the simple fact that explosives don't explode in slow motion over several minutes. The bucking of the exterior steel columns was witnessed and photographed in the minutes - in some cases many minutes - before the buildings came down. I am working hard to explain to the public the fact that these warnings signs definitively debunk the "controlled explosions" theory. I am working hard to explain to the public that since explosives don't go off in slow motion over several minutes, explosives were not the reason the columns were buckled and failed. My web site, http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html , quotes eyewitnesses who saw the structures of the buildings failing before they fell, and as I said, in some cases they saw this many minutes before the buildings fell. My web page displays photos which show the structure of the buildings failing before they fell, in some cases many minutes before the buildings fell. I explain on my web page: "Obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds. There simply would not be warning signs that the buildings were about to be demolished by explosives, it would of course just suddenly happen. But that is not what happened, the buildings did not suddenly collapse without any indications that they would. Instead, the fires were compromising the structural integrity of the buildings and the buildings' support structures failed. Exterior columns buckled because the fires weakened the floor trusses and the floors sagged. The sagging floors pulled on intact column connections so as the floors sagged down, they pulled the exterior columns inward. This inward bowing of the exterior columns was evident to observers such as the police helicopters circling the towers" It is agony for me to see the American people put at risk and not knowing why. It is frustrating as hell to see people getting mislead about why the WTC collapsed. I have written an article explaining the evidence and I tried to get it noticed but "9/11 truth" sites I have submitted it to refuse to link to it and I get banned from their discussion forums.
by David Schwartz
Wednesday Mar 15th, 2006 10:01 PM
I don't think Rumsfeld misspoke. I think he was saying that the terrorists used a plane *as* a missile. In context, it seems that to me at least that this is what he was trying to say.
by Sam
(Flagwaver [at] Asianavenue.com) Monday Mar 20th, 2006 7:40 AM
The Lies Are Out There
BY JIM MEIGS
Photographs by Alyson Aliano (James Meigs) and Lori Grinker/Contact Press Images (flag raising)
Published in the March, 2005 issue.






"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."

It has been 3-1/2 years since the September 11 attacks. In that time, the American people have questioned why we were caught off guard and have demanded to know the whole story behind the events of that terrible day. But as a society we accept the basic premise that a group of Islamist terrorists hijacked four airplanes and turned them into weapons against us.

Sadly, the noble search for truth is now being hijacked by a growing army of conspiracy theorists. A few of these skeptics make a responsible effort to sift through the mountain of information, but most ignore all but a few stray details they think support their theories. In fact, many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, yet happily embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions: that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States with help from the CIA; that the hijacked planes weren't commercial jets, but military aircraft, cruise missiles or remote-control drones; that the World Trade Center buildings were professionally demolished.

These 9/11 conspiracy theories, long popular abroad, are gradually--though more quietly--seeping into mainstream America. Allegations of U.S. complicity in the attacks have become standard fare on talk radio and among activists on both the extreme left and the extreme right of the political spectrum.


ASSAULT ON THE TRUTH: Three and a half years after 9/11, conspiracy theorists are trying to rewrite history.

Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing.

Fortunately, facts can be checked. For our special report, PM compiled a list of the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists, assertions that are at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario. These claims all involve fields that are part of PM's core expertise--structural engineering, aviation, military technology and science.

We assembled a team of reporters and researchers, including professional fact checkers and the editors of PM, and methodically analyzed all 16 conspiracy claims. We interviewed scores of engineers, aviation experts, military officials, eyewitnesses and members of the investigative teams who have held the wreckage of the attacks in their own hands. We pored over photography, maps, blueprints, aviation logs and transcripts. In every single instance, we found that the facts used by conspiracy theorists to support their fantasies were mistaken, misunderstood or deliberately falsified.
Reasonable people are entitled to wish that our government had been better prepared and more alert. But those who peddle fantasies that this country encouraged, permitted or actually carried out the attacks are libeling the truth--and disgracing the memories of the thousands who died that day.







Links referenced within this article

special report
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html




Find this article at:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html

9/11: Debunking The Myths
PM examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

Published in the March, 2005 issue.





FALSE WITNESS: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation. PHOTOGRAPH BY ROB HOWARD



For background on this investigative feature, please click here.

FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS








THE PLANES
The widely accepted account that hijackers commandeered and crashed the four 9/11 planes is supported by reams of evidence, from cockpit recordings to forensics to the fact that crews and passengers never returned home. Nonetheless, conspiracy theorists seize on a handful of "facts" to argue a very different scenario: The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles. And the lack of military intervention? Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault or allowed it to occur in order to advance oil interests or a war agenda.







Where's The Pod?
CLAIM:Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images--the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."


No Stand-Down Order
CLAIM: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Flight 175's Windows
CLAIM:On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories--specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied--including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine--as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.




PLAIN VIEW: Passenger windows on a piece of Flight 175's fuselage. PHOTOGRPAH BY WILLIAM F. BAKER/FEMA


Intercepts Not Routine
CLAIM:"It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.



THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.





Widespread Damage
CLAIM:The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM:As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."




VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS




Seismic Spikes
CLAIM:Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT:"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM:Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.




FINE LINES: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below).





Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science writer)/http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn





FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT




THE PENTAGON
At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon.




HQ ATTACK: Taken three days after 9/11, this photo shows the extent of the damage to the Pentagon, consistent with a fiery plane crash. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.




HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77’s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon’s Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Intact Windows
CLAIM:Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM:Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

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




AFTERMATH: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon’s lawn--proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS






FLIGHT 93
Cockpit recordings indicate the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93 teamed up to attack their hijackers, forcing down the plane near Shanksville, in southwestern Pennsylvania. But conspiracy theorists assert Flight 93 was destroyed by a heat-seeking missile from an F-16 or a mysterious white plane. Some theorists add far-fetched elaborations: No terrorists were aboard, or the passengers were drugged. The wildest is the "bumble planes" theory, which holds that passengers from Flights 11, 175 and 77 were loaded onto Flight 93 so the U.S. government could kill them.


The White Jet
CLAIM:At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever--alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity--a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."--not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled. They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.


Roving Engine
CLAIM:One of Flight 93's engines was found "at a considerable distance from the crash site," according to Lyle Szupinka, a state police officer on the scene who was quoted in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Offering no evidence, a posting on Rense.com claimed: "The main body of the engine ... was found miles away from the main wreckage site with damage comparable to that which a heat-seeking missile would do to an airliner."

FACT: Experts on the scene tell PM that a fan from one of the engines was recovered in a catchment basin, downhill from the crash site. Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards." Numerous crash analysts contacted by PM concur.


Indian Lake
CLAIM:"Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains," states a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article dated Sept. 13, 2001. "Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly 6 miles from the immediate crash scene." Commenting on reports that Indian Lake residents collected debris, Think AndAsk.com speculates: "On Sept. 10, 2001, a strong cold front pushed through the area, and behind it--winds blew northerly. Since Flight 93 crashed west-southwest of Indian Lake, it was impossible for debris to fly perpendicular to wind direction. ... The FBI lied." And the significance of widespread debris? Theorists claim the plane was breaking up before it crashed. TheForbiddenKnowledge.com states bluntly: "Without a doubt, Flight 93 was shot down."

FACT:Wallace Miller, Somerset County coroner, tells PM no body parts were found in Indian Lake. Human remains were confined to a 70-acre area directly surrounding the crash site. Paper and tiny scraps of sheetmetal, however, did land in the lake. "Very light debris will fly into the air, because of the concussion," says former National Transportation Safety Board investigator Matthew McCormick. Indian Lake is less than 1.5 miles southeast of the impact crater--not 6 miles--easily within range of debris blasted skyward by the heat of the explosion from the crash. And the wind that day was northwesterly, at 9 to 12 mph, which means it was blowing from the northwest--toward Indian Lake.




Map by International Mapping


F-16 Pilot
CLAIM:In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93. "I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes--it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPORTING: Benjamin Chertoff, Davin Coburn, Michael Connery, David Enders, Kevin Haynes, Kristin Roth, Tracy Saelinger, Erik Sofge and the editors of POPULAR MECHANICS.
PHOTOGRAPHY RESEARCH: Sarah Shatz.
SOURCES: For a list of experts consulted during the preparation of this article, click here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






PM consulted more than 300 experts and organizations in its investigation into 9/11 conspiracy theories. The following were particularly helpful.

Air Crash Analysis
Cleveland Center regional air traffic control

Bill Crowley special agent, FBI

Ron Dokell president, Demolition Consultants

Richard Gazarik staff writer, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.

Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D.,
ATP, CFI, A&P/IA president, Hynes Aviation Services; expert, aviation crashes

Ed Jacoby Jr. director,
New York State Emergency Management Office (Ret.); chairman, New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (Ret.)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority

Cindi Lash staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Matthew McCormick manager, survival factors division, National Transportation Safety Board (Ret.)

Wallace Miller coroner, Somerset County, PA

Robert Nagan meteorological technician, Climate Services Branch, National Climatic Data Center

Dave Newell director, aviation and travel, VF Corp.

James O’Toole politics editor, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pennsylvania State Police Public Information Office

Jeff Pillets senior writer,
The Record, Hackensack, NJ

Jeff Rienbold director, Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service

Dennis Roddy staff writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Master Sgt. David Somdahl public affairs officer,
119th Wing, North Dakota
Air National Guard

Mark Stahl photographer; eyewitness, United Airlines Flight 93 crash scene

Air Defense
Lt. Col. Skip Aldous (Ret.) squadron commander,
U.S. Air Force

Tech. Sgt. Laura Bosco public affairs officer,
Tyndall Air Force Base

Boston Center regional air traffic control

Laura Brown spokeswoman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Todd Curtis, Ph.D. founder, Airsafe.com; president, Airsafe.com Foundation

Keith Halloway public affairs officer, National Transportation Safety Board

Ted Lopatkiewicz director, public affairs, National Transportation Safety Board

Maj. Douglas Martin public affairs officer,
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Lt. Herbert McConnell public affairs officer,
Andrews AFB

Michael Perini public affairs officer, North American Aerospace Defense Command

John Pike director, GlobalSecurity.org

Hank Price spokesman, Federal
Aviation Administration

Warren Robak RAND Corp.

Bill Shumann spokesman,
Federal Aviation Administration

Louis Walsh public affairs officer, Eglin AFB

Chris Yates aviation security editor, analyst, Jane’s Transport

Aviation
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B., S.M. professor of aeronautics, California Institute of Technology

Robert Everdeen public affairs, Northrop Grumman

Clint Oster professor of public and environmental affairs, Indiana University; aviation safety expert

Capt. Bill Scott (Ret. USAF) Rocky Mountain bureau chief, Aviation Week
Bill Uher News Media Office, NASA Langley Research Center

Col. Ed Walby (Ret. USAF)
director, business development, HALE Systems Enterprise, Unmanned Systems, Northrop Grumman

Image Analysis
William F. Baker member, FEMA Probe Team; partner, Skidmore, Owings, Merrill

W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E. senior vice president, CTL Group; director,
FEMA Probe Team

Bill Daly senior vice president, Control Risks Group

Steve Douglass image analysis consultant, Aviation Week

Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D. founder, TREC; video forensics expert.

Ronald Greeley, Ph.D. professor of geology, Arizona State University

Rob Howard freelance photographer; WTC eyewitness

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D. professor of geophysics,
University of California, San Diego

Structural Engineering / Building Collapse
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D. senior engineer, American Institute of Steel Construction

David Biggs, P.E. structural engineer, Ryan-Biggs Associates; member, ASCE team for FEMA report

Robert Clarke structural engineer, Controlled Demolitions Group Ltd.

Glenn Corbett technical editor, Fire Engineering; member, NIST advisory committee

Vincent Dunn deputy fire chief (Ret.), FDNY; author, The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety

John Fisher, Ph.D. professor of civil engineering, Lehigh University; professor emeritus, Center for Advanced Technology; member, FEMA Probe Team

Ken Hays executive vice president, Masonry Arts

Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D. professor of computer science, Purdue University; project director, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Allyn E. Kilsheimer, P.E.
CEO, KCE Structural Engineers PC; chief structural engineer, Phoenix project; expert in blast recovery, concrete structures, emergency response

Won-Young Kim, Ph.D. seismologist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University

William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA

John Labriola freelance photographer, WTC survivor

Arthur Lerner-Lam, Ph.D. seismologist; director,
Earth Institute, Center for Hazards and Risk Research, Columbia University

James Quintiere, Ph.D. professor of engineering, University of Maryland member, NIST advisory committee

Steve Riskus freelance photographer; eyewitness, Pentagon crash

Van Romero, Ph.D. vice president, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology

Christine Shaffer spokesperson, Viracon

Mete Sozen, Ph.D., S.E. Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University; member, Pentagon Building Performance Report; project conception, September 11 Pentagon Attack Simulations Using LS-Dyna, Purdue University

Shyam Sunder, Sc.D.
acting deputy director, lead investigator, Building and Fire Research Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Mary Tobin science writer, media relations, Earth Institute, Columbia University

Forman Williams, Ph.D. professor of engineering, physics, combustion, University of California,
San Diego; member, advisory committee, National Institute of Standards and Technology







Links referenced within this article

here
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1230517.html
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/lcsn
click here
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y




Find this article at:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Misinformation > Identifying Misinformation archive


September 11 Conspiracy Theories
Confused stories continue


World Trade Center struck by plane on September 11, 2001. (© AP/WWP)





Conspiracy theories about the September 11 attacks continue to circulate, especially on the Internet. Many of the most popular myths are addressed on this Web site, in a March 2005 article “9/11: Debunking the Myths” in Popular Mechanics magazine, and in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Some of the most prevalent myths are:

American Airlines flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?” and Popular Mechanics, part 6)
The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled (see “Did a Plane Hit the Pentagon?”)
World Trade Center towers 1 and 2 were destroyed by controlled demolitions (see “9/11 Revealed?” and Popular Mechanics, parts 4 and 5)
A missile was fired from a pod underneath the aircraft that struck the south World Trade Center tower (see Popular Mechanics, part 2)
The plane that struck the south World Trade Center tower was a cargo plane or fuel tanker (see Popular Mechanics, part 3)
World Trade Center building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition (see “9/11 Revealed?” and Popular Mechanics, part 5)
The U.S. Air Force had more than enough time to intercept the hijacked planes (see The 9/11 Commission Report, section 1.2, “Improvising a Homeland Defense” and Popular Mechanics, part 3)
United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was shot down by a missile (see Popular Mechanics, parts 7 and 8)
Insider trading in the stocks of United Airlines and American Airlines just before September 11 is evidence of advance knowledge of the plot (see “9/11 Revealed?”)
Four thousand Jews failed to show up for work at the World Trade Center on September 11 (see “The 4,000 Jews Rumor”)
Al Qaeda is not responsible for the September 11 attacks (see “Al Qaeda and September 11th”).






Created: 20 Jan 2006 Updated: 20 Jan 2006

Page Tools:
by David Schwartz
Tuesday Mar 21st, 2006 1:45 AM
One other thing I noticed about Loose Change. I'm a pilot and listened fairly carefully to the comments about piloting skills. Flying a Cessna 172 is about as different from flying a 757 as driving a formula one race car is different from parallel parking an SUV. He is described as having trouble landing the 172 -- that's a totally different skill from anything he did in a 757.

The 172 is extremely light and needs to be brought in low and slow in order to get it to settle on the ground. This is a very different skill set from high-speed maneuvering.

If you don't know what a pilot is intending to do, very bad piloting can look a lot like very good piloting. For example, we see one quote that he could not have flown at the speeds he did without going into a high speed stall. Logically, that means he must have gone into a high speed stall. That sounds like a below-average pilot to me.
by moon
Tuesday Mar 21st, 2006 8:13 AM
this is just a quick response to Tom Murphy Mar 11. 2006

There is an abundance of dubious claims involving conspiracy theories aboutn 9/11 but I believe the evidence of a demolition holds up much better than most.

I am sure you have conducted a good deal more research than myself, but from the interviews and tv footage shown in the 'conspiracy' film Loose Change and elsewhere, there is substantial evidence that a good number of small explosions occured in various parts of the buildings between the initial impact of the planes and the final collapse. I am no expert, but I would imagine that these would substantially weaken the structure (potentially causing bowing), especially if they were part of any intention to demolish the building.

You say that 'obviously, the way an actual controlled explosion happens is the explosives all go off in a matter of seconds'. I agree with you that prior to the actual collapse many explosions would go off at the same time, or in a matter of seconds, but I dont see why ALL the explosions involved in the demolition must necessarily occur simultaneously.

The interviews and footage show allege significant explosions from the generator rooms 7 floors below ground, the lobby, the bottoms of some of the elevator shafts, and on various floors up to the impact areas. The video evidence in Loose Change of puffs of debris exiting the building at various points far distant from the impact areas is used by Avery as visual evidence of separate explosions. The footage is fairly poor and I am sure there are many scholars who can put forward alternative theories to explain this. I dont think the footage, by itself, it is very good evidence, but the extensive reports from firefighters, WTC employees and tv reports certainly add substantial weight to the theory.

The 'explosions' have been explained by some as simply effects of a fire of the magnitude that it was. Im sure experienced fire-fighters could help in validating these theories but on the face of it, and disregarding all the surrounding events, multiple fireballs is surely a more radical theory than multiple isolated explosions.

With regard to your article, I think focussing on the fact that 'the structures of the buildings were clearly failing and the exterior steel columns could be seen buckling' is a poor angle from which to 'debunk' the demolition theory. In light of the reasonable evidence of multiple explosions prior to collapse, the failing structure could well lend weight to the demolition theory, and certainly not invalidate it.

At the end of the day whether explosions occured or not comes down to who you believe, are the various firefighters, tv reports and the WTC janitor simply making it up? Somebody has to be wrong...

I cant remember any reports of people denying the prior explosions, but im sure there probably are accounts. If you can point me in the direction of any 'anti-explosion' evidence I would certainly be very interested. Im sure the initial response to this will be 'why should anyone report not hearing an explosion?', a valid point - lack of evidence could well be evidence in itself. Regardless, if you do know of any proof that explosions did not occur it would be interesting to see.
by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Tuesday Mar 21st, 2006 11:37 AM
All this talk about how great he is? You all have been suckered by someone with a shady past.


Heres the proof.

Thankgiving LGF Style

Shiplord Kirel 11/27/2003 01:02PM PST

Our old friend, the banned moonbat "Dylan Avery" is back on NAZIMEDIA to denounce this very string:


"Charles Johnson just thought he would get in the spirit of thanksgiving by giving thanks to the GENOCIDAL AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ, way to be in the spirit Charles.

Quite disgusting really but still, that is the TRUE spirit of Thankgiving........

Centuries ago the natives are exterminated almost completely, i'm sure charle's ancestors had a hand in this.

And today EVIL-DOERS across America give thanks to a NEW BREED OF GENOCIDE IRAQI OCCUPATION"

End Quote


Heres another one of those funny things.


LGF Red and Green Anti-Semitism

Zulubaby 12/16/2003

Max L (#12)


I just realized something! that E-mail address, kidsjistainright [at] yahoo.ca is "DYLAN AVERY" aka abe smoling aka shlomo kats and a multitude of other jewish sounding names. HE IS A RABID JEW HATER and has posted tons of vicious slander about charles on NAZIMEDIA. He even posted something about reporting me and charles and deathberg to the hate crimes branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Aside to DYLAN AVERY, If you're reading this, it doesn't say zulubaby on my passport, ya freak")

End Quote


Hmmm interesting to say the least.

1st Nazi Antisemite
2nd Snitch
3rd Stupid


Jason Bermas stated to me over an E-mail yesterday that he is 1 quarter German Jew on his fathers side.

1st a Nazi and Jew Collaboration and an anit US government project
or
2nd A Jew and Nazi Collaboration to create disinfo project to stir american emotional reaction and profit.


Remember the E-mail address above?

jasonisntvoid [at] Yahoo.com - 2006
kidsjistainright [at] yahoo.ca -2003

Does there seem to be a pattern in simulaty regarding the E-mail



Go to make you wonder how many people were tricked by these people.


Dylan is a thief, there part in the 2nd edition where he brings up the maspeth tanks demolition of July 15 2001 is my research that he stole from me. Then he covered up for wingtv by only showing me arguing with jason bermas to make it look like they were victims instead of the perps disrespecting a memorial with there garbage.

Jason Bermas the oldest of the group at 27 doesn't seem to be mature enough to understand what respecting the families at the memorial means. This tells me that they are fronting for someone or something else.

Because people who say and do stupid shit like dylan has done can't really be the handlers of the project.



Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com



by repost
Wednesday Mar 22nd, 2006 12:35 PM
Information to make a flyer to sift out the real stuff from the nonsense in Loose Change is now posted here:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/materials/supplements/loosechange.html
by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
(Rsqsrvs [at] yahoo.com) Thursday Mar 23rd, 2006 11:52 AM
Funny how many people are dupped by this guy. He doesn't researcvh it, he steals it:


Heres the proof from the phony's own mouth:

LISA GULIANI CALLS FBI ON REVERE RADIO NETWORK PORTLANDINDYMEDIACENTER.

FEB 14 2006

Ahem...


DYLAN AVERY


Paul,

Phoenix Arizona? I've never been to Arizon.
10/10firestation? I met you on a street corner in Brooklyn and you jumped into the back bay of Korey's truck and laid down like a lunatic, (The mother fucker got scared as I got into the bay and stepped on the gas) dresed in all black.
They were also at the memorial spouting " I can make up a hundred more lines (jason bermas) without any regard for the memorial"

MR. ISAAC I respected you. (how does a nazi respect the people he steals from?) At one point I wanted to help you. When you turned out to be a total lunatic, I cut all ties with (spoken like a true spook) you.

Stand up,leave the library, go outside, and take a long,deep breath. YOU'RE EITHER A GOVERNMENT AGENT,OR A TOTAL IDIOT, AND EITHER WAY, YOU NEED TO REALIZE THAT YOU'RE FINISHED. (I DON'T THINK SO, STUPID)

AND YES I USED (STOLE UNDER FALSE PRETENCES) YOUR KEYSPAN MASPETH EVIDENCE. I ALSO HAD A SECTION AFTER THAT, STATING WHO THE INFORMATION CAME FROM,YOU, AND GOING INTO THE GAG ORDER THAT WAS ALLEDGEDLY PLACED ON THE FDNY (MIND YOU THE E-MAIL COPY THAT I WILL PRESENT SHOWS THE ORDER ACCORDING TO ME PAUL ISAAC IS FALSE BUT HE'LL KEEP TOUTING THE BULLSHIT ANYWAY TO SAVE FACE)

After meeting and speaking with a REAL firefighter and blowing him well like a good spook needing a "Daddy to love" (Not an Auxiliary who was fired for conduct unbecoming of a police officer decades ago) (really? well, I'm 37 Years old so when exactly was I inserved, Stupid?) (NOTE: Dismissed for rushing a bomb threat in midtown manhattan, just for the record, but coming from someone who hasn't done a minute of CommService, it should be no surprise he would say stupid shit cause hes' only looking for real heros to blow.) I realized there is no gag order (only gaging is the C*ck in your throte spookie) We met him at the screening at st.marks church on Dec 11,2005... I you had showed up, maybe you could have met him, seen what a real hero looks like.

I'm 100 percent honest about who I am (A true anti-semite nazi) and where I come from. People know what I've been doing since 2002.

You, however Mr Issac, came out of nowhere and demanded pepl,e listen to you. All we about you is that you were terminated from the force. (Spoken again like a narcisistik pig about to be exposed)

BTW we weren't selling dvd at the memorial we were giving them away.

We'll be seeing you at the next 911 WTC anniversary on 9-11-06, if your handlers allow it.

Dylan Avery (The clown)
Loose and Strange as hell

End quote

Also his pet thomas holbrook is another spook who keeps posting for Wingtv even though he is aware of the past as government narcs.

REPosted by Paul Isaac JR (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com
by Paul Isaac Jr
(Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com) Thursday Mar 23rd, 2006 12:39 PM
The nice letter from Dylan Avery that lead to the bait and switch ops.


Paul.

Me: I'm sorry brother, I'm a little inept when it comes to writing w/comps. Please forgive me


Dylan: No need to apologize

Me: I just want for you to call me landline so we can get it in order in advance of the interview, ok?

Dylan: Not a problem. I'll be calling you later tonight.

Me: I don't want there to be any misunderstandings, I want into(sic) all documents for justice but some work is st(sic) in the drawing board and is incomplete. This all under the war on terror. My war is to discredit the BS and cut strait to the truth and maybe some justice and prosecution for my brothers lost on 911. Also want to clear up the BS w/wingtv. I hope this is on the agenda?

Dylan: Absolutely, I figured no better way for you to set the record straight than on this DVD. Wingtv, the James Woolsey RUMOR, The Keyspan Tanks, whatever is on your mind.

End Quote

I hope this repost shows how these people take people for granted, because they are con-artist.


Heres something eles I hope people will see about wingtv and the proof they are shills.


Lisa Guliani <wingedpiper [at] yahoo.com> wrote:

"Isaac will be on Rense tonight. he says hes' going 5to trash my ass or something like that. the guy is lying. He told me he's been question by the NYPD and thers an inquirey going on about the article we ran on him. He says I am going to be called "shortly". I said I welcome an inquirey because then I can tell them how he has tried to intimidate me into retracking a truthfull article, I said . I told him I hope they call tomorrow....:-)

Lisa


----Tim White <Phantom469366 [at] Yahoo.com>wrote

Lisa,


I have friends in New York City who know lots of FDNY and NYPD personel and I will put the word out to them-clay and shawn pickering-both are very close with Ted Gunderson,col Donn de Grand Pre and Cathie Bell-she is on eof the founders(Nico Haupt the other) of the 911 movement in NYC-that is really fucked now and this Isaac puke is obviously just one of the perps. Clay used to play profootball so maybe a "visit" to Paul Isaac Jr might be in order if he insist on threatening you like he now.

Tim.



Reposted by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com
by Paul Isaac Jr
(Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com) Thursday Mar 23rd, 2006 1:40 PM
LOOSECHANGE BLOG
ON THE ROAD AGAIN
FRI OCT 21 2005


Ok, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag.
I'm leaving for NYC in a couple of hours to interview none other than Paul Isaac Jr. He wants to clear the air about a couple of things, on the records and give us somethings off the record.
But I;d like to speak for him ahead of tome and say that this article right here?
Yeah, total Bullshit. "I know 911 was an inside job, the police know 911,and the firemen know it too." He never said anything of the sort. I've got 3 diferent videos of paul and lisda having it out and nothing even close to that is ever said. Somebodys stretching the truth here and its not paul. Couple that with the complete lack of compliance on the part of Chris petherick of AFP who refuses pauls request to remove wingtv article from website,and every other website on the internet who touts that aricticle as gospel and well you could say pauls a lttile upset. Ricghtfully so, I just wanted to vent a little because wingtv hasn't been on the movement goodside and this incident further throw their character into question.


Reposted by Paul Isaac Jr
by Paul Isaac Jr
(Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com) Friday Mar 24th, 2006 12:10 PM
Another fact of proof about how the guy is full of sh*t

He was supposed to send me the video copies of both the Memorial event and the interview conducted at my home. Something else is the fact he had four days to get the item of the memorial tape in order, but also fail to comply with the verbal agreement. Nor did he send the release for me to sing before ilegally put my image on the video he was selling for $19.95.

This was in reference to my thanking him for his original statement on his blog regarding what had actually occured at the memorial. Then things go down hill from there because ENIGS RENIGS.


Paul,


Anytime brother. I'm copying the footage for you tonight, it'll be in the mail for you tomorrow. Bout to hit the road again this weekend, (NOTE: hetstaed that he was going to a bachelor party in jersey but needed directions to pennsylvania, guess who lives in PA?) Go to indiana for some pyrotechnics, to tenn to pick up korey's shit, then up to PA for the wedding. Its gonna be nuts, the whole time I have to finnish up the second edition for Loosechange.

Who says kids don't know how to have fun?

Peace

-Dylan


End Quote


Note: he made the interview for TVnewslies the next day but didn't send out the mail. No problem I know how busy he is, he has to get ready for all the movement hes gonna do. I understood.


It was his shitty additude he took five days later when I had to incure long distance charges to find out what happened to the mail. I even had some else call him from San Fran to comfirm he was going to send it out because this was the plan to take out wingtv false article with video form the memorial. He said he was tooooo busy to take the call cause he was at wendy's with his friend gooofing off and felt his bullshiting at wendys was more important than keeping an agreement.

Watch this;


Loosechange Blog
FRI OCT 21 6:45pm

Ok, I'm going to let the cat out of the bag.
I'm leaving for NYC in a couple of hours to interview none other than Paul Isaac Jr. He wants to clear the air about a couple of thing on the record and give us some things off the record.

EDIT: This is obviously no longer relevant. Any respect I had for Paul Isaac was obliterated when he refused to accept a simple request to let me eat a meal in peace.

End Quote


Reposted by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com
by Paul Isaac Jr
(Rsqsrvs [at] yahoo.com) Monday Mar 27th, 2006 12:09 PM
I think they're spooks, anyone looking for background on Dylan needs to google Dylan Avery zulubay LGF and see how he operates.

or Google: Dylan Avery "RabidJewHater"


Pretty funny stuff from 2003


Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)

by repost
Monday Mar 27th, 2006 1:15 PM
Flyer to accompany Loose Change is here:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/materials/supplements/loosechange.html
by Mistwraith
(mistwraith [at] verizon.net) Tuesday Mar 28th, 2006 5:04 PM
A very smart man, one infinitely smarter then you or I once said something to the effect of:

"It's never the smoking gun, or one thing that proves or disproves a "conspiracy" but a culmination of all the facts drawn together."

Now in your defense of "Loose Change is incorrect" theory.. it very well may be that you lack the mental capacity to do this. However, I won't guess on the matter and will simply urge you to stop letting corporate media lie to you and go read.

Independents ftw!

The government has had a huge roll in this. Think past your bleeding hearts and apply some common sense, Bush 2nd largest oil owner in Texas...stocks anyone? Lets get ourselves in a War, where we will be required to stay in for a very long time, the higher the gas prices, the higher my stocks go! 9/11 was a psychological attack on America, by the Government..it was a ploy to rob us of our common sense and think irrationally. What did we do? Give Bush extreme powers to do what he wants in Iraq, thanks to congress on this as well. Don't like it? Start a revolution. I'm waiting for the rest of America. I'm tired of middle aged hippies and college students, writing poety, making myspace's and singing songs, grab a gun and FOLLOW ME.

Mistwraith~
by Mistwraith
(mistwraith [at] verizon.net) Tuesday Mar 28th, 2006 5:08 PM
You are all very wrong, government can clone voices, make people dissappear. You think they can't higher some bums to come out in defense of themselves, this is all expected!! Supporters don't buy into this bull shit I could make a Avery letter in 5 mins, making him look like he's an evangelist.

Mist~
by flyer
Wednesday Mar 29th, 2006 10:58 AM
siftingforgoldloosechange.pdf_600_.jpg

Download PDF
(77.8kb)
Flyer to accompany Loose Change is here:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/materials/supplements/loosechange.html
by Sentinel
(Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com) Wednesday Mar 29th, 2006 12:47 PM
Its funny to me to see how many people are so easily duped.

Loosechange doesn't have to do an inkling of research, just rehash other people research and sell it like it was theirs. Is there anymore suspicious act then to piggy back off other people research to look like you're a part of the movement?


If you google" Dylan Avery Rbid Jew Hater" you'll see an inconsistancy about this guy then you'll wonder who really wrote the narative behind fools gold.


You better wake up to whos trying to influence you.


I posted this before and it seems people are stuck on fucking stupid to now see it for themselves. If they steal other peoples research then try and tell you to have a revolution it a cointel project.

Tell me, how does someone go AWOL from the army then go to work on an anti government operation in the same year when other AWOL personel go to jail for five years?

Better yet how does someone with a past in anti-semetic behavior who also is reported to be a snitch become famous for posting other peoples research.

You don't have to believe me. Go to the LGF archives or just google dylan avery LGF Zulubabe and see for yourself with your own eyes.

Its a cointel job and you've been suckered by it.


Have a nice day

Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com
by Mistwraith
Thursday Mar 30th, 2006 12:35 AM
Doesn't take a genius to higher a few guys to create some fake sites. You can find a picture of somone anywhere, and you can use that picture and make up things. Its the truth, whether its HIS work or not, the facts still remain, too many questions, too many doubts, not being addressed by Government. Simple as that. I think you will find that EVERYTHING, every movie, every game, every song was inspired or themed off of something else. Hence making the gentleman's post above me, null and void. I demand answers.
by Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
(Rsqsrvs [at] yahoo.com) Thursday Mar 30th, 2006 1:43 PM
If your church priest were molesting your child would you still take his view on GOD?

He wants answers, ok.
Well, Heres a blast from the past.


lgf: Red and Green Anti-Semetism

Max L 12/15/2003 11:22PM

"Another wonderful eye-opener Charles. Check out this hate filled post I got on my site, I will edit out the foul words".


"Judebtot- you are a very sick person.erhaps someday YOU will be raped to death in prison like your terroris hero Irv Rubin. That would be nice. F#$% you you evil kike. You are a pestilence on the world. Go Die." {2003-12-1600:1736} kidsjistainright [at] Yahoo.ca


Oh, heres another one for the man who wants answers.


#21 zulubaby 12-16-2003 12:29AM PST

Max L (#12)

"I just realized something! That E-mail address, kidsjistainright [at] yahoo.ca is DYLAN AVERY aka abe smoling aka shlom katz and a multitude of other jewish sounding names. HE IS A RABID JEW HATER and has posted tons of vicious slander about Charles on NAZIMEDIA. He even posted something about reporting (SNITCHING) me and Charles and deathberg to the Hate Crimes Branch of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. (Aside to Dylan Avery, if you're reading this, it doesn't say zulubaby on my passport, ya freak)"

"Check this link. Scroll down and look at the E-mail address. Look at this post too"



All this while he claims to working on the first edition of loosechange?
pretty strange to me. The outfit is a fraud. If there are nazis in the WH and there are nazis claiming truth then plus equals.....


You can find all this googling for yourself. And after you've done the search, If your still having problems with it then its your head thats void.


Paul Isaac Jr (Sentinel)
Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com
by Sentinel
Thursday Mar 30th, 2006 1:51 PM
It was supposed to read as "Judentot"




HAVE A NICE DAY


SENTINEL
by Hazard
Friday Mar 31st, 2006 12:51 PM
If John F. Kennedy was our President, I would be inclined to ignore any conspiracy theories about 9/11...but the man in charge of this country, along with his entire administration (ever notice how many people he has replaced in positions of power since he's been Pres?) is a greedy, patronizing, semi-retarded, rich frat boy from Texas, and he has brazenly illustrated during every hour of his Presidency his willingness to deceive the American people, and that his only interests lie in bettering the lots of his family, friends, and business associates (including the oil barons of the Middle East).

America has been bamboozled by the Bush patriarchy for well over a decade, and I am ashamed of my country for allowing such a conniving, idiotic, ill-intentioned good ol' boy into a position of power as dangerous as the President of the United States. We have put an aggressive 3 year-old in the driver's seat of the entire human race, and he may run us into the ground before enough people yank their heads from the mini-dramas of their own lives and realize what he's doing.
by Gc
(instantphotoco [at] aol.com) Friday Mar 31st, 2006 3:49 PM
Hazard, you are 100% correct! Well written!
by Sentinel
(Rsqsrvs [at] Yahoo.com) Monday Apr 3rd, 2006 11:56 AM
Bravo Hazzard !!!

Rememeber that he is only a figure head and a sock puppet. The money controls everything.

MAGOG(Daddy Bush) Skull and Bones was at the W/H on 911.


Magog: The Santanic Posers that will do battle against The Lord almighty at the end of the world.



Sentinel
by repost
Monday Apr 3rd, 2006 4:20 PM
Flyer to accompany Loose Change is here:

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/materials/supplements/loosechange.html
by swordsman
Thursday Apr 6th, 2006 2:13 PM
Most people here are really really stupid Americans.

Get this in your head: the USA is not the only place in the world. The USA ist not speaking for the majority of the worlds population.

You are as stupid as Bush, that coward dog, who can only say U-S-A U-S-A and thinks the Muslim World is a third world country. You completely fail to see that the destruction of 9-11 has global implications. You think that it matters only in your puny little country. But it does not. It was seen all over the world. And muckily, most people who saw it understood what it meant: that the arrogance of the USA has finally got the lesson it deserved. That the USA cannot hide any longer behind its arrogant fantasy of being a superpower that can do whatever it pleases. Go to the bazaars of Riyadh, go to the mosques of Baghdad, go to the madrassas of Quetta or the streets of Jakarta, and ask the people there. They will tell you that those that believe that Bush is behind 9-11 are living in a fantasy world. Many will tell you that the young brave men, handpicked by OBL, achieved a great and heroic feat, and they will tell you that the time has arrived to bring down this evil empire of corruption and greed and inhuman deeds and lies, and that they will willingly die in the name of Allah (PBUH).

You have no idea what that means. You think you are superior, but you are mistaken. You shout: Power to the people, but you do not have the smallest idea what that means. I know, I have seen it with my own eyes, and I am very worried. Those that say: it must have been a Bush or "New World Order" or Zionist conspiracy are fooling themselves. What they are saying is this: Muslim man is a cave dweller. Muslim man is a sand nigger. Muslim man is a camel fucker. Muslim man is dumb and primitive subhuman and can NEVER bring down the WTC. This is racism. This is Yankee arrogance. The longer you believe such nonsense, the harder reality will hit you when it hits you, and sooner or later it will hit you. Your government, which many believe made a grand conspiracy that was 9-11 is not able to rebuild a city that was destroyed by a storm. Look at Kota Banda Aceh, the town that was wiped off the earth by the Tsunami. It is destroyed, but the people never had to suffer in such misery as the people in the Congress Center in New Orleans. This is where the true face of your country shows, where its arrogance shows: the only thing the USA has is a large military that cannot win a war against some Guerilla in Iraq, and a lot of money that cannot rebuild New Orleans. You are hollow and empty in spirit, and you are self-centered and egomanic. You think that 9-11 only matters in an American context, but it matters in a global context, and those that cry conspiracy are the real cave dwellers. You are so ignorant of human life, you cry and shout about not even 3000 people who died on 9-11 and say, this is an atrocious conspiracy. Where is the outrage about the two million Iraqis, the 500000 Iraqi children that your country has killed? Is it because the lifes of 700 Iraqis are worth as much as the lifes of one American to you? Because that is what you say with what you say, to those that do not share your self-centered all-american perspective.

You have been attacked, Mr Bush is for once right. But you have been attacked in retaliation for atrocities committed against innocents. You got what you deserved. Now you know the pain of a mother in Baghdad, or in Gaza. I hope it hurts you as much as I have seen you hurt them. And there is more to come. But this is not good; we must live together as Christians and Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddhists and Atheists. Most Muslims are willing to live in peace with their neighbors as it is the will of Allah (PBUH). And also are most Christians, and most Jews, and so on. We must unite in companionhood and benevolence and resist the urges to get involved into the war raging around us. We must build havens in the storm, and there is no greater way to praise God, whatever the name you call to Him, than by standing together and resist the evil forces of the militarist technocrats and the religious fundamentalists. But you must not be proud and haughty, and you must not believe that something like 9-11 must be an "inside job" only because the world is only the USA and everything that happens is only about the USA - and you may not say that last things, but when you say that 9-11 cannot have been anything else but an "inside job", you think of the rest of the world as not relevant.

Your government is greedy, and lying, and corrupt, and egoist, and unleashes brutal force and oppression on civilians in countries where it should not be. But that does not mean it would do 9-11, as long as there are enough people in the world who would do it in stead. And if you do not believe there are thousands and thousands such people, you are idiots. Yes there is something wrong with the official reports about 9-11. But what I have seen in the rest of the world, it seems to me that the best explanation is not that the government was behind all this, but that the government's own corruption and neglect and irresponsibility would be shown openly to everybody, and that everybody would know that the government is not in control and has not been for a long time, if the official reports were truthful. And this, no government can allow to happen. People would not take it seriously any more, and its authority would melt away like the snows melt on Nowros. The government always nbeeds to maintain the illusion that it is in control, that it is in command, that it is on top of the situation. So there might not be something as sinister as you say, but sinister it is nonetheless when you think about it: what is more evil, being attacked by evil men, or being misled into your doom by idiots under an illusion that "everything is under control"? An evil man you can recognize as such and then you will fight him. An idiot you do not take seriously, and as long as you think "evil men are in control", you do not think "is such an amount of control still possible, or are we misleading ourselfs"?


Someone asked way way above what movie one should watch about 9-11. If you have friends going to the Pakistan, or the Gulf States, or to Indonesia, ask them to bring the video of the "Assahab" Foundation with the title: "The Nineteen Martyrs". They have to make sure that it is the version with english subtitles by the producers themselves. These are also on video tape but you best get the cd-rom. You can get these from street vendors, but they might be reluctant to show it to Western people. You maybe have to ask for WTC video or Bin Ladin video. You watch this, and then you think about it, and then, you may still think it all was a conspiracy, but at least you know how the other side of the world feels about 9-11. It is one of these films that everyone talks about, but hardly anybody in your country has seen. But you have to see it; everyone in America should see it. You will understand better why they did this and how they did this. You should not like them for doing it just as nobody in Baghdad likes the USA for bombing Baghdad. But you need to know how these people think, and what drives them to do what they do, to be able to resist their bloody and misguided ways.
by David
Friday Apr 7th, 2006 5:36 PM
Go to the bazaars of Riyadh, go to the mosques of Baghdad.
I've been there...The people are dirty and they smell bad, the women are whores. So what...the World Trade Center was Knocked down...We'll build another...maybe in your country...where they buy and sell rocks for a living and are brainwashed to follow the leader like little rats who have no values and no value for life. We are FREE and you are DUMB. New York like every other city in the US is building, building, building. I can see right outside my window 40-50 very large buildings going up. We will be building in your country too and all over the world. You will become smaller and smaller and smaller. New Orleans HA! Who would want to rebuild that! It was a dump. We will also rebuild there too and it will be bigger and better. You are typically stupid and I mean that as a compliment.
by kader
Saturday Apr 8th, 2006 4:51 AM
if anyone wants to tell the truth, to discuss a blunder, he's accused of being antisemitic. I do believe that there's something wrong out there. Go to see a psychiatrist to give you a mental virginity certificate.For me the 9/11 is another Reichstag.
by just wondering
Saturday Apr 8th, 2006 8:35 AM
Why is this racist crap on Indymedia?
by Echelon
Saturday Apr 8th, 2006 4:36 PM
"New Orleans HA! Who would want to rebuild that! It was a dump. We will also rebuild there too and it will be bigger and better."

Your naivite speaks volumes. Katrina created 30.000+ internally displaced refugees in the USA. Most of them are still living as refugees, with families, in trailer parks or in condemned buildings in NOLA in unsanitary and unsafe conditions.

Think about that, 30.000 IDPs. This is not a thing that should exist if the US and the Bush clique are on top of the situation. Swordsman may well have a very valid point here.
by David Howard
(fiat [at] sofnet.com) Thursday Apr 13th, 2006 8:25 AM
Google Search: "Arrest Bush 41"
by repost
Saturday Apr 15th, 2006 6:06 PM
# Simon and Dylan Avery
http://iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Handlers.html

The French Connection does not discuss rumors, but in this case the rumors could be so significant that we could not resist mentioning that we heard a rumor that Dylan Avery -- the young man who created the video "Loose Change" -- was taken to lunch (or dinner.. we forget which) with Schwarz and Simon while they were all in Washington, DC.

There are also rumors that Dylan Avery, when he is not intoxicated on alcohol, is on some other drug, usually marijuana.

Karl Schwarz said on a 6 Feb 2006 interview on the RBN network that Simon and Avery are "good friends".

At the end of the second version of Loose Change, when they are getting special thanks to people, Deborah Simon is thanked for providing "the CBC footage and more". Did Simon merely provide some video footage? Or did she help influence the message of the video?

Furthermore, the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is part of the world-wide, controlled media. Did Simon merely provide a copy of CBC video that somebody recorded on the television? Or does she have connections to people within the CBC? If so, she could be a direct link to the Zionist Mafia that controls our media.

---------------------

So who is Deborah Simon?

It appears that Deborah Simon is what we call a handler. This is a person who takes advantage of emotionally disturbed, naive, and/or stupid people. A handler tries to manipulate the opinions of their "Useful Idiots". A handler may use persuasion, threats, money, or sexual services.
by sleepr1
Saturday Apr 22nd, 2006 2:11 PM
This Michael B. Green Guy is an idiot. He says that Dylan Avery makes false claims about the conspiracy on 9/11. But during his whole discussion he gives horrible answers on why Dylan Avery is wrong on his claims. My eight year old cousin could give better reasons then this ass. For all we know this guy is undercover and was put up here for the clear reason to diminish the great work that "Loose Change" has done. So please mr. Green keep your mouth shut until you can open your eyes to what is right in front of you.
by D. Anthony
Friday Apr 28th, 2006 12:03 PM
I just watched the Loose Change video off the internet. Just in the first viewing of it I found two glaring contradictions made by the omniscient voice over, and that was with just a casual viewing of it with interruptions by kids, wife, dog etc...

Imagine the inconsistencies to be found if I watched it again and gave it some real attention.

I guess my biggest problem with it is all the questions and very little answers. Are not "documentaries" suppose to "document" something? This film throws up ridiculous questions, tries to support them with illegible documents scrolling across the screen and unverifiable babble from the director/producer (an unbiased source, I'm sure!). Where are the experts? Show me the "scientific proof" that the voice claims so often but never provides... please. It is a compelling case for deception, but it just does not hold any credibility in the way it is presented. It makes for great drama, but lousy fact... and I really doubt the current administration is that smart and deceptive. Don't you think if they were willing to go to that extent, they would have been able to sneak at least one WMD into Baghdad?

This couldn't be this young man's "claim to 15-minutes of fame" could it? Maybe that is the motivation? Maybe all the DVDs he is selling has something to do with it? Maybe this young man is not as pure in his motivations as he would have us to believe. Where is the proof that this young man is the altruistic (and pompous) champion of truth that he presents himself to be in this movie. That is probably just as hard to document as the lies that he has laid out in this "documentary".
by prunella
Friday Apr 28th, 2006 8:43 PM
I don't know a lot about the conspiracies theories, but I remember a story about an f-16 returning to Langley AFB with it's missiles missing after flight 93 went down. Relating this to a Newsmax writer who had an online article on the conspiracy theories, he explained that the National Guard base was at Byrd airport in Richmond Virginia, not Langley in Hampton Virginia, so the f-16 shoot down of flight 93 had to be false. Yet the excerpt from Popular Mechanic's listed here mentions the f-16 as taking off from Langley field as refutation of other conspiracy theories. It may mean nothing, could just be slightly interesting trivia, but apparently the Air Force planes sent up to intercept the hijacked airliners vary depending on what conspiracy theory you're trying disprove.
by sleepr1
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 11:36 AM
What about the clear video evidence that is given from all of the top news channels. It is obvious there are explosions ten floors below when both towers started to collapse. Also why would we do something that stupid and use a WMD on Iraq? We want to use them for our own good. OIL!
by ?
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 12:29 PM
"What about the clear video evidence that is given from all of the top news channels. It is obvious there are explosions ten floors below when both towers started to collapse."

Considering how the buildings collapsed wouldnt you expect an explosion at the pont where the falling floors hit the floors bellow with a force strong enough to cause instantaneous collapse of the floors bellow that? Actual explosions from bombs would have made almost no difference.

"Though terrorists triggered the collapse of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, much of the energy -- calculated by a physicist to have been at least 2 percent that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima -- was supplied by Nature's most ubiquitous force: gravity."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/wtc_science_010919.html

"The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below.""
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/


While its almost impossible to disprove someghing like this with absense of access to all the information most of the controlled demolition theories have major flaws. If the explosions were at the base of the buildings (as theorized on Rense) no effect was seen since by the time the top parts of the building hit the bottom parts since the energies were thousands of times stronger that what could have caused by such explosions. If the explosions were exactly where the planes hit then any explosion of reasonable size would have bene much more visible and if the pictures at the time of collapse show an explosion the timing would have been off since the pics show stuff being thrown sideways only at the point where the tower is already collapsing. One is left having to belieev in a conspiracy that there were explosions that added heat to fires that caused the collapse but then why not look for more likely reasons for the excess heat (materials in the building that would not have required a conspiracy). But was there a need for exess heat? The jet fuel and extended burn time seems sufficient.....

If you are going to believe in a conspiracy theory why not look in more likely places, like ignoring of evidence before the attacks and financial links between various shady figures and Bin Laden...
by sleepr1
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 12:45 PM
How did both towers fall in under 11 seconds??? This would mean that every 10 floors would have to "pancake" in under a second. It sounds to me that your idea of what happened that day is a conspiracy theory if 4 people with box cutters can hit about 75 % of there targets in a two hour span.
by ?
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 1:29 PM
"How did both towers fall in under 11 seconds???"

Don't know what to say except that an explosion wouldnt have effected how fast the building would have fallen aside from the first few seconds (after that point the resistance from the floors lower down would have had no effect on the fall rate either way). An explosion could have created some force increasing the downward speed of blown up pieces of the building but unless it had been a nuclear explosion (that would have vaporized the whole building) it wouldnt have had much of an impact on the total time of collapse after the top section of the building pancaked (the force the the building collapsing under gravity quickly created more energy that could have resulted from any small explosion).

"This would mean that every 10 floors would have to "pancake" in under a second."
The teop ten floors took minutes to fall they were burning and slowly collapsing for the entrie time between when the planes hit and the rest of the building collapsed.

"It sounds to me that your idea of what happened that day is a conspiracy theory if 4 people with box cutters can hit about 75 % of there targets in a two hour span."

I didnt say anything about people with box cutters or who was on the planes (even if I may agree with the "official" view) I was mainly trying to point out that talk of a need for an explosion makes no sense since the speed of collapse (aside from the top few floors) owuld have not been effected by explosions. Im not even saying there were no explosions (I dont have acess to any evidence so obviously I cant say), but I am saying they wouldnt have had speed up the collapse significantly.

One more little flaw in the explosion theories is the followingl. If esxplosiosn occured bellow ground that couldnt have effected the collapse near the top which lead to the collapse at teh bottom due to the force of gravity. But an explosion near the top would have been more visible if it were large. You can control the direction that forces are exerted in explosions but things bounce around and unless you think the explosion happened right when the building collapsed there was no visible sign of anything large. And from most of the videos assuming an explosion at the time of collapse would have been too late for an explosion to have caused the collapse.
The problem with the explosion conspiracy theory isnt just that its a conspiracy theory but it doesnt make logical sense and even ignoring the physical evidence would have required the planes to have hit exactly the correct part of the buildings and the explosives at those exact points to have been uneffected by the crash until a few minutes later....
by sleepr1
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 1:47 PM
exactly what I thought no response.
by ?
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 1:55 PM
Not sure what you want as a response. An explosion leading to a collapse couldnt effect the rate of collapse (once things started to fall) when the overwhelming force that effected the rate of collapse was gravity. I guess there could have been a conspiracy by those governing the laws of the universe to increase gravity right before the buildings fell? I think its more likely that the buildings fell at 9.8ms^2 and you are just calculating from the videos incorrectly. But maybe Im wrong and there was a conspiracy and God changed the force of gravity to 12ms^2 as part of his secret pact with Bush (they do seem to talk a lot).
by sleepr1
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 2:19 PM
You are not understanding my point of the explosions. It doesnt matter if it was 9 seconds or 90 seconds there is no way the building should flal that fast unless there is nothing stopping its freefall. If there was a "Pancaking" theory then there is something stopping its freefall and that would be every single floor. All I was trying to say is that if the top of the building falls with nothing under it then its rate of speed towards the ground is far greater then an object that has something obsturcting its fallk every fifteen feet.
by there essentially was nothing
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 5:31 PM
Take hundreds of thousands tons of debree and let it fall for for even a second and the energy is so amazingly large the resistance from the lower floors wouldnt have slowed it down one bit.

Im not exactly sure what you propose as the alternative... Are you poposing that the bottom part of the building was destroyed so the top part could fall faster? The outside of the buidling was clearly there when it fell and any bomb that could have taken out the interior all the way down would have been visible.

Arguing that a bomb wouldnt have had much of an effect isnt quite the same thing as arguing that there wasnt a conspiracy to bomb the building. In fact on February 26, 1993 the WTC buildings were bombed in an effort to make it fall. A 1300 lb bomb was used and it had little effect on the overall buildings (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_bombing ).

Perhaps if the bomb had gone off higher up and/or fires had not been put out one of the buildings would have fallen.
In the case of 9/11,the fact that fires did actually start when jets hit the WTC towers (something that there is both eyewitness testimony about and I dont think you woudl deny?), the fact that the jets did contain jet fuel (you wouldnt deny that would you?), the reports from those in the building who escaped as to the force when the jets hit and the time it took for the fires to cause the structural collpase seem pretty convincing. I mean "The north tower, 1 WTC, was struck at 8:46:26 am and collapsed at 10:28:31 am, standing for 102 minutes and 5 seconds after impact. The south tower, 2 WTC, was struck at 9:02:54 am and collapsed 56 minutes and 10 seconds later, at 9:59:04 am."
In any case here is a reasonable description of what happened by civil engineers and I dont see much assumption of conspiracy in the anlysis since its based of an afterfact study of the buildings:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
by sleepr1
Saturday Apr 29th, 2006 6:23 PM
First the jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to even start to weaken the steel in the WTC. Also why is the owner of WTC quoted on PBS by saying they had lost so many lives on september 11 that they decided it would be better to "Pull it" (A term in demolition when you take two plugs and pull them apart to initiate the spark of the explosion). If there were no bombs on 911 how the hell did they decide to pull it. The owner who just bought WTC a few monthes prior to the attack and opened a huge insurance contract that specifically covered terrorist attacks. One more thing that I would like for you to explain to me is why there are nine hi-jackers that supposedly died on 911 are still alive today.
by Just a reader
Sunday Apr 30th, 2006 9:29 AM
Ummm - stating in a comment that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken steel doesn't repeal the laws of physics.

Jet fuel burns in the range of 800 - 1500 degree F.

Put a fire of 800 degrees F on a piece of steel for long enough and it WILL weaken the steel. (I'll give you a hint - go get a piece of bar stock and a standard propane torch from Lowe's and do the experiment yourself.) All you have to do is put the heat on it for about 10 - 15 minutes, and it's hot enough to bend if there's pressure on it.

Now - let's take a nice, thick steel I-beam that has 500 tons (more, really) of pressure on it from the load above, and dump JP4 on it. Anyone who's ever watched an open pan of gasoline burn knows that it will burn for quite a while, because it doesn't ALL atomize and flash up at once. You'll get a nice 'whoosh' from the vapor, but then everything burns for quite a while. So we've got about a 1200 degree fire from the jet fuel AND the other burnables. Steel I-beam gets hot - then it starts to sag just a bit - remember, it's still trying to hold up that 500 tons above it - then it deforms a bit - and then it gives way.

I've seen lots of fires in conventional structures (warehouses, factories, etc.) where steel I-beams have sagged or bent from the loads. So has anyone else who's been a fireman or volunteer fireman.
by TW
Sunday Apr 30th, 2006 8:10 PM
I've been a diehard 9-11 skeptic since the eleventh day of September, 2001. I'm not one to accept any idea without subjecting it to a thorough smell test, and the stink of the 9-11 attack hit me immediately. The stink of the controlled demolition bandwagon hit me right away, too, and I've been trying to warn people away from it for the past two years. I wish I had a dollar for every armchair "expert" out there who's read a handful of internet articles full of flimsy ASSUMPTIONS about structural behavior from THEOLOGISTS (aka PhD Lordy-Jesus bullshit spinners) and the like, and from this think they're authorities on structural engineering. If you're serious about examining 9-11 honestly, I can show you things that will make you question any pro-controlled-demolition convictions you might have. I don't even insist it's impossible for it to have happened that way -- I don't know. THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT. You don't really know either, you're just striking a pose. Sorry, but them's the facts. If you can't know for sure, then you're skating on thin ice by hanging it out there in front of the public and calling it "reality." This is a vulnerable strategy, a bad investment of energy, in short a BAD IDEA. For a position as wild as "9-11 was a US black op" to be taken seriously by people who actually have influence, it has to be a solid proposition. You don't have to offer proof, but you DEFINITELY can't be desperate to manufacture "proof." What's needed is a calm cogent completely verifiable argument that the official scenario is a stinky lie, none of this hysterical sensational National Enquirer-type conjecture. This sort of thing MUST be pitched in a restrained responsible way. I think there is far more than enough solid info out there to do that. Hell, one of the finest skeptics of all has already done most of the legwork ( http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project ), but you people keep blowing your feet off with these unproveable Roswell/Area 51 shriekings. Make no mistake: there are lots of people out there who WANT you to look like assholes, some of them posing as "skeptics" (e.g. the Webfairy), and they're LUVVIN IT that you're gobbling up controlled demolition this way, because out beyond the circle of people who are already convinced 9-11 was a false flag, most people get one whiff of this controlled demolition jive and just walk away snorting. Congrats, you've lost them forever, chalk up another one for the PR spooks. It's called a TROJAN HORSE. Whether or not that's how it actually happened is beside the point. Rhetorically it's just a dumb leading argument, that's all.

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html
by reader
Monday May 1st, 2006 5:20 PM
Disagree.

There are many reasons why 9/11 has not been exposed and they are the same reasons that nothing else has happened for the entire Bush Administration - fascist control of everything, media, congress, military, etc.. One could argue that the peace movement, the immigrants, victims of torture, etc. all need to just get with the mainstream media program so their troubles will be over - that's not the answer. If JFK advocates had never talked about the magic bullet, it wouldn't mean that the assassination would have then been exposed.

I'm a strong advocate of credibility, but not when evidence is overwhelming and scientific. There is no evidence that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon - all speculation. There is a great deal of evidence that the buildings were demolished - massive and redundant.

These are very different issues.
by repost
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 11:37 AM
Look how we've been recently smeared in the press because of Loose Change's no-plane-at-the-Pentagon position:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-04-27-conspiracies-sept-11_x.htm?POE=TECISVA
Taub is promoting one of the latest presentations of revisionist theories on the 2001 attacks by al-Qaeda terrorists, a film that says, among other things, that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile fired by the military as an excuse to go to war. . . .

"The only thing they (the filmmakers) seem to have gotten right about the Sept. 11 attacks is the date when they occurred," says Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of American Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon.

"They aren't truth-tellers looking to save the world," she says. "They're con artists hoping to sucker conspiracy-theory paranoids or anti-government malcontents into shelling out their hard-earned dollars."

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/04/cnn-covers-911-skeptics-and.html
CNN's The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer briefly covered 9/11 'conspiracy theory' websites this evening including references to Loose Change Second Edition . . . '..they want the government to release pentagon surveillance videos saying they think a cruise missile hit the pentagon instead of a plane'
by TW
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 6:39 PM
"[We] all need to just get with the mainstream media program so their troubles will be over - that's not the answer blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat blat."

That has NOTHING to do with what I said. Did you even look at this page?

http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

There's LOTS of other holes in the story that are much more solid and would be a better focus of time and energy. For example the six hijackers who are STILL ALIVE!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601550,00.html

I cannot believe how fucking idiot "skeptics" have dropped this ball. It's inexcusable.

Unlike any of you CD groupies, I've actually done structural engineering coursework. Every point you THINK "proves" the towers were blown up is puerile National Enquirer bullshit. Go 'head, throw me one. It would be great to get some structural engineers into the movement, but why would they waste their time arguing in circles with smarmy technical know-nothings? That's why all your "technical experts" are theologians, philosophers, loose cannon ex-cops, old hack MOLECULAR physicists, celebrity wannabes, PR moles, etc., etc. The most credible scientist ever to hit the 9-11 Truth scene is this guy

http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm
http://www.physics911.net/pearl.htm

He actually zeroes in on testable hypotheses and then TESTS them! Wow, what a freak! He's not touching your bullshit.

It's like the crap in Loose Cannon that refries the stanky bullshit about missiles into the Pentagon. Controlled demolition is EXACTLY the same type of conjecture. You people are starting out with a conclusion and then fitting "observations" to it. Of the myriad possibilities for alerting people to the fakery of the official account, this is the sort of thing you pick out? Can you not anticipate how the unconverted react to this stuff? Do you have not a particle of sense?

Also, your 'magic bullet' analogy is a really bad one. With that proclamation, the Warren Commission said something tantamount to "space aliens shot Kennedy," or "the WTC collapsed because of termites." The feds haven't shot themselves in the foot this time. YOU HAVE. All the video footage of the collapse is very consistent with their version.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

Please share with us a controlled demolition scenario that plausibly explains what is seen in this video
by jt
(kimaxboy [at] yahoo.com) Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 9:09 PM
Aren't any of you scientists? Or engineers? Don't you know that you can't PROVE an unseen mechanism, you can only DISPROVE it? You can spend the rest of all of your lives arguing about pancaking and missiles, and you'll get NOWHERE. The best you can do is agree that something DIDN'T happen, not that something DID.

You can't uncover a conspiracy by collecting video evidence or hearsay. You can't do battle over theories, expecting one to win out. That's like trying to prove the existence of aliens with a taperecorder.

We have to stop arguing like 18 year olds drinking schnapps and get the government to reopen the investigation of 911. A voting majority needs to join hands and demand the truth. Only hardcopy documents and personal testimonies and confessions will reveal the true facts.

Please stop arguing about middle-eastern people and Dylan Avery, it's making me nauseous.
by TW
Tuesday May 2nd, 2006 10:46 PM
"We have to ... get the government to reopen the investigation of 911"

You're fukkin kidding, right? To paraphrase yourself: "You can spend the rest of your life [begging this government to investigate 9-11 HONESTLY] and you'll get NOWHERE." They'll just keep doing what they did the first time, which is drown the whole thing under a supertanker-load of whitewash. Even the Watergate hearings didn't address the REAL questions. Then Nixon resigned and the panel said "oh, thank God! what a relief!" and hurled the whole thing away from them like it was a cobra with five heads. That fuck should have spent the rest of his days getting his asshole blown out in some lifer cell block. Even with Iran-Contra, only the expendables ended up behind bars. If what you're banking on were bankable, we would have been rid of the Bush Krime Klan back in '86!

If some poor dumbass can get executed for, say, killing a cop in self-defense, how is it that people charged with supreme responsibility to the Constitution can be traitors to that Constitution and then walk away into posh retirement? They should get thrown bodily into a tree shredder on national TV.

People need to realize just how monstrously unredeemably corrupt this goverment is and has been going back to when we first got fat and stupid and let it get that way, i.e. within four decades of Shay's Rebellion. There's only one way to reverse that. Jefferson had it exactly right.

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion... What country can preserve its liberties if rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? ... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."

Too bad Americans have degenerated into groveling gutless bullshit
So have I.
>>There's LOTS of other holes in the story that are much more solid and would be a better focus of time and energy. For example the six hijackers who are STILL ALIVE!!!

That's one of the weakest points of all the anomolies so it suggests to me that your goal is not to improve the situation, but simply to try to turn people away from demolition by offering anything else as 'more solid.' More like, idiotic.

Here, I'll show how easy it is to refute that claim. All it takes is a single news story, a single quote from a government and - swish! - your supposed strong claim is now zero:


Official: 15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
02/06/2002 - Updated 06:29 AM ET

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions. Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

Your story is all washed up.
by Elias Davidsson
(edavid [at] simnet.is) Saturday May 6th, 2006 6:19 AM
In the above discussion on the story of 9/11, I missed one crucial element. If no Muslims boarded the four aircraft which allegedly crashed on the known landmarks on 9/11, then the whole story must be reconsidered from scratch. Now, it is a proven fact that the US government did not produce a shred of hard evidence - which would be admissible as proof in a judicial setting - that any Al Qeda members boarded any of the aircraft numbered AA11, AA77, UA93 and UA175: No original flight manifests, no original passenger lists, no copies of boarding cards, no record of flight bookings, no payment trail, no witnesses having seen them board the aircraft and no human remains. So what is all the debate about, anyhow?
by TW
Saturday May 6th, 2006 3:25 PM
Please share with us a controlled demolition scenario that plausibly explains what is seen in this video:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

by reader
Monday May 8th, 2006 12:54 PM
It's all over the rest of the 9-11 research website. Look for yourself.
by Sentinel
(Rsqsrvs [at] yahoo.com) Tuesday May 9th, 2006 10:53 AM
OK,


Lets see what we got here.


1 Did the hijackers know how to decompress the plane? The plane did dive from 36.000FT.

2 If the plane Flight 11 took the hudson river path, Why did it pass a Nuclear Power Plant Indian Point to fly all the way down Manhattan to hit a trouble real estate bonndogle?

Sentinel
by zippo
Wednesday May 10th, 2006 7:35 AM
"Did the hijackers know how to decompress the plane? The plane did dive from 36.000FT."

No it didn't, if you mean F93. That one dived from 6000FT. It entered a descent after the transponder was turned off, and an even slower one afterwards.

"If the plane Flight 11 took the hudson river path, Why did it pass a Nuclear Power Plant Indian Point to fly all the way down Manhattan to hit a trouble real estate bonndogle?"

Is the Indian Point plant a symbol of US military and financial hegemony? If the purpose of the 9-11 operation would have been maximum casualties, the whole thing would have been pulled off 4 hours later. Indeed, one has to be thankful that 9-11 was not planned by the same people who planned the bombing of Baghdad.

Now,

- controlled demolition: the stuff coming out of the windows is no "proof", not even an unambiguous hint. Plaster and concrete being pulverized would create such an effect. Remember that seeing the outside of the building seemingly intact from a distance says nothing about what's happening inside, how far the collapse has progressed inside. Given the structure of the thing and that most larger parts that hit the ground were pieces of the exterior, it is rather likely than not that the inner parts of the building were a second or so ahead of the shell during the collapse.
Trying to calculate the collapse time the way it is done in these docus is ludicrous; the last third of the collapse time is just guesswork due to all the dust. But if you take footage of parts of the exterior that have been thrown free and can be assumed to drop at free-fall speed after the initial outward momentum is lost, you will see that the building itself collapses more slowly. If you take the collapse time of the visible lower part and assume that the speed remained the same for the obscured area, you'll arrive at a collapse time closer to 15 seconds than to 10.

Explosives near ground level, especially an amount sufficient to bring the building down, would likely create an outward force that would severely hamper a "pancake" collapse. This holds true for explosives in general.

The free-fall hypothesis is hard to reconcile with explosives higher up, as these would also create an upward force that would slow the collapse a bit. Not much, but noticeably. But nobody would approach a controlled demolition this way, as it is too likely that the plane would damage the explosives, wiring, tamping etc. Push the button, nothing goes off. The way the buildings collapsed is most consistent with them collapsing under their own weight.

- "Pull it" is no hard evidence. Assuming it were, does all this talk about "pulling" the troops from Iraq mean we're gonna blow them up?

- Jet fuel and boxcutters: persistent myths. The boxcutter story is little more than apocryphal, and there seem to have been fake bombs and real knives involved. Jet fuel: so the WTC was an empty shell; no furniture, no wallpaper, no electronics equipment, no human bodies, no plastic ceiling panels, no generator fuel present? Because that is what built such a nasty fire that created black smoke for a long time and sustained temperatures of 1300-1500°F.

"Swordsman" has a very valid point there: why are people howling about 9-11? There is boatloads of evidence about how the Bush administration wrecked Iraq, turned it into a hellhole with 35 known and possibly as many unknown murders each day, so many kidnappings that children don't go to school anymore, fuel shortages, water shortages, uncounted thousands of innocent people killed, Islamism rampant and Iran having its lackeys in every level of the government already. 9-11 is peanuts against the crime that is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom", and the evidence is clear. Getting rid of Saddam was a good thing - even most Iraqis will still agree on that, but that's the only point in which they'll agree with Bush -, but it was done exactly the way it should never have been done. The Bush administration is culpable of crimes more massive and more horrid than 9-11, and there is heaps and heaps of undeniable evidence about that. They deserve the gas chamber, not for 9-11, but for destroying Iraq, for wrecking its infrastructure, plundering its riches, creating misery on a scale that would make Saddam envious, torturing and raping innocents, and dumping uranium oxide and incendiaries on civilians.

The "9-11 Conspiracy" is the most perfect smokescreen - apart from the "Planned Attack on Iran" maybe - these fuckers could wish for: the unprovable obscuring the view on the long-proven larger crime.
by menshevik
Friday May 12th, 2006 10:42 AM
http://www.911getthefacts.blogspot.com/
Extensive.
Air Defense
Flights 11 and 77 Confused 125
Langley Fighters go wrong way 125
NORAD exercises on 9/11 15
NORAD Timeline of 9/11 Response 124
On Alert vs. Combat Ready 15
Pre-9/11 Procedure 124
Stand Down order? 15
Aircraft
767 Specs 64
Black boxes found at WTC? 93
Jet fuel effects when burning 31
NTSB denies black boxes found for 11 & 175 96
Speed at impact 25
What are they made of? 31
Appendix A – Internet Resources 122
Appendix B – Summary of Errors in ‘Loose Change’ 123
Appendix C – 9/11 Air Defense Response 124
Appendix D –PNAC 'Pearl Harbor' doc. Excerpts 127
Appendix E – Excerpts from 'Loose Change' 1st ed. 138

Burlingame, Charles, Pilot 11

Conspiracy Theorists
$1,000000 Challenge 116
American Free Press 33
Dewdney, Ken 102
Flocco, Tom Conspiracy author 35
Marrs, Jim 52
Men in Black mark WTC cubicle locations 38
'No-Planers' 116
Questions for 119
Rivera, Geraldo 116
Ryan, Kevin – Steel expert? 73
(ETC.)

by Menshevik
(michael.098762001 [at] gmail.com) Friday May 12th, 2006 10:47 AM
9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide
And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.911getthefacts.blogspot.com/
by Sentinel
(Rsqsrvs [at] yahoo.com) Saturday May 13th, 2006 11:09 AM
If anyone does a background check on CDI, they'll see that they were in NYC 2 month prior to 911 doing the Maspeth Holder tank demo.

The odd thing avbout it is the tanks measured 400ft. The south tower when it began 5the tilt was 400ft from floor 100 to 78 where it was struck. The north tower was hit higher to take into account the 350ft radio antenna. The next MER floor above the N/T hit was floor 105 where the antenna was anchored.

If Chief Orio D'palmer reach the impact floor and was able to give a " Size up" of the situation, how bad was the smoke condition that he was able to see numerous 10-41 C/1s and only needed two lines for to pockets of fire?

If the fire was burning for an hour and was pushing out the amount of smoke from the exterior, how was he able to see?

Was he standing up when he did the size up ior was he on his belly do to the supposed high heat need to generate the melting process? Wouldn't he have mention the heat?


Just a thought


Be safe



Sentinel
by Sentinel
(Rsqsrvs [at] yahoo.com) Tuesday May 16th, 2006 9:02 AM
Correction Numerous 10-45s


Sentinel
by Tommy Atkins
(tommy_atkins [at] earthlink.net) Wednesday May 17th, 2006 9:12 AM
Deba needs to get a grip and realize that BS mixed with truth makes the truth look and taste like BS and brings into disrepute any credible movement to decipher the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
by christian peper
Wednesday May 17th, 2006 3:41 PM
By Christian Peper
Most Americans share the common delusion that they are free. What nonsense! Americans are cattle. Even before the government killed around three thousand of their own citizens on September the eleventh Americans were slaves. Permission is needed for most activities. Why wouldn’t the government kill three thousand people “for the good of the nation”? Americans know they must stoop and bow to “law enforcement” or risk being searched and “busted down”. Do you enjoy paying for the prisons that will hold your children? What great sport! Keep breading American women!


by done it before, will do it again
Wednesday May 17th, 2006 3:53 PM
anyone who doubts that there are those in our country willing to kill US citizens for a "larger cause" should read up on Operation Northwoods

http://www.google.com/search?q=operation+northwoods+site%3Aindybay.org

in the 60s, all of the military leaders in this country were ready to stage attacks on civilians, navy ships, whatever, and pin it all on Cuba, in order to engender enough fear and animosity in the general public to gain support for a military attack on Cuba. it only didn't happen because civilian leadership at the time refused to carry it out.

fast-forward 30 years and you have the New American Century criminals running our country, a group of warmongers who theorized about needing another Pearl Harbor to engender American support for invading and occupying Iraq. it would take a fool to believe that this group of chickenhawks feel the same reluctance to see Americans die in order to build support for their pet imperial projects.

plans like this have existed and the current criminals in power are amoral enough to actually implement them
by sloppiness not welcome
Wednesday May 17th, 2006 6:11 PM
"in the 60s, all of the military leaders in this country were ready to stage attacks on civilians"

Uh, nooooo. in March of 1962 all of the joint chiefs, under intense pressure from Lyman Lemnitzer (who'd apparently gone nuts), signed off on Northwoods. This is a lot less grandiose than what you said. I agree with your point, but being a historical slob does not strengthen it.
by duh
Wednesday May 17th, 2006 7:45 PM
obviously not every captain and sargeant etc was in on it

joint chiefs are big time, THE military leaders

that is fucking scary to me, very creepy

perhaps it's no big whoop to you, not "grandiose" enough of a conspiracy plan and has no effect on the suspicion you hold for current leaders
by justme
Sunday May 21st, 2006 5:09 PM
in the end of the extra footage (available here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7440129306993364432) they tell you why the info is not included. It was cut due to lack of space on the DVD and not because they didnt want to include it.
by sloppiness not welcome
Sunday May 21st, 2006 7:26 PM
"...has no effect on the suspicion you hold for current leaders"

hey-hey, you got one right!

9-11, Northwoods, Operation Gladio, the Contras, 40 years of continuous covert terror war on the people of Cuba, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the 16 March 1945 incendiary bombing of Tokyo, Sherman's March, Sand Creek, Horseshoe Bend, Fallen Timbers, the Sullivan Expedition...

None of it really changed anything, because the simple truth has been the same for about 10,000 years: every general, every politician, every royalist born to obscene privilege everywhere needs to get fed to buzzards after getting their throat opened up. There's nothing else to be done about them. 9-11 jolted a handful half-awake to this timeless FACT, and for that I'm grateful, but nothing really changed.
by Jason
Thursday May 25th, 2006 10:18 AM
http://www.seeloosechange.com
by sleepr1
Saturday May 27th, 2006 7:35 PM
I was wondering what everyone thought of the new video released about a week ago?? When it was released, CNN portrayed it as perfect evidence against the conspiracy theorists! Yea right it doesnt look like a damn plane to me.
Sifting Through Loose Change
The 9-11Research Companion to
LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITION
A detailed point-by-point critique of the film using an illustrated transcript
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html
by repost
Friday Jul 7th, 2006 6:29 PM
9/11 CONSPIRACY?
http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1152042929287910.xml?oregonian?alfs&coll=7

-- It wasn't an American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 -- it was a cruise missile. United Airlines Flight 93 didn't crash in Pennsylvania or anywhere else; it landed in Cleveland and the passengers were all spirited away. The World Trade Center collapsed because of a controlled demolition using previously implanted explosives. Osama bin Laden was responsible for none of the events of 9/11; instead, it was the American government that killed thousands of its own citizens, so that WTC owner Larry Silverstein could collect on his insurance and the Bush administration could rule with impunity. Whew!

These are all assertions made in Dylan Avery's pseudo-documentary "Loose Change," which selectively uses images and news footage relating to 9/11 to back up its outlandish hypotheses. It's the kind of conspiracy theorizing that gives genuine investigative journalism a bad name, and it provides ample cause for administration supporters to tar any skeptics with the same brush of lunacy.

This is America: Dylan Avery is free to make his film, the Clinton Street Theater and Brewpub is free to show it and you're free to go see it. But I'm also free to recommend that afterward you go online and look up one of the many independent Web sites that do the laborious job of fact-checking Avery's work: The result isn't pretty.

(Plays Friday through Sunday at the Clinton Street Theater and Brewpub.)
Michael, I believe that you should compile your arguments and all of the complex evidence you've researched into an hour and twenty minute video yourself. Then, we would finally know the truth about the most disgusting and horrific day in ALL of American History. It could provide us all with valid arguments, credible witnesses (as exemplified by RANKer O. NOrth... hey, where are you Manny???), and undeniable proof that democracy is alive and safe here in the U.S. We know this because of the surgical precision and quickness displayed by scrambled U.S. Fighter Jets scores of times prior to Sept. 11, 2001 with 100% success. I know that the U.S. Military is always proud to stand up and protect our freedom. So, could 'stand down' have ever been in the realm of possibility that day? I say it is the little clues left behind that are intended to be back-handed insults to the most integral element: The United States Taxpayer. A hijacker's passport found in WT Rubble.
...not one, but two, seperate uses of that tasteless clipart (twin towers in crosshairs of scope) on FEMA's Emergency Response To Terrorism Report in '97, then again on Dept. Justice's 'Managing Weapons Of Mass Destruction...' participation manual (2000). Could this mean that playing GOD is how a bored tyrant punishes his people for not knowing they're inferior slaves who've been sold out? Maybe someone will make a documentary about ANYONE who finds themselves trying to decide between a burning room with lots of smoke to breathe and... 110 floors of fresh air... right outside that window. Don't stroke me, man. Don't be judgemental of the boys. Their movie is quite awesome (in all of it's depressing truth). It's THAT kind of beautiful freedom that we have here in the U.S. that should be sufficient motivation for you as well. You could even call it "NO CHANGE: Bones & Banking from Bohemian Grove". (Comforting the U.S. with rules, regulation, order... and murder)... Or you could call it Do We Kare Ritual: The Kremation of The Constitution.
Is this all leading to some superflous hyperbole diatribe about some super UnaTerrorist and a manifesto called 'I just saw two Bin Ladens run THAT-a-way'!!!
Sounds SINcere to me...

(...and lead us not into temptation...but deliver us from evil)
Thanx
by James F. Marino
Saturday Jul 15th, 2006 11:09 PM


It is clear that Dylan Avery's movie 9-11 Loose Change raised some very provocative questions in regard this adminstration's attacks on
9-11.

If Dylan's documentary had not caught on as it has and gotten Americans thinking about several of the anomalies that took place
in regard to the follow up investigation of 9-11 amongst other things,
Dylan's documentary would not have gotten attacked as it has.

It's clear some very powerful people were not at all happy with the
research this young man has done, much of which cannot be disputed.

Those who would try to destroy Avery's credibilty by attacking much
of the factual information that he has supplied us with raise questions
about their own motivations.

The Federal Bureau Of Investigation immediately seized the tapes around the Pentagon including those at local businesses. And it has been able to furnish the public with (and then only after much pressure) is the video from one camera in which it is impossible to see any aircraft at all.

Two retired firefighers working at the World Trade Center Tower cleanup find three of the four flight recorders from the planes that hit
the WTC yet the FBI claims that they were never found?

What is the FBI trying to hide by supressing this evidence?? Why would these workers make up such claims and put themselves and their families in jeopardy by attracting the ire of the FBI and Bush Administration?

There is a clear and deliberate coverup being perpetrated here. And
the post to which I am commenting on reads more like the propaganda that Bush has been putting out in his disinformation campaign than
anything else.

The United States Government has a long history of perpetrating
some horrible crimes against the American people.

And the mention at the beginning of your post about the Intelligence community being up to the task and not having to deal with the bravado
of a young film maker sounds like standard answer that it uses against
any Americans who accuse it of impropriety.

As for the INtelligence community's criminal undertakings, MKULTRA,
MHCHAOS, Paperclip, Monarch, Bluebird, COINTELPRO and a host of other counterintelligence and mind control programs are a matter of
historical record.

So enough of the bullshit with trying to paint this organizations as being above board law enforcement , when it's clear that they have long and
sordid history of committing some of the worst crimes imaginable under the color of law and hiding them under the national security act.

These feds treat all Americans like they are morons who have no right to make decisions for themselves, when it is clear that these organizations have routinely commited treasonous crimes against those
they took a sworn oath to protect, using plausible deniablity to get away with them.

They are unindicted criminals who should be facing the death penalty
for what they have wrought on all Americans.
by big wank
Monday Aug 21st, 2006 1:57 AM
theres a video coming out, i saw the preview for it, about buildings all around the world that burned a lot longer than WTC and still did not fall!!!!!!!!!!!! how do u explain that? there was a bldg in venezuela that burned for like 12 hours and still didnt fall, and many other less advanced countries, explain that!!!
by Castor F. Red
Tuesday Aug 22nd, 2006 3:33 PM
It is entirely possible that Michael B. Green is so critical of "Loose Change 2" because he is so embarrased that he first believed it, up to the point that he told 25 friends and colleagues. I mean: "Last year I bought In Plane Sight and saw it twice before going to the KPFK screening on August 7, 2004. I was so moved by the power of the film, by vonKleist’s constrained moral gravity about the pod, that I sent an email to about 25 people with the subject “911 was a US military operation.” I spent the next morning replaying all four impact videos in slow motion, with magnification, and realized there is no pod. I wrote those 25 people an apology. " Yep, that IS embarrassing. "2) Mr. Avery makes much of Donald Rumsfeld’s slip of the tongue on 10/12/01 referring to the “missile that damaged this building.” COMMENT: Worth a snigger, no evidentiary value." I'm sorry, but why? Sure it is no evidence, but it IS strange, and slips of the tongue happen for a reason. "4) Mr. Avery makes much effort to prove that UA77 did not bounce off the Pentagon lawn. He even shows photos of other plane crashes that bounced off the ground and what they look like. The film gives no idea why this is relevant to anyone except, perhaps, the Pentagon gardener." That's a nice attempt at making fun of Avery, however, making fun of Avery doesn't prove he's wrong. I for one, think that the undamaged lawn IS very suspicious. Crashed planes leave marks over a large area, so to dismiss this with a sniggering joke seems very suspicious on Greens part. "8) Mr. Avery states that the “official” account of the Pentagon crash claims that the intense heat vaporized the entire plane, and then he proves that titanium would not have been vaporized. COMMENT: I have no idea what “official” account he means and believe he has invented a straw man." Wow, is it possible that Michael B. Green is completely unaware of the official 9/11 report by the US Senate and/or Congress? "This is like arguing that the 1.6 liter engine found in the fiery crash of a 1983 Nissan Sentra could not be from a 1983 Sentra because, LOOK!!, Here is a photo and a diagram of a 1.5 liter 1983 Nissan Sentra engine. Well, Nissan makes both size engines for the 1983 Sentra." Okay, so Greens tack is that the plane could have a different engine than the one which was expected. Maybe, but why would Boeing put multiple engine types on its planes? And let's say they did for the sake of argument, how likely is the deviation from the standard engine. "I cannot follow his technical talk and we have seen that there is no reason to trust it." This is in itself a logical fallacy, 'I don't understand him, so he must be wrong'? Wow, that is very profound thinking .... NOT! "But Mr. Avery is clear in his rebuttal that a large diffuser case from the debris cannot come from a 757. (He seems to have forgotten what he said was the official version that everything was vaporized.)" No, Avery's point is exactly that everything CAN NOT be vaporized. The govt. made the vaporizing claim, and on top of that, shows us a engine NOT belonging to a 757. Just goes to show you that a Clinical Psychologist can be weak on the logic. Also, in the beginning of his critique he says that Avery's film is both flawed and correct "rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles". It is sad that Green offers very little if anything in th e way of Avery's truffles. Castor F. Red, Mineworker.
by Castor F. Red
Tuesday Aug 22nd, 2006 3:37 PM
Let's be clear, I too think there are flaws with 'Loose Change 2', but Mr. Greens critique needs some work too. It is entirely possible that Michael B. Green is so critical of "Loose Change 2" because he is so embarrased that he first believed it, up to the point that he told 25 friends and colleagues. I mean:

"Last year I bought In Plane Sight and saw it twice before going to the KPFK screening on August 7, 2004. I was so moved by the power of the film, by vonKleist’s constrained moral gravity about the pod, that I sent an email to about 25 people with the subject “911 was a US military operation.” I spent the next morning replaying all four impact videos in slow motion, with magnification, and realized there is no pod.

I wrote those 25 people an apology. "

Yep, that IS embarrassing.

"2) Mr. Avery makes much of Donald Rumsfeld’s slip of the tongue on 10/12/01 referring to the “missile that damaged this building.” COMMENT: Worth a snigger, no evidentiary value."

I'm sorry, but why? Sure it is no evidence, but it IS strange, and slips of the tongue

happen for a reason.

"4) Mr. Avery makes much effort to prove that UA77 did not bounce off the Pentagon lawn. He even shows photos of other plane crashes that bounced off the ground and what they look like. The film gives no idea why this is relevant to anyone except, perhaps, the Pentagon gardener."

That's a nice attempt at making fun of Avery, however, making fun of Avery doesn't prove he's wrong. I for one, think that the undamaged lawn IS very suspicious. Crashed planes leave marks over a large area, so to dismiss this with a sniggering joke seems very suspicious on Greens part.

"8) Mr. Avery states that the “official” account of the Pentagon crash claims that the intense heat vaporized the entire plane, and then he proves that titanium would not have been vaporized. COMMENT: I have no idea what “official” account he means and believe he has invented a straw man."

Wow, is it possible that Michael B. Green is completely unaware of the official 9/11 report by the US Senate and/or Congress?

"This is like arguing that the 1.6 liter engine found in the fiery crash of a 1983 Nissan Sentra could not be from a 1983 Sentra because, LOOK!!, Here is a photo and a diagram of a 1.5 liter 1983 Nissan Sentra engine. Well, Nissan makes both size engines for the 1983 Sentra."

Okay, so Greens tack is that the plane could have a different engine than the one which was expected. Maybe, but why would Boeing put multiple engine types on its planes? And let's say they did for the sake of argument, how likely is the deviation from the standard engine.

"I cannot follow his technical talk and we have seen that there is no reason to trust it."

This is in itself a logical fallacy, 'I don't understand him, so he must be wrong'? Wow, that is very profound thinking .... NOT!

"But Mr. Avery is clear in his rebuttal that a large diffuser case from the debris cannot come from a 757. (He seems to have forgotten what he said was the official version that everything was vaporized.)"

No, Avery's point is exactly that everything CAN NOT be vaporized. The govt. made the vaporizing claim, and on top of that, shows us a engine NOT belonging to a 757.

Just goes to show you that a Clinical Psychologist can be weak on the logic.

Also, in the beginning of his critique he says that Avery's film is both flawed and correct "rotten fish is wrapped in the same package as delicious truffles". It is sad that Green offers very little if anything in th e way of Avery's truffles.

Castor F. Red,

Mineworker.

by Castor F. Red
Tuesday Aug 22nd, 2006 6:38 PM
Okay, upon further reading, I admit that I was too hastily and harshly in judging Mr. Green.
His basic sense is correct: we should do as much as possible to weed out the errors in films like Loose Change 2.
That is not to say that I now think Mr. Greens comments are flawless.
I agree with Green fully that assertions about eyewitnesses claiming to have seen that the WTC planes had no windows, which can be disproved so easily, SHOULD be debunked.
This kind of criticism should lead to a much better 3rd edition of Loose Change, where all soft evidence has been stripped.
by someone
Sunday Aug 27th, 2006 7:33 AM
Folks, there was no big passenger plane at the Pentagon - the illegal government (remember the election of puppet Bush) LIED
The WTC Towers WERE demolished by whatever EXPLOSIVE means, prepared in advance. Illegal gov LIED.
The building seven wasnt hit by neither a plane nor an UFo nor whatever. Criminal gov LIED.
Governemnt agencies steal evidence and hide it, not to say snatching away the rubble of the towers - LIES, DECEIT.
WHAT more evidence does anyone need? I don't need more, and so should you.
This nitpicking crap is just another stupid disinformation attempt.

CRIMINAL ILLEGAL SATANIC PUPPET GOVERNMENT. Period.
So stop discussing crap and start to think of HOW TO GET RID OF that criminal perverted SCUM
ruling you by deceit and murder.
by veryafraid
Friday Sep 1st, 2006 8:05 PM
Let's discuss a new point for this thread: put options. What I'm pasting here is more telling for the government (the 9-11 Commission) response than the suspicions themselves as to the unusually high investment in "put options" (betting against a company's stock) on Sept. 9 and 10, 2001 in American and United Airlines as well financial banks headquartered in the WTC, suggesting foreknowledge of the disaster. Follow the money trails...



Put Paid


Claim: In the days just prior to the 11 September 2001, large quantities of stock in United and American Airlines were traded by persons with foreknowledge of the upcoming 9/11 attacks.

Origins: On 11 September 2001, four planes were hijacked and used in the Attack on America: American Airlines Flight 11 leaving Boston
bound for Los Angeles, American Airlines Flight 77 leaving Washington bound for Los Angeles, United Airlines Flight 175 leaving Boston bound for Los Angeles, and United Airlines Flight 93 leaving Newark bound for San Francisco. Each of these planes was deliberately crashed, killing all on board — two into the World Trade Center towers, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania. (Only the delay in takeoff of UA Flight 93 and the actions of the alerted passengers on board prevented it from becoming yet another instrument of destruction resulting in an even greater loss of life.)

The operation had taken years to plan, and the perpetrators knew well in advance which airlines would be affected.

In the month prior to the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, unusual trading activity involving American and United Airlines stock was noted by market analysts who at the time had no idea what to make of it. Wildly unusual discrepancies in the put and call ratio — 25 to 100 times normal — were reportedly observed in stock options of the two airlines. In one case, Bloomberg's Trade Book electronic trading system identified option volume in UAL (parent of United Airlines) on 16 August 2001 that was 36 times higher than usual.

(Options are wagers that the price of a 100-share block of a particular stock will rise or fall by a certain date. "Puts" are "shorts" — bets the stock price will fall. "Calls" are bets the price will rise. Thus, one who has reason to believe a particular company is about to suffer a terrible reversal of fortune would purchase "puts" against that entity's stock.)

But it was during the final few trading days (the market closes on weekends) that the most unusual variances in activity occurred. Bloomberg data showed that on 6 September 2001, the Thursday before that black Tuesday, put-option volume in UAL stock was nearly 100 times higher than normal: 2,000 options versus 27 on the previous day.

On 6 and 7 September 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange handled 4,744 put options for United Airlines' stock, translating into 474,000 shares, compared with just 396 call options, or 39,600 shares. On a day that the put-to-call ratio would normally have been expected to be roughly 1:1 (no negative news stories about United had broken), it was instead 12:1.

On 10 September 2001, another uneventful news day, American Airlines' option volume was 4,516 puts and 748 calls, a ratio of 6:1 on yet another day when by rights these options should have been trading even. No other airline stocks were affected; only United and American were shorted in this fashion.

Accelerated investments speculating a downturn in the value of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch (two New York investment firms severely damaged by the World Trade Center attack) were also observed.

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:
Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options — instruments that pay off only when a stock drops in price — surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 — highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. The SEC and FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.
Last updated: 11 December 2005


The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2006
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Carpenter, Dave. "Option Exchange Probing Reports of Unusual Trading Before Attacks." The Associated Press. 18 September 2001.

Schoolman, Judith. "Probe of Wild Market Swings in Terror-Tied Stocks."
[New York] Daily News. 20 September 2001 (p. 6).

Toedtman, James and Charles Zehren. "Profiting from Terror?"
Newsday. 19 September 2001 (p. W39).
by tgk
Wednesday Nov 1st, 2006 6:22 AM
was an airplane slammed into it at 530 mph ?
by Ivana Quickie
Tuesday Feb 27th, 2007 4:44 AM
A missile hit the pentagon and and remote planes hit the towers. as for your remarks about the plane bouncing, I hope your as good at explaining why the lawn near the "crash site" was in pristine condition after the "crash". Anyway, we all know you are living under one of the most evil currupt goverments the USA have ever had the misfortune to put up with. The American people are suffering from the stigmata of bush and co with his I want the world and its oil attitude.
Oh, and one other thing, your comments made as much sense as a weavil in a concret block
While more than a score of New York City Fire Department members have recounted receiving warnings of the collapse of Building 7 starting about an hour and a half before the 5:20 PM collapse, this video is the first piece of video EVIDENCE for foreknowledge of the event. By accident, the BBC reported that the collapse of WTC 7 occurred about 23 minutes before it actually happened, with the building shown still standing behind the woman reporting it had collapsed. Naturally, she was cut off before the real collapse occurred, approximately 5 minutes later.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/27/18369629.php
by repost
Wednesday Mar 28th, 2007 10:54 AM
640_dsc00044.jpg
This photo clearly shows that the walls came down largely by fracturing at the joints, and also shows how the building was built from prefabricated sections, three columns wide.
by nofool
Sunday Aug 2nd, 2009 11:54 AM
clearely, whoever you are, you have been misinformed, I got tired of you rant halfway through and stopped reading it. it looks like you have a biased perspective of american people, stereotyping them as an arrogant nation, yes alot of people believe their government and follow them - they dont see or dont want to know the bigger picture, and could be classed just as arrogant as their government in doing so. On the day of 911 I thought holy crap its gonna kick off now, the americans must have pissed someoene off, prehaps they deserved it ? In my youth i was steryotypical, a few years later I began to see the bigger picture, then watching loose change made it all so very clear. Anyone with any common sense let alone engineering background can see that our government have been lying to us for a very long time and have obviosly fabricated 911, phsycologically attacking the world so the can have their new world order thus allowing them to have new laws passed, raise taxes, kill fredom of speech all in the name of terrorism abolishing any democracy we have left, Raping iraq and afganistan, killing millions of people all to make money directly for themselves enabling them to control the world.
The evidence is clear
Although people may not realise it, we are living in biblical times. The powers that be are the illuminate, and they have been planning this for a long time.
Look at the dollar bills, the signs are there
911 was the changing point
thanks to the producures of loose change we may be able to educate enough people before it is too late.
I dont mean for any of this to be condecending, only a perspective shared by many