See other 9/11 Articles
Title: An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
Source:
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
URL Source: http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6013
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: Sue Reid
Post Date: 2007-02-10 08:45:52 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 19067
Comments: 205
An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11 Sue Reid – The Daily Mail February 10, 2007 The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001. Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C. The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93. Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow. Or that's how the official story goes. Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster. The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers. Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11. A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up. Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services. Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier. Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11. Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis." These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II). Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S. Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro? In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq? This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic. Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did? An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent. Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job. It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind. And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack. Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America. Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked. Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes. But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late. And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it. Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon. So what of the fall of the Twin Towers? The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes. It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain. But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees. Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up. The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off? And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all. The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times. How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft? The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene. "But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?" Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons. "Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building? "Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively. "If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole." And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin. So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ. Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane. So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio? No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded. They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target? Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour. He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened. The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not? He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway." Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds. He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers. The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion. Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame. Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington. The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change. President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil." The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror. www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=435265&in_page_id=1811 Watch Loose Change here. Printer friendly version Email this article to a friend Last updated 10/02/2007 Homepage
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 63.
#30. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
Now the cold hard facts about the Loose Change video: The ScrewLooseChange video: A guide to the ScrewLooseChange video: A great blog related to the ScrewLooseChange video: A related discussion forum: More great data: The above sites are the arsenal of anyone confronting those promoting LooseChange.
I like to use the BPAT/FEMA/NIST reports to refute the governments own fairytale. The reports are full of deception and misleading conclusions.
*********** http://www.911myths.com/html/quote_abuse.html "Quote Abuse ... snip ... ---------------------- Then we have this quote from a David Ray Griffin essay: ---------------------- "Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6)." http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html ------------------- Here's the full version, with the snipped part in bold (which is our emphasis). ------------------- "...there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then realized the building started to come down". http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF ----------------- And another, from the same Griffin piece: ----------------- "Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html ----------------- Again, a possible attempt to offer an alternative explanation to explosives, that the “pops” may have been the building falling, has been omitted (our emphasis): ----------------- "As we are looking up at the building, what I saw was, it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops. Didn't realize it was the falling -- you know, you heard the pops of the building. You thought it was just blowing out." http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8160/1d/www.newsday.com/includes/fdny-9-11/pdf/9110287.pdf ------------------ ... snip ... ******************* Looks like Griffin was committing quote abuse. And here's something else written by *Professor* Griffin: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-WTC-Twin-Towers26jan06.htm In it he states But why is this unexpected if a plane full of fuel hit the structure and penetrated the elevator shafts as numerous eyewitnesses testified? One would expect fuel released from the impacting aircraft would enter the freight elevator shaft and explode, sending a pressure wave and fireball down the shaft. In another section Griffins states But this is deceptive of Griffin. Mark Loizeaux is also on record stating that what happened at the WTC was NOT a demolition with explosives. And he's an expert. Griffin says Actually, there are reports of firemen hearing loud noises that sounded like explosions more than 10 minutes before the collapse. Odd sort of controlled demolition. Indeed, the structure was seen to be sagging and tilting many minutes before the collapse. Odd sort of planned demolition. And who are Griffin's sources? A proven liar. An anti-government hack ... not a *journalist*. What he wrote about the seismic data in his articles was an outright LIE and not a single seismologist in the world backs his claims up, yet the seismic data is available to any seismologist in the world. The seismologists who he quotes in his articles are on record in technical papers and other venues saying JUST THE OPPOSITE of what Bollyn claimed they said. This man doesn't believe man landed on the moon. He lies about the size of the hole in the Pentagon, the amount of debris at the Pentagon, the engine found at the Pentagon. He thinks that DU tipped missiles were used at the WTC and Pentagon. He's a software engineer. Forget the bombs ... he thinks giant super secret microwave beam projectors, installed in the basement of the towers, is what brought them down. I'll give some credit to Hoffman, though. He's right in saying the other CT'ers are wrong to claim the towers collapsed in 10 seconds and he says Bollyn promoted numerous claims that are not supported by any evidence. MIT engineer. Yeah. An electrical engineer and molecular biologist ... who has been a medical doctor for the last 25 years. Who claimed a fireman admitted 9-11 was an inside job. But the fireman says that's untrue and accuses Mr Lavello of slander. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=61418 Oh yes ... the water treatment expert. ************* And here's still another article by *Professor* Griffin that makes one wonder about his honesty. ************** http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404 ... snip ... Actually fire has caused many steel frame BUILDINGS to collapse in the past. That's why there are codes now to protect steel framed building from fire. And all the portions of the Windsor Tower (a skyscraper in Madrid) that depended solely on a steel frame for support did in fact collapse in a post 9/11 fire (no impact). This is untrue. The best experts in the business using the best fire codes in existence have concluded that the fires were very hot and long lasting, and ultimately led to softening of steel members which caused the collapse. Which is why only one or two structural engineers in the world have come forward to agree with Griffin's assertion. And Griffin is also omitting the fact that where there have been fires in tall steel structures that did not collapse, the structures were built differently, the fires spread differently, the fires were actively fought by firefighters, and there were other mitigating factors. Untrue. NIST has carefully explained why one tower collapsed before the other. The building was in fact extensively damaged by falling debris from the towers and the fires were not localized or small. Plus, NIST did explain what FEMA did not. Currently, only one demolition expert in the world agrees with Griffin that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. And he based his conclusion solely on viewing material hand picked by conspiracists. Nothing more. And ironically, that same individual is on the record saying that the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 are definitely NOT controlled demolitions. But they were sticking up in the air after the collapses. This is proven by looking at the videos and photos from that day. Here, this video shows the core was still standing after the floors had pancaked: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 These images also show that core was still sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air after the floors pancaked: Silverstein did not say "pull building 7". He said pull it and a look at the context in which he said that should lead a reasonable person to conclude Silverstein was referring to the firefighting effort and the firefighters that were around the building.. Furthermore, demolition experts (at http://ImplosionWorld.com, for instance) say the "pull" terminology is not used in the way alleged by Griffin. Numerous structural engineers, FBI agents and countless others had access to the site and the steel before it was removed. Many pieces of steel were eventually saved. All the structural engineers in the world seem to think it was. Untrue. The entrance hole is large enough to accommodate everything but the wing tips and the tail of the plane. This is clear from photos to the left and right of the main impact hole: And here is a fine animation which shows how the damage to the Pentagon is completely consistent with the impact of a 757. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=21568_The_Pentagon_Attack_Simulation&only The portions of the plane not containing fuel or much mass shattered with the remains strewn in front of the Pentagon as seen in photo after photo. The above animation shows images of many of these pieces. There are also photos of debris both inside and outside the Pentagon that could only come from a 757. Numerous people familiar with such jets toured the site ... including members of 757 crews. They ALL say what they saw is consistent with Flight 77 hitting the building. If Griffin thinks a missile was used, could he tell us what missile would cause damage like that seen? Remember, there was hole in the Pentagon about 90 feet wide. Columns on the right side were broken and bent towards the left. There was a winged shape hole on both sides of the central impact site. And actually, here is Rumsfeld's full quote based on what Parade magazine initially said he said: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." But not everyone agreed. http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2006/11/rumsfelds-missile-admission.html "Problems with the audio transcription are evident or else there wouldn't be a "similar (inaudible)" involved. So I zoomed in on the second “and” that created the impression of two separate objects and tried replacing it with the similar sounding “as” and got “using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens AS the missile to damage this building.” This makes the whole statement make more sense, and is exactly what the government has always said." In fact, Parade admitted in September 2004 that "a transcription error led to the confusion, but conspiracy theorists latched onto Rumsfeld's supposed admission and spread it over the Internet." ******************* Given all the above, one wonders why the thread's article places so much faith in Griffin as an *expert* source.
Given all the crap you spewed forth in your reply, I wonder how ignorant you really must be. Or what you have to gain from spewing DISinfo? A little common sense goes a long way - and it's something you are apparently lacking. Only a fool would believe the "official story". Damned strange how the Empire State Building was once struck by a large aircraft and managed to remain standing. And when the architects designed the Towers, they took into account the possibility of a large commercial airliner hitting them - and designed them to withstand this very thing!!!. I don't know what your line of work is or what your 'expertise' is, BUT I DO KNOW it ISN'T architecture, or construction. You apparently have no clue as to how massive the steel is in the main support columns of a building like that; NOR do you have any clue as to it's strength. Construction IS my forte, and I have seen the results of HORRIFIC fires on buildings... I have seen the massive steel used. I have been involved in the rebuilding of a VERY LARGE (75'W x 75'D x 175'H firebox measurements) boiler which exploded - and yet the boilerhouse itself (building containing the boiler) remained standing and very much intact. Building 7 collapsed as a result of 'debris damage' coupled with fire??? Then why did 3, 4, 5, and 6 remain standing??? They were ALL located closer to the big Towers than 7, AND damaged by debris and fire MORE than 7!!! j The "official story" is so full of holes it makes a screen door look like plate steel. And your touting it as truth makes you look like either a government shill, OR a complete moron - OR BOTH.
Not strange at all. Just a matter of the energy involved, whether intense fires were started and the construction of the building. And let's get our facts straight. The Towers were NOT designed to withstand this sized plane impacting the towers at velocity they did. They were designed for a low speed impact in fog. The energy difference between the design and this impact is a function of the difference in velocity squared. See below: http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument "Reflections on the World Trade Center, Leslie E. Robertson, ... snip ... The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers. ... snip ... The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." ... snip ... Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf "It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speed. However, in the September 11 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass, and travelling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 708 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274, 000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact." http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/ "Still, it is amazing that the towers survived the initial impacts at all—even if they were designed to be hit by aircraft—considering the fact that the Boeing 767's involved in the terrorist attack were notably larger and traveling much faster than the 707 considered in the design of the World Trade Center. The 707 was assumed to be coming in for a landing when it would hit one of the skyscrapers (707's were the standard airliner at the time when the World Trade Center was built). This meant that the plane would be traveling at a low rate of speed—about 180 miles per hour—and have minimal fuel. On the other hand, the 767's were carrying enough fuel for transcontinental flights (about 10,000 gallons each) and were flying far faster. The airspeeds of the jets as they impacted the buildings were estimated at about 470 and 590 miles per hour, approximately 2.6 and 3.2 times faster than the 707 (FEMA 1.17). In addition, the 767 is about 25 percent larger than the 707, with a wingspan of 156 feet, a length of 159 feet, and a height of 53 feet (1.19). Considering the size and speed of the airplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers, it is remarkable that they stood at all."
Yes, it IS strange!!! While I'm not going to pretend that a 767 is a SMALL aircraft - compared to the size of the towers, a 767 is minuscule! (Probably something on the order of a sparrow compared to a doghouse) Are you aware that jet fuel is basically kerosene? Just how damned hot do you think kerosene burns? AND what percentage of it was consumed in the large fireball upon initial impact??? Did you see the picture of the bus being used in evacuation of hurricane Rita - the one that caught fire near Dallas? It was carrying people that had breathing problems, and were on oxygen. When the bus caught fire, it not only had the diesel from the bus feeding the fire, but the seats and whatever other combustible materials PLUS PURE OXYGEN feeding it - and the shell remained intact!!! Granted, the shell was quite charred, but it remained intact. There was no glass left, everyone in it died, there was basically NOTHING left BUT the STEEL. And how thick is that steel??? Certainly nowhere near inches thick... Why doesn't your barbeque grill melt down??? OR smudgepots used in citrus groves to protect from freezes??? I have one of those smudgepots, and have had the entire chimney glowing red for hours on end (fed by diesel), and it has yet to even deform, let alone collapse!!! And this chimney is made of only 20 gauge material... " src="http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n86/innieway/fire_wideweb__430x313.jpg">These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." WHAT????? CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT????? What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)????? And the second part of that totally ignorant fucking statement is something I addressed in my reply - the fact that it has been proven that NORAD can and has responded to situations much less serious, in airspace which was practically UNRESTRICTED in much less than a half hour, YET on 9/11 somehow magically COULD NOT (or more accurately - WOULD NOT) respond within 1½ hours to 4 commercial aircraft headed towards SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTED AIRSPACE IN THE WORLD!!! Of course, I notice you failed to comment on this. WHY??? BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT'S THE TRUTH, YOU FUCKING SHILL!!! You also did not comment on fire and damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 - and specifically their failure to collapse, in spite of obviously HUGE fire and debris damage compared to 7... WHY??? Like I said, YOU have totally ZERO common sense... Not because you believe the "official story", but rather because you think you can get folks that DO HAVE intelligence AND common sense to believe it!!!
Really? This assertion doesn't seem to match this image: Or this one: Can you explain how the Windsor Tower in Madrid saw measured temperatures of over 1400 F without any plane crash or jet fuel? The ignoramus who said that was the chief structural engineer and project manager on the WTC towers, Leslie Robertson. You haven't proven that the damage or fire in those structures was worse than in WTC7. Numerous firemen say the damage and fires in WTC 7 were bad enough that early on they knew they'd lose the building. As to why those others didn't collapse in the same manner? Call it luck. Call it the randomness of nature. Call it differences in construction. Call it differences in the way the fires were fought. Do you know that explosions were heard in some of those other structures? Were there bombs in them too? How many firemen do you think were involved in this mass murder, innieway? Then I suppose you are also saying that all the folks we rely on to design and build all the structures we use in our society also lack common sense ... because none (or at least very, very few) of them seem to buy into your allegations.
There are no replies to Comment # 63. End Trace Mode for Comment # 63.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/
http://lol.chroniclesofgaras.com/sources.html
#32. To: BeAChooser (#30)
(Edited)
Honestly, while a good introduction for the average citizen, it has some sloppy of information.
#33. To: Kamala, ALL (#32)
Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.
To return now to testimonies about explosions: There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6
Rodriguez’s account has been corroborated by José Sanchez, who was in the workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker heard a big blast that “sounded like a bomb,” after which “a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator.”7
Given these testimonies to explosions in the basement levels of the towers, it is interesting that Mark Loizeaux, head of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has been quoted as saying: “If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.”9
Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before the south tower collapsed. ... snip ... These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse,
Christopher Bollyn,
Eric Hufschmid
Jim Hoffman
Jeffrey King
Randy Lavello
Kevin Ryan
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
#35. To: BeAChooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, Inside Job, Former Lurker, Indie TX, SKYDRIFTER, All (#33)
(Edited)
Given all the above, one wonders why the thread's article places so much faith in Griffin as an *expert* source.
When Payne Stewart's charter flight went off course and started going north from the Panhandle of Florida, within 20 minutes NORAD had 2 fighters scrambled and on that situation like flies on shit. They were looking into the cockpit of the charter flight and reporting that the crew was unconscious - and stayed with that flight until it crashed. Yet for some reason, on 9/11 NORAD cannot manage to get even one fighter scrambled when 4 commercial airliners are flying off course for over an hour and a half - AND headed towards some of the most highly restricted airspace in the world????? BULLSHIT!!!!! 
Layout of Trade Center Complex 
WTC 3 
WTC 4 
WTC 5 
WTC 5 & 6
#39. To: innieway, ALL (#35)
Damned strange how the Empire State Building was once struck by a large aircraft and managed to remain standing. And when the architects designed the Towers, they took into account the possibility of a large commercial airliner hitting them - and designed them to withstand this very thing!!!.
#57. To: BeAChooser (#39)
(Edited)
Not strange at all...
="
#63. To: innieway, ALL (#57)
While I'm not going to pretend that a 767 is a SMALL aircraft - compared to the size of the towers, a 767 is minuscule! (Probably something on the order of a sparrow compared to a doghouse)
Are you aware that jet fuel is basically kerosene? Just how damned hot do you think kerosene burns? AND what percentage of it was consumed in the large fireball upon initial impact???
These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. ... snip ... What the hell are you smoking to believe that (or the ignoramus that said it)?????
You also did not comment on fire and damage to buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 - and specifically their failure to collapse, in spite of obviously HUGE fire and debris damage compared to 7... WHY???
Like I said, YOU have totally ZERO common sense... Not because you believe the "official story", but rather because you think you can get folks that DO HAVE intelligence AND common sense to believe it!!!
Replies to Comment # 63.