Ok, I watched Loose Change

[Snivi Yllom]

I'm supposed to be impressed by that?

Amateur night. So much selective editing and manipulation of images I felt like I was watching an MTV video.

It's bad propaganda filled with outright lies easily debunked if you spend the time to do a little footwork.

This site is very good regarding the Pentagon no plane theory
http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

This site is also very good regarding the controlled demolition of the WTC towers
http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

and my favorite that really slams the conspiracy peddlers in the ass:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

[dailykoff]

1. That's a good start.

But if that didn't do it for you, I'd go here next:

http://911research.wtc7.net/

There's an awful lot of information about the collapses on this site, all very thorough and specific, but you can a pretty good idea by clicking around from this page:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html

p.s. I checked out the Popular Mechanics article and noticed that it relies heavily on the "pancake" theory, which is structurally impossible.

[Snivi Yllom]

2. why is it impossible

in fact it makes quite a bit of sense.

[dailykoff]

3. I agree, it makes plenty of sense.

And it might be a plausible theory if WTC 1 and 2 were traditional post and beam affairs, like Tinker Toy towers or houses of cards.

However, they were built using steel moment frames, a principle relying on immensely strong central core columns and load-bearing perimeter walls, the purpose being to leave the outer rings of offices unobstructed by forests of columns (as in the Empire State Building, for example).

So the elements that would have "pancaked" according to the FEMA/NIST/PopMech theories are the outer floor diaphragms, which were largely supported by web trusses (also by steel beams, which are overlooked in the official reports).

But even if the floor diaphragms had actually pancaked in a chain-reaction series of web-truss failures, the cores would still have been left standing.

[Snivi Yllom]

25. you got it wrong

Once the floor slabs were overloaded, they pulled the perimeter columns in, further degrading the structure of the building. The strength of the tube design was dependant on the floor slabs acting as horizontal stiffeners.the trusses between the core and the perimeter did pancake.

However, the core would not remain standing on its own in any case. We did see portions of the core remain standing for a few seconds as the second tower collapsed.

[dailykoff]

30. Someone has.

In this case, Dr. Eagar, whose clip-unzip theory you just disparaged. Unfortunately the alternative super-clip theory is just as preposterous, for the reasons that a) there were beams as well as trusses in the floor assemblies, which would have prevented such deformations, and b) that simply isn't what any of the photographic evidence shows.

Of course these are only my opinions.

[stickdog]

4. Loose Change has a lot of loose screws.

Could that have anything to do with why Faux News is promoting it?

[StrafingMoose]

26. In fact, few 9/11 videos are "good"

they always seem to assert at some point, some things that I personally think aren't backed up.

Personnally, when it comes to 9/11 - books are the way to go.

[pauldp]

5. Speaking of doing a little footwork.

You may want to spend several hours reading the time lines at cooperativeresearch.org if you haven't already. Many people around here
are convinced that a 911 cover up is going on regardless of the evidence of controlled demolition, or the Pentagon.
Check out the new Dutch TV documentary if you want a different perspective.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11222.htm

[philb]

6. Why the huge coverup if there is nothing to hide?

http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

[philb]

7. The popular mechanics article was not a serious effort to find the truth

but was designed as a coverup with a mission

[StrafingMoose]

27. by the cousin of Chertoff (DHS director) that is

[JackRiddler]

8. Are you really Molly Ivins?

Nice to have you here.

Fuck Loose Change. Dismissing 9/11 skepticism because of it is equivalent to reducing the Left to (pick your favorite Trotskyist cult). The PM article beats up on a bunch of well-selected strawmen.

Read this (go to the actual complaint):

Justicefor911.org

And check out the other real sites:

911Truth.org
wtc7.net
911review.com
9/11 timeline at cooperativeresearch.org

Read Ruppert's & Griffin's books and dismiss those for us. Thanks.

[libertypirate]

9. The least you could do is frame it!!!!

How rude, excuse me ... At least understand who these 'Amateur night' people who created this video are before you pipe up and slander them... You sound like a buffoon in the proper context, I hope that wasn't your intention?

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/weblog.php?w=6&sid=279c460f952fb58c16dddddcf174239c

[Woody Box]

10. oilempire.us? GIVE ME A BREAK!

This guy claims here

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

to present "evidence that remote controlled planes were used". No problem with remote control, but he is promoting the absurd high-tech scenario that the actual 9/11 airliners were overtaken by electronic control from outside and directed into their respective targets. Suuuure they were. :rofl:

I have to admit, I was really excited when I started reading the article, expecting some witnesses who observed suspicious activities near the planes at Boston Airport before the flight or something like that. Nothing like that, not one concrete hint to an electronic manipulation of the airplanes. Just a general summary of the technical possibilities to manipulate airliners. How this can be claimed as "evidence" is beyond my comprehension. I would suggest to take some logic pills.

[reprehensor]

12. oilempire.us...

Spends too much time 'gatekeeping' for me.

I'm with Tarpley, we don't need no steenking 'gatekeepers'.

I'm smart enough to believe what I see with my own two eyes, and I haven't seen any videotape of an AA jet crashing into the Pentagon. I want to, because then we can at least stop thinking about Global Hawks, or drones, and figure out how Hani got to be an ace Commercial Jet pilot when he could barely wheel a Cessna.

Avery actually interviews Hanjour's instructor, I believe, and he says he was a crappy pilot.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss remote control. Consider a hybrid theory; the 'hijackers' secure the cockpit and switch off transponders. In this scenario, someone would have had to install the components that would not only take over the auto-pilot, but would control the airplane via satellite.

The technology existed before 9/11.

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



Remote piloting: Solution or disaster-in-the-making?
10/02/2001 - Updated 12:18 PM ET

BOSTON (AP) — There's little doubt that landing a plane from the ground — technology that could prevent hijackers turning a commercial jet into a weapon — could soon be feasible. Whether it's a good idea or not is another question. Raytheon is one of several companies looking to use new satellite technology that could someday allow jets to be landed by people on the ground, in much the same way that hobbyists bring in their model airplanes by remote control. The company announced Monday that its technology had guided a Federal Express 727 to a safe landing on a New Mexico Air Force base in August — all without the need of a pilot. Raytheon says the technology, primarily designed to help navigation, could be useful in a remote landing system.

Federal agencies and private companies have been exploring such technologies as a way to make air travel more secure after the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings. But industry watchers fear it might actually make the skies less safe.

"There's some pretty overt national security concerns I would think," said John Carr, president of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. "The devil is in the details. Is this something we would put on all aircraft? Because I'm sure you can imagine if I can control all aircraft you would create a new target."

But according to James Coyne, president of the National Air Transportation Association, the technology could be a way to avert disasters like those in the terrorist attacks or even prevent others like the 1996 Valujet crash in Florida and the 1998 SwissAir crash where crews were apparently stymied by fire.

more@link

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

If Raytheon was willing to go public with this, you can guarantee that the Air Force has got WAY better shit than that, probably a decade in advance of the junk Raytheon was showing off.

But yeah, oilempire.us is a colossal waste of time. I haven't learned squat from that 9/11 recycler.

[Bushwick Bill]

14. Actually, it calls out gatekeepers.

Robinowitz lists a number of gatekeers, including Molly Ivins, who may have posted in this thread.
http://www.oilempire.us/gatekeepers.html

Rep, keep up all of your great work.

[reprehensor]

16. I know, but...

He also has 'helpful' recommendations in his 'books' and 'movies' sections, and I think that for someone new trying to figure out what the hell went down on 9/11, they are better off figuring it out on their own.

He's all over the 'gatekeepers', but... he's a gatekeeper.

Thanks for the compliment, it's nice to know someone's reading it!

[rman]

15. If it's false-flag then RC is very plausible -

RC would be the easiest way to pull off such a false-flag op since it eliminates the need to find 20 people willing to sacrifice their lives for this, eliminates the hassle with passengers, and it would fit perfectly in the war games (which included both 'live' and simulated airplane high-jackings) that were going on that day.

Also the idea of using RC to fake an incident with a passenger plane (and blame it on someone else) isn't exactly new - see Operation Northwoods.

[reprehensor]

17. Northwoods.

It's really starting to creep into the public conciousness.

People still think it was a limited, one-off thing, but Northwoods was huge, complex and crazy... and the only thing that stopped the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (who all signed off on it), was apparently JFK, who, when McNamara showed him the plan thought it was nuts, moved Lemnitzer to a NATO post, (which also may explain some things... google "NATO, Gladio"), and then got his ass killed by probably, the same set of psycopaths.

Dave Emory, anti-fascist researcher, did a great show on Northwoods, relying heavily on Bamford's work, you can listen to a RealAudio stream of the show here;

Operation Northwoods/What Do You Want To Be When You Blow Up?

Emory is of the opinion that a fascist 5th column, international in nature, in alliance with fascist elements of militant Islam, did 9/11, to trigger a sequence of events that will ultimately lead to the destruction of the US as we know it, and Israel.

In a related theory you have Tarpley, who also believes that 9/11 was perpetrated by a type of 'secret' infiltration that goes all the way up to the Secret Service and is actually the driving force behind US Foreign Policy.

I don't know what the truth is, but I know that large chunks of it are conspicuously absent from the 9/11 Commission's Final Report.

So, you have 'patsies', lots and lots of false trails, and instead of relying on unstable humans, you punch in the coordinates, and let the software do the dirty work.

[rman]

18. I sure f'in hope so

re. "It's really starting to creep into the public consciousness."

Maybe i should start mentioning it in conjunction with the Bay of Pigs thing which shows that the govt. doesn't only conceive of doing false-flag ops, but also puts it to practice - we can only wonder how many of those *don't* fail.
I could also mention the Iran-Contra hearings revelation of CIA involvement in narcotics trade, but to much truth might turn people off.

[rman]

19. and thanks for the link. nt

[Woody Box]

20. The problem with RC is

(at least as presented by oilempire.us) that there is NO factual, concrete evidence, just considerations regarding the technical possibility.

In fact there are far better alternate explanations. We don't need "home runs" and "electronically hijacked airliners".

All we need is to realize that it is pretty easy to change the identity of a plane when it is in the air. With disabled transponder, a plane is just a spot on a radar screen.

And unlike the oilempire.us theory, there IS plenty of factual, concrete evidence that the planes that exploded in the towers/Pentagon/Pennsylvania were NOT the airliners from Boston/Newark/Dulles. I'm not speaking about pods and missiles (while not dismissing the possibility). I'm speaking about wrong departure gates in Boston and mysterious emergency landings in Cleveland, and these are only the most striking examples.

[reprehensor]

21. Is there a web page...

That gathers the possible plane switching data in one spot?

And if the original planes were not used, who flew them?

[Woody Box]

23. Answers

This page here deals extensively with the plane swap theme (but it's not complete):

http://www.team8plus.org/news.php

Otherwise I suggest

The Cleveland Airport Mystery

Flight 11 - The Twin Flight

The answer to your second question cannot be given in one sentence, it is complex and not solved yet, but a plausible possibility is that the original planes were part of the ongoing wargames and diverted to certain airports.

[rman]

22. That's how they planned doing Northwoods

Passenger plane (owned by a CIA front) and drone rendezvous in mid air, passenger plane lands, drone follows the flight plan of the plane.

This was proposed in the 60's, it was feasible then and there's no question it is technically possible now. So much for oilempire's "considerations".

[Woody Box]

24. Complete agreement

But oilempire.us doesn't like theories of the Operation Northwoods kind. They call them "bogus":

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

[MrSammo1]

29. The neocons thought

they could pull off Operation Northwoods without any jet switches. (big mistake!)

Think about it?

If they had enough people to do this, videos from the airports would have been presented as evidence.

The neocons tried to make the Pentagon and Shanksville part of what happened that day. (in fact covering up what really did)

[reprehensor]

13. Oh yeah...

Some ex-Air Force types don't think the remote control deal is all that implausible...

My only caveat is that I really need to see that videotape at the Pentagon of an AA jet crashing into it.

September 11 - US Government accused

A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: “Those birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.”

In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.

Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.

All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.

[dailykoff]

11. Do you know if you saw the first or the new version?

There are two, and I'm not sure which is which myself, but I learned on another board that the updated version premieres in Manhattan tomorrow, Sunday, at 6:30 p.m., in St. Marks Church in the East Village, announcement here:

http://ny911truth.org/

Maybe this version will have new information we haven't seen yet. Also, if I understand correctly, Dylan Avery is going to be there, so you might be able to talk with him directly.

[MrSammo1]

28. So if it's nothing but bull........

why isn't there a vertical stabilizer mark the the Pentagon's pre-collpase wall?

Do you believe in miracles?