9/11 - Loose Change

Great Debates
1

Hi everybody !

I’ve been following the Great Debates for some time now, and always enjoyed the quality of some insights in many, many topics on this board.
So it felt like a natural place to come to when in need of a critical take on some informations…

So here’s the trouble, my trouble:

A good friend of mine wanted to show me a movie “like Fahrenheit 911, but only more so”.

The name of the movie: “Loose Change - 2nd edition”.

When he explained it to me, I was sceptical, to say the least…
But then I saw it, and I must say that I am… disturbed by the “facts” exposed there.
To quote the website:

"This film shows direct connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the United States government.

Evidence is derived from news footage, scientific fact, and most important, Americans who suffered through that tragic day."

The evidence seems credible that:

  • bombs exploded inside the WTC towers
  • Al Quaeda is not linked to this - the video didn’t “star” Bin Laden
  • there was no plane hitting the Pentagon, but more likely a rocket
  • the voices heard from mobile phones of people aboard the plane are fake, since it is impossible to call when at this altitude, at least it was impossible in 2001 (airplane technology changed then)
  • etc

You know their conclusion from the quote above…

So, my question to everyone:

Did you see this movie ? What do you think of this ?

Here’s the link:

Please help me to clear my doubts on this matter…

Cyril

2

[QUOTE=Cyril77]
The evidence seems credible that:

  • bombs exploded inside the WTC towers
  • Al Quaeda is not linked to this - the video didn’t “star” Bin Laden
  • there was no plane hitting the Pentagon, but more likely a rocket
  • the voices heard from mobile phones of people aboard the plane are fake, since it is impossible to call when at this altitude, at least it was impossible in 2001 (airplane technology changed then)
  • etc

[/QUOTE]

The short answer is that no, the evidence is not credible for those things. For the long answer, read this thread, and come back with any specific questions not covered there. We’ve done 9/11 conspiracies to death on this board, and hopefully that thread and the ones linked from there will clear things up. If not, as I said, feel free to ask questions that haven’t been raised before.

3

[QUOTE=Cyril77]

The evidence seems credible that:

  • bombs exploded inside the WTC towers
  • Al Quaeda is not linked to this - the video didn’t “star” Bin Laden
  • there was no plane hitting the Pentagon, but more likely a rocket
  • the voices heard from mobile phones of people aboard the plane are fake, since it is impossible to call when at this altitude, at least it was impossible in 2001 (airplane technology changed then)
  • etc

Cyril
[/QUOTE]

This isn’t going to end well I don’t think most people here are going to be willing to do this again. This message board is devoted to fighting ignorance but even we limits.

I will give you the short version. We have done all of these before:

  1. You have two planes hitting the World Trade Center towers. There are plenty of engineering explanations out there that explain how the structure of the building got weakened and warped by heat and the whole thing can down like dominoes floor by floor with more weight to support after every one. You already know that the planes hit the towers. Why does someone have to add some complicated thing on top of it? Besides, the hijackers were Muslim terrorists and they died (or did they)?

  2. I don’t know what that means.

  3. This one has been done to death. There were 4 planes that took off and didn’t land that day. We know where three of them went. Were did the 4th go along with all those dead people? ATC tracked them as well.

  4. False - you most certainly could call at altitude and people in private aircraft did it all the time. The airlines and FAA just didn’t want dozens of people yacking away on a plane and potentially affecting the avionics. The phone companies didn’t like because it introduced complications in their equipment when a phone was moving that quickly.

4

Didn’t we just do a 10+ page thread on this? :smack:

-XT

5

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Didn’t we just do a 10+ page thread on this? :smack:

-XT
[/QUOTE]

In fairness, Guests can’t search.

6

Right…I didn’t notice s/he was a guest. My bad.

-XT

7

Link to thread referenced by xtisme.

8

In addition to what Shagnasty said above, many of the conversations from onboard the hijacked planes occured not over cell phones but on Airfones - the cordless seatback phones which have been available on almost all planes since long before 9/11 and which use sat-phone technology. These phones are easily capable of making calls from almost any point over land or sea at almost any altitude.

9

well, I assume nobody saw the movie I linked to.
I would have hoped specific rebuttals regarding the

anyway, thanks for the links provided !
I look at the thread you mention, and I does adress some points raised by the movie, but not all it seems.
I don’t remember all arguments, but it went a bit like that:

  1. bombs in the building:
  • many “puffs” are clearly visible in the building many, many floors below the collapsing floors
  • many firefighters report very clearly hearing bombs go off. Audio recordings show at least one bomb going of some seconds after the impact of one plane.
  • there were many more security drills in the weeks before the events as average.
  • bomb sniffing dogs were removed on 6/11 from the WTC
  • why you may ask ?
    • the planes make it look like an easy act of terrorism
    • the bombs make it sure that the buildings collapse totally.
  1. link with Al-Quaeda
  • a few days after the events, Bin Laden issued a statement via Al Jazeera stating that they are not connected to these events
  • some time later, a video is found where Bin Laden admits to this. However:
    • BL is seen writing with his right hand, and supposed to be left-handed.
    • he wears a gold ring, supposedly prohibited by his religion
    • he looks rather different (especially the beard shape) from other pictures of him
  1. no plane hitting the Pentagon
  • the hole is the size of the main part of the plane, not much traces of the wings or engines, which are massive objects as well
  • no footage of the plane hitting the building, although videos have been seized by the FBI
  • the plane hits right at the spot where the structure has just been reinforced thus ensuring minimal damage
  • Rumsfeld office exactly at the opposite side
  • unidentified planes photographed in the sky after the attack, when the FAA ordered all planes to remain on the ground
  1. phone calls from the airplane
  • a study suggests that the chance of giving a call from 32,000 feet is less than 1%
  • PR announcement of American Airlines in 2004 touts their new technology enabled passengers to call from within the plane.
  • no body founds at the crash site according to the coroner.

and additionaly

  1. the black boxes weren’t found
  • they are one of the most resistant stuff humankind makes
  • but the passport of a hijacker is supposed to have been found.
    Please consider that I am here merely repeting what I saw on the DVD and on the website.
    These points do intrigue me, and I’d love nothing more than a point-by-point rebuttal, so that my mind would be more at peace.

There are a lot more points made in the video, these are just a few of the most striking ones.

I leave the topics of: why would someone want to do this, and: how could they pull this off deliberately aside, because I’d like to focus on this evidence along.
But if someone wants to discuss the why, there is this:
"

The Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think tank whose members include Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush and Paul Wolfowitz, releases their report entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.”

In it, they declare that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.” (Page 50-51)"

as for the how: the Nazi’s succeeded in much worse, with the public only guessing what is was after years. The key is to divide and isolate the different parts…

Cyril

10

[ol]
[li]Not all the floors need to have collapsed sequentially. They may have collapsed out of order, at different times. If they had collapsed sequentially, bombs would have been much more likely.[/li][li]All kinds of things explode in a fire. Computer display screens, aerosol cans, even metal cans of Coca Cola will explode, by steam power. Signifies nothing.[/li][li]Re:security drills…cite? It could just have been a City Government inspired crackdown on fire drills.[/li][li]I know of no private, non-government, office building in America that keeps such dogs. A fiction.[/li][li]if a glass & steel building gets hit by an airplane that weighs more than 500 tons, going hundreds of miles an hour, & filled with jet fuel, it’s gonna go down anyway. Bombs are just un-needed.[/li][/ol]

11

As others have said, this has all been done to death, but just for fun, lets look at the logic, or lack of it, in the claims put forward in “Loose Change”:

  1. How and when would bombs have been placed in the WTC? How many people, how much material and how much time would have been necessary to rig enough explosives to gaurantee the towers’ collapse? Would none of these people have remarked to themselves on the oddity of rigging one of the world’s largest active business complexes with explosives? How was the silence of these people guaranteed? What about the various broadcast quality videos and still photos that clearly show the towers’ collapse initiating from the floors impacted by the aircraft? Lastly, if the intent was to stir public outrage over terrorism, would the planes hitting the towers not have been sufficient?

  2. Why were planes used in the WTC attacks, but not the Pentagon attack? What type of missile was used to attack the Pentagon? From what location was it fired? How many people, woul have been necessary to support this operation? How was their silence guranteed? Lastly, if the intent was to stir public outrage over terrorism, would the complete destruction of the World Trade Center not have been sufficient?

  3. What crashed at Shanksville, PA? If it was a hijacked jetliner on its way to Washington, DC, why was the Pentagon instead attacked with a missile? Why not just crash it this plane into the Pentagon instead? If it was not a hijacked jetliner, what was it? What was the purpose of simulating a crash at that site?

  4. Where are the four aircraft reported to have been hijacked? Where are their passengers and crew?

  5. In addition to the members of the 9/11 Committee, dozens of staffers, named and listed in the document, participated in its creation. During the investigation, the committee interviewed more than 150 persons, including persons purporting to be relatives of persons aboard the hijacked aircraft and who took their phone calls, air traffic controllers, military staff and other parties. Did all the witnesses lie about what they saw or did during the event, or did every single member of the committed, staffers included, somehow make everything up in the report? If any of the witnesses or any person on the committee lied, what was their personal motivation or incentive to do so?

Answer all these questions with something at least remotely plausible, and I’ll consider listening to conspiracy theories on this subject.

12

I’m going to regret this…

[QUOTE=Cyril77]
3) no plane hitting the Pentagon

  • the hole is the size of the main part of the plane, not much traces of the wings or engines, which are massive objects as well
  • no footage of the plane hitting the building, although videos have been seized by the FBI
  • the plane hits right at the spot where the structure has just been reinforced thus ensuring minimal damage
  • Rumsfeld office exactly at the opposite side
  • unidentified planes photographed in the sky after the attack, when the FAA ordered all planes to remain on the ground
    [/quote]

There’s footage of a test for a Japanese company that shows what happens to an F-4 Phantom jet when it hits a concrete wall. Basically, it disintegrates.

Aircraft need to be as light as possible, but also as strong as possible. They do this by having a structure that may be compared to an egg. Eggs are very strong, though they are very fragile. So are aircraft. The fuselage is small in cross section. Wings are wide. So when wings hit a structure much of the energy is dissipated along their length. Think of diving into a pool vs. doing a belly flop. If you make your body like a fuselage (diving), you penetrate into the water. If you spread the energy along the length and width of your body (belly flop), you don’t penetrate very deep.

[QUOTE=Cyril77]
4) phone calls from the airplane

  • a study suggests that the chance of giving a call from 32,000 feet is less than 1%
  • PR announcement of American Airlines in 2004 touts their new technology enabled passengers to call from within the plane.
  • no body founds at the crash site according to the coroner.
    [/quote]

As has been previously stated, mobile phones are perfectly capable of being used at altitude. (BTW: I believe the prohibition is an FCC regulation, and not an FAA regulation. If it’s an FAA regulation, I’d like to see the ‘chapter and verse’ from the FARs. Fighting ignorance, and all that.) The ‘new technology’ is, I believe, a system that allows enabled phones to be used at altitude and speed without interfering with the cellular system.

Re: Bodies. Intact bodies may not have been found. Search for the video of the F-4 to see why.

[QUOTE=Cyril77]
5) the black boxes weren’t found

  • they are one of the most resistant stuff humankind makes
  • but the passport of a hijacker is supposed to have been found.
    [/quote]

The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were found by Fairfax County Search & Rescue teams. Incidentally, the NTSB does not release cockpit voice recordings of aircraft crashes they investigate. Only transcripts.

There were lots of things found. An aircraft may be completely obliterated and burned. But the debris does not cease to exist. There are plenty of things that escaped destruction, and the passport happened to be one of them.

13

Following the last 9/11 debate, I started Kunilou’s rules of conspiracies. It’s a collection of guidelines to use to evaluate any claim of a Vast Conspiracy and coverup.

14

[QUOTE=Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor]
[ol]
[li]if a glass & steel building gets hit by an airplane that weighs more than 500 tons, going hundreds of miles an hour, & filled with jet fuel, it’s gonna go down anyway. Bombs are just un-needed.[/li][/ol]
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Bringing a building down of that size with bombs is a lot, lot, lot more difficult than imagined. A much, much easier method is the one the terrorists chose. Start a massive, very hot fire (a fire fueled by jet fuel) at a location that can’t be put out (too high for firefighters to reach) and let it burn uncontrolled. Eventually the metal will fatigue and the weight of the building above the impacted floors will bring the building down. STRAIGHT down. Why people think that just because the building fell ‘like’ a controlled demlition it must have been one is asinine. Has anyone ever seen an ‘uncontrolled’ demolition of a skyscraper? Do they think they tip over like trees?

15

Crash patterns (warning: .pdf). See page 11:

Note steep hillsides or canyon walls and small circular area.

There are six wreckage patterns:
[ul][li]Hole in the ground[/li][li]Corkscrew or auger[/li][li]Creaming or smear[/li][li]Four winds[/li][li]Hedge-trimming[/li][li]Splash[/ul][/li]The hole-in-the-ground applies here, since flying into a building is like flying into a canyon wall. (Although it’s called hole-in-the-ground, it doesn’t necessarily mean the literal ground, nor that the crash was vertical.) As stated by the Civil Air Patrol, this type of crash results in a small hole with wreckage around it – exactly as was seen at the Pentagon. (Incidentally, to head off ex post facto conspiracy theories regarding this document, I was in the Civil Air Patrol in the '80s and this document was available then.)

16

[QUOTE=Cyril77]

  • bomb sniffing dogs were removed on 6/11 from the WTC
    [/QUOTE]
    Not all of them.
17

But you guys are missing the obvious. The dogs were removed on 6/11. Now what happens if you rotate that “6” 180 degrees? Right. I’d like to see you explain away THAT little fact.

18

[QUOTE=Johnny L.A.]
There’s footage of a test for a Japanese company that shows what happens to an F-4 Phantom jet when it hits a concrete wall. Basically, it disintegrates.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, the test was done by Sandia National Laboratory. Pretty cool, I might add.

19

Definitely going to regret this too…and I’m definitely doing no more than dipping a toe in here.

[QUOTE=Cyril77]

  1. bombs in the building:
  • many “puffs” are clearly visible in the building many, many floors below the collapsing floors
  • many firefighters report very clearly hearing bombs go off. Audio recordings show at least one bomb going of some seconds after the impact of one plane.
  • there were many more security drills in the weeks before the events as average.
  • bomb sniffing dogs were removed on 6/11 from the WTC
  • why you may ask ?
  • the planes make it look like an easy act of terrorism
  • the bombs make it sure that the buildings collapse totally.
    [/QUOTE]

This point in particular was addressed ad nausium in the linked thread that Johnny L.A. so thoughtfully provided. There are a BUNCH of other threads on this subject as well, as its been done to death. The other threads take on your other points…and there is at least 2 threads that talk about the Loose Change BS directly. Since you repeat the above though I’m unsure if its worth my wile to dig em up for you…since your point 1 was so throughly reviewed in the linked thread.

Many puffs: Easy explaination here. Take two plates. Put some powdered sugar on the bottom plate. Slam the top plate into the bottom plate. Bobs your uncle…puffs! Its really not that hard to understand.

Firefighters reporting ‘bombs’: Comple of things here. In the video (yeah, we’ve all seen it man), the firefighters talk about ‘bombs’ going off when they arrived on the scene. The building collapsed something like 50 minutes later. Now, have you actually ever SEEN a building being imploded via explosives? It doesn’t take 50 minutes to collapse generally…more like a few seconds.

Secondly, do you know what ‘fog of war’ is? These firefighters were responding to a chaotic and stressful situation. It was a major emergency. They THINK they heard ‘bombs’ but it could have been…well, just about anything exploding. After all, a plane full of jet fuel had crashed into a building…a building full of combustable materials. Doesn’t seem such a logical stretch that SOMETHING is going to explode in a high intensity fire…does it? As a mental excersize, picture driving a fuel truck into an office building and setting it on fire. Whats going to happen?

Security drills: So what? Frankly we don’t know what, if anything, this means. I’ve seen no proof that there were an inordinate amount of drills prior to 9/11 (I’ve seen it CLAIMED…I’ve seen no PROOF). Even if there were more drills for some reason, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

Bomb sniffing dogs: See above.
Bottom line on this section…show me the money! Repeatedly the CT’s who are pushing this have been asked for some kind of concrete proof. Where is it? If you wire a building the size of the WTC BUILDINGS to implode you are going to leave behind tons (literally) of physical evidence. Where is it? Where is the det cord, the explosive residue, the tell tail marks of implosiong, etc? HOW was this amount of explosive inserted into the building without anyone detecting it? You don’t just stuff a few pounds of PE into some broom closet and bring down a building the size of the WTC after all. It takes professionals months to wire up a building, and THEY have access to a stripped down hulk (giving them direct access to the load bearing members and such)…not an office building full of people. No one notices all the wires and holes in the walls and such? :dubious:

How is it even plausable that explosives were inserted into the building without anyone noticing? How long would such a job even take? Years if they had to do it in secret.

-XT

20

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
Actually, the test was done by Sandia National Laboratory. Pretty cool, I might add.
[/QUOTE]

I thought it was done at Sandia for the Japanese.