9/11 Loose Change (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848)

This is THE documentary on September 11th.

* WARNING: Not for those with a weak stomach, a weak mind, or Republicans (which is redundant, I know).

welp, I just got done watching it in its entirety and let me say that they really did make some good points. I still do not know why we are in a war in Iraq.

With my finals upcoming I don't have the time to view the whole thing but I watched a little bit of it and found it interesting.

Oh please. I watched more than 10 minutes worth of this X Files garbage. At first I thought it would be just another Michael Moore the republicans were asleep at the wheel documentaries.

I'll save everyone time. It's a third man on the lawn of the grassy noll conspiracy theory that has that it was our gov't that crashed the planes and worked with the Al Qaeda. I didn't get that far into the movie to know why we would want to.

This is about as sad and pitiful as those that claim the holocaust never happened.

Disappointing that some of you can be swayed so easily by a college kid with a sony handycam and little tune playing in the background and fake news items.

LMAO. nothing interesting about it. disrespectful and disgraceful. I rather watch a loch ness monster video.

The WTC points were compelling. A very well-made doc. Some points, though.

Flight 93: Showing the wreckage side by side with ONE other airliner crash is not enough. How about the Alaska Airlines crash off the coast of Southern Cali some years ago. Plane went straight down, nosediving into the drink at a high rate of speed, completely disintegrating upon impact, rather than spreading itself over a distance. He does mention one other airliner slamming into a side of a mountain and leaving debris, but debris was also present at the 93 site as well, just piled into a clump -- like it came straight down.

The pentagon: When something as massive as a jet airliner slams into the side of a building, the force of impact can possibly send a shockwave that can extend itself beyond the crash site. This could be the explaination for the "nose" hole. We also don't know if that "hole" really exists. I don't remember hearing anything about an "exit hole". I did hear that the outer rings did their job, protecting the inner rings. Of everything about the Pentagon, the missing security cam video from the gas station and the hotel are the biggest question marks -- if they exist at all. Also, the light posts -- one version of the WTC footage we DON'T see is a close-up of the second crash taken from a rooftop handheld, where the second plane "knifes" into the tower like it was made of butter, wings intact.

WTC -- the explosions might very well be structural failures occuring, rather than explosions. Of the many fires around the world where the building did not collapse, none were hit by a passenger airliner with a full tank of jet fuel. As for the Empire State building incident being hit by the bomber and not collapsing, this is true, but a ten ton B-25 is not comparable to a 395,000 lbs. 767.

Oh please. I watched more than 10 minutes worth of this X Files garbage. At first I thought it would be just another Michael Moore the republicans were asleep at the wheel documentaries.

I'll save everyone time. It's a third man on the lawn of the grassy noll conspiracy theory that has that it was our gov't that crashed the planes and worked with the Al Qaeda. I didn't get that far into the movie to know why we would want to.

This is about as sad and pitiful as those that claim the holocaust never happened.

Disappointing that some of you can be swayed so easily by a college kid with a sony handycam and little tune playing in the background and fake news items.

LMAO. nothing interesting about it. disrespectful and disgraceful. I rather watch a loch ness monster video.

You certainly have quite the opinion after seeing 10 minutes of a 100 minute presentation.

Watch the whole thing and then feel free to spew your ignorance, sparky.

WTC -- the explosions might very well be structural failures occuring, rather than explosions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness&pl=true

Check that one out. It goes into incredible detail about the explosions, which were cleary heard and felt prior to the collapses. Extremely interesting vid.


Of the many fires around the world where the building did not collapse, none were hit by a passenger airliner with a full tank of jet fuel.

WTC7 also wasn't hit by a jet, and yet collapsed, supposedly solely due to fire.

Oh please. I watched more than 10 minutes worth of this X Files garbage. At first I thought it would be just another Michael Moore the republicans were asleep at the wheel documentaries.

I'll save everyone time. It's a third man on the lawn of the grassy noll conspiracy theory that has that it was our gov't that crashed the planes and worked with the Al Qaeda. I didn't get that far into the movie to know why we would want to.

This is about as sad and pitiful as those that claim the holocaust never happened.

Disappointing that some of you can be swayed so easily by a college kid with a sony handycam and little tune playing in the background and fake news items.

LMAO. nothing interesting about it. disrespectful and disgraceful. I rather watch a loch ness monster video.

You certainly have quite the opinion after seeing 10 minutes of a 100 minute presentation.

Watch the whole thing and then feel free to spew your ignorance, sparky.

Hey I heard that the CIA trained Bin Laden, even paid for his camps and really Bin Laden is actually American born. Well not really but if little Timmy said it in the video I am sure you would be parading the info as fact.

As to why eye witnesses heard exlposions and some saw planes while others didn't? Ever gathered a group of eye witnesses that just seen a traffic accident? How many diff stories usually come out?

Certain people are so gullible which is why conspiracy theories work so well and keep going for generations. Hey did the Holocaust happen? There is some incredible footage and documenation that shows it was a big fat lie. That Loch Ness monster video was pretty convincing too as was the alien autopsy. Go dig me out Hoffa of the North end zone of the meadowlands and then we can talk about Bush killing off people so he can be ruler of the world. Sad sad shit to place hope in conspiracies such as these.

TK give me a break dude. 10 minutes is all I need.

Certain people are so gullible which is why conspiracy theories work so well and keep going for generations. Hey did the Holocaust happen? There is some incredible footage and documenation that shows it was a big fat lie. That Loch Ness monster video was pretty convincing too as was the alien autopsy. Go dig me out Hoffa of the North end zone of the meadowlands and then we can talk about Bush killing off people so he can be ruler of the world. Sad sad shit to place hope in conspiracies such as these.

TK give me a break dude. 10 minutes is all I need.

Clearly you're saying the Bush-led government would NEVER be corrupted enough to advance it's own fucked up agenda at all costs.

Nice to see you have such faith in our infallable government.

And shove the Holocaust theory directy up your ass. Don't lump people who question the government's possible participation in 9/11 with lunatics. There are very valid questions raised by the likes of people who believe the government might've had something to do with 9/11. Maybe an amazing set of coincidences all happened at the perfect times to enable 9/11 to happen, and maybe they were helped to happen. We don't know yet. But don't be so stupid as to close your eyes and ears to it and be selectively oblivious.

What about W's presidency has made you so absolutely sure about his unshaking loyalty to the American people and the world?

TK, did you ever end up watching Fahrenheit 9/11?

It took a post like this to get TK's ass out of bed.:D

TK, did you ever end up watching Fahrenheit 9/11?

Ha!

Actually, no. But I'm less opposed to do so now than ever before. Even if Moore lied about Bush, I'll still want to believe it. Deep is my hatred for our fearless leader.

It IS a very well put-together piece of film. However, I'd need to footnote a lot of his "facts", eyewitness accounts, and news print. Many of the points he drives home re: stuff placed in print (like the shorting against American Airlines stock) he fails to address which publication he got that from. The flight numbers and flight boards, too.

I'm just not a big fan of documentary filmmakers that try to drive home their own opinion by shoving it in your face. That's why I fucking HATE Michael Moore -- hiss films are more about him and his liberal views than the subject matter. Docs are supposed to let the viewer reach their own damn conclusion, though they can skew the opinion in one direction or another. When the dude straight out said the WTC fell due to a planned demolition with military precision, I said "fuck you"! Let me make that call -- don't scream it at me.

I think it was a great eye-opening documentary, but I couldn't buy in to all of it. The flight 93 thing was a bit shaky. I haven't seen enough evidence to suggest anything other than a 757 hit the Pentagon, although it really was a pretty amazing bit of flying from a pretty inexperienced pilot.

It IS a very well put-together piece of film. However, I'd need to footnote a lot of his "facts", eyewitness accounts, and news print. Many of the points he drives home re: stuff placed in print (like the shorting against American Airlines stock) he fails to address which publication he got that from. The flight numbers and flight boards, too.

I'm just not a big fan of documentary filmmakers that try to drive home their own opinion by shoving it in your face. That's why I fucking HATE Michael Moore -- hiss films are more about him and his liberal views than the subject matter. Docs are supposed to let the viewer reach their own damn conclusion, though they can skew the opinion in one direction or another. When the dude straight out said the WTC fell due to a planned demolition with military precision, I said "fuck you"! Let me make that call -- don't scream it at me.
YOU AIN'T HOPING FOR THE LORD! YOU HOPING IN VAIN MATERIAL AND SUPERFICIAL SHIT! GIVE YOU MORE OF WHAT YOU ARE HOPING FOR! I BELIEVE IN HEAVEN AND SO I'M ALREADY THERE! GODDAMN MORDERER!

Certain people are so gullible which is why conspiracy theories work so well and keep going for generations. Hey did the Holocaust happen? There is some incredible footage and documenation that shows it was a big fat lie. That Loch Ness monster video was pretty convincing too as was the alien autopsy. Go dig me out Hoffa of the North end zone of the meadowlands and then we can talk about Bush killing off people so he can be ruler of the world. Sad sad shit to place hope in conspiracies such as these.

TK give me a break dude. 10 minutes is all I need.

Clearly you're saying the Bush-led government would NEVER be corrupted enough to advance it's own fucked up agenda at all costs.

Nice to see you have such faith in our infallable government.

And shove the Holocaust theory directy up your ass. Don't lump people who question the government's possible participation in 9/11 with lunatics. There are very valid questions raised by the likes of people who believe the government might've had something to do with 9/11. Maybe an amazing set of coincidences all happened at the perfect times to enable 9/11 to happen, and maybe they were helped to happen. We don't know yet. But don't be so stupid as to close your eyes and ears to it and be selectively oblivious.

What about W's presidency has made you so absolutely sure about his unshaking loyalty to the American people and the world?

This shit cracks me up. Look, either Bush was an incompetent fool that sat back and let the islamists kill 3,000 of our people or he was a brilliant mastermind that pulled off the largest terroist attack ever for his own advances. You can't fucking have it both ways. It's a conspiracy theory by very definition.

I love how I don't have my eyes open to a very fringe viewpoint.

This shit cracks me up. Look, either Bush was an incompetent fool that sat back and let the islamists kill 3,000 of our people or he was a brilliant mastermind that pulled off the largest terroist attack ever for his own advances. You can't fucking have it both ways crackhead. It's a conspiracy theory by very definition.

I love how I don't have my eyes open to a very fringe viewpoint. Your too young to be the wiser is my guess.

Have you ever heard of the PNAC (Project for the New American Century)?

If not, I'll summarize. It's a thinktank and it's agenda is boosting America's defense spending to even more astronomical levels in order to "spread American leadership across the globe." It encourages the idea of pre-emptive strikes against countries that may be future enemies of America and the establisment of American strongholds across the globe. I guess you could say it's pretty hell-bent on global supremacy.

Sounds pretty far-right, right?

It's members include/have included Jeb Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, to name a few.

Now, when it was formed, the members of the PNAC realized that it would take years and years to slowly establish it's agenda, unless a "New Pearl Harbor" were to happen that would galvanize the American people and put the PNAC initiatives on the fast track. And of course, this is exactly what's going on today - pre-emptive strikes and the establishment of American leadership in foreign lands. For the sake of the PNAC and it's agenda, it's awfully convenient that 9/11 happened.

The makers of this documentary, among others, speculate that 9/11 was the new Pearl Harbor they were looking for. And that it was either allowed to happen or even orchestrated by the US government. This is a legitimate issue and one can hardly blame the filmmakers for questioning what's going on.

Also, don't fool yourself into thinking that the government has never contemplated attacking it's own people and blaming it on someone else in order to gain the public's support to attack a country. This notion was bantered around in the 60's, when we wanted to declare war upon Cuba.

TK you been had my man.

LMAO at anyone gullible enough to of believed this shit. Next time don't be so gullible. This is why the media controls most peoples thoughts on issues.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

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. (BOOYA YOU GULLIBLE BITCH'S!)

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 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.


http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/sb_textspacer-54.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif



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.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif

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.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifhttp://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-windows-sm.jpg
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clicktoenlarge.gif (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468182&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EPLAIN +VIEW%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Passenger+windows+on+a+piece +of+Flight+175%27s+fuselage.+PHOTOGRPAH+BY+WILLIAM +F.+BAKER%2FFEMA)
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
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.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifhttp://media.popularmechanics.com/images/sb_textspacer-54.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif

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.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif"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."

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifPuffs 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."

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifhttp://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-collapse-sm.jpg
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clicktoenlarge.gif (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468207&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EVIOLE NT+COLLAPSE%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Pancaking+floors--not+controlled+demolition--expel+debris+and+smoke+out+South+Tower+windows.+PH OTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHOTOS)
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

This is nothing I haven't seen before.


LMAO at anyone gullible enough to of believed this shit. Next time don't be so gullible. This is why the media controls most peoples thoughts on issues.


This is cute. Isn't Popular Mechanics a part of the "media"? Nice google search, sparky. Now go ahead and do a search for the scads of articles/posts/writings which dispute that article.

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.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifhttp://media.popularmechanics.com/images/PMX0305_911_001-sm.jpg
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clicktoenlarge.gif (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=493542&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EHQ+AT TACK%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Taken+three+days+after+9%2F11 %2C+this+photo+shows+the+extent+of+the+damage+to+t he+Pentagon%2C+consistent+with+a+fiery+plane+crash .+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+DEPARTMENT+OF+DEFENSE)
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
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.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifhttp://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-pentagon-SM.jpg
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clicktoenlarge.gif (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468227&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EHOLE+ TRUTH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Flight+77%E2%80%99s+landing+ gear+punched+a+12-ft.+hole+into+the+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+Ring+C.+PHOTO GRAPH+BY+DEPARTMENT+OF+DEFENSE)
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
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: the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif[B]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?"

http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gifhttp://media.popularmechanics.com/images/0305911-flight77-sm.jpg
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clicktoenlarge.gif (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?c=y&imageID=468257&caption=%3Cspan+class%3D%22captionintro%22%3EAFTER MATH%3A%3C%2Fspan%3E+Wreckage+from+Flight+77+on+th e+Pentagon%E2%80%99s+lawn--proof+that+a+passenger+plane%2C+not+a+missile%2C+h it+the+building.+PHOTOGRAPH+BY+AP%2FWIDE+WORLD+PHO TOS)
http://media.popularmechanics.com/designimages/clear.gif
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

This is nothing I haven't seen before.


LMAO at anyone gullible enough to of believed this shit. Next time don't be so gullible. This is why the media controls most peoples thoughts on issues.


This is cute. Isn't Popular Mechanics a part of the "media"? Nice google search, sparky. Now go ahead and do a search for the scads of articles/posts/writings which dispute that article.

You're bordering on lunacy. Read the article. The proved without a doubt you UFO believers are full of shit. I am now convinced you are too young to know any different and this is where I am not going to argue with children.

Here is a list of experts that contributed to the article.

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

I have to take off pretty soon for the weekend, but I'll be back Monday to explore this in further detail.

PM attacked some of the most outlandish claims about 9/11, most of which I don't agree with (or maybe even all of which I don't agree with, I gotta go back and read it again).

It did not address the PNAC, or the fact the government knew Atta was in the country, gathering intelligence for the attacks.

I have to take off pretty soon for the weekend, but I'll be back Monday to explore this in further detail.

PM attacked some of the most outlandish claims about 9/11, most of which I don't agree with (or maybe even all of which I don't agree with, I gotta go back and read it again).

It did not address the PNAC, or the fact the government knew Atta was in the country, gathering intelligence for the attacks.

The Atta thing could of been incompetance. I never heard these conspiracy theories before so I actually was doing some research on it today and ran across the PM article. Thank goodness I did cause I was starting to wonder:)

You're bordering on lunacy. Read the article. The proved without a doubt you UFO believers are full of shit. I am now convinced you are too young to know any different and this is where I am not going to argue with children.

I'm 34 years old, you condescending prick.

Did you read the article? Or was this a fine example of blind cut and paste?

ONCE AGAIN, it didn't prove shit. It said a missle wasn't fired from one of the 757s. Fine, I don't believe that anyway. It said that commercial planes were indeed flown into the WTC towers, and not military jets. Cool, that's what I think too.

Tell me your thoughts on the PNAC and it's agendas. I'll await your next brilliant posting of other people's thoughts.

You're bordering on lunacy. Read the article. The proved without a doubt you UFO believers are full of shit. I am now convinced you are too young to know any different and this is where I am not going to argue with children.

I'm 34 years old, you condescending prick.

Did you read the article? Or was this a fine example of blind cut and paste?

ONCE AGAIN, it didn't prove shit. It said a missle wasn't fired from one of the 757s. Fine, I don't believe that anyway. It said that commercial planes were indeed flown into the WTC towers, and not military jets. Cool, that's what I think too.

Tell me your thoughts on the PNAC and it's agendas. I'll await your next brilliant posting of other people's thoughts.

Who cares about the PNAC. There's a current rumor about Bush and Rummy being in something called the illumaries club. Google it the conspiracy theorists say that it's a select group of people that run the whole world. It's all garbage. All of it. P.S. Sorry for calling you a child - Just an gullible adult.

And yes the article deunked most mytghs the movies mentioned. I am not keeping score of everything you do or don't think happened.

The Atta thing could of been incompetance.

Sure, it could've been incompetance. Or Atta could've been allowed to operate under the government's noses. Either point has validity.


I never heard these conspiracy theories before

Thanks for proving my point. You think one blind cut and paste answers it all? You honestly don't think it's been addressed anywhere else by people who still believe the government had something to do with it? Look a little deeper.

And check out http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ if you need evidence that people smarter than you or I actually buy into this.

I know you'd rather dismiss this notion with a wave of your hand and lump anyone who believes this (or at least questions it) in with the same group of people who believe Elvis is still alive and that they've been abducted by aliens, but this is actually a legit issue, if you care to open your eyes and investigate it further.

Who cares about the PNAC. There's a current rumor about Bush and Rummy being in something called the illumaries club. Google it the conspiracy theorists say that it's a select group of people that run the whole world. It's all garbage. All of it. P.S. Sorry for calling you a child - Just an gullible adult.

And yes the article deunked most mytghs the movies mentioned. I am not keeping score of everything you do or don't think happened.

I assume you are talking about the "illuminati". Such a group has been around in conspiracy theorise for decades. Just about anyone with power gets mixed in a thoery or two with them.

The Atta thing could of been incompetance.

Sure, it could've been incompetance. Or Atta could've been allowed to operate under the government's noses. Either point has validity.


I never heard these conspiracy theories before

Thanks for proving my point. You think one blind cut and paste answers it all? You honestly don't think it's been addressed anywhere else by people who still believe the government had something to do with it? Look a little deeper.

And check out http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ if you need evidence that people smarter than you or I actually buy into this.

I know you'd rather dismiss this notion with a wave of your hand and lump anyone who believes this (or at least questions it) in with the same group of people who believe Elvis is still alive and that they've been abducted by aliens, but this is actually a legit issue, if you care to open your eyes and investigate it further.

TK listen man. Your asking me to believe something that is so out there. Is it possible...Sure I guess, Probable...most likely no. I need to debate things that are within reason and something like this is such a fringe viewpoint. This isn't worth us arguing about any further. I feel that there is scientific proof dispelling this trash. You want to despertley believe something is there when it's not and it has to do with your dislike of GWB. Your standards are lowered to such a point that anything becomes believable.


I view this just like I view Loch ness, Saskwatch and everything else. Have a good weekend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

I'm kind of regretting that we went with "The Syndicate" now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati

I'm kind of regretting that we went with "The Syndicate" now.

Sorry, I cant believe this garbage. I'm with Geko here.
I just find it really hard to believe this crap.

The government would never betray, manipulate, deceive, or use the American "sheep" in order to further their own agenda.


Fuck, hasn't history taught you people anything?

The government would never betray, manipulate, deceive, or use the American "sheep" in order to further their own agenda.


Fuck, hasn't history taught you people anything?

What is it we are talking about here NQ - Is the argument deception or complicent involvment in the slaughter of more than 3,000 Americans?

This is what makes America great: social discourse.

When you speak of "government", remember, there's still a lot of good people within Congress and various levels of administration -- individuals who are patriots and, more than likely, would have whistle-blown this conspiracy a long time ago.

When ordering a black op, the number one rule is "keep it simple, stupid" (K.I.S.S). The less individuals in on it, the better. The more contained it is, the less likelihood of residual damage.

The scope of this "conspiracy" is massive. Too many people would have known too many sensitive things and too many secrets for it to have been covered up for this long.

Of course, a rule of counter-intelligence is to create multiple versions of the same incident, as to confuse the public. If one is to believe the government is behind 9/11, then one must ALSO believe that many of these "conspiracy documentaries" are actually government productions designed to confuse you.

The government would never betray, manipulate, deceive, or use the American "sheep" in order to further their own agenda.


Fuck, hasn't history taught you people anything?

What is it we are talking about here NQ - Is the argument deception or complicent involvment in the slaughter of more than 3,000 Americans?

They've done it to people of other countries. I don't know why you would think the term "american" would make you any less expendable.

This is why our government is so fucking brilliant. They could commit countless crimes against the American people, video tape it while each holding 3 official forms of ID, and publicly mail their unclassified documents to the media, and people's responses would still be "I won't even watch this liberal agenda crap! This far-fetched, X-Files, right-wing bullshit!"

They just throw out their key-words and watch people pavlov all over themselves. George W. Bush says he stands for "family values, Godly morals, America, the fight agaisnt evil"

People say to themselves, "I stand for family values, I belive in God, , I love America, I'm no terrorist!"


They own your asses.

Nah, a reasonable debate is whether GWB and Clintons white houses had misssed the signs of an attack not if the Bush white house orchestrated it.

This is why our government is so fucking brilliant. They could commit countless crimes against the American people, video tape it while each holding 3 official forms of ID, and publicly mail their unclassified documents to the media, and people's responses would still be "I won't even watch this liberal agenda crap! This far-fetched, X-Files, right-wing bullshit!"

They just throw out their key-words and watch people pavlov all over themselves. George W. Bush says he stands for "family values, Godly morals, America, the fight agaisnt evil"

People say to themselves, "I stand for family values, I belive in God, , I love America, I'm no terrorist!"


They own your asses.
They've been doing this since Warren Harding (Anthony has no idea who he is...Wikipedia it). And they've become very good at it.

Sorry, I cant believe this garbage. I'm with Geko here.
I just find it really hard to believe this crap.

Occam's Razor > Conspiracy Theory

Amazing how the government is so incompetent in every regard--FEMA, prewar intelligence, etc.-- yet it's able to pull off a complex, multifaceted conspiracy that kills 2900 civilians, and everyone keeps it a secret. Not one person leaks to the press. None have any friends or relatives working in the WTC or the Pentagon.

Comethefukon.

Jesus, not this Loose Change bullshit again. Other message boards have been ruined with this Holocaust-denial-like "topic," and I hope the same doesn't happen here.

Since posting some 110-minute long documentary and expecting people to sit through it isn't the best way to start a discussion, I'll ask some questions.

-What are the most salient points made in the video? What evidence is shown for them?

-What was the motivation behind the attacks?

-How did such a huge conspiracy occur with no one involved ever letting anyone know?

I'm literally shaking, this shit angers me so.

The government would never betray, manipulate, deceive, or use the American "sheep" in order to further their own agenda.


Fuck, hasn't history taught you people anything?

Yes, that government is so incompetent that it could never pull off a stunt like this.

The government would never betray, manipulate, deceive, or use the American "sheep" in order to further their own agenda.


Fuck, hasn't history taught you people anything?
Yes, that government is so incompetent that it could never pull off a stunt like this.

Of course, to play Devil's Advocate here, a "conspiracy" this far-reaching would have taken years to plan, with every detail carefully laid out. The incompetence of the Bush Administration could be a front, another form of deception to create a disbelief that such an inept government could achieve such a calculated aand precise manouver.

But, as I said earlier, and pointed out several times since, too many ears connected to too many mouths hearing too many things. At least with Kennedy, it was one man and one abrupt detour. This? I'm not so sure.

I'll play Devil's advocate, too: Wendy's paid that couple to lie about finding a finger in the chili, so that it could get some great PR for the company's new communication campaign: "Finger-free Chili!" ... Christopher Reeves paid that horse to buck him, so that he could raise money for paraplegics.

Denny, I liked your "gasoline-$3 coffee" argument, but you're giving me buyer's remorse.

I'll play Devil's advocate, too: Wendy's paid that couple to lie about finding a finger in the chili, so that it could get some great PR for the company's new communication campaign: "Finger-free Chili!" ... Christopher Reeves paid that horse to buck him, so that he could raise money for paraplegics.

Denny, I liked your "gasoline-$3 coffee" argument, but you're giving me buyer's remorse.
Think like a foot-stomping Liberal -- Bush and his team only care about money and world domination. Domestically, they don't give a flying shit. Think about it -- what better way to cover one of the greatest conspriacies in the history of mankind than to look like you can't walk and chew gum at the same time. It's perfect. Right?

Of course it isn't.

TK listen man. Your asking me to believe something that is so out there.

Actually, I'm not. I'm just suggesting there's more to it than you may want to consider. That, at least, you might be able to admit.

I really can't blame you for reacting this way, though. I reacted the exact same way when I first heard the theory. After I dug in a bit more, it became less and less outlandish.

You know what I find curious? The fact that a majority of people in this country thoroughly believe that there was a conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination, and most of them have no problem believing the government had something to do with it (I don't by the way - I believe Oswald acted alone).

Yet when you suggest the same government had something to do with 9/11, people are outraged, claiming our bumbling government could never pull something like that off.

By the way, here's just one of many articles that debunks PM's debunking attempt:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

-What was the motivation behind the attacks?

-How did such a huge conspiracy occur with no one involved ever letting anyone know?

Motivation: as I already stated, the PNAC needed a "new Pearl Harbor".

Who would have to be in on the conspiracy in order to pull it off? I'd think very few. The rest would just follow orders. Would Atta and his cronies be privy to the government's agenda before executing their mission? No, they'd think they were doing it to advance their own cause, without ever knowing our government knew what they were about to do. People just assume that something this big would require the involvement of thousands of conspirators, but that's not the way the world works. People do what they're told and are trained not to question why.

Wow. Just wow. People actually give credence to stuff like this? I didn't even have to invest the 10 minutes that Gecko did to dismiss it out of hand. I'm perfectly comfortable calling "pile of crap" on this one without having to step in it.

Wow. Just wow. People actually give credence to stuff like this? I didn't even have to invest the 10 minutes that Gecko did to dismiss it out of hand. I'm perfectly comfortable calling "pile of crap" on this one without having to step in it.

Excellent. Way to be objective.

Objectively speaking, it's a nutty idea. While I don't doubt that all kinds of interests were opportunistic in using the 9/11 aftermath to advance their agendas, the idea that the government was an accessory, mastermind or complicit in any way other than sheer incompetence is laughable.

Objectively speaking, it's a nutty idea.

Agreed.

So is invading Iraq for no good reason and pre-emptively striking Iran.

Motivation: as I already stated, the PNAC needed a "new Pearl Harbor".

Who would have to be in on the conspiracy in order to pull it off? I'd think very few. The rest would just follow orders. Would Atta and his cronies be privy to the government's agenda before executing their mission? No, they'd think they were doing it to advance their own cause, without ever knowing our government knew what they were about to do. People just assume that something this big would require the involvement of thousands of conspirators, but that's not the way the world works. People do what they're told and are trained not to question why.

This is true... but following orders to ATTACK the Pentagon? Following orders to demolish the World Trade Centers (there's no way only a few people could have precisely planted so many "devices" in the towers in such a short amount of time)? Following orders to cover up the existence of Flight 93 (that would include United and Cleveland Airport)? Following orders is one thing -- I follow orders every day, we all do -- but executing a command which leads to the deaths of hundreds and thousands of Americans, and nobody talks? That's a tall order.

As for "advancing" their own cause -- it was alluded to in the film that the actual flights were not used, that several of the planes are still in existence. Also, most of the hijackers are still alive. That would mean that the so-called hijackers were never in on it, that the planes were remote-contolled drones (hence, the long opening about drones), which would again mean that Americans were behind the switches.

Objectively speaking, it's a nutty idea.

Agreed.

So is invading Iraq for no good reason and pre-emptively striking Iran.

...therefore every random conspiracy theory has merit? No.

Objectively speaking, it's a nutty idea.

Agreed.

So is invading Iraq for no good reason and pre-emptively striking Iran.

...therefore every random conspiracy theory has merit? No.

It's only a 'random conspiracy theory' to you because you refuse to acknowledge it.

Motivation: as I already stated, the PNAC needed a "new Pearl Harbor".

Who would have to be in on the conspiracy in order to pull it off? I'd think very few. The rest would just follow orders. Would Atta and his cronies be privy to the government's agenda before executing their mission? No, they'd think they were doing it to advance their own cause, without ever knowing our government knew what they were about to do. People just assume that something this big would require the involvement of thousands of conspirators, but that's not the way the world works. People do what they're told and are trained not to question why.

This is true... but following orders to ATTACK the Pentagon? Following orders to demolish the World Trade Centers (there's no way only a few people could have precisely planted so many "devices" in the towers in such a short amount of time)? Following orders to cover up the existence of Flight 93 (that would include United and Cleveland Airport)? Following orders is one thing -- I follow orders every day, we all do -- but executing a command which leads to the deaths of hundreds and thousands of Americans, and nobody talks? That's a tall order.

As for "advancing" their own cause -- it was alluded to in the film that the actual flights were not used, that several of the planes are still in existence. Also, most of the hijackers are still alive. That would mean that the so-called hijackers were never in on it, that the planes were remote-contolled drones (hence, the long opening about drones), which would again mean that Americans were behind the switches.

I agree with everything you say here, but to me these issues are strawmen. They're interesting to talk about and investigate, but I believe the real issue is how much the government knew about 9/11, and whether or not it allowed 9/11 to happen in order to advance PNAC's agenda.

The buildings didn't need to collapse in order for Americans to be sufficiently pissed at whomever the government blamed for the incident.

From Stevie: Get off my name you fucking garbage person.

There's an interesting point in this documentary, where the filmmaker illustrates the difference between a "yellow" fireball from a plane crash test, and the "silvery" flash from the Pentagon explosion.

Question: If the only image account of the crash was 5 frames from a parking lot security cam, then how in the fucking Hell did he get his hands on a straight shot of the explosion?

There was a secondary explosion some time later, but the filmmaker alludes to this mystery photo in a way which suggests it "is" a shot of the crash.

Also, small details are missed, like the "B-52" crashing into the Empire State building -- it was a B-25, not a B-52. 52's hadn't even been designed yet, let alone built. Ticky tack? Maybe, but in a film like this, any small missteps can throw overall believability right out the window.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/sept_11_video&printer=1;_ylt=AqvC6KmoyPL66y0cBqGXD.yWwvIE;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-


Pentagon to Release 9/11 Security Video

17 minutes ago

The Pentagon said Tuesday it planned to release video images of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the military headquarters building and killing 184 people in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The images, recorded by a Pentagon security camera, were to be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The video had previously been leaked and publicly circulated, but this is the first time the government will have officially released the imagery.

The hijacked American Airlines plane slammed into the southwest side of the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. EDT, shortly after two other hijacked airlines were flown into the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York. The attack set off fires in a portion of the Pentagon and killed 125 people inside, in addition to those on board the plane.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

Not that footage could ever deter a conspiracy theorist. Surely the tape wasn't released for so long because it was being doctored to cover up the truth. We're all just so naiive.

Sad day, yg.

^ yep. Really weird to see the coverage as it happened replayed this morning.


Ted Olson's wife was on the plane that hit the pentagon. She called him after the hijacking. Must've been painful to talk to your spouse knowing 2 planes already hit the WTC.

I watched that all morning too, the real-time re-air of the Today Show. Was weird to see what was happening at 10:05 am then right at 10:05 am today. I had memories of watching that same broadcast when it originally aired. Felt some of the same feels.

I blame the Patriots.