Loose Change - Part II

[60hzxtl]

Meaning that he was the only one whos body was found intact after the collapse as though his body was placed there afterwards.


Sentinel


Please check that Sentinal, you have the resources to do so.

Captain Patrick Brown was found intact.

[Belz...]

Please check that Sentinal, you have the resources to do so.

Captain Patrick Brown was found intact.


Yeah and, I mean... we've all seen UNDER SIEGE II, right ? If Seagal can survive THAT explosion, then everything's possible!!!1111!!

[Hutch]

Dear Sentinel;

I will hand it to you, you have managed to severely P.O.both DJLeacgy and Gravy, probably one of the few things those two will ever agree upon.

Reading your posts, I get the same feeling one has when he enters a conversation that has been underway for 10 minutes; you have a general idea what is going on, but need to figure out what has gone before. Usually future posts define this, but every one of your posts simply starts in the middle of a thought and carries on--and there is no seeming conection to them to link up in my head.

Now, I am not the smartest person here (but I'm pretty smart nonetheless), and if I can't fathom where you are going, I doubt that many others can.

So please, that I at least can figure from what perspective you are coming from, can you start at the beginning (CT or pretty much accepting the NIST report or some other Point of View?) and what you are trying to present here?

Because I really do not understand-and I'd at least like to make an attempt to do so.

Thoughtfully yours, Hutch

[chipmunk stew]

OK so I was perusing the LC forum with my sleeper account (I have 5. Don't tell) and I cannot believe how close to total implosion they are. They went from nutty to outright batsh** insane to Scientology and now we're 15 steps crazier than that!

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion...I have a hypothesis about this. Skeptics go present evidence of why they're wrong, and in order to combat this, they ban the skeptics. But the damage has been done. Doubt has been introduced. You can see this in the way Loose Change itself is being presented. They've pretty much abandoned it as a source of facts or substantial information, and hold it up merely as something that gets people asking questions.

Since the skeptics have made certain arguments untenable and poked inconvenient and obvious holes in their overall theories, they must repair the damage with ever more convoluted speculation. The faster they ban the skeptics, the faster these ideas morph and spread, having ever fewer people there to keep them in check. They're going to choke on their own tangle of speculation.

[Hutch]

OK so I was perusing the LC forum with my sleeper account (I have 5. Don't tell) and I cannot believe how close to total implosion they are. They went from nutty to outright batsh** insane to Scientology and now we're 15 steps crazier than that!

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion...


I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.

Thing is, there are two basic modes of thought over there; those that think the aircraft hit just like the pictures showed, but that the Government is covering up something about it and that the report has too many holes, and those who believe the whole thing was an elaborate hoax and Government run "hit" (I won't even try to divide all the subcategories of the latter, from the -300 767 to the CD of WTC 7 to the no-757 into the Pentagon to...well, they get even wilder than that.

It appears the moderates (those who think the Government is covering up something, but that the basics (Arab terrorists crashed 4 planes) is accurate) are being driven off by those who want to believe in a more radical answer. It is not unknown, the more radical the interpertation, the more they tend to be fanatical in their belief--IMHO. And radicals often drive the more thoughful moderates out--see almost any revolution from the French to the Russian--the one saving grace of the USA was our moderates got control and made it stick--I honor Thomas Paine, but I'm rather glad he didn't put our government together.

So I tend to agree that LC may be on a death spiral, much like the French Revolution, of eating its' own--and it might well have been our doing by upsetting the applecart.

Naughty of us...:cool: ;)

[chipmunk stew]

DeliveredThanks, Bob. He doesn't believe you (not surprisingly).

Now, would you please post this video of WTC7 burning in this thread?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2012&view=findpost&p=5183142

They are coming to a consensus that the still photo in the NIST report was Photoshopped.

[Ducky]

I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.

Thing is, there are two basic modes of thought over there; those that think the aircraft hit just like the pictures showed, but that the Government is covering up something about it and that the report has too many holes, and those who believe the whole thing was an elaborate hoax and Government run "hit" (I won't even try to divide all the subcategories of the latter, from the -300 767 to the CD of WTC 7 to the no-757 into the Pentagon to...well, they get even wilder than that.

It appears the moderates (those who think the Government is covering up something, but that the basics (Arab terrorists crashed 4 planes) is accurate) are being driven off by those who want to believe in a more radical answer. It is not unknown, the more radical the interpertation, the more they tend to be fanatical in their belief--IMHO. And radicals often drive the more thoughful moderates out--see almost any revolution from the French to the Russian--the one saving grace of the USA was our moderates got control and made it stick--I honor Thomas Paine, but I'm rather glad he didn't put our government together.

So I tend to agree that LC may be on a death spiral, much like the French Revolution, of eating its' own--and it might well have been our doing by upsetting the applecart.

Naughty of us...:cool: ;)


I wonder if my wanton sockpuppetry will force them into a paranoid purge of all new accounts?

[Ducky]

Thanks, Bob. He doesn't believe you (not surprisingly).

Now, would you please post this video of WTC7 burning in this thread?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2012&view=findpost&p=5183142

They are coming to a consensus that the still photo in the NIST report was Photoshopped.


"Photoshop CS wasn't out in 2001."

No but Photoshop 6 was. Idiot.

They can't even get their conspiracies right.

Everyone knows the globalists use the gimp.

[bob_kark]

Thanks, Bob. He doesn't believe you (not surprisingly).

Now, would you please post this video of WTC7 burning in this thread?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2012&view=findpost&p=5183142

They are coming to a consensus that the still photo in the NIST report was Photoshopped.

Sure, what video?

[chipmunk stew]

Sure, what video?Oops.

This one:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

[bob_kark]

Oops.

This one:
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Ok, It won't work for me. What should I say to get the point across?

[chipmunk stew]

"Photoshop CS wasn't out in 2001."

No but Photoshop 6 was. Idiot.

They can't even get their conspiracies right.

Everyone knows the globalists use the gimp.What makes it saddest is, WTC7 is supposed to be their smoking gun. Yet they're only aware of the cherry-picked evidence from the CT "documentaries". They're right about one thing--it was smoking--but that's the part they don't believe.

[dubfan]

Thanks, Bob. He doesn't believe you (not surprisingly).

Now, would you please post this video of WTC7 burning in this thread?
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2012&view=findpost&p=5183142

They are coming to a consensus that the still photo in the NIST report was Photoshopped.

Re: the relative lack of pictures of the south side of WTC7:

Wouldn't access to the south side of tower 7 have been blocked by all the rubble from WTC 1 & 2 that had just collapsed?

[chipmunk stew]

Ok, It won't work for me. What should I say to get the point across?It didn't work for me until I installed XP Codec Pack-- http://www.xpcodecpack.com/ (http://www.xpcodecpack.com/)

But if you don't want to do that, it basically shows a video clip, from about the same angle as that photo they're claiming is photoshopped, of smoke pouring out of the south side of WTC 7, top to bottom.

[chipmunk stew]

I wonder if my wanton sockpuppetry will force them into a paranoid purge of all new accounts?Well I've got about a half dozen. It's hard to remember which "voice" I'm supposed to use in a given post.

[60hzxtl]

Re: the relative lack of pictures of the south side of WTC7:

Wouldn't access to the south side of tower 7 have been blocked by all the rubble from WTC 1 & 2 that had just collapsed?


That and the zone set up around 7, BECAUSE The were AFRAID it was going to collapse.

There was serious concern that day that thought the Millennium Hotel was going to come down, and engineers (whooooooowhooo! not the train kind - ) were checking it with transits because they were convinced it was tilting. - It was still standing yesterday when I went by it. . .

[bob_kark]

Mission accomplished.

[Kent1]

Re: the relative lack of pictures of the south side of WTC7:

Wouldn't access to the south side of tower 7 have been blocked by all the rubble from WTC 1 & 2 that had just collapsed?
Well here's another one of many if they like
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1502.JPG

[Polaris]

Here's a nice set of photos to show that it's very possible for a 757 travelling at high speed to punch through reenforced concrete. Figure this shovel was travelling much slower and the concrete was thicker, being horizontal, not a verticle sheet.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/hoecrash.asp

[XXX]

Don't forget about this picture, it goes very well with that other one in that you can see the same other landmarks in it, but from a slightly different angle...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_wtc7_smoke_d.jpg

[Kent1]

Don't forget about this picture, it goes very well with that other one in that you can see the same other landmarks in it, but from a slightly different angle...

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_wtc7_smoke_d.jpg
Here are the larger photos of that same angle
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1498.JPG
http://www.spesh.com/mirrors/wtc2/IMG_1499.JPG

[XXX]

Good job Kent1. Much nicer versions!

[WildCat]

Pray tell, what is this "reason?"

Hundreds, eh? Then it should be easy as breathing to expose. I won't hold my breath waiting, however.
I usually fly Southwest Airlines when I fly, Southwest uses 737's exclusively. Now, when a 737 and a 757 or especially a 767 are near each other on the tarmac, the size differences are obvious. The 737 is much, much smaller than those other planes. It would be nearly impossible to mistake one for the other if there is something else in the pic for scale, a large building of known dimensions for example...

[Brainster]

I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.

Thing is, there are two basic modes of thought over there; those that think the aircraft hit just like the pictures showed, but that the Government is covering up something about it and that the report has too many holes, and those who believe the whole thing was an elaborate hoax and Government run "hit" (I won't even try to divide all the subcategories of the latter, from the -300 767 to the CD of WTC 7 to the no-757 into the Pentagon to...well, they get even wilder than that.

It appears the moderates (those who think the Government is covering up something, but that the basics (Arab terrorists crashed 4 planes) is accurate) are being driven off by those who want to believe in a more radical answer. It is not unknown, the more radical the interpertation, the more they tend to be fanatical in their belief--IMHO. And radicals often drive the more thoughful moderates out--see almost any revolution from the French to the Russian--the one saving grace of the USA was our moderates got control and made it stick--I honor Thomas Paine, but I'm rather glad he didn't put our government together.

So I tend to agree that LC may be on a death spiral, much like the French Revolution, of eating its' own--and it might well have been our doing by upsetting the applecart.

Naughty of us...:cool: ;)

The board over there does seem like a bad joke, but don't kid yourself; this is going to get worse before it gets better. As I posted on the blog, I overheard two other guys in my office suite on Friday talking about "the hole in the Pentagon's only 16 feet wide". Walked in, sure enough, they're watching Dylan & Co's little flick. I sent them the link to Gravy's guide and Markyx's film, but one guy was still holding out--he said he wanted to watch the film again before he decided. These guys are not kooks, not stupid people by any means, but they are decidedly left wing in their politics.

[CptColumbo]

ETA: Damn you, Columbo! I'll beat you yet!
NEVER!!! BWAH-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[realitybites]

That the CTers are able find conspiracy in every last thing, down to which names and faces the government felt would best promote psychological warfare (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5862&st=0&#entry5270741)...?

.... but that same government would be retarded enough to forget to place wreckage at the "faked" Flight 93 crash site?

[Childlike Empress]

I believe the religious term is schism. You might say we were the Martin Luthers, nailing our 54 skeptical thoughts to the door.
Bad analogy. If you insist on religious terms you are the Friedrich Nietzsches. Fortunately there is no orthodoxy yet - no Luthers involved. I admit that some church dignitaries don't get that and try to burn heretics (and atheists of course).

Hmm... at least there are no Thomas Huxleys around - i hope. :cool:

[NobbyNobbs]

Why doesn't that surprise me dork




Sentinel


"Dork"?? Are you kidding me? Ok, tell me the truth....are you in 6th or 7th grade? Which is it?

[bob_kark]

Ladies and gentlemen...



The kilik has landed:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6017

[money]

Ladies and gentlemen...



The kilik has landed:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6017

... the death and destruction of LC is soon to follow...

Oh man. I can't even think of a better punishment for those Loosers than to put up with Kilik. They just might be the group he was put here on Earth to harrass and confuse...

eta- 8 straight posts by Kilik, then ChuckSheen giving him the "thank you" smiley! Good times!:D

[Childlike Empress]

Your theory is that there is a cover-up. Fair enough. Hard to exhaustively disprove, unlike the nonsense about controlled demolition, although I personally don't think there was one. It will help if we have some details about this cover-up, i.e. what was covered up, who covered it, and how.
My theory is that elements in the interconnected world of organized crime, secret services and terrorism were involved in 9/11. I referenced some indications for that theory.

(ad 1.) Erm... There was an investigation, but the 19 Hijackers was a pretty simple conclusion. In brief, we know they boarded the planes (passenger lists, video evidence, eyewitnesses in the airports), have corroborating descriptions from phone calls from the hijacked planes, found at least some of their DNA in wreckage, voice recorder evidence, and have video claiming responsibility from their conspirators. Do you have evidence that casts doubt on this conclusion? If so, that would be grounds to reopen the investigation, but I'd like to see it before casting judgment, if you don't mind.
All we know is what was told to us by very few people in government positions. Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video. The videos in which he denied his involvement were released via al-jazeera et al while the "confession"-tape was released by the department of defense. Maybe we disagree on the question of which sources are more valid.

Do you agree with RandFan that there was no case for an official federal investigation "USA vs. Unknown"?

(ad 2.) What makes you think the entire FBI was taken off one case and put on another? Sounds sketchy. Can you support this assertion? Who are these "lot of people" you're talking about, and what do they know that was overlooked?

(I don't know who was behind the anthrax letters either, but it may have been totally unrelated. Let's stick to one investigation at a time, please.)
I already admitted that i have to rely on Daniel Hopsicker for that. He describes the circumstances as if the FBI disappeared entirely from the crime scene weeks after the attacks and several interviewed people stated that they were told not to talk to anyone about their knowledge of Atta. New inconsistenties in the timelime (http://madcowprod.com/04062006.html)

I mentioned the anthrax letters because if we believe Hopsicker a lot of FBI-Agents investigated it - and never found the criminals.

(ad 3.) You didn't mention any people in 2., just said that there were some. I gravely doubt that Hopsicker "had to do the work of the whole investigative apparatus of the US." That's balmy, sorry. You'll need to show a whole lot of evidence before I believe this trail of breadcrumbs leading to International Organized Crime, and you haven't shown any whatsoever.
I can't show evidence. I can only search for connections on the net. I'm 10000 miles away from Florida, sorry.

(ad 5.) I don't know what "The Legend" refers to. Anyway, this is a non sequitur. I'm not the least bit satisfied with how the Moussaoui trial was handled myself, but I don't see the guest list supporting your allegations of a 9/11 coverup. They didn't let me in to witness the OJ trial, either, for what it's worth.
Perhaps i used the word "witness" in a false way. Cite:

U.S. refuses to let Moussaoui call witness

The Justice Department refused a federal judge's order to allow terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui access to a captured al Qaeda leader Monday, citing national security concerns. source (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/07/14/moussaoui/index.html)
That article is from 2003 but as far as i know Moussaouis lawyers tried several times to question KSM and Binalshibh in the trial. Why was this refused?

(ad 6.) I have no idea what you're talking about. It almost seems that you're implying the Loose Changers should be jailed and questioned -- surely that can't be what you mean?
I mentioned the connection Adnan Khashoggi/John Gray/9/11 Truth movement and provided some "evidence" in form of mainstream media articles to "Belz..." Any opinion on that, "Belz..."?

[WildCat]

... the death and destruction of LC is soon to follow...

Oh man. I can't even think of a better punishment for those Loosers than to put up with Kilik. They just might be the group he was put here on Earth to harrass and confuse...

eta- 8 straight posts by Kilik, then ChuckSheen giving him the "thank you" smiley! Good times!:D
Yeah, now that's funny!

And as we know all too well, Kilik has a lot more where that came from!

[Regnad Kcin]

I usually fly Southwest Airlines when I fly, Southwest uses 737's exclusively...WildCat:

I'm not sure why you quoted me in your response (truncated above). I was responding facetiously to a quote from LC regarding the idea that hundreds of commercial jets are currently rigged for destruction. It had nothing to do with relative sizes of aircraft.

[R.Mackey]

My theory is that elements in the interconnected world of organized crime, secret services and terrorism were involved in 9/11. I referenced some indications for that theory.
Fine. I just like to make sure we agree on the theory being debated rather than assume each other knows what we're talking about.

When you say you "referenced" it, what do you mean? I saw no references at all, meaning citations to published, verifiable material. Do you have references? Can we see them?

All we know is what was told to us by very few people in government positions. Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video. The videos in which he denied his involvement were released via al-jazeera et al while the "confession"-tape was released by the department of defense. Maybe we disagree on the question of which sources are more valid.
Absolutely not! The investigation spanned virtually every government agency. Bin Laden did not deny his involvement at any time*, as we have discussed here for a long time (i.e. "prove it!"). DNA of the aircraft occupants was analyzed by crime labs. Telephone calls were placed to survivors of the victims on board the aircraft. No government agency, and in fact no set of government agencies, covers the entire space of evidence available.

I agree that it is vaguely possible for all of this evidence to be wrong, but you must come up with compelling evidence before this possibility is worth a second thought.

You still haven't presented any. "My" evidence is therefore more valid, by default.

Do you agree with RandFan that there was no case for an official federal investigation "USA vs. Unknown"?
Not sure what you're referring to -- please be more specific if you want my agreement. Besides... relevance? I stated in my last reply that there was an investigation, and that its conclusion seems perfectly correct. You haven't challenged that assertion.

I already admitted that i have to rely on Daniel Hopsicker for that. He describes the circumstances as if the FBI disappeared entirely from the crime scene weeks after the attacks and several interviewed people stated that they were told not to talk to anyone about their knowledge of Atta. New inconsistenties in the timelime (http://madcowprod.com/04062006.html)
I am not impressed.

Your link is nothing more than an advertisement. No sources, no evidence. You might as well link to old Warner Bros. cartoons as evidence for life on Mars. Please, legitimate sources only.

I mentioned the anthrax letters because if we believe Hopsicker a lot of FBI-Agents investigated it - and never found the criminals.
The anthrax event was pretty bizarre, and there are some big unanswered questions. I doubt anybody here will dispute that. BUT unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect these events are related.

Like I said before, one theory at a time, please. You are welcome to start another thread asking about the anthrax letters.

I can't show evidence. I can only search for connections on the net. I'm 10000 miles away from Florida, sorry.
Thank you for clarifying what I suspected, namely that you have no evidence. I haven't been to Florida for two years myself. I therefore listen to those people who do have evidence -- and only those people -- and lay my cards on the table when I encounter something new.

But think about this for a minute. If you have no evidence, why do you believe all these things? Surely you're harder to convince than that?

That article is from 2003 but as far as i know Moussaouis lawyers tried several times to question KSM and Binalshibh in the trial. Why was this refused?
Lots of possibilities, many of them not sinister at all. It proves nothing.

My opinion, though I Am Not A Lawyer, the Justice Department did not feel bound to accede to the judge's orders. Didn't help their case. Moussaoui's lawyers had no leverage whatsoever, so let's just ignore that. The defense can try to call on whomever it wants, W, Easter Bunny, whomever, and it is typically thrown out as a delaying tactic. Here we saw the judge going head to head with Justice which is different, and indicative of an unfortunate adversarial relationship between Justice and the judiciary, but it in no way helps your case.

I might remind you that Moussaoui pled guilty to the crime (even though I personally believe he vastly exaggerated his own involvement), and he was VERY outspoken during the trial -- but uttered not a single word about "organized crime" in Florida. There is absolutely no reason to believe that, even if those "witnesses" had taken the stand, they would confirm a single thing you've presented.

You have no evidence. I am therefore not obligated to believe a word of it.

And in case you couldn't tell, I am not a fan of the current administration or our foreign policy. But that doesn't mean I haphazardly accuse them of such incredible treachery. You shouldn't either.

* ERRATUM: As was pointed out to me, Bin Laden did in fact initially deny involvement in the attacks. The semantics of Bin Laden's statements are complicated. I suggest http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html for a discussion of this issue. I also contend that all of Bin Laden's propaganda should be taken with extreme suspicion.

[money]

Yeah, now that's funny!

And as we know all too well, Kilik has a lot more where that came from!

Yes, yes he does.

One funny thing stuck out at me. In his second post there, near the bottom, right below some strange pictures that either look poorly photoshopped or taken from some RPG, he has a link that has the prefix:
lol , shiiiit(then the link)

Is that a bizarre sequence or what? Even for him. One of those photos is even clearly drawn, comic book style...

Maybe he's slipping?

[Childlike Empress]

Fine. I just like to make sure we agree on the theory being debated rather than assume each other knows what we're talking about.
Let's tell Gravy and Dylan about that! ;)

When you say you "referenced" it, what do you mean? I saw no references at all, meaning citations to published, verifiable material. Do you have references? Can we see them?
Looked at the Khashoggi-Connection? My next search will be "Ben-Veniste". I'll provide some links.

Absolutely not! The investigation spanned virtually every government agency. Bin Laden did not deny his involvement at any time, as we have discussed here for a long time (i.e. "prove it!"). DNA of the aircraft occupants was analyzed by crime labs. Telephone calls were placed to survivors of the victims on board the aircraft. No government agency, and in fact no set of government agencies, covers the entire space of evidence available.
Come on. Bin Laden denied his involvement several times. That's a fact. Take this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml) for now:

Bin Laden has publicly issued four previous videos since September 11, always denying carrying out the atrocities.
If you don't believe it or are too lazy to search for yourself, i'll provide more sources.

The anthrax event was pretty bizarre, and there are some big unanswered questions. I doubt anybody here will dispute that. BUT unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no reason to suspect these events are related.

Like I said before, one theory at a time, please. You are welcome to start another thread asking about the anthrax letters.
Ok, that's offtopic. I mentioned it because i wanted to clarify that they couldn't have been SO busy. One link from the wayback machine (because i just recognized that the article disappeared from the "Federation of American Scientists"-Website (in June 2004)): Barbara Hatch Rosenberg: Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks (http://web.archive.org/web/20031123105210/http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport).

But think about this for a minute. If you have no evidence, why do you believe all these things? Surely you're harder to convince than that?
I observed the development since the first day and wasn't THAT emotionally disturbed (because of the distance).

The defense can try to call on whomever it wants, W, Easter Bunny, whomever, and it is typically thrown out as a delaying tactic.
Let's keep this serious.

[R.Mackey]

Looked at the Khashoggi-Connection? My next search will be "Ben-Veniste". I'll provide some links.
Tell you what, I'll just wait until you get your position organized. That way there's no danger of me misinterpreting you.

Come on. Bin Laden denied his involvement several times. That's a fact. Take this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/11/wbin11.xml) for now:

If you don't believe it or are too lazy to search for yourself, i'll provide more sources.
Lazy? Moi? Funny, I was about to point you to http://www.911myths.com/html/responsibility.html which has a whole collection of citations, organized with dates and commentary...

...but following your link, the first thing I read is "Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It". So you're not really defending yourself terribly well.

Yes, Bin Laden issued some contradictory statements early. This is fact. But saying "he denied his involvement" is a lie of omission. You're cherry-picking his statements to only include the ones that agree with your viewpoint.

Even if you were right and he'd never reversed himself, none of this would prove any link to organized crime. You still haven't even begun to present that case.

Please find some more evidence, and I'll be glad to discuss it further. Yes, indeed, let us be serious. This is progress and I am learning a lot.

[Childlike Empress]

Tell you what, I'll just wait until you get your position organized. That way there's no danger of me misinterpreting you.
If you want a theory-of-everything-that-happened-on-911 from me, i have to disappoint you.

Bin Laden did not deny his involvement at any timeYes, Bin Laden issued some contradictory statements early. This is fact. But saying "he denied his involvement" is a lie of omission.
Who lies by omission here?

Please find some more evidence, and I'll be glad to discuss it further. Yes, indeed, let us be serious. This is progress and I am learning a lot.
Fine. Me too. See you later.

[R.Mackey]

If you want a theory-of-everything-that-happened-on-911 from me, i have to disappoint you.
I'd settle for a complete description of the "coverup" you're postulating.

Who lies by omission here?
That was my mistake, not a lie. Thank you for making me look things up. My first position was in error. I have no problem whatsoever changing my opinion when faced with conflicting evidence.

Now that I have looked things up, do you deny that Bin Laden ever accepted responsibility? Yes or no?

[Gravy]

My theory is that elements in the interconnected world of organized crime, secret services and terrorism were involved in 9/11. I referenced some indications for that theory.
You chastised us for saying that you had any theory at all. What's going on?

All we know is what was told to us by very few people in government positions. Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video. The videos in which he denied his involvement were released via al-jazeera et al while the "confession"-tape was released by the department of defense. Maybe we disagree on the question of which sources are more valid.
Video and text released by al-Jazeera of Bin Laden claiming responsibility, November, 2004.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Please do your homework.

[Pardalis]

The head and in frontal attack on an English writer that the character of this point is therefore another method for the letters that the time of who ever told the problem for an unexpected.

Sound familiar? I think Sentinel is just a probabilistic finite state machine spitting out English words at random.

Wow, that sounds alot like him.

I have him on "ignore", but you guys keep quoting his posts...:(

[RandFan]

Do you agree with RandFan that there was no case for an official federal investigation "USA vs. Unknown"?
Not sure what you're referring to -- please be more specific if you want my agreement. Besides... relevance? I stated in my last reply that there was an investigation, and that its conclusion seems perfectly correct. You haven't challenged that assertion.
Bingo!

[Pardalis]

Yeah and, I mean... we've all seen UNDER SIEGE II, right ? If Seagal can survive THAT explosion, then everything's possible!!!1111!!

There was a second one?

[Gravy]

Ladies and gentlemen...



The kilik has landed:

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6017
I have heard much of this "killik." He certainly doesn't disappoint. Does he stick around for discussion at all?

[Childlike Empress]

You chastised us for saying that you had any theory at all. What's going on?
Call it suspicion and spare me your semantics, al... - sorry - Gravy.

Video and text released by al-Jazeera of Bin Laden claiming responsibility, November, 2004.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Please do your homework.
Please learn to read:

Bin Laden f.e. denied his envolvement in 9/11 several times between the attacks and the "confession"-video.

[RandFan]

If you want a theory-of-everything-that-happened-on-911 from me, i have to disappoint you.???

Can't you just pick something substantive and make a case for that point? Conspiracy theory is all about the dots. Connect the dots. Throw up enough dots that appear to be connected and by golly there must be something to all of those dots.

No. Questions are not answers. If you have a question then go answer it. If you can't then who cares? If all you are interested in is questions then the world is full of conspiracies with lots of questions. I gave you a list before. If you want another let me know and I will give you a comprehensive one and you can spend your life studying questions.

[Gravy]

Call it suspicion and spare me your semantics, al... - sorry - Gravy.
Please learn to read:
I did read that. But the jist of your comments was the fact of bin Laden's denials and the legitimacy of the sources, correct? If not, then what were you trying to say?

[Pardalis]

Empress, why do you take a fanatic terrorist to his word?

[Childlike Empress]

Now that I have looked things up, do you deny that Bin Laden ever accepted responsibility? Yes or no?
R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.

[Pardalis]

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.

Why do we have to expect Bin Laden to be coherent?

[Childlike Empress]

???

Can't you just pick something substantive and make a case for that point? Conspiracy theory is all about the dots. Connect the dots. Throw up enough dots that appear to be connected and by golly there must be something to all of those dots.

No. Questions are not answers. If you have a question then go answer it. If you can't then who cares? If all you are interested in is questions then the world is full of conspiracies with lots of questions. I gave you a list before. If you want another let me know and I will give you a comprehensive one and you can spend your life studying questions.
Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough intelligent people try to connect them.

[Childlike Empress]

Why do we have to expect Bin Laden to be coherent?
Because he's an evil genius who planned and executed 911?

[Pardalis]

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough paranoid people try to connect them.

:D

[Gravy]

You might as well link to old Warner Bros. cartoons as evidence for life on Mars.
Please present your evidence that those cartoons were faked.

[MikeW]

There was only one occasion bin Ladin actively denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, in the Daily Ummat interview. Note that this was a newspaper interview only, and was not carried out in person: the newspaper reportedly gave some questions to the Taliban, who came back later with some written answers. So given that the "inside job" theorists are so quick to assume the multiple other occasions when he or other al Qaeda implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility, are fake, why is it that they automatically assume this is genuine? Is it not possible that someone within the Taliban issued fake answers in the hope to at least buy more time before they were attacked? Is it not also possible that bin Ladin was pressured to lie on their behalf, for the same reason? How about the idea that he took this tack initially because he didn't want to give America a pretext for war, and so hoped they would suffer more politically if they did attack Afghanistan?

Because the statements issued after that were not in any way clear "denials" of the attacks, at all, no matter how desperately the inside job theorists want you to believe that. For an example, see "news bbc co uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636 stm" (replace the spaces with dots) & ask yourself exactly how he's distancing himself from 9/11 here.

[Pardalis]

Bin Laden's an extremist, I don't care whatever he says.

[RandFan]

R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many incoherent pieces in the official 911-Story. ?

Do you have a coherent theory? The weight of the evidence is behind Al Qaeda and the hijackers. Is it possible that Bin Laden wasn't directly involved? Sure. On the other hand, while your logic is reasonable but is it really impossible that he at first didn't want to admit his involvement? Do you really know his motives?

Again, your finding questions of a complex operation. That's fine but you have nothing beyond questions and we have good evidence that 9/11 is as it appears to be.

I'm a big fan of real life detective shows no cable. There are many of them. One thing that strikes me again and again is that not all of the lose ends are tied up. Not all of the questions are answered. Not all of the incongruent pieces of the puzzle are fit together even after the perpetrator has admitted his crime and led detectives to the bodies of his victims.

I've also had an opportunity to look at many conspiracies, IRS, Tri-Lateral commission, JFK, I'm too tired to think of them all and they all have incoherent, incongruent data and unanswered questions.

So what? Where's the beef?

[RandFan]

Because he's an evil genius who planned and executed 911?I'm sorry, but that really is not a good answer. It certainly doesn't square with history. We can make a list of incoherent evil geniuses.

[Gravy]

R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.
What's not "coherent" about bin Laden's actions? He had every reason to dissemble at first, when the U.S. seemed to be hot on his trail. Since then, he has found an effective way to hide. It's nearly five years down the road. I'm not surprised that bin Laden occasionally thumbs his nose at the U.S., and attempts to buoy the resistance.

I'm not aware that his statements have been published mainly through U.S. government sources. Do you have evidence of that?

[RandFan]

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough intelligent people try to connect them. Go back and read my post. There are tons and tons of questions throughout history.

Intelligent people are going to go with the weight of the evidence. One more time, questions are not answers. A bunch of dots are not evidence. If you are looking for someone to connect dots that fly in the face of the evidence then you are in the wrong forum.

You might want to check out the loose change forum. They love connecting dots. If you've got any Jewish dots then they will really love you, however government dots are their bread and butter but trust me on this, any dot will do.

[Childlike Empress]

There was only one occasion bin Ladin actively denied responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, in the Daily Ummat interview.
The Telepgraph article stated that he did four video messages. I think i remember that there were at least more than one. I'll research that ... later.

So given that the "inside job" theorists are so quick to assume the multiple other occasions when he or other al Qaeda implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility, are fake, why is it that they automatically assume this is genuine? Is it not possible that someone within the Taliban issued fake answers in the hope to at least buy more time before they were attacked? Is it not also possible that bin Ladin was pressured to lie on their behalf, for the same reason? How about the idea that he took this tack initially because he didn't want to give America a pretext for war, and so hoped they would suffer more politically if they did attack Afghanistan?
The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. NO evidence to wage war on the world. NO evidence to piss on international law. What about your constitution? What about habeas corpus? You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.

As i said before - i only want evidence.

[Pardalis]

You might want to check out the loose change forum. They love connecting dots.

Maybe they did too much of these (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/connectdots/) when they were kids.

[Gravy]

Because the statements issued after that were not in any way clear "denials" of the attacks, at all, no matter how desperately the inside job theorists want you to believe that. For an example, see "news bbc co uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636 stm" (replace the spaces with dots) & ask yourself exactly how he's distancing himself from 9/11 here.
Good points. Here's the link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/south_asia/1585636.stm

And an excerpt
As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed, may God's peace and blessing be upon him.
That's a statement issued in October, 2001 in which he doesn't explicitly take credit for 9/11, but he does swear to God that he will see to it that the U.S. will continue to be punished.

[MikeW]

As i said before - i only want evidence.
You presumably believe a newspaper denial with no proof that the words were those of bin Ladin, are evidence. So I think comments like this, from Suleiman Abu Ghaith are at least as valid:


"He issued a chilling warning to the U.S., saying there would be no peace until it stops supporting Israel and ends blockades against Iraq.

"The youths who did what they did and destroyed America, they have done a good deed," he said. "The storm of airplanes will not stop. There are thousands of young people who look forward to death like the Americans look forward to living."
"www cbc ca/story/world/national/2001/10/09/alqaeda_warn011009 html"
(replace spaces with dots)
Not an explicit acceptance of responsibility, but far from a denial, and this was only around 4 weeks after the attacks.

[RandFan]

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. Well, you are most certainly entitled to an opinion. Good luck with that whole finding evidence thing.

[Pardalis]

The Telepgraph article stated that he did four video messages. I think i remember that there were at least more than one. I'll research that ... later.

Again, why do we even bother debating what this f[rule8]cker is saying? (Bin Laden that is)

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. NO evidence to wage war on the world. NO evidence to piss on international law. What about your constitution? What about habeas corpus? You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.

uh?

[Gravy]

Maybe they did too much of these (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/connectdots/) when they were kids.
Good lord! This may be the breakthrough the CTs have been looking for! Somebody send this to Dylan Avery. (He apparently doesn't read my emails.)
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/connectdots/airplane/

[Gravy]

The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. ...As i said before - i only want evidence.
Okay, I had to take a breather after that one. Empress, I don't know if you're just excited and writing too quickly, or if you really mean that.

Do you actually believe that there is "NO evidence" that the 19 hijackers, with help from abroad, planned and executed the attacks of 9/11?

[Childlike Empress]

You presumably believe a newspaper denial with no proof that the words were those of bin Ladin, are evidence.
No, i don't believe it. Not one way, nor the other. YOU are the believers. Gravy, remember Tora-Bora? Why was it "too dangerous" to hunt Bin Laden on his way to Pakistan? Oh boy, i'm sure you want evidence but i'm not able to retell the last five years of media coverage to you AND provide evidence... See you for today.

[Pardalis]

And what is that "two 500 lbs bombs/virtual castration that 9/11 was" BS?

ETA: Can we keep the male genetalia symbolicism to a minimum please?

[RandFan]

Do you actually believe that there is "NO evidence" that the 19 hijackers, with help from abroad, planned and executed the attacks of 9/11?What part of "NO" do you not get?

We'll, maybe the guy is simply engaging in hyperbole. "NO evidence"?

[Gravy]

You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.
Moral of that story: don't invite a man with a $25 million price on his head for supper.

[RandFan]

YOU are the believers.Sorry, but you are not going to get away with that BS. You bring the evidence and I will change my mind.

And don't give me this Tora-Bora crap. What the hell is that anyway?

[Childlike Empress]

@Gravy: Yes.

[Gravy]

No, i don't believe it. Not one way, nor the other. YOU are the believers. Gravy, remember Tora-Bora? Why was it "too dangerous" to hunt Bin Laden on his way to Pakistan? Oh boy, i'm sure you want evidence but i'm not able to retell the last five years of media coverage to you AND provide evidence... See you for today.
You don't believe the U.S. would kill bin Laden, like they just did Zarqawi, if they knew for sure where he was?

[Gravy]

@Gravy: Yes.
Thank you. Have you read the 9/11 Commission report?

[MikeW]

No, i don't believe it. Not one way, nor the other. YOU are the believers.
Then why did you just talk about bin Ladins denials? Falsely, I might add? Why is it that you cannot back up your claims? Why is that? Why, when presented with information that contradicts what you're saying, do you not admit there might be a problem, and instead move into attack mode? Because so far it looks like I'm the one backing up what I'm saying, and you're the one who has little more than "beliefs".

[MikeW]

Oops, just correcting myself, there was a second bin Ladin denial @ "archives cnn com/2001/US/09/16/inv binladen denial", however that makes the case even better that he was just trying to protect the Afghans, with lines like: ""I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations...". Once Afghanistan was attacked, he & al Qaeda moved to saying the attacks were carried out by Muslims, then suggesting that he incited them, then admitting to planning them (www cbsnews com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794 shtml). Although for some reason those attract less attention than the initial denials.

[chipmunk stew]

Oops, just correcting myself, there was a second bin Ladin denial @ " http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial ", however that makes the case even better that he was just trying to protect the Afghans, with lines like: ""I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations...". Once Afghanistan was attacked, he & al Qaeda moved to saying the attacks were carried out by Muslims, then suggesting that he incited them, then admitting to planning them (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml)). Although for some reason those attract less attention than the initial denials.
Perhaps the propaganda machine and the CIA asset had some miscommunication about the Plan.

[Childlike Empress]

Thanks Mike, i appreciate your honesty.

[MikeW]

Thanks Mike, i appreciate your honesty.
S'okay: too many facts here, too few brain cells, sometimes I lose track...

[MikeW]

Perhaps the propaganda machine and the CIA asset had some miscommunication about the Plan.
Well, yes, that's where I get confused... Because if bin Ladin is the CIA asset that some people claim, then why did he inconveniently deny responsibility in the first place? Which would suggest he & al Qaeda do have some independence from the US. But then if that's true, and subsequent bin Ladin tapes are faked, then why haven't al Qaeda come out and said so?

Ah well, never mind. I'm sure someone will come up with a coherent "inside job" theory that explains all this, eventually. Loose Change 45, perhaps?

[bob_kark]

I have heard much of this "killik." He certainly doesn't disappoint. Does he stick around for discussion at all?

He never leaves until he's banned. That's why we love kilik!

[bob_kark]

I came here thinking something was incredibly wrong with our country. I realize now, that there is something incredibley wrong: the very people claiming ot seek the Truth instead seek to oppress and supress it.

even ciomunist regimes would flinch at the bannings, editings, etc. on this forum.

Grow up, Loosers. Your not going to get anything done by playing Nazi on everyone.

Suspended for 7 days mate. smoke2.gif

:roll:

[chipmunk stew]

:roll:
http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif http://67.15.129.139/6014/152/emo/Crylol.gif

[WildCat]

WildCat:

I'm not sure why you quoted me in your response (truncated above). I was responding facetiously to a quote from LC regarding the idea that hundreds of commercial jets are currently rigged for destruction. It had nothing to do with relative sizes of aircraft.
Yeah, it was more directed at the original subject of that theory, where it was one of those 737's rigged to explode that actually hit the WTC. A ridiculous theory, since a 767 is much larger.

[Belz...]

Because he's an evil genius who planned and executed 911?

Genius ? Please.

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough intelligent people try to connect them.

Connecting dots is easy when you don't have to prove that the connections exist to start with.

I have heard much of this "killik." He certainly doesn't disappoint. Does he stick around for discussion at all?

Seldom does.

[dubfan]

Well, yes, that's where I get confused... Because if bin Ladin is the CIA asset that some people claim, then why did he inconveniently deny responsibility in the first place? Which would suggest he & al Qaeda do have some independence from the US. But then if that's true, and subsequent bin Ladin tapes are faked, then why haven't al Qaeda come out and said so?

The "OBL was an invention or a CIA asset" theories don't square very well with the John O'Neill story (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/), either.

[60hzxtl]

Ahhh C'mon guys somebody who is registered there has got to take a pop at this!

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6270

"I need citations from expert regarding explosion and collapse of WTC 3 towers, any link for that? "


My Factory Installed Sarcasm Chip is gonna explode!

[R.Mackey]

R., that's not the point. We all rely on the media reports and i have the opinion that most of them are not trustworthy. Ok, in the first time after 9/11 we had a Bin Laden saying that he wasn't involved in the attacks. Why should he deny it? From his point of view 9/11 has been the greatest victory one can imagine. Months after the attack, he suddenly changed his statements and decided to publish them mainly through US-Government-Sources.

This isn't coherent and it is only one of many uncoherent pieces in the official 911-Story.
I asked you whether or not you denied that Bin Laden (eventually) accepted responsibility for the Sept. 11th attacks. The link that you posted said that he did. So please, answer the question!

You're asking me why would Bin Laden initially deny involvement? You're asking me to speculate. Very well, I will speculate, but understand this is not evidence:

1. Bin Laden's denials, if you actually read them, are pretty thin. He initially gives credit to the hijackers themselves, much like a football coach might heap praise on his players.

2. Bin Laden was hoping to portray his hatred of the U.S. as a much broader, sweeping initiative within the Islamic world. Big PR value.

3. Bin Laden was fearing for his own life and trying to buy time.

4. Bin Laden was pressured to do so by members of the Taliban, who were fearing for their lives and trying to shift the attention away from themselves.

5. Bin Laden was worried that his sources of funding would disapprove of the unexpected savagery of the attack, and needed to spread the blame while building up his case that they were "legitimate targets."

Lots of possibilities. Perfectly coherent, and even you admit he didn't publish solely through U.S. media sources. Bin Laden's initial denials are not evidence of a coverup, unless you can disprove all of these possibilities and more. Good luck.

Bin Laden's acceptance, on the other hand, is evidence against a coverup. Unless you think the CIA is holding him in a media lab somewhere, why would he not send Al-Jazeera a new tape continuing to protest his innocence?

But for starters, I'll ask again: Do you deny that Bin Laden accepted responsibility? Yes or no?

[kookbreaker]

I4. Bin Laden was pressured to do so by members of the Taliban, who were fearing for their lives and trying to shift the attention away from themselves.


Anyone remember the whole Taliban "We lost our Bin Laden" line they were trying to use in the aftermath of 9-11? IT was the opressive government's equivelant of 'My dog ate my homework'.

[Childlike Empress]

1. Bin Laden's denials, if you actually read them, are pretty thin. He initially gives credit to the hijackers themselves, much like a football coach might heap praise on his players."I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a time of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States." - Osama Bin Laden, September 2001
That's not thin. That sounds like a statement from an islamistic, antisemitic fundamentalist. I think this is authentic.

4. Bin Laden was pressured to do so by members of the Taliban, who were fearing for their lives and trying to shift the attention away from themselves.
The Taliban offered to hand him over in exchange for evidence of his envolvement in 9/11.

I'll ask again: Do you deny that Bin Laden accepted responsibility? Yes or no?
Yes. I think he is dead since late 2001 and the later videos are faked.

[Sentinel]

If an alluminum plane flies at 500MPH into steel/concrete building wouldn't the plane cut through the floors like a grader (sorry to the smart skeptics)?


Why did the explosion in the south tower originate on only 1 floor?


If you run the footage in slow motion you'll see that the explosion is not a 10.000 gallon explosion but rather a much more higher amount of fuel.

Why did the plane wait to get all the way into the building before it exploded instead of exploding on impact?


Patty Brown of Engine 3 was on a higher floor (in the 30s) how was he found intact?


Have a nice day


Sentinel

[kookbreaker]

The Taliban offered to hand him over in exchange for evidence of his envolvement in 9/11.


Stalling tactic. Evidence is not collected in a day, and they knew it. When that ploy failed they went right into their 'We lost our Bin Laden' gambit.

[kookbreaker]

If an alluminum plane flies at 500MPH into steel/concrete building wouldn't the plane cut through the floors like a grader (sorry to the smart skeptics)?

What is a grader?


Why did the explosion in the south tower originate on only 1 floor?


How do you figure? The explosion comes out at one point initially, but after that it could be coming from any number of sources.


If you run the footage in slow motion you'll see that the explosion is not a 10.000 gallon explosion but rather a much more higher amount of fuel.


You established this ludicrous claim how, exactly?


Why did the plane wait to get all the way into the building before it exploded instead of exploding on impact?


Fuel tanks are not in the front of the plane.


Patty Brown of Engine 3 was on a higher floor (in the 30s) how was he found intact?

English, please.

[Sentinel]

Answer the question jerkoff...


Sentinel

This is neither civil nor polite. Stop the insults.

[Sentinel]

Oh, thats right you're a professional spook.


Knock Knock.....




Sentinel

[kookbreaker]

Answer the question jerkoff...


Sentinel

I answer the ones that could be understood. Deal with it.

[Ducky]

Oh, thats right you're a professional spook.


Knock Knock.....




Sentinel


How do you know which of us JREF ninjas work for the CIA? Or the NSA?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

How do you know which of us JREF ninjas work for the CIA? Or the NSA?

I have a friend in the NSA. Does that make me a shill by proxy?

[Ducky]

I have a friend in the NSA. Does that make me a shill by proxy?



Well that, and the fact that at least one of us also works there. iirc, we also have a few other civil servants on the ninja staff...

[kookbreaker]

Oh, thats right you're a professional spook.


Knock Knock.....


Do you always act like a spoiled child when your questions get answered?

[brodski]

Well that, and the fact that at least one of us also works there. iirc, we also have a few other civil servants on the ninja staff...
Maybe I should start to regale you all with my SIS (AKA "MI6") stories.
Or not.
They're not that interesting, but enough to have me labeld as a government plant.

[Sentinel]

If anyone is acting like a mommys boy it sure fits your profile, Spookie.
I state my opinions and questions and you keep harping on the english and grammer almost like your more about insults rather than rational points of view on an incidednt that I went through rather than some jerkoff who saw it on tv from the comfort of your living room, Spookie.


You remind me of the other jerkoff who critises the 9-11 widows. I won't even give her the satisfaction of mentioning her name cause shes a skel much like you, spookie.



Have a nice day



Sentinel

This is neither civil nor polite. Stop the insults.

[Hellbound]

If anyone is acting like a mommys boy it sure fits your profile, Spookie.
I state my opinions and questions and you keep harping on the english and grammer almost like your more about insults rather than rational points of view on an incidednt that I went through rather than some jerkoff who saw it on tv from the comfort of your living room, Spookie.


You remind me of the other jerkoff who critises the 9-11 widows. I won't even give her the satisfaction of mentioning her name cause shes a skel much like you, spookie.



Have a nice day



Sentinel

The reason people keep harping on your spelling and grammar is because you aren't making any sense.

In order for your questions to be answered, we must understand what the h3ll you're actually asking.

Of course, it seems that asking for clarification results in insults from you.

So, if you want answers, try to ask specific questions, preferably providing references to the incidents you're discussing and/or asking about, so we can tell what it is you want to know.

And sorry, but very few people here are "spooks", unless you're a paranoid schizophrenic.

[kookbreaker]

If anyone is acting like a mommys boy it sure fits your profile, Spookie.


IKYABWAI


I state my opinions and questions


And I answered the ones that could be understood.


and you keep harping on the english and grammer


If I cannot understand you, I cannot answer you.


almost like your more about insults


I wasn't insulting until you started throwing this tantrum. Read my first reply, just because I comment that some of your questions are unreadable does not mean I am insulting you.


rather than rational points of view on an incidednt that I went through rather than some jerkoff who saw it on tv from the comfort of your living room, Spookie.


Oh, you were there, personally? I rather doubt that.


You remind me of the other jerkoff who critises the 9-11 widows. I won't even give her the satisfaction of mentioning her name cause shes a skel much like you, spookie.

Ah yes, comparing yourself favorably to people who lost loved ones that day whilst trying to paint me as a having a politcal bent you loathe, but that I do not subscribe to.

With that, Sentinel goes into the Ingnore file.

[Sentinel]

You can believe what ever makes you feel better. But, If you want to discuss what I was doing there you can bring it up with Comm Kelly NYPD and Comm Skepetta FDNY.


I was the regional SIGINT at West and W.Houston THV (if you even know what that is) under Dep Chief Ginn and for the next 2 weeks at West and Vessey. I arrived 84 on the scene right as the N/T was collapsing and eat the concrete and asbestes and glass and people and mercury and lead and the other great ***** that we all had for breakfast.

You mr spook can only dream about it.

So if you feel the need give them a call.



Have a nice day



Sentinel

[Pardalis]

Who is Mr Spook anyway?

[Brainster]

And announces the identity of the 20th hijacker (http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-13T063041Z_01_L13637084_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SECURITY-QAEDA-ATTACKER.xml):

A Saudi militant killed in 2004 was due to have been the 20th suicide plane hijacker in the September 11, 2001 attacks, al Qaeda's media arm said in a statement on the Internet on Tuesday.

"Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri -- Fawaz al-Nashmi -- may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001," the statement said.

"The (September 11) operation was brought forward for some circumstances that brother Mohamed Atta explained to the general leadership," it said, indicating that Muteiri could not join the other hijackers, led by Atta, in time.

Muteiri was killed in an attack in Saudi Arabia and (I am hopeful) is currently rotting inside a pig's skin.

You think by the time Loose Change: The Final Cut is released Dylan will be reduced to claiming that Flight 93 was shot down?

[Sentinel]

No insults ?


Damn.




Sentinel

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Who is Mr Spook anyway?

I'd guess either Mr. Spock's half-cousin, or a synonym for shill.

[Sentinel]

How are you ?


Love your site.


Sentinel

[Hutch]

Ok, breaking into the insult-fest and trying to get back on-topic...

If an alluminum plane flies at 500MPH into steel/concrete building wouldn't the plane cut through the floors like a grader (sorry to the smart skeptics)?

I believe Sentinel is referring to the picture posted earlier in this thread showing the piece of road equipment that dug deeply into a bridge floor (concrete and metal)--I am not even sure if it was this thread.

The answer always comes back to Force + Mass x Acceleration. If that 200 Ton airline moving at 500 MPH had sufficient mass and acceleration at the point of impact, it was going into the building. I have yet to see any math disproving that it would not happen the way it did.

Why did the explosion in the south tower originate on only 1 floor?

I am sorry, Sentinel, but I am not aware of that hypothesis; could you please elaborate on this one.

If you run the footage in slow motion you'll see that the explosion is not a 10.000 gallon explosion but rather a much more higher amount of fuel.

Now this is something that can probably be tested or at least discussed using mathematics and known values. If someone can come up with the explosive power of JP4 when ignitiing 10,000 gallons (and of course not all of it would ignite at once, and some of it might be still be bulk liquid and some spread out in a fuel-air mixture). Anybody up to some calculating?

Why did the plane wait to get all the way into the building before it exploded instead of exploding on impact?

As pointed out, the fuel tanks are located in the wings and central area of the aircraft, not in the front portion. The tanks would have had to rupture upon entry and then an ignition source would have had to ignite the fuel. Meanwhile at least some of the fuel is still travelling at an appreciable fraction of the 500MPH speed (that old man Newton, again). Given that the building was only about 208 Ft across (IIRC, please correct me if I am wrong) the fuel/wreckage, ignition sources (engine heat, for example) would cross that space in:
500MPH = 733.5 Feet per Second (FPS)
400MPH = 586.8 FPS
300MPH = 440.1 FPS

So it seems plausible that the fuel, exploding forward as the tanks ruptured, would be able to explode out of the building in the manner we saw. But I am willing to listen to your conclusions if the above is not satisfactory.

Patty Brown of Engine 3 was on a higher floor (in the 30s) how was he found intact?

That I will have to leave to those more expert than myself. I do not know, but disasters are not predictable and in complete chaos there is often a oddball thing or two that seems to defy logic. Like that poor prisoner in Martinique when Mt. Pelee blew and killed every other living soul in town in the early 1900's.

Have a nice day

Thanks, but not today; I have to clean my bathroom..:mad: :eek:


Sentinel[/QUOTE]

[Belz...]

That's not thin. That sounds like a statement from an islamistic, antisemitic fundamentalist. I think this is authentic.

You think it sounds authentic ? Nice.

Yes. I think he is dead since late 2001 and the later videos are faked.

Stop thinking and start showing.

[60hzxtl]

Patty Brown of Engine 3 was on a higher floor (in the 30s) how was he found intact?

Sentinel


The fact is, he was found intact. Ask - you of all people have the resources.

[Sentinel]

Why did the atc report flight 11 out of V/C at 8:13AM but Otis intercept were wheels up at 8:52am?


Why did LT Col Dawn Deskins (NEADS) state that she was in communications with the FAA when when the north tower was impacted and the FAA stated that they were still tracking fligh 11 after impact?



Why did Duff and Nasty state they were still looking for flight 11 after the S/T was already hit? Was the onboard radar display operational?


Why did CBS News report AA 77 hit the S/T later that day?


Why did operation Red Ex on may 11 01 go off without a problem yet 911 was a cluster-*****?



Sentinel



Sentinel

[Belz...]

Answer the question jerkoff...


Sentinel

Fuel tanks are not in the front of the plane.

[Belz...]

If anyone is acting like a mommys boy it sure fits your profile, Spookie.
I state my opinions and questions and you keep harping on the english and grammer almost like your more about insults rather than rational points of view on an incidednt that I went through rather than some jerkoff who saw it on tv from the comfort of your living room, Spookie.

Well if you could actually write properly people could adress your points, seeing as they would then become (more) coherent.

[Belz...]

Why did the atc report flight 11 out of V/C at 8:13AM but Otis intercept were wheels up at 8:52am?

Why did LT Col Dawn Deskins (NEADS) state that she was in communications with the FAA when when the north tower was impacted and the FAA stated that they were still tracking fligh 11 after impact?

Why did Duff and Nasty state they were still looking for flight 11 after the S/T was already hit? Was the onboard radar display operational?

Why did CBS News report AA 77 hit the S/T later that day?

Why did operation Red Ex on may 11 01 go off without a problem yet 911 was a cluster-*****?

Oohh... are you "just asking questions", now ?

[NobbyNobbs]

Just trying to present some dots here. The goal is that enough intelligent people try to connect them.


I'm afraid of heights. The WTC was very high. I'd never want to be on top of it. My aunt and uncle live in NYC. He's a high-priced lawyer with lots of resources. His apartment is withing sight of the WTC. He'd do anything for me if I asked. I guess this makes me responsible for the collapse, right?


Empress, just because there are dots doesn't mean they have to connect. There are terms in this world like "coincidence" and "probability" that allow for strange things to happen from time to time without humans meaning them to. Sure, throw enough mud at the wall and some will stick. That doesn't necessarily make it a work of art.

[tim]

No insults ?


Damn.




Sentinel

Sentinel, you are becoming abusive and antagonistic. If you have points to make, make them. Do not insult other forum members.

[azazal]

Now this is something that can probably be tested or at least discussed using mathematics and known values. If someone can come up with the explosive power of JP4 when ignitiing 10,000 gallons (and of course not all of it would ignite at once, and some of it might be still be bulk liquid and some spread out in a fuel-air mixture). Anybody up to some calculating?


Quick and dirty math here, if any one sees flaws, point them out.

From here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_06_m.html

Jet fuel = 37,626,700 joules/liter

10,000 gallons = 37,854.118 liters

So our energy comes out to 1424325541751 joules.

1 Kg of TNT = 4612070 joules

So I'm getting 10,000 gallons of jet fule being inline with 308825.6557 Kg of TNT.

However some things to factor in, TNT is a high explsove and would release its energy much faster then JP4. Also this takes into account total conversion and usage of the JP4 in a single blast. We all saw that the explosion was over a few seconds and was more of a rapid burn, more in line with gun-poweder then TNT.

I'm sure Huntsman can explain the explosives side better then I

[Hellbound]

Now this is something that can probably be tested or at least discussed using mathematics and known values. If someone can come up with the explosive power of JP4 when ignitiing 10,000 gallons (and of course not all of it would ignite at once, and some of it might be still be bulk liquid and some spread out in a fuel-air mixture). Anybody up to some calculating?

Back of the envelope:

A fuel-air mix has an RF of about 5, so 10,000 gallons (at about 6lbs/gallon) is an explosive force of 150 tons of TNT (0.15 kilotons), assuming it was all aerosol and ignited simultaneously. Obviously, this was not the case.

The impact caused a rapid combustion, rather than explosion (the damage was heat based, much reduced blast wave compared to explosives). Assuming a contained liquid (RF value ~.8), It's equivalent to 4 tons of TNT (0.004 kilotons), which is really not that large (I've seen larger explosions live).

Seems to me (eyeballing, and recall this is back-of-the-envelope calculation) that the explosion witnessed falls somewhere between these, towards the low end. This would make sense if part of the fuel was dispersed when ignited. The disperesed fuel provided the initial fireball, the remaining fuel (no longer contained) was not explosive, but simply burned.

As pointed out, the fuel tanks are located in the wings and central area of the aircraft, not in the front portion. The tanks would have had to rupture upon entry and then an ignition source would have had to ignite the fuel. Meanwhile at least some of the fuel is still travelling at an appreciable fraction of the 500MPH speed (that old man Newton, again). Given that the building was only about 208 Ft across (IIRC, please correct me if I am wrong) the fuel/wreckage, ignition sources (engine heat, for example) would cross that space in:
500MPH = 733.5 Feet per Second (FPS)
400MPH = 586.8 FPS
300MPH = 440.1 FPS

So it seems plausible that the fuel, exploding forward as the tanks ruptured, would be able to explode out of the building in the manner we saw. But I am willing to listen to your conclusions if the above is not satisfactory.

If it helps, a fuel explosion typically has expansion speeds on the order of 15,000 fps (IIRC, someone may want to check this). I know it's about 24,000 fps for C-4 and other cutting charges, 21,000 fps for Ammonium nitrate and other cratering charges, and I believe fuels are from 12,000 to 18000 fps. Then, consider that the plane has to travel partway intot he building (for the fuel tanks to impact), and also much have an ignition source (heat/spark/electricity, which souldn't be much of an issue but still takes time). The plane itself is about 160 feet long, and about 60 feet from nose to wing. So, we have a travel distance of about 100 feet from wing impact, until the plane is completely inside the building. More precisely, the wings and fuel tanks are only 20 to 30 feet long (front to back), so that's really what we have to work with. How much would the fireball expand before being inside the building? So, taking our 733 fps speed, and looking at a 30 ft distance, we have about .041 seconds for expansion, which gives us a distance of 615 feet. Note that this assumes a gasloine bomb that detonates on impact. In reality, the container would be broken open before ignition, which would limit this expansion further. Not to mention there would be a slight delay between impact and ignition, perhaps as much as .01 seconds, which would knock another 25% off this distance.

Not this is all back-of-the-envelope calcualtion, I'd have to check sources to get anything more precise.

[Hellbound]

azazal:

Good call. 300,000 lbs of TNT is what I came out with using RF values, but that assumes you have the entire quantity disperse in an aerosol and ignited more-or-less simultanously (i.e.-fuel-air explosion), which is about the most efficient way to get the energy out of it.

Realistically, it's going to be nowhere close. A closed-container gasloine bomb has an RF around .8 (i.e.-1lb is equivalent to .8 lbs of TNT) and an explosive speed of 15,000 fps. Once the container is broken, it's anyone's guess.

[Sentinel]

Insults shouldn't be tolerated from anyone.


so get a grip.


Oh, I guess this gets me banned now.

Sentinel

[Sentinel]

Measure the space between the exterior wall and the central core collums.
Measure the legnth and width of the 767.


Why does it take so long for an explosion to occure when the plane should have impacted the floors and broken up and disintergrated while being absorbed in the building.


Doesn't impacting multible floors bring about multible floors exploding?


Why does the impact show only one floor exploding if the plane went into the building on a tilt?



Sentinel

[tim]

Insults shouldn't be tolerated from anyone.


so get a grip.


Oh, I guess this gets me banned now.

Sentinel

I have a grip, don't worry about it. I do not recall mentioning banning or suspension. I asked that you do not insult other posters. If you prefer -
All posters on this thread are reminded that you are expected to refrain from insulting other posters.

[Sentinel]

Lets make sure "I" have this right, OK?


You said all forum members are reminded that "I" should refrain from insults?


Maybe you should take a trip on the way back machine to see who actually initiated the insults and bring it up with them instead of showing as usual biased judgement, Sir.


Look it up



sentinel

[Sentinel]

OK ?


No double standards for brown nosers.


Sentinel

[Sentinel]

Good a level above LC




Sentinel

[Gravy]

Sentinel, when you first PMd me, I responded
If you have a message, please present it on the discussion boards. And have evidence to support it. You're dealing with skeptics here.
-Mark
If you have points to make, make them, and back them up with evidence.

It's fine to ask questions, as long as you genuinely can't figure out how to get the answers and think we might be able to help.

Several people have told you that you're not being clear when you post. As an example, this was your first post on this forum, and it came out of the blue. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1686946&postcount=1795)

It looks to me like you're really rushing. If you can, slow down, take it one question at a time, and try to thoroughly explain what you do and don't understand.

When someone takes the time to give a thorough answer to your questions, you might at least acknowledge their effort.

I've asked you this a few times now. There seem to be conflicting reports about statements you may or may not have made. You can clear it up here.

Do you know of any firemen who were on the scene on 9/11 and who claim, today, that they believe there were bombs in the WTC? If so, I would like to interview them.

Thanks.

eta link

[Gravy]

Lets make sure "I" have this right, OK?

You said all forum members are reminded that "I" should refrain from insults?

Maybe you should take a trip on the way back machine to see who actually initiated the insults and bring it up with them instead of showing as usual biased judgement, Sir.

Look it up
That would be DJLegacy, who was visiting for the day from the Loose Change forum. I suggest you take it up with him.

We DO look things up here.

[Sentinel]

Does that sound familiar to you Gravy?


I have only 30 minutes to write up several report at the Public Library, so bare with me, Ok?


You people expect perfection and then when you don't have it spoon fed the way you like you resort to childish name calling.


As for DJLegacy (in his own mind) I already had the go round with him and thats why he doesn't post anymore disimfo.


So Gravy live by your words.



Sentinel

[Gravy]

Does that sound familiar to you Gravy?
So Gravy live by your words.
Please be specific.

[Sentinel]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. But, I unlike many in the CT/Skeptical world I respect their wishes on confidentiality.


But you can go to the reports that are already out there in the internet and check for yourself. Example: The transcrips 1 Cheif of safety Albert Turi for starters.



I am a master/radioman-Regional FWDSIGINT. I was on scene long before I got there and heard the radio reports on the Explosions. Thats as far as I can go with it for now.




Sentinel

[Belz...]

Measure the space between the exterior wall and the central core collums.
Measure the legnth and width of the 767.

Why does it take so long for an explosion to occure when the plane should have impacted the floors and broken up and disintergrated while being absorbed in the building.

Doesn't impacting multible floors bring about multible floors exploding?

Why does the impact show only one floor exploding if the plane went into the building on a tilt?

Hey! Here's an idea ! Why don't you ask someone knowledgeable in plane crashes, someone knowledgeable in explosives (I think it's obvious we have one here), and someone who knows about building damage and demolition.

Maybe then you'll have answers instead of questions.

[Belz...]

You people expect perfection and then when you don't have it spoon fed the way you like you resort to childish name calling.

We don't expect perfection, but at least a little coherency.

I'll be waiting.

[Gravy]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. But, I unlike many in the CT/Skeptical world I respect their wishes on confidentiality.
Understood.

But you can go to the reports that are already out there in the internet and check for yourself. Example: The transcrips 1 Cheif of safety Albert Turi for starters.
I've read that report. I was asking if anyone STILL thinks there were bombs in the building. Of course there was tremendous confusion at the time, and many people said it sounded LIKE bombs were going off. That's a common and understandable way of describing what they heard. It's especially understandable in light of the fact that the WTC had been bombed in 1993. That doesn't mean there WERE bombs going off. Would you agree that in a skyscraper that's been hit by a high-speed aircraft and suffers severe structural damage and fires, many things can cause explosions?

I am a master/radioman-Regional FWDSIGINT. I was on scene long before I got there and heard the radio reports on the Explosions. Thats as far as I can go with it for now.
Do you mean you were on the radio long before you got there?

[rwguinn]

Measure the space between the exterior wall and the central core collums.
Measure the legnth and width of the 767.


Why does it take so long for an explosion to occure when the plane should have impacted the floors and broken up and disintergrated while being absorbed in the building.


Doesn't impacting multible floors bring about multible floors exploding?


Why does the impact show only one floor exploding if the plane went into the building on a tilt?



Sentinel
How long is "So long"?
At 550 mph, the plane was traveling at 806 feet/second.
The tower was 210 feet wide. Assuming the plane's energy was all absorbed by the building, its average velocity through the building was 403 ft/sec (assumes that the plane traveled exactly 100% of the width of the building--actual average velocity would be higher)
thats 520 milliseconds to travel the full width. --1/2 second.
The actual fireball started before the plane was fully within the building--and since the 757 is shorter than 208 feet, the time for the kaboom was less than 1/2 second after initial impact.
From what i can see of the video, the exit bloom encompasses several floors.

[Sentinel]

Wait a minute...


Doesn't it mean you're reading it? I am writing english and you do seem to get the gist of it, so the only problem I see is....




Sentinel

[Gravy]

Wait a minute...

Doesn't it mean you're reading it? I am writing english and you do seem to get the gist of it, so the only problem I see is....
Sentinel
Many of your posts have not made sense to people here. That's a fact. It's something you need to work on if you want to be taken seriously.

[Sentinel]

The building was 208FT= 1 acre square in width
The hight of the S/T was 1368FT in hight the N/T was 1362FT plus the 350FT Antenna weighing 300 TONs.


The central core was retangular for both the S/T and the N/T. The S/T Core was East/West and The N/T was North/South.


There was 65FT at the farthest width and 35FT at the smallest width.


When the S/T was IMPACTED the plane went all the way in first before exploding. The explsion occured on one floor only as indecated on the film. The explosions on both towers seem to occure on the east side of both buildings at impact,eaning if the N/T was a direct center hit and the fuel is stored in the wings, why did it appear more explosive on the east side rather than equal?

Oh, wheres Dylan when you need him, LOL ?



Sentinel

[Sentinel]

Put me on ignore, Ok?


Really If you have a problem with my writing change the channel



Sentinel

[Sentinel]

In redards to the central core structure: The S/T was North/South and the N/T was East/West



Sentinel

[Belz...]

Wait a minute...


Doesn't it mean you're reading it? I am writing english and you do seem to get the gist of it,

Barely, which means I have to use up precious energy just to decode...

Wait a minute. Are you saying you CAN'T spend a few seconds to proofread your posts ?

[Belz...]

The building was 208FT= 1 acre square in width

See ? This is what I mean by proofreading.

Acres do not represent width, and have no choice but to be squared.

[Gravy]

When the S/T was IMPACTED the plane went all the way in first before exploding. The explsion occured on one floor only as indecated on the film.
The explosion may have mainly followed the path of one floor, but I'm guessing that it affected several floors.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f2bb9ed913.jpg

[Sentinel]

What does 16 acres measure Belz?


If a building is square and the measurement is equal on all side measuring 208FT on all sides, well. that pretty much means tha building is 1 acre square.



Jeeeeze


Its obviously a distortion tactic.



Sentinel

[Sentinel]

Does that look like a 10.000 Gallon explosion?


I think not


Go further before that picture right to the beginning of impact and initial explosion. See where it begins.



Sentinel

[Sentinel]

The plane went in on a tilt.

There should have been multible floors exploding at the same time.




Sentinel

[Gravy]

Does that look like a 10.000 Gallon explosion?

I think not

What's a 550 mph, 10,000 gallon jet fuel explosion supposed to look like? I have nothing to judge by. What criteria are you using?

Go further before that picture right to the beginning of impact and initial explosion. See where it begins.

Are you saying that the explosion didn't also expand inside the building?

[Pardalis]

What is the point of all this?

[rwguinn]

What does 16 acres measure Belz?


If a building is square and the measurement is equal on all side measuring 208FT on all sides, well. that pretty much means tha building is 1 acre square.



Jeeeeze


Its obviously a distortion tactic.



Sentinel
"1 acre square" is absolutely a meaningless term. It's like saying "it takes 4 light years to get to alpha centari"

Acre is a unit of area. an acre is indeed 208 feet square, or 1/640 square mile, or 43560 square feet.
16 acres is a square 834.84 on a side, or 696960 square feet
what has that got to do with anything LC wise?

[WildCat]

Back of the envelope:

A fuel-air mix has an RF of about 5, so 10,000 gallons (at about 6lbs/gallon) is an explosive force of 150 tons of TNT (0.15 kilotons), assuming it was all aerosol and ignited simultaneously. Obviously, this was not the case. (rest snipped)

One of the NIST reports goes into this in detail. IIRC there was only enough air (oxygen) in the floor of impact to burn a percentage of the fuel on board the aircraft, which is why much of it ran down the elevator shafts before igniting in the lobby. This was also mentioned in the Popular Mechanics (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y) article.

[Gravy]

what has that got to do with anything LC wise?
Nothing. But won't we all feel better when we agree that an acre is an acre?
ugh.
I think sentinel believes that something in the building on the exact floor struck by the plane, or some additional combustibles in the plane itself, augmented the explosion.

Prediction: that's as far as this topic will ever go.

eta: Of course that something extra would also have to be liquid, because that's what's making the fireball. I think people tend to imagine all explosives as being the Hollywood type.

[Mr. Skinny]

The building was 208FT= 1 acre square in width
The hight [sic] of the S/T was 1368FT in hight [sic] the N/T was 1362FT plus the 350FT Antenna weighing 300 TONs.


The central core was retangular [sic] for both the S/T and the N/T. The S/T Core [sic] was East/West and The N/T was North/South.


There was 65FT at the farthest width and 35FT at the smallest width.


When the S/T was IMPACTED the plane went all the way in first before exploding. The explsion [sic] occured on one floor only as indecated [sic] on the film. The explosions on both towers seem to occure [sic] on the east side of both buildings at impact,eaning [sic] if the N/T was a direct center hit and the fuel is stored in the wings, why did it appear more explosive on the east side rather than equal?

Oh, wheres [sic] Dylan when you need him, LOL ?



Sentinel
That's just spelling and capitalization. I didn't even get into his understanding of width, length, height, area, etc.

That's why you are hard to understand, Sentinel.

[WildCat]

I have a friend in the NSA. Does that make me a shill by proxy?
One of my old college roomates is now a Secret Service agent on Cheney's detail. Guess that makes me a shill also. :cool:

[Mr. Skinny]

I actually work for *gasp* the Air Force. 100% shill by definition.

[Gravy]

I actually work for *gasp* the Air Force. 100% shill by definition.
I command you to stand down.

[Mr. Skinny]

I command you to stand down.
As you wish.

Shall I finish the mission in progress at 16607 Rocky River Drive in Westlake, OH? I'm nearly done replacing the dimensional shingle roofing with clay tile.

Please advise.

[Apollyon]

As you wish.

Shall I finish the mission in progress at 16607 Rocky River Drive in Westlake, OH? I'm nearly done replacing the dimensional shingle roofing with clay tile.

Please advise.
Did you check for the C4 encapsulated in the tile, or are you sworn to secrecy on the matter?

[Mr. Skinny]

Did you check for the C4 encapsulated in the tile, or are you sworn to secrecy on the matter?
Gravy will have to inform me that you have the proper clearance as well as the "need to know". Even then, I can only communicate with you through a secure system.

[Polaris]

The Telepgraph article stated that he did four video messages. I think i remember that there were at least more than one. I'll research that ... later.


The problem is that there is NO evidence for a coherent official story. NO evidence to wage war on the world. NO evidence to piss on international law. What about your constitution? What about habeas corpus? You wouldn't accept this "evidence" and things like bombing Zarkawi with two 500 lbs bombs while killing civilians without the virtual castration that 9/11 was.

As i said before - i only want evidence.

Well, true motives come out now.

[Polaris]

Quick and dirty math here, if any one sees flaws, point them out.

From here: http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_06_m.html

Jet fuel = 37,626,700 joules/liter

10,000 gallons = 37,854.118 liters

So our energy comes out to 1424325541751 joules.

1 Kg of TNT = 4612070 joules

So I'm getting 10,000 gallons of jet fule being inline with 308825.6557 Kg of TNT.

However some things to factor in, TNT is a high explsove and would release its energy much faster then JP4. Also this takes into account total conversion and usage of the JP4 in a single blast. We all saw that the explosion was over a few seconds and was more of a rapid burn, more in line with gun-poweder then TNT.

I'm sure Huntsman can explain the explosives side better then I

I'm still intrigued by the hypothesis that it was a fuel-air explosion, as a result of fuel in still liquid form, that caused the explosive damage to the lobby and the lower floors.

[Polaris]

Insults shouldn't be tolerated from anyone.


so get a grip.


Oh, I guess this gets me banned now.

Sentinel

Planning on wrapping that mod around your neck and jumping off a stool?

[dubfan]

Interesting, when Bin Laden & AQ take credit for the 9/11 attacks -- the Loosers say OBL & Co. are lying.

When Bin Laden & AQ claim the 20th hijacker was someone besides Moussaoui, then the MSM and Bush admin are lying.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6306&view=findpost&p=5296221

[Gravy]

As you wish.

Shall I finish the mission in progress at 16607 Rocky River Drive in Westlake, OH? I'm nearly done replacing the dimensional shingle roofing with clay tile.

Please advise.
You may need to stand up again. Either that sixth row from the top is crooked, or I need to get these optics adjusted. N.B.: Factory seconds aren't always bargains, especially when they're Chinese satellites.

[dubfan]

Uh oh.

Looks like the wheels are coming off the UK Parliament screening, which is supposed to happen tomorrow.


Is the Parliament thing happening tomorrow?

If it is- they are not telling MPs about it!
I've just had to tell my MP that it has been "canceled at short notice", because I didn't want to look like an absolute twat when it didn't happen. He's been looking into the LC screening for weeks, and was very interested in the 9/11 truth movement. But talking to him now he seems to think that we're a bunch of idiots on the internet making up stories of political backing just to get attention. And the way I'm feeling ATM I'm half inclined to agree with him. When Meacher pulled out of LC2E it would have been one thing to have faced up to this- someone got to Meacher and told him not to screen LC, but instead we get cryptic postings about how it IS going to happen and how we still need to get our members to attend!
After this debarked there is NO WAY ON EARTH that my MP will risk his political career to get involved in a search for the truth- in his eyes we can no longer be trusted to he tell the truth about a film screening, let alone mass murder and treason.

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE GUYS? I expect distortions and half truths from the gov- but if we want to be taken seriously we need to get ORGANISED not make up flyers for a screening which will never happen, pretending that we already are being taken seriously.


http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4029&view=findpost&p=5284773

[Gravy]

Gravy will have to inform me that you have the proper clearance as well as the "need to know". Even then, I can only communicate with you through a secure system.
Apollyon will be cleared as soon as he completes his mission at the LC forum. Until then, the Apollyon missions never happened.

[R.Mackey]

So I'm back from work. What have we got here...

That's not thin. That sounds like a statement from an islamistic, antisemitic fundamentalist. I think this is authentic. [...]

The Taliban offered to hand him over in exchange for evidence of his envolvement in 9/11.
OK, so now we're seeing some details of the "coverup" that you believe in. You would save us all some time, and reduce the chance of being misunderstood, if you'd simply explain your theory all at once. I've asked you to do this already.

It's perfectly fine if your theory is limited to a segment of the Sept. 11th tragedy, it doesn't have to be all-encompassing, but just tell us what it is!

Yes. I think he [Bin Laden] is dead since late 2001 and the later videos are faked.
Got it. Let's think about this.

So you're saying that:

1. Bin Laden's initial denials of involvement in 9/11 were the truth.
2. The Taliban handed over Bin Laden to the US Government after we gave them evidence of his involvement.
3. Bin Laden was killed at some point during or soon after this process.
4. Later statements made by Bin Laden, claiming responsibility, were forgeries.

This is what you believe, correct?

Why do you believe this? Please, please tell me you have some reason to believe this other than the fact that he reversed his statements in late 2001.

[steve s]

Uh oh.

Looks like the wheels are coming off the UK Parliament screening, which is supposed to happen tomorrow.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4029&view=findpost&p=5284773


From that post...
...but instead we get cryptic postings about how it IS going to happen...

Is this like that woman that thought David Letterman was sending her cryptic messages through her TV set?

Steve S.

[NobbyNobbs]

Well, I've invited another member of the LC forum to join our little discussion....let's see if she takes me up on it.

QUOTE (jessicajohnstone @ Jun 14 2006, 01:14 AM)
So you are calling me a Liar? And the people on this forum Liars? or aM I piking you up wrong?

Are you from JREF??????????

Give me the freaking addy for that forum.......


Here's the address for the thread you want....


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57424

[Gravy]

Okay, on June 10th, I wrote this

...who will be the first to compare Dylan Avery to Martin Luther King Jr.

Now go here and scroll down to see the whole June 11th entry.
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Not only are they using King's image, they're using Tommie Smith's Black Power salute from the 1968 Olympics!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f7aa64e987.jpg http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f7aa63dffb.jpg

Now introducing JessicaJohnstone as Rosa Parks!

All in the name of PROTESTING AT A MEMORIAL!

Can these creeps be any more clueless?

[Gravy]

Well, I've invited another member of the LC forum to join our little discussion....let's see if she takes me up on it.
Outstanding, and timely! I just mentioned her in my last post.
Feel free to use the Gravy/DJ thread...tumbleweeds are blowing there.

(It can take time to get registration cleared, though)

[delphi_ote]

Okay, on June 10th, I wrote this



Now go here and scroll down to see the whole June 11th entry.
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Not only are they using King's image, they're using Tommie Smith's Black Power salute from the 1968 Olympics!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f7aa64e987.jpg http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f7aa63dffb.jpg

Now introducing JessicaJohnstone as Rosa Parks!

All in the name of PROTESTING AT A MEMORIAL!

Can these creeps be any more clueless?

I'm going to be ill...

[Ducky]

I'm going to be ill...



Not to be confused with "illin'"...

[Gravy]

Not to be confused with "illin'"...
As in Illin' Avery?

[R.Mackey]

Somebody help me, I'm going blind -- around the right-hand side of that circle, there are a few extra characters. Does that say "Louder Than Words LLC?" As in "limited liability corporation?" Curious.

Can't say I'm surprised. They've basically called the entire FDNY liars, pissed on the graves of 4,000 Americans and insulted the survivors, and accused hundreds of conspiring to commit one of the worse crimes of all time, all the while willfully ignorant of their literally hundreds of childish mistakes. In contrast, besmirching Dr. King and Tommie Smith is hardly a footnote. The Rubicon has already been crossed.

On the bright side, now they'll be buying bumper stickers, and making themselves even easier to pick out from the crowd. Can't imagine this will get them out of many parking tickets.

[Gravy]

Somebody help me, I'm going blind -- around the right-hand side of that circle, there are a few extra characters. Does that say "Louder Than Words LLC?" As in "limited liability corporation?"
It's actually "Limited Literacy Conspiradroids."

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I've invited another member of the LC forum to join our little discussion....let's see if she takes me up on it.NN:

May I ask what prompted jessicajohnstone's outburst at the LC forum you've mentioned?

[realitybites]

Honestly... Arguing in the LC forums is like being thrown into a large pool of stupid and being slowly dragged under the surface.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6260&st=60

CGI planes and blobs, OH MY!!!

Forgive my random, off-topic outburst, but... Their stupidity is awe-inspiring.

[NobbyNobbs]

NN:

May I ask what prompted jessicajohnstone's outburst at the LC forum you've mentioned?


Got me. I can't understand half of what she writes. Here's the thread.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6306&st=0&#entry5296221

[Regnad Kcin]

You sent her to the start of this thread? The one that's closing in on 3,000 posts? Yikes!

[joseph k.]

Hopefully, she does show up, and maybe reading at least some of those 3000 posts would do her good. I seem to recall her coloring the EPA as 'mass murderers' (along with 'Bushco'), and it'd be interesting how she justifies such a conclusion after seeing all the EPA reports and the studies done of people afflicted by the asbestos and etc cloud.

[chipmunk stew]

Okay, on June 10th, I wrote this



Now go here and scroll down to see the whole June 11th entry.
http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

Not only are they using King's image, they're using Tommie Smith's Black Power salute from the 1968 Olympics!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f7aa64e987.jpg http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/8790448f7aa63dffb.jpg


Now introducing JessicaJohnstone as Rosa Parks!

All in the name of PROTESTING AT A MEMORIAL!


Can these creeps be any more clueless?
It's "the most important event of [their] lives", Gravy. Don't ruin it for them.

[60hzxtl]

Not only are they using King's image, they're using Tommie Smith's Black Power salute from the 1968 Olympics!

Now introducing JessicaJohnstone as Rosa Parks!

All in the name of PROTESTING AT A MEMORIAL!

Can these creeps be any more clueless?[/CENTER]


WHooooo Weeee! Talk about clueless! The King estate is RUTHLESS about suing to get compensated for Dr. King's image, speeches, and writings, even those made in public forums.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/estateofmlk.html

Gosh, drop them a line:

The King Center
449 Auburn Ave NE, Atlanta, GA 30312
404-526-8900

http://www.thekingcenter.org/

[Belz...]

If a building is square and the measurement is equal on all side measuring 208FT on all sides, well. that pretty much means tha building is 1 acre square.

Squared acres would have four dimensions.

Its obviously a distortion tactic.

You're not helping.

[Belz...]

What is the point of all this?

Acres, man. ACRES!

[MarkyX]

WHooooo Weeee! Talk about clueless! The King estate is RUTHLESS about suing to get compensated for Dr. King's image, speeches, and writings, even those made in public forums.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/estateofmlk.html

Gosh, drop them a line:

The King Center
449 Auburn Ave NE, Atlanta, GA 30312
404-526-8900

http://www.thekingcenter.org/

Good, sue them enough where they can go bankrupt and can no longer screen.

[WildCat]

Good, sue them enough where they can go bankrupt and can no longer screen.
When I hear of LC screenings, why do I have a mental image of the class nerd wheeling in the TV and VCR back in high school?

[The_Fire]

Because you are probably not that far off?

[Hellbound]

Does that look like a 10.000 Gallon explosion?


I think not


Go further before that picture right to the beginning of impact and initial explosion. See where it begins.



Sentinel

Yes, actually. it does. That's rather larger than I recalled, and fits my rough estimate of the fireball size (based on explosion velocity) pretty well.

[Hellbound]

When I hear of LC screenings, why do I have a mental image of the class nerd wheeling in the TV and VCR back in high school?

I dunno, I always think of a small apartment with a bead curtain, several people eating a LOT of snack foods, a smoky haze in the air, and somewhat digging out an old VHS tape and wiping the dust off..."Dudes, this will, like, totally blow your minds! It's awwwwwwwesome!"

[60hzxtl]

When I hear of LC screenings, why do I have a mental image of the class nerd wheeling in the TV and VCR back in high school?


I don't think you are far off - If you watch the "extra's" bits (I force myself to once in a while.) It is Dylan, playing Dylan. He's got his image thing going (I'm cooler than you.) and preying on the stupidity of one group, and the grief of another, and the shock of others still. He plays the part of the smartest person in the room, provided he invites the people into the room. Dylan thinks you are stupid.

I listened to one of his radio interviews, and he can't seem to think on his feet, "uh, huh" doesn't make for very dynamic radio.

I say, keep him busy putting out the little fires, and he will get no distribution for his bilge water film. They seem to be LLC now to limit their damages, and liablilities, next he will learn about "errors and ommisions" insurance.

[Hutch]

Sentinel, Back on post #2593 you asked a number of questions. In post #2613 I tried to reply to them to the best of my ability. Azazal and Huntsman (posts #2622 and #2623) both worked out some mathematical values for the explosion, showing a rather impressive amount of potential energy being expended (IIRC, the low was 150 tons of TNT while the max was 300K tons of TNT).

Instead of considering/challenging these numbers or providing sound reasoning as to why the above figures would not account for the explosions seen, the sum total of your reply to date is:

Does that look like a 10.000 Gallon explosion?

I think not

You are free to think whatever you would like; I heartily approve of people thinking. However, it would help greatly to show some math and physics if you would like anyone else to think along the same lines as you.

The question being; given the power of a fuel/fuel-air explosion as calulated, why wouldn't the explosion look like what we have seen?

[Hellbound]

Sentinel, Back on post #2593 you asked a number of questions. In post #2613 I tried to reply to them to the best of my ability. Azazal and Huntsman (posts #2622 and #2623) both worked out some mathematical values for the explosion, showing a rather impressive amount of potential energy being expended (IIRC, the low was 150 tons of TNT while the max was 300K tons of TNT).

Actually, it was 4 tons to 150 tons, but that's still impressive :)

Also note that this was the energy contained in the jet fuel only, it does not include the kinetic energy of the actual impact. The maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft is 395,000 lbs (179,170 kg). Let's assume half that for the actual weight, to err on the side of caution (89,585 kg). The speed was 550 mph (885km/h or about 245 m/s). Now, kinetic energy is 1/2mv2. So, that's 1/2 * 89,585 kg * (245 m/s)2. That works out to 2,690,000,000 Joules of energy (roughly). Actually, looking at azazal's figures earlier, there was almost twice as much kinetic energy as there would be energy released from the fuel explosion, if I've got my math correct.

[60hzxtl]

The question being; given the power of a fuel/fuel-air explosion as calulated, why wouldn't the explosion look like what we have seen?


Explosion "looks like" is a trap - just like the size of the wreckage - the WTC was huge - its a matter of perspective, because not only was it huge, it was set back from streets / other buildings to make the illusion greater.

Most of Manhattan is built cheek and jowl, but not the WTC.

Any picture that includes the whole, or even most of the WTC was taken from a good distance away.

[dubfan]

They seem to be LLC now to limit their damages, and liablilities, next he will learn about "errors and ommisions" insurance.

It amuses me to imagine that first meeting with the attorney after they got served by the Naudets.

"You guys, *are* incorporated, aren't you?"

I picture the terrific trio exchanging quizzical looks. Incorporated? What's that?

Hey man! We're just asking questions!!

[azazal]

Actually, it was 4 tons to 150 tons, but that's still impressive :)

Also note that this was the energy contained in the jet fuel only, it does not include the kinetic energy of the actual impact. The maximum takeoff weight of the aircraft is 395,000 lbs (179,170 kg). Let's assume half that for the actual weight, to err on the side of caution (89,585 kg). The speed was 550 mph (885km/h or about 245 m/s). Now, kinetic energy is 1/2mv2. So, that's 1/2 * 89,585 kg * (245 m/s)2. That works out to 2,690,000,000 Joules of energy (roughly). Actually, looking at azazal's figures earlier, there was almost twice as much kinetic energy as there would be energy released from the fuel explosion, if I've got my math correct.


Or as I call it, one hell of a big boom that tore support beams to shreads and greatly weakened others. Just looking at the raw energy that was dumped into the towers by the impact and fuel, I'm supprised they stood as long as the did. But hey, guess that's just me trying to be logical.

[Hellbound]

Or as I call it, one hell of a big boom that tore support beams to shreads and greatly weakened others. Just looking at the raw energy that was dumped into the towers by the impact and fuel, I'm supprised they stood as long as the did. But hey, guess that's just me trying to be logical.

One other question, have we sourced the "10,000 gallons of fuel" info? From looking at Boeings site (among others), the capacity of the plane could have been as high at 28,000. It would depend on how much fuel was loaded and how much had been burned before impact.

[Gravy]

The Loosers never fail to delight and amaze. This is about the LC screening at Parliament, which was/is supposed to happen today.

QUOTE (Barcoded @ Jun 14 2006, 03:04 PM)
I'd been waiting for this day for weeks now...

BUT I havent heard how it went or even if it happened? Did Mr. Meacher shown the flim?

If not, then what sort of threats must have been made upon him and his family I wonder to make him cancel the screening...

QUOTE TruthKey
Probably death.

If this screening has been cancelled by threat/intimidation, we have every reason to be enraged. It's time to rebel, my friends.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6332&view=findpost&p=5310537

Stay tuned to this thread this evening. I'll have some very interesting reading material for you.

[Gravy]

One other question, have we sourced the "10,000 gallons of fuel" info? From looking at Boeings site (among others), the capacity of the plane could have been as high at 28,000. It would depend on how much fuel was loaded and how much had been burned before impact.
The 767 has a fairly long range. They WTC planes only carried a fraction of their fuel capacity. Off the top of my head, it was 9-10k gallons.

[Hellbound]

The 767 has a fairly long range. They WTC planes only carried a fraction of their fuel capacity. Off the top of my head, it was 9-10k gallons.

I figured. The models they were were the ER rated, which can carry enough for trans-pacific, so I was pretty sure they were short-loaded. I didn't doubt the figure (it sounds reasonable, given the fully-fuelled range and the flight it was making that day), just wondered if we had it confirmed anywhere.

[MikeW]

NIST says "about 10,000 gal of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple stories" - NISTNCSTAR1-5.

[chipmunk stew]

The Loosers never fail to delight and amaze. This is about the LC screening at Parliament, which was/is supposed to happen today.

QUOTE (Barcoded @ Jun 14 2006, 03:04 PM)


QUOTE TruthKey


Stay tuned to this thread this evening. I'll have some very interesting reading material for you.
6.14.2006

That's all folks.


Well, it's almost five O' clock in Great Britain. I have no clue if the Parliament screening went on as planned...apparantly Mr. Meacher's a little afraid for his life.

I'll update you guys as soon as I know what happened (if it happened...)

Still in the transition process. Our back orders are almost completely taken care of.

And that is all.

posted by dylan avery at 8:17 AM (http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/2006/06/thats-all-folks.html)

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

I bet you're right, Dylan. It must be because Meacher is afraid for his life.

[Hellbound]

NIST says "about 10,000 gal of jet fuel were sprayed into multiple stories" - NISTNCSTAR1-5.

Thank ya much :)

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The Loosers never fail to delight and amaze. This is about the LC screening at Parliament, which was/is supposed to happen today.

QUOTE (Barcoded @ Jun 14 2006, 03:04 PM)


QUOTE TruthKey


Stay tuned to this thread this evening. I'll have some very interesting reading material for you.

I hope they do "rebel", that way they can be locked away and limits to their cancerous, disingenuous, mental masturbation can be imposed.

[60hzxtl]

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

I bet you're right, Dylan. It must be because Meacher is afraid for his life.


Couldn't possibly be that Dylan's film is so silly, so bad, and so childish, that Parliment has better things to do.

Nor could it be that you guys told yourselves another whopper and then believed it.

[Belz...]

Honestly... Arguing in the LC forums is like being thrown into a large pool of stupid and being slowly dragged under the surface.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6260&st=60

CGI planes and blobs, OH MY!!!

Forgive my random, off-topic outburst, but... Their stupidity is awe-inspiring.

Yeah, poor LoonyBin is the sane one in this debate:

Because extremely tall narrow buildings like the towers have to be demo'd top down, so that so they had to give a good excuse as to why the towers collapsed top down. They only wanted the WTC destroyed and nothing else.

4 giant planes on one day, and not a single piece of idenfiable wreckage from any of them.

Isn't that an amazing coincidence !

No, it's no coincidence, mate.

Last I checked this was the tallest building and steel structure to ever be demo'd. And it doesn't look like it came down from the top.

You are trying to compare a building that's 85 stories shorter???

Well, if the LARGEST is 85 "stories" shorter, how could you compare it to anything else ?

[realitybites]

Yeah, poor LoonyBin is the sane one in this debate

Belz, "LoonyBin" is my LC handle over there. (I like to go incognito....) :cool:

And I think that's the last time I venture into the "alternative theory" section. The "regular" CTs are already cracked out beyond belief.

The alternative ones just flat out dumbfound you....

[dubfan]

Couldn't possibly be that Dylan's film is so silly, so bad, and so childish, that Parliment has better things to do.

Nor could it be that you guys told yourselves another whopper and then believed it.

The real tragedy of Loose Change and the "Truth" movement is that there are some legitimate issues and errors and omissions that need to be addressed regarding 9/11. But the Loosers are poisoning their own well with all of the nonsense, errors, and illogic.

There's a serious case to be made that the Sibel Edmonds and Able Danger stories need broader public awareness. Same with John O'Neill. The public should know more about that guy. He should be a household name (though not for the reasons the Loosers claim).

There's a serious case to be made that more 9/11 materials should be released by the government. It strikes me as tragi-comical that Mike Williams (a Brit, bless his heart) has to file a FOIA request to get the radar tapes of the NYC airspace so he can clear up the Otis fighter timeline.

9/11 "Truth" could be focusing on these things -- but they're not. They've got the real issues all entangled with baloney like controlled demolition, wacky no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theories, false flag ops, drones, etc., and because of that they are squandering their chance to really make a significant civic contribution.

[Belz...]

Belz, "LoonyBin" is my LC handle over there. (I like to go incognito....) :cool:

And I think that's the last time I venture into the "alternative theory" section. The "regular" CTs are already cracked out beyond belief.

The alternative ones just flat out dumbfound you....

Yes, and for some reason I had you confused with someone else over there.

[Belz...]

9/11 "Truth" could be focusing on these things -- but they're not. They've got the real issues all entangled with baloney like controlled demolition, wacky no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theories, false flag ops, drones, etc., and because of that they are squandering their chance to really make a significant civic contribution.

Well, as mentioned, they ARE making a civic contribution, by contributing to their own sense of (civil) worth!!!

[realitybites]

Yes, and for some reason I had you confused with someone else over there.

I'm doing my best to not take offense to that.... ;)

[Hutch]

Oh. My. Ed.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6217&st=0

The level of credulity over there has gone past the "Staggering" level and is attaining "Elephantine" status.

I lost braincells reading that thread.

NOTE: Topic is Chemtrails, if you've already been there/done that. Nothing new.

[realitybites]

Oh. My. Ed.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6217&st=0

The level of credulity over there has gone past the "Staggering" level and is attaining "Elephantine" status.

I lost braincells reading that thread.

NOTE: Topic is Chemtrails, if you've already been there/done that. Nothing new.

It really is impossible for them to ever stop isn't it. Just when you think their lunacy has topped out, they kick it up a notch.

Their own one-up-manship is astounding.

[Brainster]

http://loosechange911.blogspot.com/

I bet you're right, Dylan. It must be because Meacher is afraid for his life.

Political life, maybe (although Meacher has embraced the nutty 9-11 conspiracy theories before (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/090703A.shtml)) without apparent consequences.

[XXX]

Just when you think their lunacy has topped out, they kick it up a notch.

Their own one-up-manship is astounding.

9/11 was an inside job! BAM!

We never went to the moon!! BAM!

Chemtrails!! BAM!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

9/11 was an inside job! BAM!

We never went to the moon!! BAM!

Chemtrails!! BAM!

And when we come back from the break I'll show you how David Icke has information unknown to mankind! Give it up for DJLegacy and the LC band!

*fade to commercial*

[azazal]

XXX, Arkan - GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhh.


OK, so I was going to post something along the same lines, have you 2 thought of going to the million?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

XXX, Arkan - GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhh.


OK, so I was going to post something along the same lines, have you 2 thought of going to the million?

No, then we'd have to reveal the existence of the neural-taps in your skull.... err, I mean, Randi's presence would disrupt our vibe.... or something.

[chipmunk stew]

And when we come back from the break I'll show you how David Icke has information unknown to mankind! Give it up for DJLegacy and the LC band!

*fade to commercial**doom and gloom music*

Dust blows across your face...but is it really dust???
A mosquito bites...but is it really a mosquito???
That contrail in the sky...is it really a contrail???

DEFEND YOURSELF. The NWO Family Protection Kit contains everything you need to guard you and your family from Big Brother and his Tesla technology, including:

The RFID Zapper, containing a dual-coil, split charge capacitor--keep the eye in the sky guessing about your whereabouts.
The Mind Drug Dust Mask, incorporating nanotube filtering technology, blocking particles a thousand times smaller than a HEPA-qualified surgeon's mask--keep your mind sharp, keep chemtrails out of your brain.Buy a kit for everyone you know...BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!

[Sentinel]

I have to admit the math is excelent.

I have seen tanker crashes with more fires, though.

LoL, but the comedy in here is even better, Bwaa haa !!


PARLIMENT, OMG !!!



GOD BLESS THE MESS

SENTINEL

[Hellbound]

I have to admit the math is excelent.

I have seen tanker crashes with more fires, though.


I assume you're talking of 18-wheeler tanker trailers, rather than, say, oil tanker ships.

Can you be specific? What were they carrying, what were the conditions?

There should be abundant sources, because a tanker fire larger than the WTC explosion would have definately made national news.

I hope you realize that the "little blast" you are talking about has a cross-section of over two acres? Something on the order of 500 to 600 feet wide? That's enough to cover several 8-lane freeways.

[Apollyon]

I had no idea tankers were capable of doing 500 mph. Who knew?

Damn government is always keeping something from us.

[brodski]

Uh oh.

Looks like the wheels are coming off the UK Parliament screening, which is supposed to happen tomorrow.



http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=4029&view=findpost&p=5284773

Well Dylan is claiming that Meacher may have screened LC2E in the Palace of Westminster, but he's "not sure", which is strange because Dylan has been claming for weeks that he knew that Meacher wouldn't be showing it, but another mystery MP had stepped into the breach.
My prediction- the LC crowd will continue to tell people (and believe themselves) that the screening did go ahead despite evidence to the contrary, until Meacher (and his researchers/ assistants) gets so sick of hearing about this that he publicly denies the screening, at which point the loosers will claim that Meacher life was in danger. Mind you they are claiming that already.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6332

[Gravy]

I had no idea tankers were capable of doing 500 mph. Who knew?

Damn government is always keeping something from us.
He may be talking about mid-air refueling planes, but who knows?
Who knows?

[Gravy]

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6332

I was trying to get my MP there, he was VERY keen to see it, but there was no info available to members on the screening. However sever poster here have been assuring me that Dylan had assured them that the screening will defiantly, defiantly go ahead, and to tell my MP the same. Now Dylan is "not sure" WTF is this? are we SERIOUS about getting the message out or aw we just involved n some kind of giant ego stroke?

If it’s the latter I’ve been wasting sever pretty important peoples time over this parliamentary debarkel, which has done the movement a lo more harm than good.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6332&view=findpost&p=5315909
Can one of you Brits tell me what region this slang is from?

[Sentinel]

Yeah, and they carry much more than 10K too.

They burn for hours, sometimes the burn asfault and melt bridges and steel but not in an hour and a half.


Why didn't Amb Barbara Bodine (Yemen) let John O'neil return to Yemen to continue his investgation on the U.S.S Cole?

Why did Ambasador Barbara Bodine (Yemen) become the head of the Goverment change over in the early stages in Iraq?


Why were there no WMD in Iraq when intel was 100% ?



These are just some legit questions that need to be focused on.



GOD BLESS



Sentinel

[Gravy]

Can one of you Brits tell me what region this slang is from?
Okay, I've been sitting here cracking up. Whenever you're feeling down, just say the words "parliamentary debarkel" to yourself. It's a great stress-reliever. Thank you LC!

[Apollyon]

Well Dylan is claiming that Meacher may have screened LC2E in the Palace of Westminster, but he's "not sure", which is strange because Dylan has been claming for weeks that he knew that Meacher wouldn't be showing it, but another mystery MP had stepped into the breach.
My prediction- the LC crowd will continue to tell people (and believe themselves) that the screening did go ahead despite evidence to the contrary, until Meacher (and his researchers/ assistants) gets so sick of hearing about this that he publicly denies the screening, at which point the loosers will claim that Meacher life was in danger. Mind you they are claiming that already.

http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=6332
LOL. I've discovered a new favorite non-word in that thread over at LC: "debarkel"

Sounds like a something you'd have a vet do to your dog. "Fifi is a quiet dog now. We had her debarkeled."

Edit: Damn you Gravy!

[Gravy]

Yeah, and they carry much more than 10K too.
They burn for hours, sometimes the burn asfault and melt bridges and steel but not in an hour and a half.
Why didn't Amb Barbara Bodine (Yemen) let John O'neil return to Yemen to continue his investgation on the U.S.S Cole?
Why did Ambasador Barbara Bodine (Yemen) become the head of the Goverment change over in the early stages in Iraq?
Why were there no WMD in Iraq when intel was 100% ?
These are just some legit questions that need to be focused on.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOUR POSTS HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11. IF YOU'VE READ THIS FORUM BEFORE, YOU KNOW THAT WE DON'T ACCEPT QUESTIONS AS EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.

eta: and not that it has anything to do with anything, but most tanker trailers do not carry "much more" than 10k gallons.

[chipmunk stew]

Can one of you Brits tell me what region this slang is from?I think the "defiantly, defiantly" part is pretty accurate, though.

[Apollyon]

Yeah, and they carry much more than 10K too.

They burn for hours, sometimes the burn asfault and melt bridges and steel but not in an hour and a half.
Thanks for the useless trivia.

When a tanker crashes into the upper stories of a skyscraper @ 500 MPH, do let us know. Until then it's a meaningless comparison.

Another thing you may want to pick up on: The OS doesn't claim that the steel melted.

[Sentinel]

Sagged was more like it, meaning blow torch conditions, Genius.



Tell me, what sagged first the Steel or the firefighter turnout gear?


And for the bonus point, what is the hight temp limit for turn out gear?


Also, if there was 10K of fuel burning how was it the first units on scene "Saw" numerous 10-45s and two small pokets of fire only needing 2 lines?



Cause you're so smart and so is Hutch, "Sentinal" HUTCH?





Sentinel

[Hellbound]

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOUR POSTS HAVE TO DO WITH 9/11. IF YOU'VE READ THIS FORUM BEFORE, YOU KNOW THAT WE DON'T ACCEPT QUESTIONS AS EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.

eta: and not that it has anything to do with anything, but most tanker trailers do not carry "much more" than 10k gallons.

Just to second Gravy, we used tnakers in the military on Hemmitt trucks. The fuelers have a tank close to the size of an 18-wheeler tanker, and they're 10,000 gallon tanks.

I could see maybe 15,000 for an 18 wheeler, if that.

Also, does Sentinal understand that there is a difference between burning and explosion? A tanker truck that cracks open (from wreck or turn-over or whatever) and ignites is not under pressure, and is not sprayed out everywhere due to impact force. It will typically burn, rather than explode, and the fireball isn't nearly as large.

The jet fuel from the plane was free of containers (as the fuel tanks would have disintigrated on impact at that speed) and sprayed across and over everything. It was at least partially aerosoled, plus spread over a wider area. Heck, you can test this at home (but only do so at your own risk):

Take 2 gallons of gasoline. Put one gallon in a metal bucket. Spread the other gallon out over the ground/driveway/whatever. Ignite each, and time how long it takes them to burn away. I'll garauntee you the spread out fuel will burn off much quicker.

[Pak43]

Can one of you Brits tell me what region this slang is from?

It's from the county known as "Fecking Moron", it's a smallish county which is constituted from nothing but marshy swampland.

It's inhabitants only know one means of escape, by an almighty leap to the neighboring county of "Conclusions", gracefully clearing the majestically wide "River of Evidence" in a single bound....

[Johnny Pixels]

Yeah, and they carry much more than 10K too.

They burn for hours, sometimes the burn asfault and melt bridges and steel but not in an hour and a half.

UK petrol tankers (ie the trailer ones you see all the time) carry approx 30,000 litres (8000 gallons) of petrol. They are separated into different compartments, which is why they have several hatches on the top, each one is for a separate compartment. This means that a crash does not spill the entire load. (I know this because I have seen them being made)

They do burn for hours because it is liquid petrol, and not vapour, and so the whole thing doesn't go up at once. Kind of like an aircraft crashing into a building. The immediate vapour release burns rapidly, or explodes depending on the conditions, leaving much more fuel as liquid to seep out and add to the fire.

They take hours to weaken steel because they are out in the open, so the heat can escape in every direction. Clearly the conditions are very different in the enclosed space of a tower block. They do melt the asphalt in the immediate vicinity, because the heat is concentrated there, usually in the area under the tanker. The steel need not melt to be weakened. Heat some needles up in a gas flame. Do they need to melt before you can bend them easily?

[Orb]

This might be a dumb question, but don't airplanes have oxygen tanks on board in case of emergencies? Wouldn't this exacerbate the fires or increase the explosion? Or wouldn't it be enough to make a difference?

[chipmunk stew]

It's from the county known as "Fecking Moron", it's a smallish county which is constituted from nothing but marshy swampland.

It's inhabitants only know one means of escape, by an almighty leap to the neighboring county of "Conclusions", gracefully clearing the majestically wide "River of Evidence" in a single bound....:dl:

Welcome Pak.

[Gravy]

Sagged was more like it, meaning blow torch conditions, Genius.
Tell me, what sagged first the Steel or the firefighter turnout gear?
And for the bonus point, what is the hight temp limit for turn out gear?
Also, if there was 10K of fuel burning how was it the first units on scene "Saw" numerous 10-45s and two small pokets of fire only needing 2 lines?
Cause you're so smart and so is Hutch, "Sentinal" HUTCH?
Sentinel
Sentinel, you're a fireman and you don't know that heat rises? Where should the fire have gone after it exhausted the available fuel on the impact floors, down? No, it went up. Chief Palmer made it to the 78th floor of the south tower – a hell of an effort. He radioed in about 13 minutes before the tower fell. Most of the fire was on the 80th floor and up.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehost/87904490689b74499.jpg

[Johnny Pixels]

Something else I might stick in, there were tests carried out on the flammability of droplets of aircraft fuel. I think it may have even been using something like the remote control plane that fetures in Loose Change. It was found that there was a minimum size for droplets before they ignited, basically, big droplets don't burn. This was used to improve fuel tank design so that when a plane hits the runway and the fuel tank is torn ruptured, they are designed so that the fuel disperses in large droplets that don't cause fireballs,I think using foam inserts in the fuel tanks.

This may have made a difference with the WTC fireball and subsequent fire, maybe not.

This is all a bit sketchy, but it's from memory from a Discovery chanel program I saw a while ago. I'll see if I can find some evidence.

[rikzilla]

Sagged was more like it, meaning blow torch conditions, Genius.

Or as I prefer; "Quite hot actually"



Tell me, what sagged first the Steel or the firefighter turnout gear?
non-sequitur


And for the bonus point, what is the hight temp limit for turn out gear?

2,369.5 angels may dance on the head of a ladies hat pin at any time...no more than that though!!

Also, if there was 10K of fuel burning how was it the first units on scene "Saw" numerous 10-45s and two small pokets of fire only needing 2 lines?

Since we have film of both initial impacts with resultant fireballs, mass destruction, and much burning/smoke/sagging steel etc...what is your point? That the fire wasn't perfectly symetrical in it's distribution? What is your expertise to judge what a airliner into skyscraper fire is supposed to look like?


Cause you're so smart and so is Hutch, "Sentinal" HUTCH?

When all else fails...bring out the pedant. :rolleyes:

-z

BTW: What's a "poket" of fire anyway?





Sentinel[/QUOTE]

[rwguinn]

Just to second Gravy, we used tnakers in the military on Hemmitt trucks. The fuelers have a tank close to the size of an 18-wheeler tanker, and they're 10,000 gallon tanks.

I could see maybe 15,000 for an 18 wheeler, if that.

Also, does Sentinal understand that there is a difference between burning and explosion? A tanker truck that cracks open (from wreck or turn-over or whatever) and ignites is not under pressure, and is not sprayed out everywhere due to impact force. It will typically burn, rather than explode, and the fireball isn't nearly as large.

The jet fuel from the plane was free of containers (as the fuel tanks would have disintigrated on impact at that speed) and sprayed across and over everything. It was at least partially aerosoled, plus spread over a wider area. Heck, you can test this at home (but only do so at your own risk):

Take 2 gallons of gasoline. Put one gallon in a metal bucket. Spread the other gallon out over the ground/driveway/whatever. Ignite each, and time how long it takes them to burn away. I'll garauntee you the spread out fuel will burn off much quicker.
Limit load on US highways for an 18 wheeler is 80,000 lb, most states in the US.
at 6.2 lb/gallon, that is a legal maximum of 12903 gallons if the truck weighs nothing! Kerosene ("Jet Fuel") is about 6.5 lb/gallon, slightly higher than gasoline.
The energy density of Kerosene is 8% greater than that of gasoline--135k BTU/gallon, as opposed to gasoline's 125K BTU/gallon.
Guess which burns hotter under the same conditions?

[Gravy]

Something else I might stick in, there were tests carried out on the flammability of droplets of aircraft fuel. I think it may have even been using something like the remote control plane that fetures in Loose Change. It was found that there was a minimum size for droplets before they ignited, basically, big droplets don't burn. This was used to improve fuel tank design so that when a plane hits the runway and the fuel tank is torn ruptured, they are designed so that the fuel disperses in large droplets that don't cause fireballs,I think using foam inserts in the fuel tanks.

This may have made a difference with the WTC fireball and subsequent fire, maybe not.

This is all a bit sketchy, but it's from memory from a Discovery chanel program I saw a while ago. I'll see if I can find some evidence.
Yes, that was exactly the purpose of the remote-control 720 crash test in 1984. They were working on kerosene additives that would make the fuel aerosolize less easily, and on new fuel tank designs.

[Hellbound]

Limit load on US highways for an 18 wheeler is 80,000 lb, most states in the US.
at 6.2 lb/gallon, that is a legal maximum of 12903 gallons if the truck weighs nothing! Kerosene ("Jet Fuel") is about 6.5 lb/gallon, slightly higher than gasoline.
The energy density of Kerosene is 8% greater than that of gasoline--135k BTU/gallon, as opposed to gasoline's 125K BTU/gallon.
Guess which burns hotter under the same conditions?

Thanks for that, I was just guestimating based on remembered size, and adding a max limit :)

[Apollyon]

Sagged was more like it, meaning blow torch conditions, Genius.
Well you didn't say "sagged," you said "melted." Are we supposed to divine what you meant instead of what you wrote?

It's been brought up numerous times already that you have serious issues with properly expressing your intent. So don't get bent when someone doesn't correctly read your mind. Not all us geniuses in here have that particular capability.

Tell me, what sagged first the Steel or the firefighter turnout gear?


And for the bonus point, what is the hight temp limit for turn out gear?


Also, if there was 10K of fuel burning how was it the first units on scene "Saw" numerous 10-45s and two small pokets of fire only needing 2 lines?
Tell me, what prompts you to continuously machine gun meaningless questions in here that are blatant non sequiturs and have so little relevance to the tower collapse?

[Pak43]

E-mail to Monica Masson, Michael Meachers parliamentary secretary:

Monica,

Could I ask if Michael intends to arrange a viewing on June 14th in Parliament for the purpose of showing the “Loose Change” video?

This is currently being claimed by members of the “Loose Change” internet forum.

I, along with many others, am extremely sceptical of the content of this video and would suggest it does not prove in any way that a conspiracy existed to bring down the WTC towers.

Perhaps I could direct you to a link
wubbleyoux3dotccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide which contains well-researched, sobre refutation of the video. I would urge Michael to use this document when viewing the video and he will see why many people have doubts about the credibility of it.

Regards

[Johnny Pixels]

Yes, that was exactly the purpose of the remote-control 720 crash test in 1984. They were working on kerosene additives that would make the fuel aerosolize less easily, and on new fuel tank designs.

Hey, my memory does work!

Or as I prefer; "Quite hot actually"

Never underestimate the power of understatement.

[Gravy]

It's from the county known as "Fecking Moron", it's a smallish county which is constituted from nothing but marshy swampland.

It's inhabitants only know one means of escape, by an almighty leap to the neighboring county of "Conclusions", gracefully clearing the majestically wide "River of Evidence" in a single bound....
Aah. I was thinking West Midlands. Thanks for clearing that up, and welcome to our little debarkel debunking club.


edited to "correct" spelling of debarkel.