The 911 Conspiracy Theory thread

[paracowboy]

I told you: Masons!

 

[Michael OLeary]

I told you: Masons!

http://tinyurl.com/qgruj
http://tinyurl.com/lfegk

 

[probum non poenitet]

Why don't they have a PUBLIC inquiry into the whole 9-11 affair? It seems an event like this one would exhaust all resources to find out what happened. There just seems to be too many questions that should be easy to answer, yet no answers are forthcoming or being sought. This just adds credibility to even the most far fetched theories. While I watched the second plane hit on the news, I too thought instantly controlled demolition.

I’m jumping in here, regardless of fear and good judgement.
I have watched Loose Change.
I must say, with its hep soundtrack, and rapid assault of ‘facts’ and compelling film clips, it’s easy to be taken in.
It’s a good bit of hucksterism, the guy has a huge career ahead of him in advertising, or Three Card Monte.

I am not going to ridicule those who question the government, or get taken in by this – we all make mistakes, and it’s the great Canadian tradition to ‘call bullshit’ on almost everything we see and hear.

So, I’ll give you my ‘opinions’ on your answers one by one.
But first can I ask what the film dares not:

1. Why is it so hard to believe that you can find a group of young Islamic men who hate the United States and are willing to die in a suicide attack? They are as common as gophers in Saskatchewan.

2. The ‘James Bond’ precision wasn’t exactly James Bond. Flight 93 got delayed and failed to meet its objective.

3. The ‘Osama couldn’t have planned this from a cave with a kidney machine’ is really underestimating the enemy. Actually, it’s kind of a racist statement when you think about it “Arabs are too dumb to take over four planes AT ONCE! Come on! And hit the Twin Towers – those things were TINY!”

4. Actually, the plan was relatively simple. Coordinate four hijackings and fly them into landmarks before the Americans realize your intent and react. I’ve programmed VCRs more complicated than that. (Simple does not mean ineffective, sadly). Personally, that’s what I think freaks everyone out – the incredible fragility of what we hold dear. A few determined maniacs can screw it all up - or try to.

But on to your points:

How did WTC tower 7 fall?

Loose Change hammers away at two contradictory points:
a. NO STEEL BUILDING HAS EVER COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF FIRE
b. STEEL BUILDINGS THAT COLLAPSE DON’T LOOK LIKE THIS (roll dramatic video)
Shall I spell out the irony – if it’s never happened, how is it supposed to look? Of course Loose Change doesn’t drop that little nugget, because it might break the flow of their argument. Apparently it knows exactly how a steel building should collapse – you know, the ones that never have.
Anyhow, why did it fall? Because two of the largest structures ever built by human hands fell down right next to it, and the thing had been burning for hours. Because FDNY didn’t’ feel like losing any more people that day – it got unsafe and they let it burn.
I’m surprised more buildings didn’t fall, actually.

And why did the guy that owned it say in an interview it was "pulled"?

Why did he ‘pull it’ – he was referring to pulling out the fire crews. Check the web, it’s easy to find.
Again, if this guy possessed Lex Luthor-like criminal brilliance in planting a zillion explosives in the WTC with nobody noticing, is he really going to slip out his Dr. Evil plan in an interview? “Oh, drat!”
A statement easily taken two ways – one a simple explanation, or one unveiling a fantastically complex crime of the century – my god, are you my ex-girlfriend?

And why did he have the foresight to put billions in insurance on the towers just 6 weeks before the event?

Ahhhh – the classic conspiracy-theory misdirect – he had the “foresight to insure his building!”
Dude, my shed is insured. Everything is insured.
His insurance was being renewed, not bought for the first time.
“Oh my God, Martha, I just realized I forgot to insure the WTC!”
“That’s ok dear, just do it tomorrow on your way to the florist.”
The question that Loose Change doesn’t put forth is “What is a normal amount of insurance to be carried on a property of that value?”
I don’t know exactly, because I am not an insurance adjustor. But if Loose Change knows, they’re not saying.
It’s the classic ‘shocking fact’ held up without comparison.
He had the foresight to buy SIX APPLES AT ONCE!
(Is that normal? What is a normal amount of apples?) If the viewer doesn’t know much about buying apples, a purchase of six apples can be made to sound sinister.
So, ball back in your court, what would the acceptable, non-suspicious amount of insurance have been to carry on the WTC?
I’m guessing “A lot.” Billions, perhaps? You know, sufficient coverage to replace the property if lost or damaged? Ye olde insurance yardstick?

Why do we not have any CLEAR pictures of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, when there were numerous cameras available. Why were the pictures confiscated from the various businesses that took them to begin with?

Slightly strange, but consider this – maybe (and I’m showing a bit of tinfoil here) – but maybe there are certain air defence assets near the Pentagon that are better left classified. Same goes as to how the building holds up to explosion. That would explain away why they are being coy about the tapes. PURE CONJECTURE on my part, but it would make sense to me.

What's with that PNAC document talking about the US needing some galvanizing event to allow them to push forth the neo-con agenda

It was mentioned in passing. If the title of the report had been “Pearl Harbor II: Swindling Americans to Kick off the Final Crusade”, I might have been more suspicious.
It’s no secret that a galvanizing event, a ‘Pearl Harbor’ can give you strong public backing. It’s not a shockingly new idea.
Again, picking one passage out of one report, and making it sound like the Thesis is manipulative.
Re-read the entire report and get back to me. 

Why did George Bush even lend credence to the debunkers by saying "we MUST not tolerate conspiracy theories".

Because they are a growing force in public opinion that sow fear and undermine the war effort. He could have said it better, if that is indeed his quote. But the point is that misinformation in wartime can breed defeat. Question, yes, but don’t fall for lies – very well-polished lies, to boot.

What's with the put options on the various Airlines that occurred leading up to 9-11? Any investor will tell you that four times the normal volume is not random. Unless that was Osama and family.

I’ve seen it explained on web – couldn’t be bothered to refute it here, as it’s complex, but I will say this, not connected directly to this topic: people had advance knowledge of the incident – people who planned it and carried it out. Just because ‘someone knew’ proves nothing, unless you actually name who that ‘someone is.’
Loose Change doesn’t name names because – well – you know – it doesn’t fit their theory, so to the cutting room floor it goes.
Again, misdirect, not facts.

Sometimes coincidences happen in the market. “Any investor will tell you…” Are you a professional stockbroker, or are you repeating what you heard in the movie? Check what you are repeating as gospel. "Any investory will tell you ... " is classic conspiracy theory fear-mongering. If you don't have expert knowledge, you'll believe it.
I’m not a stockbroker either, so whatever. This one doesn’t shock me particularly, because there are no credible experts backing the theory.
Get me 10 traceable quotes from Blue Chip stockbrokers that this is an impossibility, and I'll be interested. Some dude that sounds baked on a voiceover doesn't hold as much cred for me.

What were the extra explosions in the towers that numerous people reported, as evidenced in news video from the time.

As mentioned before, bodies hitting the sidewalk, debris falling, things burning. I can tell you that explosions in real life don’t sound like the movies – they can be confused with all sorts of loud noises – like say a floor burning away and tons of debris falling 20 feet to the next floor.
Also, the fire was massive – the heat was no doubt causing any form of compressed gas containers, computer monitors, etc. to explode.
And finally – trapped in those buildings – hell on Earth – your perceptions are going to be somewhat distorted. People see and hear many things.
What nobody reported was “Hey, this is Ladder 27, I’ve just found a row of demolitions emplaced on this floor. The building is wired to explode!”
Instead it was “I’ve just heard a huge explosion.” Not unusual in a blazing building minutes away from collapsing, I should guess.

The problem with the temperature of the burning jet fuel versus the temp it actually takes to bend the steel involved

This one is easy, and should tell you what a load of toad-spew Loose Change is. You don’t have to MELT steel to cause a collapse, you just have to WEAKEN it. Burning jet fuel isn’t hot enough to melt steel, but it will sure as hell weaken it.
The superkalafragelistic investigators at Loose Change missed that little engineering gem. Deliberately, you think? Nothing spoils a gripping yarn like the facts.
Next …….

Why were so few fighters available at the time of the attacks to react? Apparently most were away on various convenient exercises.

Oh, you mean how the 50 F-16s that normally flew CAP over New York 24/7 – where were THEY? Sorry, man, more crap. They were not ‘called away’ September 11.
Looking at Loose Change’s lousy track record so far, I would like to see an op order presented as evidence, that “All of NORAD’s assets were confused by the exercise.”
Look man, NORAD trains for hypothetical scenarios all the time, like missiles, or hijacks, or whatever. They also work in protocols so that if something actually happens during an exercise, they can tell the difference.
In fact, United 93 wouldn’t have reached its target – that is confirmed fact – F-16s were ready to shoot it down if it hadn’t crashed. It’s just that the first three attacks happened too quickly to be stopped.
The Air Force isn’t magic.

Immediate confiscation of WTC steel rubble. Essentially hiding all evidence from the crime scene.

“People of New York, this is your mayor, Rudy. We are going to leave a huge smouldering, toxic, pile of twisted rubble in the middle of Manhattan for the next several months. It is important that we do this, because there is an infintessimal chance that actually the planes that flew into the building were actually holograms projected from Woolworths, and what really destroyed the WTC were explosives planted there by Dick Cheney disguised as a Purolator delivery boy. I know seeing this destruction every day for years will be a painful reminder to you, will disrupt commerce, and be a symbol to the world of America’s inability to recover, but it is important that we leave this smoking pile of shit here because I just saw this awesome student film on the Internet. Here’s the URL, and be sure to vote for me if I run again.”

Flight 93.......a ton of questions there. For one...where are all the black boxes? And the ones that were.Data unrecoverable?

Well, according to Loose Change, Flight 93 landed at Cincinnati, its passengers were herded into a NASA research facility, their voices were morphed by some CIA secret device, and Black Ops people phoned everyone impersonating their children, like that tall bald dude in that episode of Star Trek.
Simple plan, nothing could go wrong there?

Then I guess the passengers became Soylent Green, or something.

Yep, that’s way more plausible than flight delay messing with the timing allowing the passengers to realize they were a flying bomb, leading to a fistfight in the cockpit followed by a crash.
A delayed flight? Preposterous!
I’m buying the Soylent Green theory.

No proof that the hijackers were members of Al Qaeda, or anything, really.

Yeah, where are you going to find men in the Middle East willing to carry out suicide attacks on Amercians?
Oh, by the way, when Loose Change claims that half of them are alive, don’t you think it might have been a bit of a PR coup for the filmmakers and/or Osama to produce them walking and talking?
Nah, I’ll just take Loose Change's word for it, as they zoom in on the photos and say, without a shred of proof, that they are alive.

Would it be cruel to point out that conspiracy theorists are lecturing US about being skeptical?  :rofl:

BTW, Osama takes credit for the attack, and calls all the hijackers martyrs. Unless, of course, Osama is part of the conspiracy!

All sarcasm aside, don’t fall for this misinformation. Don’t feel bad for being taken in, Loose Change is as slick as goose-poo, but doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny.

But you are right to challenge ideas – truth will stand up to scrutiny. Governments have been known to lie :cough: Adscam :cough:

Loose Change may impress at first glance, but it only stands up to scrutiny if you have taken about 17 hits from the octopus bong and have a pre-disposed anti-Bush mentality.

 

[_TheSaint_]

But you are right to challenge ideas – truth will stand up to scrutiny. Governments have been known to lie :cough: Adscam :cough:

Loose Change may impress at first glance, but it only stands up to scrutiny if you have taken about 17 hits from the octopus bong and have a pre-disposed anti-Bush mentality.

That was a pretty good debunking of "Loose Change". The problem is, Loose Change is not the real discussion. There are numerous other websites, and in fact an entire symposium being held in Los Angeles this summer on the subject. These individuals have done extensive research into the problems with the official explanation. I'm not an expert on building construction, NORAD activity at the time, nor do I posses any of the necessary credentials to speak to the points being raised by skeptics. I would imagine the same is true of you. One can "speculate" till they're blue in the face about why this or that occured, but without the right cred, it's all just "radio chatter".

Ultimately you're probably right. There is a bigger impossibility than a handful of Arabs hijacking four planes and crashing them into two large stationary objects. The impossibility of a giant bureaucracy carrying out these attacks with zero leakage.

I don't think "the US government did it". Are they accountable for mistakes that were made leading up to the attacks? MABYE. I simply believe that there needs to be a PUBLIC inquiry, done by a NON-GOVERNMENTAL panel investigating all of the points that have been raised since the original "investigation". This would put an end to the entire debate and the American and worldwide audience could get back to the main subject of the day, the US led WOT and its utility- or lack thereof.  I do, however, thank you for your ability to address the issue without the usual "tin foil hat society" rhetoric that preceded your argument.

I think that skepticism is the foundation of a healthy democracy. In fact isn't that what they teach in school? To question the given facts and develop a unique perspective? If there were no conspiracy theorists IMO that would be the time to start worrying.

 

[_TheSaint_]

Sometimes coincidences happen in the market. “Any investor will tell you…” Are you a professional stockbroker, or are you repeating what you heard in the movie? Check what you are repeating as gospel. "Any investor will tell you ... " is classic conspiracy theory fear-mongering. If you don't have expert knowledge, you'll believe it.
I’m not a stockbroker either, so whatever. This one doesn’t shock me particularly, because there are no credible experts backing the theory.
Get me 10 traceable quotes from Blue Chip stockbrokers that this is an impossibility, and I'll be interested. Some dude that sounds baked on a voiceover doesn't hold as much cred for me.

I'll give you a link to a story on this particular point, which to me, seems to say unequivocally that "someone" knew what was going to happen and had the forsight to trade accordingly.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/insideDeal.html

Between 6 and 7 September, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 "put" option contracts in UAL versus 396 call options -- where a speculator bets on a price rising. Holders of the put options would have netted a profit of $5m (3.3m) once the carrier's share price dived after 11 September. On 10 September, more trading in Chicago saw the purchase of 4,516 put options in American Airlines, the other airline involved in the hijackings. This compares with a mere 748 call options in American purchased that day.

That's a public record.

Am I a professional? I have my CFP designation and work for a brokerage in Van as an associate. To answer your question,  NO this was not normal options trading for these particular issues- not even close.

Pay attention to this fact

Investigators cannot help but notice that no other airlines saw such trading in their put options.

This is just one of the areas in need of further investigation.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I noticed he didn't mention the "normal" averages from before......again easy to find, however noticably absent.

 

[_TheSaint_]

I noticed he didn't mention the "normal" averages from before......again easy to find, however noticably absent.

In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts was bought each day in its shares. The total for the three days before the attacks was 2,157. Merrill Lynch, anotherWTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four days before the attacks, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day.

He does produce the averages from the preceding days for the banks involved. Once again, while this MAY have been just some unusual trading unrelated to the attacks, there needs to be some kind of public inquiry bringing all the issues together. If you do a search you can find numerous articles written at the time discussing this issue with further details...here are some....

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4367.htm

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html

 

[George Wallace]

And you don't think that this may have been Osama financing his future operations?  Why is everything an American or CIA conspiracy?

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

What a coup it would have been for al Queda to not only pull off this attack, but make millions from the NYSE as a result of it.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

And you don't think that this may have been Osama financing his future operations?  Why is everything an American or CIA conspiracy?

Why would you assume we think its some "CIA conspiracy"?  Maybe you're right.  Maybe it was AQ financing their next big hit.  All the more reason NOT to turn a blind eye and question things like this.  Let go of the "tin foil hat" argument.  It's funny for awhile, then it's just annoying...

 

[probum non poenitet]

Am I a professional? I have my CFP designation and work for a brokerage in Van as an associate. To answer your question, NO this was not normal options trading for these particular issues- not even close.

Share speculators have failed to collect $2.5m (£1.7m) in profits made from the fall in the share price of United Airlines after the 11 September World Trade Centre attacks.
The fact that the money is unclaimed more than a month later has re-awakened investigators' interest in a story dismissed as coincidence.

OK, interesting ... this one shows potential for credibility.
After all 9-11 was a conspiracy - according to Oxford: "a secret plan to commit a crime or do harm, often for political ends."
An Al Qaeda conspiracy, I maintain, but a conspiracy nonetheless.

Maybe someone on the inside of the planning decided to 'help out Aunt Gertie' by giving her a tip a few days before it went down.
I'm guessing the planners would be mightily upset for such an OPSEC violation, but stupid things happen on all military ops (I can hear everyone out there in the CF nodding vigourously) - and it would explain why nobody claimed the cash.
"Achmed, you did WHAAAAAATTTTTTTT?????????" SMACK!
(I have no proof of this, I'm just having fun playing Sherlock Holmes)

If there is something to this, I bet the FBI has run down that rabbit hole looking for clues. Maybe they found a few, but we'll never know until we're in the retirement home.

I'll file this theory as 'perhaps not insane.'
I defer to those with greater knowledge of finances on this one, you included.

But again, suspicious trading only suggests that 'someone' had advance knowledge of the attack - and there is no argument that 'someone' did know - Osama for one.
The zillion dollar question is who was that someone?

 

[the 48th regulator]

Why would you assume we think its some "CIA conspiracy"?   Maybe you're right.  Maybe it was AQ financing their next big hit.  All the more reason NOT to turn a blind eye and question things like this.   Let go of the "tin foil hat" argument.   It's funny for awhile, then it's just annoying...

Why you really summed my opinion up precisely...and I was not talking about tin foil hats ....

dileas

tess

 

[TMM]

The zillion dollar question is who was that someone?

I work in finance but have no designation. Nonetheless in number crunching school we were taught one of the rules of forensic accounting is "Who stands to benefit from the fraud?"

That's where I put my money on Al-Qaeda. I can just see Osama smiling in glee at having not only ripped a hole in Manhattan's heart but also laughing all the way to the bank with it.

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Slightly strange, but consider this – maybe (and I’m showing a bit of tinfoil here) – but maybe there are certain air defence assets near the Pentagon that are better left classified.

Then why not release the video camera footage for the surrounding establishments that were confiscated by the FBI.  Some of these tapes had a clear view of the planes flight path.  They are public video cameras and have no threat to "national security", so there would be no harm in it no?  Not unless there was something to hide...(oh nos! he said something to hide!  get the man a tin foil hat!)

That would explain away why they are being coy about the tapes. PURE CONJECTURE on my part, but it would make sense to me.

That doesn't make sense to me.  If the public cameras were placed in a way that would compromise the security of the Pentagon, they would have been moved the day the cameras were put in.  Not left until the day something happened.

“People of New York, this is your mayor, Rudy. We are going to leave a huge smouldering, toxic, pile of twisted rubble in the middle of Manhattan for the next several months. It is important that we do this, because there is an infintessimal chance that actually the planes that flew into the building were actually holograms projected from Woolworths, and what really destroyed the WTC were explosives planted there by Dick Cheney disguised as a Purolator delivery boy. I know seeing this destruction every day for years will be a painful reminder to you, will disrupt commerce, and be a symbol to the world of America’s inability to recover, but it is important that we leave this smoking pile of crap here because I just saw this awesome student film on the Internet. Here’s the URL, and be sure to vote for me if I run again.”

It has nothing to do with that.  Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.  Instead it was taken and destroyed.  You would think an attack of this magnitude would leave the investigators with itchy fingers, just waiting to get into the debris and see what they can find.  If a passport was found, then maybe some other documents could be retrieved.  But no, the debris was taken away and destroyed immediately.

1.  Why is it so hard to believe that you can find a group of young Islamic men who hate the United States and are willing to die in a suicide attack? They are as common as gophers in Saskatchewan.

It's not so hard.  What is so hard to believe however, is the reason the US Administration still stands behind the names of the hijackers when a good chunk of them have been found to be alive, living in the middle east.

Well, according to Loose Change, Flight 93 landed at Cincinnati, its passengers were herded into a NASA research facility, their voices were morphed by some CIA secret device, and Black Ops people phoned everyone impersonating their children, like that tall bald dude in that episode of Star Trek.
Simple plan, nothing could go wrong there?

I must admit.  That explanation was a little far fetched, but Cheiney's "slip of the tong" (and you can't deny that this was a BIG slip of the tong....I’m not talking about calling tea coffee here..) with regards to the plane being shot down.  But who knows. 

Ok, now maybe you can answer these questions:

1) With regards to the debris that was left at the Pentagon attack.  Where are the wing marks on the Pentagon?  How is it, that a plane that size simply "disappeared"

It did not disintegrate.  The wings would have broken off on impact.  Also, Where are the two large engines of the plane?  They were made of Steel Titanium, and could not have disintegrated in the heat (since that was the story given).

Also the engine piece that was found at the scene, according to those responsible for their construction, say it did not belong to that aircraft.  They had their theories on what kinds of aircraft it would have belonged to, but I am not going to get into that.  It would only encourage more "tinfoil hat" comments. 

Another thing that has yet to be explained was how cellular phones worked so well that day in a plane of that size and composition, and that altitude. 

I am in no way saying the US is behind 9/11 as many conveniantly assume, but to deny the fact that there are some rather pressing questions that would be irresponsible to ignore is just wrong.

 

[TMM]

But no, the debris was taken away and destroyed immediately.

In that case can you please explain all that debris over in Fresh Kills?

 

[muskrat89]

Are you making stuff up as you go along??

You said:

Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.   Instead it was taken and destroyed.

 Source?

Now, Google "WTC Debris"...

Hit No. 1 From NPR, no less..   http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2002/may/freshkills/index.html

From that article:

[/NPR’s Chris Arnold went to the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island, where police officers and FBI agents continue searching the last of the rubble as it’s brought over from the World Trade Center site.

The search has been methodical and exhaustive. The rubble is spread out and inspected twice at Ground Zero. Then it’s brought to Fresh Kills by barge and truck, where the clumps of tangled metal and concrete are broken down using heavy machinery and vibrating belts.

Teams of officers and agents watch as the rubble is sifted down to a fine ashy silt that they then rake through by hand.

Larger items, such as destroyed fire trucks and other vehicles, are torn apart by a machine called a shearer. Hundreds of vehicles have been hauled to Fresh Kills, most recovered from the collapsed parking lots under the World Trade Center.

"We're still finding human remains, even to this day," says Richard Marx, the FBI’s Special Agent in Charge at the landfill. "We are constantly recovering personal effects -- we found a wedding ring this past weekend."

Marx says the recovery effort has turned up more than 50,000 personal items. But often, without an inscription or name, it’s hard to know who they belonged to -- and officials have not yet decided how to let the victims' family members sort through the items.
quote]

 

[George Wallace]

Then why not release the video camera footage for the surrounding establishments that were confiscated by the FBI.  Some of these tapes had a clear view of the planes flight path.  They are public video cameras and have no threat to "national security", so there would be no harm in it no?  Not unless there was something to hide...(oh nos! he said something to hide!  get the man a tin foil hat!)

That doesn't make sense to me.  If the public cameras were placed in a way that would compromise the security of the Pentagon, they would have been moved the day the cameras were put in.   Not left until the day something happened.

As mentioned before, (I am sure you have read it too  : ) the camera record at a slow rate of frames per minute.  Just like watching the Traffic cameras on the news.  If you can't watch the traffic moving at 30 mph in real time on some of these cameras, how are you going to watch an aircraft flying at over 600 mph.

It has nothing to do with that.   Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.   Instead it was taken and destroyed.  You would think an attack of this magnitude would leave the investigators with itchy fingers, just waiting to get into the debris and see what they can find.  If a passport was found, then maybe some other documents could be retrieved.  But no, the debris was taken away and destroyed immediately.

Obviously you don't watch TV news much.  There were whole series of pieces done on the recovery of items from the debris.  People sifting through all the ruble with 'fine toothed combs' didn't look much like they were distroying everything to me.  

It's not so hard.  What is so hard to believe however, is the reason the US Administration still stands behind the names of the hijackers when a good chunk of them have been found to be alive, living in the middle east.

 Really!   :  Can you name a few?  You say that there are names and proof.

I must admit.  That explanation was a little far fetched, but Cheiney's "slip of the tong" (and you can't deny that this was a BIG slip of the tong....I’m not talking about calling tea coffee here..) with regards to the plane being shot down.  But who knows.   

Ok, now maybe you can answer these questions:

1) With regards to the debris that was left at the Pentagon attack.   Where are the wing marks on the Pentagon?   How is it, that a plane that size simply "disappeared"

It did not disintegrate.  The wings would have broken off on impact.  Also, Where are the two large engines of the plane?   They were made of Steel Titanium, and could not have disintegrated in the heat (since that was the story given).

Also the engine piece that was found at the scene, according to those responsible for their construction, say it did not belong to that aircraft.   They had their theories on what kinds of aircraft it would have belonged to, but I am not going to get into that.  It would only encourage more "tinfoil hat" comments. 

Another thing that has yet to be explained was how cellular phones worked so well that day in a plane of that size and composition, and that altitude. 

I am in no way saying the US is behind 9/11 as many conveniantly assume, but to deny the fact that there are some rather pressing questions that would be irresponsible to ignore is just wrong.

You obviously don't do all the research necessary to state your case.  There is video of a jet full of fuel hitting a wall of concrete, done in a test, and posted on this site, that clearly shows that the aircraft completely disintergrates.  But that doesn't support your idiotic views that an aircraft, with its' wings full of fuel (That is where its' fuel tanks are located) wouldn't disappear in a head on collision with a solid mass.  Where are the engines and wings of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers - they are constructed the same?

Cell Phones are radios.  Radio waves travel very well with line of sight.  There would be no hills, buildings, trees or any other obstructions at those altitudes.  I suppose you have never flown and seen or used a cell phone......you know the type that the airline has on the back of most chairs?

You shouldn't take off you tin foil suit, it makes you say silly things.   ;D

 

[probum non poenitet]

Then why not release the video camera footage for the surrounding establishments that were confiscated by the FBI. Some of these tapes had a clear view of the planes flight path. They are public video cameras and have no threat to "national security", so there would be no harm in it no? Not unless there was something to hide...(oh nos! he said something to hide! get the man a tin foil hat!)

The Pentagon is arguably the most vital military target on Earth. If there are any super-secret Roswell-sharks-with-laser-beams protecting anything on this planet, I'm guessing the Penatgon is one.
Of course, if there aren't, you don't want the enemy to know that either. You want to keep them guessing.
I am sure there are many, many people and governments out there that would love to see in living colour what happens when you attack the Pentagon.
No threat to national security, what's the harm? We must agree to disagree.
(OK, now it's getting fun);D

That doesn't make sense to me. If the public cameras were placed in a way that would compromise the security of the Pentagon, they would have been moved the day the cameras were put in. Not left until the day something happened.

Disagree. Maybe they have FLYING sharks with laser beams. :-*
You can't create a 10 km exclusion zone around the Pentagon day to day, but in the case of a serious incident, I understand why the secret squirrels want a total info lockdown.
This is not a regular plane crash, this is a military attack. Wait 50 years, you'll probably know the real story one day.

Standard procedure would have had the debris moved to a location where it would be examined.

I don't know if there is a 'standard procedure' on this one. The scale of the destruction was huge - far outweighing any previous peacetime incident.
As mentioned in other replies, a lot of the stuff is still around, if anyone really wants to look.

You would think an attack of this magnitude would leave the investigators with itchy fingers, just waiting to get into the debris and see what they can find.  If a passport was found, then maybe some other documents could be retrieved.

Investigators went through the rubble for ages, identifying tiny bits of human remains for burial. That it 'was never investigated' is flat out lie. I am not directing that at you, rather at Loose Change.
The fact that they didn't find the black boxes isn't that shocking to me - the WTC collapse made a regular plane crash look appallingly minor in comparison.

It's not so hard.  What is so hard to believe however, is the reason the US Administration still stands behind the names of the hijackers when a good chunk of them have been found to be alive, living in the middle east.

Holy urban legend, Batman. If they were found alive, it would be the biggest news scoop of the year. It would be a HUGE propaganda victory against the U.S.A. They would get more air time than Brangelina.
Find some proof, and say hi to Elvis if you see him.  ;D
(Someone saying it's true on the web isn't proof. I want walking, talking Mohammed Atta interviewed by Barbara Walters)
But, believe me, if they were alive, you wouldn't be the only one looking for them.
(And again, if these conspirators are uber-brilliant and all-powerful, why use guys who are still alive as your patsies? Doh!)

I must admit.  That explanation was a little far fetched.

Little far-fetched - completely insane - you say tomahto, I say tomato

, but Cheiney's "slip of the tong" (and you can't deny that this was a BIG slip of the tong....I'm not talking about calling tea coffee here..) with regards to the plane being shot down.  But who knows.

It was Rumsfeld, but whatever. I don't think it's that significant, agree to disagree.The Americans have never denied that they were prepared to shoot the plane down. They said that had the passengers not done it, F-16s were minutes away from an intercept.

Is the U.S. (and Canada) capable of spinning crap for propaganda purposes? Yes, the Jessica Lynch rescue was a PR disaster.
But the passenger takeover is a totally logical, plausible chain of events. If you had been on 93, what would you have done? I like to think I would have had the courage to do the same.

As for all that Pentagon disappearing plane stuff, I'm not an expert on airplane crashes. But Loose Change has zeeeeero credibility with me, because when they put forth things that I do know about, they twist the facts into crud.
Remember, they didn't actually have spokespeople on camera - they follow the "I know a guy who knows a guy who works at Boeing" method.
I did read on the web that the engines were titanium alloy, not titanium, and could melt.

Referring back up this post, even if there are things that don't seem right with the Pentagon crash, and the governments says nothing, I'm not very surprised.
Flying sharks with laser beams, man - don't' mess with them. :dontpanic:

(Mods, can we get a shark-with-laser-beam smiley?)

 

[Lost_Warrior]

Really!  Roll Eyes  Can you name a few?  You say that there are names and proof.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Cell Phones are radios.

No, they're not.  GSM, GPRS, etc frequencies do not work the same way radios do.  They do not work "Ad-Hoc".  Every time I have flown at those altitudes, my phone's reception was nil.  I recently had a flight on an Air Canada jet, and still nothing.  It has nothing to do with "line of sight"....it has to do with distance.  If you are too far from a tower, you will have no signal. 

But that doesn't support your idiotic views that an aircraft, with its' wings full of fuel (That is where its' fuel tanks are located) wouldn't disappear in a head on collision with a solid mass.  Where are the engines and wings of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers - they are constructed the same?

Last I heard, they found the engines of the planes that slammed into the twin towers...and that fire burned longer...

You shouldn't take off you tin foil suit, it makes you say silly things.

Sigh...

As mentioned before, (I am sure you have read it too  Roll Eyes ) the camera record at a slow rate of frames per minute.  Just like watching the Traffic cameras on the news.  If you can't watch the traffic moving at 30 mph in real time on some of these cameras, how are you going to watch an aircraft flying at over 600 mph.

You are talking like that was the only camera recording that general area...

CIA cameras aside.  There was the security camera from the gas stations that were siezed by the FBI.  Why not release those?  They are gas station cameras.  They have nothing to do with national security...

 

[George Wallace]

No, they're not.  GSM, GPRS, etc frequencies do not work the same way radios do.  They do not work "Ad-Hoc".  Every time I have flown at those altitudes, my phone's reception was nil.  I recently had a flight on an Air Canada jet, and still nothing.   It has nothing to do with "line of sight"....it has to do with distance.  If you are too far from a tower, you will have no signal.  

Really.  They don't use radio waves?  What do they use?  Strings?  Little fairies?  Where do you get your Happy Pills?  I could use some.  :