LOOSE CHANGE: New 9/11 documentary receives media coverage

my bad, homie

 

I have answered all your other questions numerous times.

And I keep asking where these replies are because as far as I know you have not relied to my questions. Please tell me where and I’ll definitely take a look.

Again, you don't understand that the voting process is rigged. People don't get into office unless they are a part of, or devoted servants to, the New World Order. Votes are meaninglesss. That is simply a fact, at least in the United States. The last two elections have proved this.

I know that that is what you believe but the question remains the same what then should people do that could actually change things, your only advise so far seems to be to talk about and read about conspiracy, which would seem to be in the best interests of the rich and powerful that you claim to be against.

Why is it that you seem to be wanting to aid the people that you claim to be attacking?

**

Yes, they can join organizations like the 9/11 Truth Movement. The more people help to expose what really happened on 9/11, the closer we are to breaking the illusion.

This is wonderful news, so you know believe that some organisations cannot be corrupted by the same conspiracy you claim has corrupted all other organisations that threaten it?

Are you saying that the Truth Movement is immune from such conspiracy corrupt and if so why?

**

Also, "political policies" are meaningless since policy is dictated from the top down.

This is very convenient but I’m sorry to say doesn’t make any sense.

I presume that your policy is to reduce the power of the conspirators or get rid of them completely. Are you saying that you were given that ‘policy’ from "the top", if so who is your master?

If you came to that policy on your own then it stands to reason you can also come to other policies in a similar way?

**

If you want to change policy, you need to get to the root of the evil. The problem doesn't lie with our so-called leaders as much as it does the people who controlling them. This is why it is so important for people to become informed as to how the system really works.

If the root of the evil is the people who control the leaders, what is your policy or policies for removing them?

As I’ve said it is all well and good telling people to become informed but what are they supposed to do when they’ve become informed. At some point you must want action or do you is your plan for them to be inactive, if so doesn’t that help the people who you claim to be against?

 

The problem I have with this fucking 9/11 debate is, WHAT USE DOES IT SERVE?

Hours are wasted going over the same old crap.

Just how relevant it is to the debate about what should the US be like and how it could and should be changed.

Is the objective of the conspiracy theorist to educate people about political ideas or to get converts to the conspiracy irrespective of political viewpoint?

Think about it, a right winger who believes in the 9/11 conspiracy is still a right winger, they may think that the system needs changing but the changes they would bring in would be right wing in nature.

The US is a conservative country that seems distrustful of liberal views let alone left wing ones. The question I’d ask is even if you could convince a majority of the American people to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy and got them to overthrow the present system would the ‘revolution’ be conservative or progressive in its nature?

 

The point, Balbus, is that a mass murder was perpetrated and then fraudulently blamed on external perpetrators as a pre-planned pretext for War Aggression (another crime of heinous proportion) whilst the most likely suspects remain unofficially invesitgated and indicted to this day.

By continuing to herald the glaring holes in the coverstory and the far greater body of evidence uncovered through widespread public effort, the intent is to bring the sufficient majority around to acknowledging the need for (and thus demanding) the full, transparent judicial probe into all the evidence remaining hidden by those same suspects to this day followed by their indictment and life imprisonment for treason and crimes against humanity.

Moreover, with such a conclusion the entire WoT will be shown to have been a monstrous PR hoax used to justify nothing more than the use of US military might to conquer and control key countries and maintain petrodollar hegemony.

Then the Congress could be forced to drastically slash the obscene budgetary increases to the MIC and intelligence communities, dismantle the Dept of Homeland Security (which was never needed in the first place since there was no external terrorist attack), retract the USA Patriot Act in its entirety (again never needed) and adopt new transparency and accountability procedures to prevent such power grabs from ever ocurring in such a way in the US ever again.

I personally would also add demands for the full repayment, by Haliburton and other corporate cronies of this admin, of all budgetary winfalls obtained under the guise of the WoT before revoking their charters and dismantling them for corrupt and treasonous betrayal of the American tax payers.

 

Actually the far larger percentage of the US public is quite liberal, Balbus. Only the corporate controlled media and the fraudulent corporate controlled campaign/election process makes it seem that it is predominantly "Conservative".

Its a matter of the outspoken minority being given the pulpit for far too long.

 

Hey Lick

Look man I’m with you on the full and transparent inquiry, but by whom? And what if it turned out to be more about incompetence rather than conspiracy or conspiracy couldn’t be proved what then?

You already know I’m against corporate profiteering.

As to the pretext for a war against Iraq, you know as I know that the neo-cons had been gunning for well before, and if 9/11 hadn’t happened they would have found something else (and better timed for an election).

But what I’m getting at is not those things but who gains from this constant return to conspiracy theory?

Many who do it like Rat are trying to encourage people not to oppose the US elite, he and people like him claim that all left wing groups and politics was invented by the ‘conspiracy’. Rat keeps pushing the forum back to the same subjects time after time, why?

Also when you say Congress could be forced into action, what force are you talking about? The ballot box, Rat and his like say it is not worth voting.

Do you want to overthrow the whole system if so what kind of system would people like Rat want do you know because I’m not sure and Rats not saying.

**


Well to me an indication of a conservative mindset can be seen in the level of belief in religion, which is high in the US, plus nearly half of Americans are said to believe God and not natural selection created man.

 

The inner cores of the north and south tower were rectagular and were oriented differently. If you look at the layout of WTC1 and 2, the south tower had the rectangular core aligned north-south (the north tower had it aligned east-west). Even though the aircraft struck the south tower on the east half of its south side, it likely damaged some of the inner core since the core extended toward the east side. The path of the nose of the aircraft took it to the southeast corner of the inner core.

The fireball that came out of the south tower represented about 10% of the total fuel. It looked sensational and people often claim it represented all of the fuel but that is not the case.

The south tower also had more floors above the damage area compared with tower 1, resulting in a greater load on the damaged area. It's not inconsistent that it collapsed first. If you watch the video of the south tower as it started to collapse, you'll notice that it tipped slightly to the east and south, consistent with where the damage was doneby the aircraft to the perimeter core and probably the east side of the inner core.

The north tower probably had a major portion of its inner core damaged. If you watch the video as it started to collapse, the antenna tower actually started falling first, which would be consistent with the inner core failing. The antenna tower iself was mounted to the inner core.

.

 

Which is exactly consistent with both seismic and visual evidence of a major thermite detonation in the subbasements immediately prior to the entire structural collapse. Thank you shaggie (however unintended your confirmation was, I realise).

Of course we can expect you to make some elaborate dodge around this as well.

Ill stick with the more logically and contextually consistent analyses rather than the farcical "official" theory if its all the same to you.

 

The bottom line is, THE FIRES WERE NOT HOT ENOUGH TO MELT STEEL!

The reason the inner core (made up of 47 steel collumns) failed is because the inner core was blown. There is no other feasible explanation for why these buildings collapsed to dust at free-fall speed, leaving a pool of molten steel beneath the rubble (indicative of thermite explosives). For the buildings to fall straight down at free-fall speed like they did, it would require that all 47 of the core collumns fail at once. This is not only improbable. It's virtually impossible.

 

RAT, unlike LICK, at least you're willing to admit that four airliners were hijacked that morning.

Yet you insist that the real suicide hijackers were different from the alleged hijackers.

But consider this, suicide hijackers by definition are fanatically motivated to martyrdom by their own cause, and wouldn't chip a fingernail for the cause of the Elites.

In other words, the real suicide hijackers would be the best and most persuasive representatives of dangerous fanatics that any Elite could dream of.

Why would the Elite throw away their perfect prime-time boggey men for second rate patsies.

Moreover, despite the fact that commercial airliners are designed for extreme ease of handling, three of the four crashes were nearly or totally out of control.

The North Tower was hit by a nearly out of control aircraft 30degrees off its horizontal horizon line, the South Tower was almost missed completely, and a third never even made it to its target at all.

One perfect strike out of four is about what I would expect for pilots with the below average skills described by one of their instructors.

900 airliner hijackings occured from the '60s through the '90s, three of them in the US.

None were ever shot down, because before 9/11 all hijackings were considered delicate hostage negotiation situations.

After the first Twin Tower bombing of the early '90s, a big national controversy erupted over the unique internal structural design of the Towers.

Critics went on record claiming that the cost savings gained by this unusual internal structural design made the Towers far weaker and vulnerable to attack.

Can't say we weren't warned.

The initial destructive damage the crashes caused the Towers must have been an all consuming hell.

Especially when we consider that out of the 600 people working above the crash-level of the South Tower, only 18 were able to descend past the inferno to safety.

And out of 1300 people working above the crash-level of the North Tower, NOT a single person was able to descend any of the stairways to safety.

It's hard to consider the South Tower collapsing first as significant, because there's only a mere 17min crash difference and a mere 23min collapse difference between the two Towers.

Considering the near infinite number of incalculable variables differentiating the two crashes, the almost simultaneous timing seems insignificant.

LICK, why don't you believe four airliners were hijacked that morning?

If not hijacked, what happened to those airliners and all their passengers?

What, do you think those people who received cell-phone calls from their loved-ones on board the airliners are lying?

And why would they make-up the vivid calls of their loved-ones on-board who described the hijackings in progress, and descibed the brutal slashing of Stewardesses and Passengers?

LICK, I'm suprised, I thought you of all people understood the bitter fruits that generations of Anglo-Amercan domination over the third world would sooner or later bear.

The only thing that should suprise us, considering our ruthless history, is that 9/11s haven't happen long before and with much greater frequency.

 

Four jetliners were hijacked in some way or another, but I don't believe for a second that it was the alleged hijackers that crashed into the buildings.

Technology exists so that planes can be controlled remotely, as was the case on 9/11. I believe that the "hijackers" used on 9/11 were for little more than establishing a cover story and employing plausible deniability.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the hijackers were extremists who believed they were dying for Allah. But evidence clearly shows that most of them - such as the nine who are still alive - including Mohammed Atta, were not "Islamic fundementalists" at all, as the government and its lapdog media would have you believe. I believe that the majority of "hijackers" involved were paid agents of U.S. intelligence who believed they were simply part of a drill.

But both hit their intended targets, so they couldn't have been that out of control at all.

As far as Flight 93, I recommend people give this site a look:

http://www.flight93crash.com/

So how come there is no mention of "initial destructive damage" in the official report - only the claim that the buildings were brought down by fire?

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/theories.html


Flight Theories

Alternatives to the Official Hijacking Scenario



The official story of the fates of the four jetliners comandeered on September 11th, 2001, asks us to believe a long series of highly improbable events. But if Flights 11 175, and 77 were not flown by hijackers into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, or if the alleged hijackers were not even on board the flights, then how were they flown into those targets or otherwise disposed of? To answer these questions, a number of theories have emerged and been debated by skeptics of the official story. The theories, including the official one, can be roughly divided into four main ones.

• The four flights were hijacked by teams of terrorists, who flew three of the jets into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.
• The planes were flown to their targets through some form of remote or programmed flight control. There are several such theories, and most suppose that the crew and passengers were disabled by some means, such as cabin decompression or the dispersal of a decapacitating gas.
  • Each of the planes used on 9/11/01 was sabotaged so that they could be remotely controlled or made to execute pre-programmed flight paths to their targets. Poison gas or decompression was used to disable the people on board.
  • The home run system or equivalent system, with which the planes were already equipped, was used to remotely fly the planes into their targets.
  • The programing features of the Boeings' FMCSs was exploited to insert a program to fly each plane to its selected target on the day of the attack.
• Flights 11, 175, and 77 were all instructed to turn off their transponders, maintain radio silence, and land at a military airport, such as Stewart International Airport, using an official communication channel and giving the reason as a terrorist attack. The passengers of all three flights were then loaded on Flight 77 which was then disposed of. Before the jets landed, look-alike remote-controlled aircraft were sent up as decoys, matching the flight paths of the passenger jets so that air controllers would confuse the radar blips of the decoys for the original flights. The decoys then proceeded to their targets.

There are variations on the second and third theories with regard to what happened to Flight 77, which controllers were supposedly unable to find once its transponder was turned off and it turned around. Many people who reject the suicide pilots theory also believe that the Pentagon was not hit by Flight 77 (even though remote control at least answers the one objection that the alleged hijackers' skills were not up to the precision aerobatic approach). The theories about Flight 77 can be summarized as follows, again including the official theory first. (For details of theories of the actual Pentagon attack, see Pentagon Strike Theories.)

• The plane turned around over Ohio and flew back to the capital, crashing into the Pentagon.
• The plane turned around over Ohio and flew back to the capital, but flew over the Pentagon at the same moment as an attack jet and missile hit it. The flight then landed at Reagan Airport and the people onboard became secret wards of the government.
• The plane was shot down over Ohio. Some other jet was used in the Pentagon attack.
• The plane was forced to land at a base (in the same manner as described above) and the people onboard were killed. A drone such as a Global Hawk was sent up in its place, and it struck the Pentagon.

If this array of theories seems bewildering, it is probably so by design.

See also:

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html

Regarding the cell phone calls, please refer to this link:

http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm

 

That doesn't mean that the core failed in the basement. If the core had failed in the basement, the building would have collapsed from the bottom up like a controlled demolition, which it didn't. The collapse was from the top down, the opposite of what basement demolition advocates contend.

A core loss in the basement would have had to propagate all the way up to the antenna tower, while at the same time, the entire building would have still had to maintain its integrity while the building collapsed from top to bottom. That's impossible. The inner core was responsible for taking up most of the gravitational load. The perimeter core was there mainly for taking up lateral wind loading. The load of the entire building would have collapsed the perimeter core at the bottom of the building had the inner core failed at the bottom.

An inner core collapse in the region of the floors that were damaged by the aircraft is consistent with the antenna tower falling initially and consistent considering the amount of damage there must have been to the inner core due to the aircraft going through that region.

Once the top section of the building is moving downward, the dynamic load placed on an intact floor below the damage area was about 10 to 30 times the static load it could handle. The lower floors simply can't support that amount of loading and fail. The situation gets worse as the collapse progresses, because more mass is falling and it is falling at a higher speed (about 25mph faster each second).

There was no seismic data indicating a thermite explosion in the basement. Even if there was a thermite explosion, it wouldn't register compared with the jolt produced by an entire skyscraper hitting the ground. You couldn't fit enough thermite in the basement without people noticing to even come close to the jolt of an entire skyscraper. Calculate how much energy there is in a thermite device compared with the gravitational energy of a quarter-mile high skyscraper. The crash of the plane into the Pentagon barely registered on seismographs and the crashes of the aircraft into the towers registered only slightly.

.

 

People are really naive about what it takes to intentionally demolish a building. Some think that it's a matter of strapping a few sticks of dynamite to some columns and blasting away. Crews spend weeks setting up a demolition. The cross-sections of columns are sawed away up to 90% to insure that the explosives will fracture the columns. That makes the building unstable in the meantime. Much equipment is put in place also, such as detonator cable, caps, explosives, etc.

.

 

It's possible that molten aluminum may have reacted with the concrete powder in the pit after the collapse. Pure aluminum is in a high state of energy compared with its natural aluminum oxide. When aluminum oxidizes, it releases a large amount of heat. It's possible that the water that was in the concrete was vaporized and released from the concrete. It might be possible that the molten aluminum would take up the oxygen in the water vapor and oxidize. That would release heat. That could give temperatures higher than those that were present before the collapse. Hydrogen would also be released which would burn in air if the temperature were high enough.

The conspiracy advocates contend there was thermite. Thermite is basically iron oxide particles mixed with pure aluminum particles. The aluminum grabs to the oxygen from the iron oxide and heat is released when the aluminum oxidizes. Something similar might happen with molten aluminum and concrete powder. In that case, the oxygen is coming from the water vapor that was released from the concrete. There was plenty of molten aluminum and concrete powder in the pit

Just a thought. I would have to look into it more.

.

 

"Concrete powder" is comprised of what?
Portland/sand/aggregate (granite/limestone(?)) dust......none which are hazardous (flammable) in dust form. *knock on wood*


There might have been iron dust from the rebar...

 

That's why the collapse of Building 7 is a smoking gun. Could they really rig that building for demolition in a few hours, especially after what else had happened on that day?

 

Atta and the others were chosen by Al-Quaeda precisely because they blended in with 'western society'. Infact they had to prove that they had the belief enough to be able to 'go under cover' ...they have been called 'Takfiris' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takfiri

Believing that just because they had no long beards and robes and did not shout at the top of there lungs 'DIE INFIDELS'.. proves they were not religous fanatics is fooling yourself...

It is possible to have alternate personalities and do things that go against ones rligeon IF the goal is high enough.. i do believe his goal in his mind was big enough for him to do the things he did . .. that went against his 'religeon'.. heck he helped kill thousands of people.. thats supposedly against the muslim faith.. forget the booze and the drugs.

I am sure some one will say .. yeah but they were recruited by the CIA etc etc.. why make excuses for them ????.. just to continue in the belief it was 'the goverment'..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/4697707.stm

I think you see only half the picture myself.. you may think the same about me ?.

 

It's alright..not many read my posts properly

 

I remember you and others had the London bombers 'figured out' on day ONE..heck before dinner time.. You keep banging on about 'intelectual honesty' try it yourself now and again..

I appreciate you are thoughtful and articulate.. but i have read your posts as a whole ..and i do think as a whole you are deluding yourself... heck i read some individualy and nearly fall for it.. then a post reminds me that underneath there is a fundemental lie in your position.. and as such can continue thinking i aint mad

 

I defy you to prove any dishonesty in my posts. Just another self-justifying assertion without merit.

As for the London Bombing, I still maintain that a cctv still image of four youths entering a tube station with nothing more than repeated "official" assertions and never one iota of proven investigatory evidence (or evidence of any real investigation ever taking place) does not validate any "terrorist" perpetrators. The UK gov, security agencies and police forces with their subsequent extension of powers and budgetary outlays, on the other hand, remain the prime suspects being ignored by those such as yourself.

No small indicator that Blair pointed rejected an independent public enquiry called for by the opposition on the floor of Parliament not long after the bombings.

Having already shown clear historic precedence, in the form of Project Gladio here in Europe, for the use by domestic agents of false flag terrorist incidents blamed on contrived foreign boogeymen it remains clear that 911, Madrid, Turkey and London events each in their turn have all been similarly conducted to coincide with either major upturns of public criticism for the War in Iraq/WoT or in line with intended legislative power grabs like Blair's Anti-Terrorism Act.

That you fail to, or continue to refuse to see the transparent fraud of it all under your very nose only reinforces the power of mass media "manufactured consent" (also previously discussed).