USA goverment responsible for 9/11 ?

[Hunter368]

OK OK OK before you rip me a new one......I was just getting your attention. Most of have heard or read about these people (below) who believe the USA government was responsible for 9/11. Their web page is listed below, I was thinking about going on their forum and having some fun.....but I thought it would be even cooler if many of us went there and registered. Then we could start proving their points wrong is mass. We could cause some major laughs and mass banning from them of us. LOL Anyone game? Want to reg and have some fun? It would be good if we had some experts join us, experts in explosives, planes, guidence systems, regulations, etc etc. See below is taken from their home page:



This is where you'll find all the information you need on Loose Change, the independent documentary that has grown from a cult following to a grassroots organism that can no longer be contained.

The central premise of Loose Change is that the United States Government was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the attacks of September 11th, 2001 to occur.

However, when one looks deeper into the evidence, one might come to the startling conclusion that our own government might have been directly responsible for the attacks themselves.

Loose Change merely scratches the surface of information that points to a massive government cover-up regarding 9/11. We highly encourage you to take it upon yourself to research the events of 9/11 for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Loose Change Website - Version 2.0

[evangilder]

Feel free, but the web is full of tin-foil hat wearers. That is one of many sites that nutballs with the most bizarre ideas have.

I actually called into a radio program today (Adam Carolla) when they were talking about the French release of their UFO files. He said he didn;t want to talk about UFOs but felt that if the opened area 51, they would probably find nothing. Well, I had to call after that, having been to Area 51.

I said that there is nothing out there but test aircraft (REALLY, that is TRUE). I finished with, if they ever opened it up to the public, there would be a lot of people wearing tin-foil hats that will be sorely disappointed. I got a laugh out of the morning team!

[FLYBOYJ]

I've spent 5 years shooting holes in the conspiracy theories - for one thing, you have to prove conspiracy at all places - If one is explained away, they all go away - so let me start off with one part for you...

Hunt the Boeing!!!

"Hunt the Boeing!" is a provocative display of smoke and mirrors, but there's little else to recommend the site. Its authors present a fraction of the available evidence in a highly selective, distorted, titillating way, proving absolutely nothing — except, perhaps, that there's always room for another conspiracy theory.

While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage sustained by the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.

The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores some of the most obvious, compelling evidence. For example:
Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon
The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage
The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77
Of course, evading bedrock evidence is standard procedure for conspiracy theorists. If pressed, they would doubtless claim that all of the above must have been planted or manufactured, but they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt.

An improbably successful cover-up

Make no mistake, the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, whose case presupposes that all of the hundreds of people who participated in the clean-up, recovery and investigation following the 9/11 Pentagon attack — including scientists, engineers, coroners and professional air disaster investigators — are either dead wrong or participating in a massive, improbably successful government cover-up.

Eschewing plain facts and common sense, the conspiracy theorists ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed conundrums such as the following:
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and traveling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"
Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. According to the Washington Post, structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"
Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.
Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
Answer: No, but we can in this one credited to a U.S. Navy photographer [enlarged version]. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.

According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.

One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)

Here's one obvious question the conspiracy theorists don't ask and certainly could not answer in any compelling way: If American Airlines Flight 77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did happen to the jetliner and all its passengers? Did it vanish into thin air?

(For a more detailed consideration of these and other "Hunt the Boeing" puzzles, please read the excellent commentary by engineer Paul Boutin and astrophysicist Patrick Di Justo.)

A conspiracy theory in the grand tradition

You're no doubt wondering who's behind these flights of fancy and what, exactly, they're driving at. Well, according to the French newspaper Le Monde, the culprit is ThierryMeyssan, well-known leftist radical and president of the Voltaire Network, a controversial site devoted to "the fight for freedom and secularity." His son, RaphaëlMeyssan, is credited as the Webmaster of both the Voltaire Network and Utopian Asylum, which, uncoincidentally, hosts "Hunt the Boeing!"

What are they trying to prove? That the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated not by foreign terrorists, but by the U.S. government upon its own citizens — a conspiracy theory in the grand tradition.

To quote the late Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

So far we haven't seen any proof at all.


Sources and further reading:

Hunt the Boeing!
The original site on Asile.org

'Hunt the Boeing' Answers
Debunked by Paul Boutin and Patrick Di Justo

'Hunt the Boeing!'
Debunked by the Urban Legends Reference Pages

Unavion a beletbienfrappélePentagone
From Le Monde, 20 March 2002 (in French)

Internet véhiculeunerumeurextravagantesurle 11 septembre
From Le Monde, 20 March 2002 (in French)

No Hope of Finding More Survivors at Pentagon
From CNN, 12 Sep 2001

Images Show September 11 Pentagon Crash
From CNN, 8 March 2002

Interactive Look at Pentagon Attack
From USA Today

The Battle-Scarred Pentagon
From Jane's Information Group, 13 Sep 2001

Rebuilding the Pentagon
Graphics showing structural damage caused by Flight 77, from the Washington Post

Experts ID 184 Pentagon Fatalities
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

The Pentagon: Facts & Figures

[FLYBOYJ]

More....

Conspiracy chasers would want the public to believe that flight 93 was shot down by F-16s. Here's some food for thought....

The F-16 is a multi role fighter used for air-to-air combat and ground support. Most bases that operate this aircraft train for the multi role mission and prepare for overseas deployment.

The F-15 is the USAF primary air-to-air fighter and the backbone of air defense of the Continental US. During the cold war years, F-15s normally did the intercepting of snooping Russian aircraft. Their role is basically the same.

MY POINT - F-16s will normally not be on alert for interception or scramble!

911 Research does do a good point of showing this but fails to mention F-16s are normally not under the control of NORAD or on air defense alert, that job is for the F-15....

9-11 Research: Air Defense
Good job but some errors.

From the site - "At 10:01 AM the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio, to scramble F-16 fighters." The FAA has no authority to "order" fighters to scramble - that lies with the USAF (DUH!)

This unit was the only F-16 unit close enough to perform an intercept over Pennsylvania in the shown time frame although F-16s as far away as Andrews and Michigan were now being called. One controller from New Hampshire reports another F-16 was in the area as well. Flight 93 crashed at 10:06, that gave the fighters at from the 180th FW (the closest ones) 5 1/2 minutes to scramble, get to altitude, pick up the target and shoot down flight 93 like some alleged.

Let's see, the F-16s top speed is 1,321 mph. From the base to the crash point of flight 93 is 233 miles. That would of meant the aircraft had to take off and immediately go to full after-burner and reach the target in 5 minutes - If the F-16 went full afterburner climbed up to altitude and shoot down flight 93, it would of also meant that the aircraft was performing within the lower part of it's combat radius which is about 330 miles. That means the aircraft might would not make it back to Toledo.

The closest place to land would of been Pittsburgh, but no conspiracy chasers jump on this...

It would of also meant that if the intercept would of happened under the noses of Pittsburgh International Airport and other ATC Centers - if a shoot down would of occurred, someone would of heard it...

The final tally - every East Coast ATC center is attempting to talk to flight 93 - several F-15s and F-16 in the air. No one admits to a shoot down order although the first two F-15 pilots on scene were told that flight 93 was shot down (I even remember that being reported in the chaos and confusion of the day) and no ground crews who service these aircraft (who happen to be mainly non-career enlisted personnel) admit to any weapons being deployed after all of this. - THIS IS THE BIGGEST HOLE OF ALL WITH REGARDS TO FLIGHT 93! - Someone explain this to me!!!!!

[FLYBOYJ]

And More!!


AND MORE WITNESSES, FRONT ROW AND CENTER!

Two pilots revisit their 9/11

'Like being in the middle of a bad movie': Otis fighters scrambled; airmen watched as the twin towers burned, then collapsed

By Matt Viser, Globe Staff | September 11, 2005

Flying 4,000 feet above Manhattan four years ago today, F-15 pilot Timothy Duffy peered down to the World Trade Center's North Tower with an eerie mix of disbelief and hope. It was on fire, but, Duffy said, he still thought the tower would survive.

''I was thinking they were going to save this building," said Duffy, one of two pilots who had been scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base that morning. ''As I was looking at the square of the roof, and all of a sudden it starts getting smaller. I didn't have a reference point to compare it to, so it really didn't make sense to me what I was looking at for a couple of seconds. Until I saw a plume coming out of the bottom and I realized it was imploding."
''It was like being in the middle of a bad movie," Duffy said. ''You're up there, you're flying over the city, the towers are on fire. It was just wrong, the whole thing."

In their most extensive interviews since the attacks, Duffy and his wingman, Major Daniel Nash, detailed their doubts, frustrations, and personal emotions and the roles they played on one of the most awful days in US history. And Nash expressed dismay that Otis, one of the forward defense bases, is threatened with closure.

In short, both pilots said in interviews that they have concluded they did everything they could. They were first on the scene, but by the time they arrived, both World Trade Center towers had been hit. The pilots said they had never been given orders to shoot down any other planes, but that they would have if called upon. Nash also complained that the Boston Center, administered by the FAA, was slow to get them moving.

''I know it changed something in me . . . I thought about it continuously for a long time," Nash said. ''But I finally came to the realization that we probably wouldn't have done anything, definitely for the first plane."

Nash, 38, still has not spoken to his three children about his role on Sept. 11. His oldest is now 9.

''We did what we could. It wasn't much," Nash said. ''Nobody would be calling us heroes if we shot down four airliners on September 11. You can imagine the stuff that would have gone on if the military had done that. It was a lose-lose situation as soon as they took hold of the airplanes."

Duffy, who was close friends with the copilot on United Flight 93 before it was hijacked and later crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, came to a similar conclusion.

''I've flown this thing a thousand times over in my mind, you know?" said Duffy, a lieutenant colonel. ''What if we had done this? What if we had done that? I don't think I would have changed anything from what we did."

[FLYBOYJ]

And finally...
The largest building to ever be destroyed by controlled demolition was the Hudson Building in Detroit, Michigan, on October 24, 1998. The building was 25 stories, over 450 feet. it took almost a ton of explosives and several weeks to accomplish this task...

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/...recordid=53136

The same company who took out the Hudson Building also took out the Kingdome in Seattle. It took four months to do that one - Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) had Aman’s drilling subcontractor drill 5,905 holes for CDI’s explosive placements in the tension and compression rings, roof ribs, columns and support structure under the Kingdome. During loading operations, CDI laid 21.6 miles of detonating cord and placed more than 4,700 lb. of explosives in critical locations to control the fall of the structure and reduce vibration.

Controlled Demolition, Inc. | Buildings

And even another large structure, the Sears merchandise Center in Philadelphia which was destroyed in 1994 REQUIRED OVER 12,000 POUNDS OF EXPLOSIVES!!

One could see the amount of work it takes to set up a building for controlled demolition. As stated previously, even if it was an inside job the resources to carry it out would of been enormous, let alone accomplishing it undetected. On any given day, some 50,000 people worked in the towers with another 200,000 passing through as visitors. The complex was so large that it had its own zip code: 10048.

Below a picture of a wired building. Do you think this could of been hidden from 50,000 WTC tenant's?!?!?



It would of been impossible to accomplish this undetected. In addition it was documented by Filipino intelligence officials that a plot to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings was floating around in the terrorist community since the mid-90's. I would agree to this whole thing being a conspiracy if these facts didn't exists, but they do....

At this point what should be looked at is the intelligence failures, the resources of those who attempt to carry attacks like this, and the most important, stopping those who perpetuate Muslim radicals (the ******* clerics) from attacking the US...

[Jared]

Snap! lol nice

[Emac44]

Not bothered arguing with Conspiracy Nut Balls. No point it will not change their minds or bring them into reality and I am not wasting my time discussing reality with some one who can not handle reality. Conspiracies are like buses wait long enough and another will show up at any given time and they have been around since Noah played 5/8th for Jericho Rugby team. The conspircay theroy that we do not know about is most propable but the ones concerning 9/11 are just rehashed from conspiracy theroies from the last 100 years. Just the time place and date are varied to suit the case etc. Most of the therories are based upon the same ignorance racism fear and belieivng in having information on secret organisations like for example CIA MOSAD KGB and the all time favourite the Ilumminate from the 16th century and also some obscure one world govenernment claims but also include the Knights Templar Zionists Internanaional Monetery Fund the UN the US the Roman Catholic Church and the Masonic Lodge and Order of the Masonic Lodge and the list is endless. Also includes the birth death or supposive marriage of Jesus Christ to Mary Magdalane. One just has to look at the De Vinci Code book and movie to realise the extent of Conspiracy Theories plus the myrid of web sites so obscure and baseless to the extreme and if you visit Yahoo Voice some of the nut bags who claim to have evidence on 9/11. Like weevils in flour they are every where

[Hunter368]

Well certainly if you could not talk sense into them Joe then no one could. People can make up ifs buts maybes for just about anything.

What would of been the USA's goverment's motive even? Why would she do as they claim? Kill thousands of her own people and cause massive damage.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

What would of been the USA's goverment's motive even? Why would she do as they claim? Kill thousands of her own people and cause massive damage.

That's the whole point - some say so we had an excuse to go to war. These looneys would have you think that there are evil oil barrons making millions off the war - the ole "MIC" theory. The facts remain that even if this was true they have given too much credit to the govt. or Bush for carrying this out - neither is that smart!

The bottom line on 9-11 we got our asses kicked by a bunch of @sshole terrorist and these folks just can't accept the facts that this happened and we did nothing to provoke it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont give these pricks a time of day.

[Milos Sijacki]

I agree. Those attacks were carried out by a bunch of fanatics. I didn't expect
something like that even in the movies. By the way DO you like my new look???

[Erich]

retribution is at hand !