Just watched Loose Change 911

[alexands]

Very interesting and well researched. I've never given much thought to 9/11 being an inside job so Loose Change did get me thinking. I weighed the points on the video and categorized them by coincidence, compelling, curious, and crap. Some of the stuff was very curious (engine parts at pentagon, plane in PA was not there, no bodies, etc..). Coincidence (Put options, Northwood memo, unamanned flight tests). Before I can apply the crap label, I need to see if there are answers out there that I have.



1. It appears clear that Bush was going to invade Iraq before he was even sworn in a president. The PNAC charter mentions the need for a modern day Pearl harbor to get things rolling. Bush was able to use 9/11 to that affect, but some could argue he was going to war with Iraq regardless. If he planned 9/11 I would think he would have already fabricated a link to Iraq. If the 19 hijackers were made up, then why make them mostly Saudi (our "allies") as opposed to Iraqi?



2. If Bush did stage 9/11 to "get the ball rolling" did it have to be so elaborate? Wouldn't America have taken notice if only ONE tower was brought down? The risk of being busted for such a diabolical act is so great it makes no sense to take any more risk than is absolutely necessary. Why 4 planes, 3 towers, the pentagon and an alleged White House plane? My bet is that the same effect would have been had with just one tower taken out.



3. Keeping the plan secret. The feds have been pretty good at keeping entire programs secret even from those participating in it. Take the F117 Stealth Fighter for example. Many people worked on that for years without any knowledge of what the actual final product is. Only a few key team members knew the entire plan. It has been suggested that the 9/11 plan worked the same way. I have a few problems with that. There are two key tasks that would have given the entire thing away - the people responsible for actually flying the remote controlled planes and the people who rigged the towers with explosives. Wiring 3 complete buildings the size of WTC with explosives is no easy task. If a group of people were called upon to rig the buildings it would take a considerable amount of time and equipment. Especially doing it under cover. Enough time that at someone would have to ask the question “WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? SOMETHING ISN’T RIGHT”. Same thing with the remote controlled planes. If a person was asked to do something so unbelievable at some point they would break. If I had to guess I would estimate that over 100 people were in the know. For a plan this outrageous that is WAY too many people. The risks are severe.



4. Explosives would have been found in WTC before 9/11. I have to believe that it would take a sh*tload of explosives to bring the towers down perfectly. So much, in fact, that some maintenance worker would at some point have discovered it. Rigging a building like that and not being discovered is pretty far fetched if you ask me.



5. Real dead people on flights. Real people did, in fact, die on those flights. Widows were made, insurance policies paid out, funerals had, the whole nine yards. The 280 or so people who boarded those planes are no longer in existence as a matter of public record. Are we to believe that we now have 280 people living under aliases? These were ordinary people (like you and me) what would compel ALL of them to be involved? If a person boarded a plane to San Francisco and ended up in Cleveland (as Loose Change explains) then they would certainly be alive today. But, there were several prominent people and executives on those flights that are very much dead now. People who it would have made no sense for them to “disappear”.



6. Airlines. The airlines and the airports would have to have a role in this. Why would an airline deliberately be involved in such an act that would most certainly negatively impact their business? And you have to ask – How many people at an airline and the airport would have to be in on it? People boarded planes headed for real destinations. Tickets were issued, gates were used, etc. Loose Change has you believe they were diverted to Ohio. So, what happened when they got to Ohio? And the planes cannot still be flying. Aviation records are far too detailed that if the plane was still flying it would be discovered by someone.



7. Moussaoui. Why would we keep one “patsy” around to try? Why couldn’t all 19 have been killed and that would be that? What does Bush gain by keeping another “loose end” hanging around? The downside (i.e. being busted) is far greater than the upside. If Bush did indeed “clean up the crime scene” as quick as possible at Ground Zero why keep this Moussaoui guy around?





For the record, I dislike Bush as much anyone else. I believe he’s dumb enough to come up with something this far fetched, but I have to believe that for it to be successful it would have happened without his involvement. He’s just too stupid. I will be more inclined to believe in the coverup if someone can shed some light on my questions above.





Thanks,
Scott

[911TRUTH]

1 - Ok, rembember now - the first war was in Afghanistan, where "mastermind" Osama Bin Laden was supported by the Taliban. Iraq came later.

2 - "It makes no sense" criticisms are common when first introduced...but the only responsible way to analyze this is to simply look at the facts. But to answer that, the bigger and more spread out the attacks, the more fear you will spread across the nation. If it was just one tower - people in the midwest wouldnt have reacted the way they did. The magnitude of the attacks was important. Also - It was partly an insurance scam for Larry Silverstein, owner of the entire WTC complex. More detruction means more money, and more re-development.

3 - Another common initial criticism... The key phrase here is "National Security" When a command comes down from the top in the name of "National Security", you don't question it. You can lose your job, or be considered with the enemy.

4 - The explosives would have been placed in the inner structure of the building, maintenance workers could have found them by some chance, yea sure, but that doesn't mean they did. Im sure those who placed the explosives thought of this. Plus, Securacom, the security company for the WTC is alleged to be part of the operation - so any suspicion would have been eventually silenced.

5 - Check out "Operation Northwoods" The flights could have been swapped with other jetliners and the real flights could have landed somewhere else, or crashed in the Atlantic...we don't know. There are many theories about what happened with the planes, but as you research, things become increasingly suspicious. No one claims to know for sure what happened here.

6 - NATIONAL SECURITY.

7 - Who knows - Not sure.

Dude - your questions are welcome, but I have to say, these are the typical initial questions everyone asks when introduced. Yes, this is ridiculous, insane, far-fetched, and absolutely unbelievable. But I promise you, if you keep researching - you will start to see that something like this is possible in the kind of government that exists. The truth begins to surface. In America, you don't question the highest authority, especially accuse it of planning an attack against its own people. No one would have been expecting this in the least bit - most likely they would just attribute any "suspicious" actions to "National Security". The government planning 9/11 was the LAST thing on everyones mind.

Bush did not plan this alone. In fact, he most likely just went along for the ride.

Dont listen to me though - make the conclusions for yourself. 911truth.org and scholarsfor911truth.org are good places to start.

Anyone else want to help out this newcomer?

[PhilosophyGenius]

Ya know what, I just saw the entire Loose Change documentary last night as well. It's good.

[BoneZ]

Very interesting and well researched. I've never given much thought to 9/11 being an inside job so Loose Change did get me thinking. I weighed the points on the video and categorized them by coincidence, compelling, curious, and crap. Some of the stuff was very curious (engine parts at pentagon, plane in PA was not there, no bodies, etc..). Coincidence (Put options, Northwood memo, unamanned flight tests). Before I can apply the crap label, I need to see if there are answers out there that I have.
the Northwoods documents aren't coincidence. they talk about taking a remote controlled jetliner and blowing it up and blaming it on another country to wage war with that country. there's no coincidence about that.

1. i don't think they were Saudi as much as they were arab/muslim.

2. yes it had to be elaborate. first off, destroy all 7 WTC buildings and collect a nice lump sum in insurance. secondly, the perpetrators of 9/11 would need the support of the entire world to go to war and the more elaborate, the more sympathy you have from the world governments.

3. these weren't your typical explosives used in typical implosions. these were more than likely radio controlled explosives that were used in the towers. there would have been no need for wires. once a plan was set on where they were going to go in the buildings, it would not take that long to plant them. security was running 12 hour shifts in the 2 weeks before 9/11. so there's time to plant explosives while people are at home. then there was a 36-hour power down in the towers which was more than ample time to plant explosives. then the bomb-sniffing dogs were removed from the towers so that they couldn't detect the explosives. money pays aff alot of people. i would bet almost any amount of money that once the 9/11 Truth starts coming out in the mainstream and a real independent investigation gets underway, some of the people that planted those explosives or other people that had parts to do with 9/11 will come forward.

4. it would not take a shitload of explosives to bring the towers down. just some pretty powerful, well placed explosives would do the trick. as long as security was doing their job for a couple weeks, maintenance would not have found the explosives, especially if they were hidden well.

5. there's a few theories going on this question. ONE: the jets and people are real. the jets are taken over by remote control and there's nothing the captains can do to resume control of those jets. the captains and the people aboard are helpless and watch themselves slam into buildings. TWO: the real flights are diverted (like FL 93 landing in Cleveland) and substituted with empty remote controlled jets that slam into the towers. (don't know where the real people or jets went). THREE: the real jets and people were shot down/blown up and substituted by remote jets. there are more theories, but i don't remember them all, but you can see them on the numerous websites.

6. i explained some of this in 5. if the jets were blown up/shot down and substituted, the airlines would not know any different. remember that the jets disappeared from radar sometimes.

7. keeping Moussaoui around keeps peoples' minds fresh about the government version of 9/11 with a 9/11 "hijacker" on tv everyday.


For the record, I dislike Bush as much anyone else. I believe he’s dumb enough to come up with something this far fetched, but I have to believe that for it to be successful it would have happened without his involvement. He’s just too stupid. I will be more inclined to believe in the coverup if someone can shed some light on my questions above.
it's not about disliking Bush and it's not about being Democrat or Republican. this is a non-partisan issue.

as far as Bush being too stupid, he was complicit, but the main conspirator of 9/11 would probably be Richard Cheney. best thing to do is do your own research. read the websites. study, discuss and do more reading and researching. make up your own opinion. a plethora of 9/11 documentaries can be found here:

http://www.question911.com/links.php

[alexands]

Intersting replies. I want to be clear that I'm not here as a "debunker". I think this is all fascinating, but I try not to get too involved in things where the puzzle can never be solved. 9/11 is one of those puzzles. Please take my comments as mere intellectual quests. Unlike JFK, there's more than just a single grassy knoll to look at. My thoughts typically center around logistical and political aspects and much less around the physical aspects. Because the only thing left of the "physical" evidence is only photos I think it is not possible to build a plausible case to prove this was an inside job. The real evidence is long gone. Analyzing pictures over and over looking at smoke clouds will get us no where. Hell, we've been looking at graining JFK images for 40+ years and that was even BEFORE Photoshop ;-).

One of the questions I posed was why such an elaborate plan? Why 3 towers, the Pentagon, and supposedly the White House? Why involve the airlines and 280 "civilians"? That is WAY too many people and too risky. Why not use a small nuke in a van in the parking garage of WTC1? This would get tons more attention, be technically and logistically easier, and would instill more fear in Americans than any plane ever could. Besides, we already have a case where a terrorist tried this so to Americans it's not very far fetched to grasp. Most Americans don't think 9/11 could happen to them because they never go in big buildings like that. That's only for those city slickers. I'm being serious here....I promise.

A small nuke could bring down the building, create some collateral damage, wreak havoc on the economy, and scare the bejeeeesus out of EVERY American, not just the big city types. It would also bolster the Iraq WMD threat.

The risk of getting busted for something this diabolical is insane. Why take more risks than you have to? A small nuke could be done with fewer than a dozen people "in the know" I would think. They could even claim the nuke material was from Iraq.

Can anyone shed any light or theories on why the 9/11 approach was taken as opposed to other approaches to "get the ball rolling" for PNAC? What other approaches can others come up with?

Just wonderin'

Scott

[ZachM]

One of the questions I posed was why such an elaborate plan? Why 3 towers, the Pentagon, and supposedly the White House? Why involve the airlines and 280 "civilians"? That is WAY too many people and too risky. Why not use a small nuke in a van in the parking garage of WTC1? This would get tons more attention, be technically and logistically easier, and would instill more fear in Americans than any plane ever could. Besides, we already have a case where a terrorist tried this so to Americans it's not very far fetched to grasp. Most Americans don't think 9/11 could happen to them because they never go in big buildings like that. That's only for those city slickers. I'm being serious here....I promise. One possible explanation, and this is just speculation, is that foreign terrorists really did make plans to hijack planes and crash them into to WTC. Then insiders with their own agenda got word of the plan, and decided to take steps to make the attack as dramatic as possible.

IMO, Loose Change compresses too much information into a short video, and it is better to focus on details which are sufficient to debunk the official story. I choose to focus on the 3 building collapses because we have lots of footage. There is no relying on eyewitness reports. Some of the best websites on this subject are www.scholarsfor911truth.org (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org) and www.911revisited.com (http://www.911revisited.com).