Loose Change makers in their own words, unscripted.

Supposedly the passengers should have taken on hijackers who only had teeny weeny boxcutter knives,,,, no,,, wait,,, didn't the passengers of flt 93 do exactly that,,,, oh no,, I see, flt 93 never existed.

That is called keeping one's story consistent I suppose.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

Warning: The top video uses a lot of strong language.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Yeah, great, except that wasn't what you were supposed to do in the event of a hijacking. These kids seem to have a painfully difficult time of distinguishing hindsight from foresight...

I am not a great fan of giving any recognition to CTers by having "debates" with them (like Deborah Lipstadt's refusal to ever debate a Holocaust denier.) But I have to commend Meigs and company for keeping their cool while Dylan Avery's sidekick lost his ("You're a liar!")

Dylan, on his blog, went out of the way to say how genuienly nice Meigs was after the "debate"; I think he appeared rather uncomfortable with his sidekick's performance.

In the end the CT crowd think they won hands down as would be the case in debate like this. On the other hand, those not yet exposed to 9/11 CTers, can form thier own opinions, and I bet body language, speech, and demeanor are important factors in people's evaluations.

Another factor is that Dylan and company have staked out hard, uncompromising positions that leaves little room for them to change their position or retreat even a little. Unlike those who have doubts and want another investigation, these guys have made it clear that they're right and everyone on the other side is lying. No different than Jones and Fetzer in my mind.

Well I finally watched all four parts. Personally I don't think that the PM guys did their homework. The LC arguments are pretty standard and we have dealt with them here a number of times so they could have been prepared for them. They didn't deal with enough of the points brought up. I would have liked to have seen some of the photos of wreakage and such that are available to have reinforced their points. They need to point out that WTC 7 didn't collapse in 7 sec, that the collapse needs to be timed from at least the collapse of the western menchanical penthouse (it actually started eariler, but it harder to see the real start because it's internal) and that it's not a case of changing the reasons for collapse, but that there were 4-5 circumstances that lead to the collaspe. This seems to be something a lot of CT's miss. They like to have one cause for everything, failing to realise that most accidents and disaters have mutliple causes that all have to line up before the event can happen. In WTC 7's case it wasn't the fire, or the damage, or the structure, or the diesel. It was a combination of all of them acting together that caused it. Just like WTC 1&2 weren't just damaged by planes or by fire, but by both working together. I don't think that PM did a bad job, could have been a lot better though.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Not only that but they have obviously never been in a serious fight. Blood (even if it's not yours) is one hell of an intimadation factor if you're not conditioned for it. (or you could be just one sick puppy.)

__________________
I am the stone that the builder refused
I am the visual,
the inspiration,
that made lady sing the blues
Judo flip, chop chop chop

Dylan Avery should take on the guy that trained Atta in street fighting,he said Atta was very good.
An experienced street fighter,using just a box cutter,with the element of suprise,against a pilot that's probably strapped into his seat,not much chance for the pilot.

I know some tricks,maybe Avery'd like to take me on?

__________________
"An armed man is a citizen
An unarmed man is a subject"

Robert A. Heinlein

Interesting point, and I'd like to build on it.

In a standard Risk Analysis, you look for things that could happen which would cause trouble... a fire, an instrument malfunction, an equipment failure... and then find ways to mitgate the results. What you don't do is look for combinations of events... a fire and an equipment failure... because these are extremely rare. (If the odds of one event are 1 in 1,000, then the odds of two events simultaneously are 1 in 1,000,000, for example. Typically you design for an event with a high probability of occurence, say 1 in 100 or 1,000.)

That's what happened at the WTCs.

They were designed used a standard risk analysis. The towers were built to withstand impact by an airliner, a specific airliner - slow and low on fuel. They were built to withstand a fire, a specific fire - office elctrical or paper. They were not designed or constructed to withstand multiple events, and certainly not of the magnitude they actually experienced.

The same holds for WTC7. It experienced multiple events and was not designed or constructed to withstand them.

This is not a "conspiracy." It is standard - and good - design practice.

Has anyone ever seen the diagram of a cowboy designed by OSHA, capable of withstanding all possible eventualites?
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/images/cowboy.gif
That's not good design practice, but it's what most CTers seem to expect.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

And still I can think of possibilities to hurt him...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

Many of which probably involve the very clutter that is supposed to protect him...

Well, watched the 4 clipsand agree the PM guys did an OK job representing the (let's call them facts) whilst the CTers gave the usual handwaving, ask 4 questions simultaneously and complain when only 2 get answered etc etc.. oh yes and descend into political backstories that are ficticious or only partly based upon fact....

__________________
There we were in the park when suddenly some old lady says I stole her purse..... I chucked the professor at her but she kept coming..... So I had to hit her with this purse I found.
-- Bender

,,, or perhaps an aircraft flown by a suicide pilot................

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

I watched, and I have a few doubts...
Is the first video genuine? There is a part in wich it seems like they are accusing a guy of sending his son to his death and going to a game of golf! I find it hard to believe that anyone would go so low with innuendo and accusations.
About that picture of the pentagon with the plane's outline over it...
What are we supposed to see there? They keep talking about a hole too small for the plane, missing holes for the engines, etc. but the only thing I see there is a mess with lots of smoke and a only a few parts of the building visible. How did they manage to get an idea of the damage from that?
And last but not least, near the end, one of them says "We don’t want to try to implicate anybody" and then goes on with stuff like "who could have placed explosives" and "that building was a government hotspot", huh? Didn't you just said that you didn't want to implicate anybody???

Is the first video genuine? There is a part in wich it seems like they are accusing a guy of sending his son to his death and going to a game of golf! I find it hard to believe that anyone would go so low with innuendo and accusations.

Yes, and that's exactly the accusations they have made.

What are we supposed to see there? They keep talking about a hole too small for the plane, missing holes for the engines, etc. but the only thing I see there is a mess with lots of smoke and a only a few parts of the building visible. How did they manage to get an idea of the damage from that?

Good questions. By the way the hole has been estimated at 20 feet wide, easily enough to accomadate the planes body and further damge extended a total of 120 feet.

And last but not least, near the end, one of them says "We don’t want to try to implicate anybody" and then goes on with stuff like "who could have placed explosives" and "that building was a government hotspot", huh? Didn't you just said that you didn't want to implicate anybody???

But they were just asking questions

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

In the first picture they show of the Pentagon after the impact we see the 20 foot wide hole they are talking about. Conveniently the jet of water from the firetruck obscures the first floor of the building. however in another shot it is clear that the entire front wall of the first floor is missing and that the 20 foot wide hole is mostly on the second floor. 100 feet of the first floor wall is missing yet they simply ignore that fact and attempt to say that the only hole in the front wall is the 20 foot wide round hole at the second floor level. That round hole is where the fuselage entered and most of the wing and certainly the engines entered the first floor.

They then ask how a woman could leave through the same hole that supposedly a 757 had just slammed through yet by the same arguement how could a woman exit by the same hole that a cruise missile loaded with explosives just created? In fact with most of the heavy parts and fuel load of the aircraft entering the first floor while only parts of the fuselage entering the second floor one would expect most of the damage to be on the first floor level and indeed it was. However if it were a crusie missile or other missile that entered through the 20 foot wide hole at the second floor level one would expect the second floor to be devastated and yet a woman on the second floor survived (according to Avery) to exit via that hole. If one is to pick which account is more likely, the 757 looks much better.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

Oh and the claim that the plane would have to punch through 9 feet of concrete because it goes through 3 rings. I thought the one guy was supposed to be a researcher, the exterior walls of those three rings do not go all the way to the ground between the rings. The first floor is common to all three rings, there are no concrete walls other than the front one and the one at the punch out.

__________________
"Man has always found it easier to sacrifice his life than learn the multiplication table." - Somerset Maugham

If one is to pick which account is more likely, the 757 looks much better.

Especially given that there was a survivor from the offices hit by the 767 that Struck WTC 2. he had the engine and wing pass virtually over the top of him and part of the wing imbed itself into his office door.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Common sense tells us that no way someone can survive such a scenario.
I will never believe that. Has there ever been a person in such a situation and survived? Show me one! [/CT_MODE]

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

So, they don't want us to have a nice clear view of the damage, as I suspected. A duo of "Conspiracy busters" with something to hide, ironic, isn't it?
And another thing, they point out that the nose cone of the plane is a fragile thing, they even show a picture of a plane with a smashed cone. Why? What's the point? Unless there's something that I am missing here, the cone migth be fragile as they say, but it still has many tons of airplane behind it...
I don't know about you guys, but I find their videos confusing, with too many points and very short (and insuficient) "explanations".
If they really wanted to show us what actually hapened they should have focused on building a clear picture of the events instead of giving us a huge unorganized heap of "anomalies".

On the Loose Change forum, there's a debate of how a plane could've fit through, in their words, "an itty bitty hole" (
it's in the "Debate" section, so non-members can't read it.)

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah