For your Sunday education

[proud2BlibKansan]

Watch this


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

[helderheid]

1. K & R - must see

[proud2BlibKansan]

3. Why is this always moved out of GD??

Makes me wonder. . .

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Wow

I had to stop watching-something wrong with the audio-my computer's problems. But from what I saw-you mean the alleged pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon actually had taken part in exercises about this very thing happening?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabbat hunter]

5. go to this thread

for an argument against explosives
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x71779

watching a good show on history channel right now. they had a close up of the north tower with a clear sillouette of an airplane that hit it.

basically explosives would take too much time to have set up and building preparation. not something that can be done very quickly. preparation also makes building impossible to be occupied.

[Kevin Fenton]

7. Point of building preparation

(1) Planning demolition does not take long and, in any case, can be done before the explosives are put in place. So there's no reason why the demolition of an occupied building cannot be planned.
(2) Most of the time that building preparation usually requires is taken up with emptying the building and, for example, taking out partition walls. The reason partition walls are taken out is that this makes it easier to control how the building falls. If a building were not prepared properly, then what you would get is a building that did not collapse neatly into its own footprint, but one which flung debris in various directions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

8. In this film they claim that there were

emergency evacuation drills for weeks before 9/11, making it possible to plant bombs in the buildings.

[sabbat hunter]

10. what wasnt possible

to have the all the steel support beams cut 90% way thru. with out that an implosion doesnt happen.

also those fire drills werent long enough. preparation for implosions takes weeks of manpower. not a few hours

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Have you watched the film?

[MrSammo1]

15. Of course........

the supposed crew and passengers are part of the lie.

Why do you think the total was so low?

There should of been 800 plus people on broad.

it was a lie from the start!

[sabbat hunter]

16. where in hell

do you get 800 plus people from?

a 757 can carry 250 people max.

try again sammo

[MrSammo1]

19. Times

4

[sabbat hunter]

20. that is

if all 4 planes were fully loaded. wouldnt shock me to learn that planes that early on were not sold out.

so it is very possible a plane was only half full or even less.

when i flew back in to NY from florida a week ago the plane was only half full, and that was a day before a blizzard when a lot of people were striving to get in early ahead of the storm (flew jet blue)

[Kevin Fenton]

22. Numbers please

What were the capacities of the flights and how full were they on 9/11 and on average in the three months before 9/11?

[sabbat hunter]

23. depending on the configuration of a 757

they can carry up to 250 passengers. but united airlines configuration is about 190. http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/United_Airlines/United_Airlines_Boeing_757-200_A.php

AA has similar configuration
http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Boeing_757-200.php

i will try to get the rest of the info to you later today. i am at work right now ;)

[Kevin Fenton]

24. 9/11 CR

You can download the 9/11 CR here:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
I seem to remember they might have some of the statistics you're looking for in the endnotes to Chapter 1.

[sabbat hunter]

25. i am looking

for other sources than the 911 report given the fact that many here question its accuracy (i have my own questions about it too)

[Kevin Fenton]

28. I think this is accurate, though:

Endnotes to Chapter 1

"21.While Flights 11 and 77 were at or slightly above the average number of passengers for the respective flights that summer, Flights 175 and 93 were well below their averages. We found no evidence to indicate that the hijackers manipulated the passenger loads on the aircraft they hijacked. Financial records did not reveal the purchase of any tickets beyond those the hijackers used for themselves. See FBI response to Commission briefing request no. 6, undated (topic 8);AAL report, "Average Load Factor by Day-of-Week," undated (for Flights 11 and 77 from June 11, 2001, to Sept. 9, 2001);AAL response to the Commission's supplemental document requests, Jan. 20, 2004; UAL report, Flight 175 BOS-LAX Load Factors, undated (from June 1, 2001, to Sept. 11, 2001); UAL report, "Explanation of Load Factors," undated."

Regarding United 175
"40.The 56 passengers represented a load factor of 33.33 percent of the airplane's seating capacity of 168, below the 49.22 percent for Flight 175 on Tuesdays in the three-month period prior to September 11, 2001. See UAL report, Flight 175 BOS-LAX Load Factors, undated (from June 1, 2001, to Sept. 11, 2001). Nine passengers holding reservations for Flight 175 did not show for the flight. They were interviewed and cleared by the FBI. FAA report, "Executive Summary," Sept. 12, 2001; FAA report, "Executive Summary, Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis, September 11, 2001," Sept. 17, 2001; UAL record, Flight 175 ACARS report, Sept. 11, 2001; UAL record, Flight 175 Flight Data Recap, Sept. 11, 2001."

Regarding United 93
"72.The 37 passengers represented a load factor of 20.33 percent of the plane's seating capacity of 182, considerably below the 52.09 percent for Flight 93 on Tuesdays in the three-month period prior to September 11 (June 11-September 4, 2001). See UAL report, Flight 93 EWR-SFO load factors, undated. Five passengers holding reservations for Flight 93 did not show for the flight. All five were interviewed and cleared by the FBI. FBI report, "Flight #93 'No Show' Passengers from 9/11/01," Sept. 18, 2001."

[MrSammo1]

32. As all........

shills know. Flying as full as possible is the only way to make money.

[marew]

6. Amazing!

These issues keep popping up, over and over. Why is something not done...as if I don't know! The powers that be will stop at absolutely nothing. Absolutely horrific!

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. It is even hidden

here on DU. Everytime thie film is posted anywhere, it is moved to the 9/11 forum.

I honestly don't think many regulars here in this forum need to be convinced there are several things about 9/11 that don't add up.

[sabbat hunter]

12. yes i have

did you check out my link on http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x71779

and the impossibility of implosion at the WTC

[petgoat]

13. "the impossibility of implosion at the WTC"

You're mighty sure of yourself there, sabbat.

The ability to plant charges in the elevator shafts, using the roofs of the elevator cars
as movable staging, would make planting explosives a lot easier.

Radio control of the detonators would also aid simplicity and flexibility. And don't say
that's impossible--insensitive receivers that would only react to a very powerful
transmitter would prevent accidental premature detonation due to somebody's garage door
opener.

Vacant floors would also aid the planting of explosives.

[wildbilln864]

18. for your perusal...

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636_comment.php

[sabbat hunter]

21. you are aware

that for implosion to take place the base supports need to be taken out right? and if a plane hits the towers there is a big chance that the wiring would be knocked loose from the explosives on the upper floors. that is one hell of an impact remember.

[petgoat]

33. Radio Control Obviates Your Intricate Wiring nm

[rman]

14. i notice you mention no supporting evidence for the official story

[sabbat hunter]

26. i think

the official story is a lot closer than the various CT going around. too many people would need to be involved for the conspiracy theories to be true. the more people involved in a CT the more of a chance that someone will talk.

[rman]

27. Most people who are in on it

do not know most of the details, because they don't need to know.
You don't need that in a non-secret large coordinated operation (such as war), nor is it needed if the operation is secret.

For instance in Iran-Contra, the pilots who did the actual drug-runs on Nicaragua probably knew they were participating in a larger scheme, but they did not need to know what it was.
The pilots did not need to be coordinated with everyone else who was participating, they only needed to get their orders about when to be where and who to contact. The rewards they received (primarily lots of money) and the fact that they knew what they were doing was illegal, was more then enough reason for them not to talk.

And just look at what happens to people who do talk; whistleblowers (ie Sibel Edmonds) get fired and virtually nobody listens to them.

[sabbat hunter]

29. the explosives

dont you think more than one person who knew about the explosives would have said something?

why are we wiring the WTC? etc etc

[rman]

30. More then one, sure

If there is only one, it would not be a conspiracy.

It's like Evolution Theory vs Intelligent Design; trying to debunk one doesn't prove the other.
And i'm not going to play that game with you.

[sabbat hunter]

31. what?

you mean you dont believe god created the world in 6 days? ?!?! :P j/k

[petgoat]

35. Anybody who's willing to kill 2500 people by dynamiting a building

won't hesitate to kill a few guys who placed charges.

[petgoat]

34. too many people would need to be involved

How many exactly?

The al Qaeda crew to fly the planes.
A team, if any, to plant the explosives.
One guy to tell al Qaeda when the war games are.
Cheney, Rummy, Myers to sit on their hands.

Anybody else?

Too many?

[orleans]

17. i must confess--i have watched this film over and over

i watched the first version several times as well

there is just something lately--i just can't get beyond it--can't explain...

i talked to a friend of mine who is a plane mechanic--we were talking about flight 93. i asked him how can crap from a plane, when it crashes, be found eight miles away? he says "it could happen--sure it could!" i said: "YOU'RE LYING! WHY ARE YOU LYING ABOUT THIS? why can't you give me a straight answer--you've worked in the business for thirty years! why are you defending the government story?" pause. "well, if the plane was going at a high rate of speed and going down at a certain angle it could have been breaking up before it hit the ground."

i said: but that's not the story. the story is it crashed! in a little hole. and vanished!

i took him on the faa website and showed him the listing for the two planes that are listed as still working (tho i think one was retired last fall). "hummm...that is strange..."

we talked about the engines of the pentagon plane & that whole story. he was there a day or two later. he said there was a plane. i said no there wasn't and you never saw anything. he thought about it and agreed--saw people working, etc. but not a plane.

then he started going on various websites, reading about it--i sent him the link to loose change (but i suspect he hasn't bothered with it--too busy looking for woman on these online dating services. bla!)

sorry--just rambling.

here's a discrepancy that i can't quite get from the movie. it's about flight 93. at the onset of the segment they say the time it took off, from what airport, and there were something like 45 passengers on it? then they talk about landing in cleveland and how there were 200 people taken off it. did you get that?