Loose Change-911 was an inside job.

[Purple Daddy]

After 9/11, cellular experts said that calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they were surprised that they lasted as long as they did. They said that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground.[134] Alexa Graf, an AT&T spokesperson said it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.[135] Other industry experts said that it is possible to use cell phones with varying degrees of success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights.[136] Marvin Sirbu, professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight."[136]

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report). According to Debunk911myths.org, all but two calls from Flight 93 were made on air phones, not cell phones, and both calls lasted about a minute before being dropped.[137] Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that Flight 93 was supported by several cell sites.[135] There were reportedly three phone calls from Flight 11, five from Flight 175, and three calls from Flight 77. Two calls from these flights were recorded, placed by flight attendants Madeleine Sweeney and Betty Ong on Flight 11.

[Purple Daddy]

In the article "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", which appeared in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, authors Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen's Department of Chemistry, Jeffrey Farrer of Brigham Young University's Department of Physics and Astronomy, Steven E. Jones, and others state that thermite and nanothermite composites in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which they conclude to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings. The article contained no scientific rebuttal and the editor in chief of the publication subsequently resigned.[80][81][82][83]

Jones has not explained how the amount of explosive needed to do this could have been positioned in the two buildings without drawing attention, but mentioned efforts to research the buildings' maintenance activity in the weeks prior to the event. Federal investigators at the National Institute of Standards and Technology state that enormous quantities of thermite would have to be applied to the structural columns to damage them, but Jones disputed this, saying that he and others were investigating "superthermite".[81] Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America",[84] who corresponded with Jones, states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse. Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.[85]

Jones also stated that molten steel found in the rubble was evidence of explosives, as an ordinary airplane fire would not generate enough heat to produce this, citing photographs of red debris being removed by construction equipment, but Blanchard stated that any molten steel in the rubble would've immediately damaged any excavation equipment encountering it.[81]

[Purple Daddy]

Phil Molé of Skeptic magazine has explained that it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORADâ??S radar screens, making them very difficult to track.[69][72]

According to Popular Mechanics, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD.[72] A passenger airline had not been hijacked in the US since 1979.[75] "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. According to Popular Mechanics, only one civilian plane was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11, which took 1 hour and 22 minutes.[72]

Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.[72

[Purple Daddy]

The problem with conspiracy theories such as this one is they raise a lot of questions but offer no answers and for the most part they offer no proof just speculation. Most of Loose Change has been completely debunked, there is nary a shred of proof in anything they suggest may have happened.

[rudy2010]

I will try to locate and recheck my source but I found this information a long time ago. The problems described by my source are the following. The hole in the pentagon was not large enough for the model of plane that struck the building. The plane burned so thoroughly that none of the plane was recovered inside the pentagon yet all of the bodies were recovered. The only piece of the plane recovered was a piece of an engine recovered outside the building that "could not be identified as a piece of the type of plane that hit the pentagon". Explosives experts interviewed at the pentagon right after the event claimed they smelled the explosive cordite and not jet fuel as expected.

It is possible and even probable that a plane struck the pentagon. I will try to relocate the articles and links that describe these troubling questions. I read this information years ago and the questions I have are just the ones that stuck out.

Why did the towers fall like a demolition and not topple like a tree. If you can explain the towers collapse with melting inner support beams what about bldg 7. It was never struck and collapsed in the same demolition type manner. The only explanation I have seen offered was that it was possibly poor construction.

[CanGroIt]

It would be soooooooooooo easy for US operatives to recruit hijackers.... People who hate America are very easy to find in the middle east. People who are willing to commit horrendous acts for the sake of their belief are even easier to find. How easy would it be for a US operative to setup all flights hijacked that day? Easier than it would be for a person who operates out of a mud hut....

[Purple Daddy]

It is possible and even probable that a plane struck the pentagon. I will try to relocate the articles and links that describe these troubling questions. I read this information years ago and the questions I have are just the ones that stuck out.>>>>>>>>

I think the information I posted is pretty straight forward. Science can't explain everything as an event like this has never happened before. A LOT of misinformation has been repeated so many times that people come to believe them as fact such as no evidence of any plane wreckage at the pentagon. There were numerous eye witness that saw a passenger jet fly over their heads, there is absoutely no mistaking a passenger jet for a missle. The wreckage material not burned up has been clearly identified as that of an aircraft and not a missle, a missle has no cockpit or seats.

Suggesting a simultanious demolition of three buildings with two of them being some of the largest structures in the world is absurd just to suggest.

[Purple Daddy]

How easy would it be for a US operative to setup all flights hijacked that day? Easier than it would be for a person who operates out of a mud hut....>>>>

My case in point, conspiracy theorist are great at coming up with questions but never seem to have any answers. It's possible GOD was responsible for all of this however you'd never convince me of it but if you're faith is strong enough I could see how a person could see it that way. It's possible the Russians were behind this as well. Why wouldn't they hire terrorists? They have the intelligence to pull something like this off. Why not Iran? Why would it be so far fetched to believe Iran was behind this?

Maybe it was the Chinese? Did you know they have closed a 20 year technology gap in 10 years and are nipping at our heels as of today? Why couldn't they have orchestrated this to help bring our economy/government down?

Why not the Canadians? Didn't all the terrorists cross the border through Canada? I'm sure if a person did enough research they could come up with a dozen reasons why Canada may have been behind all of this.

Why not Mexico? Sure wouldn't be hard to come up with more then a few reasons why the Mexicans might want to attack us.

Why not Hugo Chavez? Hasn't he flat out threatned us with military action? Why wouldn't he be behind a massive terrorist attack on US soil?

Maybe it was aliens? Does anyone have any actual proof that aliens weren't behind all of this? Hhhhhmmmmm...

[CanGroIt]

My case in point, conspiracy theorist are great at coming up with questions but never seem to have any answers.....

Like Rudy said before, too many questions have gone unanswered which leaves people to think of more questions. The governments official story conflicts with EYEWITNESS testimony....

9/11 was a false flag attack to motivate the invasion of Iraq. Setup to look like a terrorist attack so the general public would approve the presidents decision to invade. Why? For the natural resource of oil.... WMD's was just an excuse to get us into Iraq. The long term goal is to occupy land rich with oil. Why? American oil researchers speculated that US oil production would peak sometime in the 1970's and then American oil supply would soon after deplete. This is about the time the US started importing oil. As part of a business strategy, the US has been keeping most of the oil fields as reserves for when the rest of the worlds oil starts to deplete... Capitalism at work.... Anyway, the US gov wants American business in Iraq. In order for that to happen, Iraq has to have a stable economic society. Saddam was a huge roadblock for American business so he was dealt with the only way American business leaders know how to deal with people who stand in their way....

We might not agree on this 9/11 topic purpledaddy but this is what I can say from personal experience - While I was in Kuwait awaiting order to enter Iraq, I had a chance to speak with a Kuwaiti national who I exchanged American money for some Saddam dinars and Egyptian bills. While talking to this cab driver, I asked him why he thought we were at war with Iraq and he said American business. He said that American business wants to setup in Iraq and Saddam doesn't want to agree. Western culture and business is not liked in the middle east and not wanted. He said that American businesses have changed Kuwait since the US came in and saved them from the Iraqi invasion in 1991. He said the only reason Kuwait let American business in was because the American military helped.... This man was at least 50 years old so I took his opinion as a first hand experience of what people from over there think....

CGI::::::

[Purple Daddy]

The governments official story conflicts with EYEWITNESS testimony....>>>>

By whom and regarding what? The government official version is validated by eyewitness testimony I posted right here. Which eye witness is right and which is wrong? I'll go with the ones I've stated right here.